| Jun-06-04 | | PizzatheHut: What's wrong with 16...e4? It would seem to me that 16...e4 would establish a central space advantage and make white's minor pieces look pretty bad. Am I missing something? |
|
| Jun-06-04 | | acirce: <16...e4> maybe can be answered with 17. f3, challenging the center. |
|
| Jun-06-04 | | maoam: Or maybe 17. Qg4 Be7 then 18. f3 Ndf6 19. Qg3 exf3 20. Qxf3 followed by something like Na5 or Qf4 perhaps. |
|
| Jun-06-04 | | PizzatheHut: I was thinking that after 16...e4 17. f3 maybe 17...exf3 18. gxf3 Re8 followed by putting pressure on White's e-pawn. If white tries to advance the pawn, Black can try to exchange in the center and attack the open white king, especially since white's minor pieces are on the queenside. Is there anything wrong with that idea? |
|
| Jun-06-04 | | acirce: <Is there anything wrong with that idea?> Not necessarily, but I don't think a Black attack would have high chances to succeed. White controls the center and should be able to defend easily in spite of the open king but that's just what I think. |
|
| Jun-06-04 | | PizzatheHut: <acirce> That's an interesting point. You're right, it doesn't look like Black would be able to organize an attack quick enough. |
|
| Jun-06-04 | | maoam: <PizzatheHut> What if White plays 17. a4? Then if Black tries 17. ...Re8, 18. b5 Bg5 19. Rb1 Ndf6 20. a5 Qc7 21. Rfc1 and White has a powerful attack on the queenside. |
|
| Jun-06-04 | | PizzatheHut: <maoam> I agree. Black's attack is too slow to get started on the kingside. |
|
| Nov-26-05 | | Pawsome: If 16....e4 White can begin the queen side attack with 17. b5 Qc7 18, a4 Ng5 19 a5. Mieses' problems in this game seem to stem from refusal to exchange the white bishop in the opening. Instead he lets Lasker make the exchange when it is advantageous to do so. 6... Bxd3 7. Qxd3 Nf6 7. cxd5 exd5 8. 00 Be7 9. e4 dxe4 10. Nxe4 00 11. Nxf6+ Bxf6 12. Bf4 Nb6 for example, gives black an agreeable game. |
|
| Aug-26-10 | | Oceanlake: Black should trade the bishop before castling. If he was hoping Lasker would open the KR file for the KR, he was delusional. |
|
Nov-25-15
 | | keypusher: Huebner definitely thought 17....e4 was stronger than what Mieses played. <If Black had played ...e5-e4, he would have enjoyed very good attacking possibilities, because the white pieces, in particular the queen's bishop, are out of play; it will take a long time to develop effective threats on the queenside.> |
|
Dec-01-21
 | | kingscrusher: Mieses had a super solid reverse London system setup which one move completely ruined - Ne5 based on naughty tactics. Lasker finding the right tactical exploitation is pretty amazing in my view. Crushing a solid setup spectacularly. |
|
Sep-20-23
 | | FSR: <keypusher: Huebner definitely thought 17....e4 was stronger than what Mieses played.> You must have meant 16...e4. |
|
Sep-20-23
| | keypusher: < FSR: <keypusher: Huebner definitely thought 17....e4 was stronger than what Mieses played.>
You must have meant 16...e4.>
I must have! Yes, apologies for misquoting Huebner. SF likes 16....Re8 best (which Huebner also thinks would be good). But 16....exd4, which I thought was a terrible move, is its second choice. It thinks Black is slightly better after either move. It thinks White is a little better after 16....e4 17.f3, as acirce recommended long ago. After 17....exf3 18.gxf3, SF follows up with e3-e4 in response to either ...Bg5 or ...Re8. Looks a little dicey, but who am I to set my wits against Stockfish? In the game, after 17.Nxd4 Bxd4 (?!) 18.Rxd4, ...Ne5 was a pretty obvious blunder, and then after 19.e4 Qf6? 20.Nxd5 Black was sunk. |
|
Kibitzing
