| May-30-03 | | Benjamin Lau: "Lasker the Classicist as Hypermodernist."
The first (I think) and one of the only chessgames Lasker played from the hypermodern side. |
|
| May-30-03 | | aulero: Obviously 1...Nf6 was a successful psychological trick, Maroczy rejected the challenge and the opening became a French. There is nothing of hypermodern in the Lasker's play. The game is indeed a good illustration of Lasker main feature: the tactical skill. Just look at the position after the 19th move. Who can imagine that White lost the game and only 10 moves after? Maroczy, a very strong master, started an attack with 20.f5, but Lasker quickly and easily refuted it. Yes, Lasker has been the most resourceful player of history. |
|
| May-30-03 | | ughaibu: Lasker's game with Tartakower at St. Petersburg 1909 has been described as hypermodern although played before hypermodernism was codified. |
|
| May-30-03 | | Calli: Maroczy's 23Bxf5? is horrible. What was he thinking? |
|
| May-30-03 | | drukenknight: calli means 22 Bxf5. Is that so bad? Count the connected pawns. The same. Count the passed pawns, the same. Is the game so lost? What about 23 Qb3?
in the opening Marcozy loses time with 5 Ne2 I guess he is worried about the pin. But he could get a sort of Albin Chatard attack (french defense) by transposition w/ 5 h4 Bb4 6 Bg5 because of his 5th move, the whole game he is playing w/ his QR still on its original square while laskers has moved. I havent studied the whole game to see if there was a way to catch up in development. |
|
| May-30-03 | | Benjamin Lau: <aulero>, good eye. I didn't see how it became French. But I still kind of get a hypermodern vibe from this game for some reason, maybe because of the knights hiding behind the pawns. <ugahibu>, I can't find the 1909 game. Is it in the database? |
|
| May-30-03 | | ughaibu: BenjaminLau: No I cant find it here either. I think you can get all Lasker's games here: http://www.queensac.com/lasker.html |
|
| May-30-03 | | Calli: <drukenknight> Bxf5 not only eliminates the weakness at e6, but actually creates a strong point where the pawn controls e4. Black plays the rook to e4 attacking d4 isolated pawn. Soon white's game collapses. A positional blunder! On 23 Qb3 then be6 threatening Na4. This is why Maroczy played Nf4 first. His 25 Nh4 was also bad, but its probably lost anyway. |
|
| May-31-03 | | drukenknight: Calli: 23 Qb3 Be6 24 Nf6+ |
|
| May-31-03 | | Calli: 24. Nf6+ gxf6 - just loses the knight. I don't see anything there. |
|
| Jun-02-03 | | drukenknight: calli: our line continues with 24...d5 |
|
| Jun-06-03 | | Calli: Then 24...Bf7 and the d5 pawn is pinned. |
|
| Jun-06-03 | | drukenknight: 25 Rg1 if I am remembering this correctly, I dont have enuf time to set this up, this is what I remember from the other day. |
|
| Jun-06-03 | | Calli: Still don't see it. 25. Rg1 Bc5 (attacking the rook) 26. Rd1(virtually forced because of Bxd5) 26... Nb4 followed by N or B takes at d5. Black is whole piece up and he has the attack too. Try it out, White is busted in this line. |
|
| Dec-02-04 | | kostich in time: Once more, Lasker the hypnotist, psyching the master of defence into trying a premature attack. |
|
| Dec-02-04 | | euripides: As <Calli> says, 22 Bxf5 is positionally bad. But if 22 Nc3 Black may have the option of 22 ...Ncxd4 e.g. 23 Nxd4 Bc5 and I think Black ends up winning material because of the threats of discovery by Bc6+. |
|
Jan-26-07
 | | keypusher: <ughaibu>
I am three + years late to the conversation, but here is the Tartakower-Lasker 1909 game. Tartakower vs Lasker, 1909
Doesn't strike me as hypermodern from the Black side. But this 1924 effort does. Tartakower vs Lasker, 1924
There is also this interesting game that you linked to long ago. Blackburne vs Lasker, 1899 |
|
Aug-09-08
 | | GrahamClayton: Has anyone noticed that Lasker did not make a single move with his Queen during this game? |
|
| Aug-10-08 | | Infohunter: <GrahamClayton: Has anyone noticed that Lasker did not make a single move with his Queen during this game?> I noticed that back in 1981, when I first played this game over. |
|
| Feb-11-09 | | JG27Pyth: Lasker was such a peculiar chess player. He never ceases to surprise me. |
|
May-25-11
| | keypusher: <aulero: Obviously 1...Nf6 was a successful psychological trick, Maroczy rejected the challenge and the opening became a French.> Soltis points out that Lasker had a sensible reason for playing 1....Nf6 -- this game from Round 2:
Maroczy vs Alekhine, 1924
<kostich in time: Once more, Lasker the hypnotist, psyching the master of defence into trying a premature attack. > How? Did the sight of the French Defense send Maroczy into paroxysms of aggression? Doesn't look like it. Repertoire Explorer: Geza Maroczy (white) |
|
| Dec-13-14 | | Ulhumbrus: Instead of 14 exf6, 14 b3 keeps the N on b6 out of play |
|
Dec-13-14
 | | An Englishman: Good Morning: Fascinating how a single good defensive move changes the complexion of the entire game. After 21...Bd6!, Black has developed all 7 of his pieces to useful squares, while White suddenly has zero attacking chances, two pieces undeveloped, and weak squares all over the King side. 22.Bxf5 makes everything worse, turning the Re8 into the most powerful piece on the board, and it seems appropriate that it should have the final word. Incidentally, it probably wasn't a good idea to give Lasker Rook odds, either. You don't think that Ra1 actually exists, do you? |
|
| May-28-15 | | ToTheDeath: 20.f5?? just horrible. Lasker refuted it like a Rhino batting away a fly. |
|
Jun-28-23
 | | FSR: In this tournament, Maroczy played pathetically against the Alekhine. As <keypusher> noted, his previous effort against it was Maroczy vs Alekhine, 1924, where he played the bold 2.d3. Cf. NN vs F Rhine, 1977. It went downhill from there. In general, the Alekhine seems to have been a good choice against him. Repertoire Explorer: Geza Maroczy (white). He ducked the challenge with 2.Nc3 six times, and with 2.d3 five times. He played the normal 2.e5 ten times, but drew nine of those games. Mind you, Maroczy was no slouch. He got an even score in this tournament, one of the strongest ever held up to that point in time. Chessmetrics even claims that he was the No. 1 player in the world for 30 months in 1904-07. http://chessmetrics.com/cm/CM2/Play... In 1906, a world championship match with Lasker was announced, but Maroczy failed to pay the $500 deposit by the deadline and that was the end of that. |
|
Kibitzing
