|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Oct-14-03 | | ughaibu: Cyphelium: After 18....Bd3 how about Nf6? |
|
| Oct-14-03 | | doreshk: something similar to
Zukertort vs NN, 1877 |
|
| Oct-14-03 | | tricloc: CM8000 gives 16...Be2 as solidly winning for black (-5.59). |
|
| Oct-15-03 | | Cyphelium: ughaibu> I'll just let that bishop take care of everything as usual:
(16. Be2 17. h4 Bxf1 18. hxg5 Bxd3) 19. Nf6 Bxe4 and black seems to escape, for instance 20. Bf4+ Kxf5 or 20. Bxe4 Nxf6. |
|
| Nov-02-03 | | ughaibu: Cyphelium: In your lines the weakness of d3 is conspicuous so how about 16.h4 instead of c3? |
|
| Nov-02-03 | | Cyphelium: ughaibu> It's interesting. I think white has a draw. 16. h4 Bxc2 17. hxg5 Bxd3 18. Bf4+ Kxe4 19. Ne7+ (covering f5, 19. Nf6++ Kxf5 20. Bd2+ (20. Bxd6+ Ke6) Kg6 is not convincing) 19.- d5 20. Rae1+ Be2 21. Rxe2+ Kd3 22. Rd2+ Kc4 23. Rc2+ and now 23.- Kb4 loses, for example 24. Bd2+ Ka4 25. Nxd5 (threatening 26. b3+ Ka3 27. Bb4 mate or if 25.- a5 26. b3+ Ka3 27. Bc1 mate)25. -Qxd5 26. Bxd5 threatening mate on b3 and if 26.- b4 then 27. gxh6 wins a piece. So black must play 23.- Kd3 and then white can take the perpetual, but that seems to be all. |
|
| Nov-02-03 | | totoma: Very interesting game by Lasker, he began to attack as seldom he did |
|
| Apr-06-04 | | nikolaas: It seems to me that after 16....♗h5 white draws:
17.♗e3 dxe3 18.d4+ ♔xe4 19.♘f6+ ♔d3 20.♗e4+ ♔c4 21.♗d5+ |
|
| Oct-16-04 | | Apocalypse79: Black has made a blunder.. g5pawn was last defence line. |
|
| Jan-09-05 | | oxxo: a highly dubious win there by Lasker.. for my liking..
That's why we don't have a record of him launching an attack like this on Steinitz and such, I guess. |
|
| Feb-28-08 | | stupidiot21: wow just wow |
|
| Feb-28-08 | | brankat: <that's why we don't have a record of him launching an attack like this on Steinitz and such, I guess.> You don't play like this against Steinitz and such. But it's done in simuls regularly. Dr.Lasker knew full well what he was doing. |
|
| May-28-08 | | JG27Pyth: One imagines NN here as a local bloke, a Red Devils supporter naturally, just off work he's wearing his greasy mechanic's overalls, has a pint in hand as he plays, and with each unlikely move Lasker makes he mutters with increasing dismay... "Wot's this!? izzee off 'is cholla?" If you aren't familiar with the charming local dialect/accent known as Mancunian, do give a listen... This is a bbc link to "speak Mancunian in 10 minutes" (it's really under 2 minutes long.) http://www.bbc.co.uk/manchester/fea... |
|
May-28-08
 | | keypusher: <oxxo: a highly dubious win there by Lasker.. for my liking.. That's why we don't have a record of him launching an attack like this on Steinitz and such, I guess.> Not exactly like this, no. But he did manage some very attractive combinations against Steinitz. Lasker vs Steinitz, 1895
Steinitz vs Lasker, 1899 |
|
Dec-22-08
 | | al wazir: What was the point of 16...g4 ? Black must have realized that there was a threat of mate on f4, or he wouldn't have played 15...Bh3. (He would have done something like move his ♖ on a1, which is en prise, or else played Be2.) But no, he went and removed the ♙ defending f4. |
|
| Sep-16-09 | | WhiteRook48: NN keeps getting bashed by queen sacs |
|
| Nov-27-14 | | TheFocus: From a simul in Manchester, England on December 10, 1903. Lasker scored +17=10-1. |
|
| Sep-01-24 | | SeanAzarin: Mate with a Pawn is always pretty. |
|
Sep-01-24
 | | offramp: 🐇🐇🐇
Today's brilliant pun was devised by the great User: monkeyfish18. She was famous for her reticence: she only made three kibitzes.
Two in 2010 and one in 2011.
It's worth examining her three posts.
Kasparov vs Karpov, 1985 (kibitz #63)
<monkeyfish18: I named this game!!>
<["Busted!!"]>
R Teschner vs J H Donner, 1971 (kibitz #2)
<monkeyfish18: Second!!! Merry Christmas!!!!!!> Pillsbury vs Steinitz, 1894 (kibitz #15)
<monkeyfish18: This was my pun!>
<["Chill Pill"]> User: monkeyfish18 has had three <Game of the Day> puns from her three posts. A tremendous batting average. |
|
| Sep-01-24 | | goodevans: <monkeyfish18 has had three <Game of the Day> puns from her three posts.> The first featured a great game and the second a great pun. Unfortunately the third featured neither. |
|
| Sep-01-24 | | Teyss: <al wazir: What was the point of 16...g4 ?> Was wondering too, an example where we can put three question marks: two for the move and one for the question. Apparently Black saw the WB could deliver mate on f4 but not the WP. TBH these mates are a bit tricky to visualise and playing against Lasker must be somewhat paralyzing. What could have Black played instead? White is threatening mate in 5 with 17.cxd4+ Kxd4 18.Be3+:
(a) 18...Ke5 19.Raxd1 -any move- 20.d4+ Kxe4 21.Nc3+ Kxe3 22.Rfe1#
(b) 18...Kxd3 19.Raxd1+ Kxe4 (else #1) 20.Nc3+ Kxe3 21.Rfe1# or 20...Ke5 21. Bd4#. As mentioned above, 16...Be2 keeps control of d1 and blocks the e file (-4.1 at 30 ply). Even moves like ...Bg4 or ...Bh5 seem to hold. But then we have to remember that NN means "No Notion (of Chess)". |
|
| Sep-01-24 | | whiteshark: Common Sense in Chess |
|
| Sep-01-24 | | The Kings Domain: Short and sweet. :-) |
|
| Sep-01-24 | | YoungEd: Good Lord! Stockfish 11 shows no mercy to these opening moves! It's raining question marks! |
|
May-17-25
 | | Sally Simpson: Lasker missed a 8.Bxf7+ 9.Ng5+ trick here.
click for larger viewUsually that idea does not work with that pattern because on Ng5+ Black can often play Qxg5 but here White has fxg5 CHECK! Probably Lasker saw it but went for a quick knock out to ease the work load. When deciding to sac his Queen, which does look very tempting Lasker may have missed 14...g5. I never saw it coming. He kept calm, did not go for the a8 Rook. 16...g4 was Black attempting to get the Bishops off. It worked! |
|
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
+ sac: 9.Nxd4