| Feb-13-04 | | ughaibu: According to the database this is Lasker's only win against Spielmann. Apart from Lasker's 15th move all the action takes place in a rook ending. Spielmann's 28th seems to be a choice of evils, I think I'd've preferred to take the c-pawn. |
|
| Jul-24-05 | | soberknight: Yes, this is the only time Lasker managed to Beat Spielmann. |
|
| Apr-01-09 | | WhiteRook48: annotation on <36. h5>
<? 36. b5 wins>
36. b5 is not a legal move. |
|
May-06-09
 | | keypusher: <WhiteRook48: annotation on <36. h5> <? 36. b5 wins>
36. b5 is not a legal move.>
No doubt a transcription error from English notation and 36. g5 is meant. The funny thing is that Bogoljubov's notes originally were published in algebraic, then presumably translated into English notation, then (mis)translated back into algebraic. |
|
| May-06-09 | | AnalyzeThis: Nice game by Lasker. |
|
| May-07-09 | | Fanacas: Soberknight. Treu but spielmann didnt beat lasker even 1 time. |
|
| May-07-09 | | shalgo: <ughaibu> <Spielmann's 28th seems to be a choice of evils, I think I'd've preferred to take the c-pawn.> But 28...bxc4 29.Rxa5 leaves White with a passed a-pawn. The pawn on c4 will also fall after Kc3-c4. If Black tries to block this with 29...Rb3, then White plays 30.Ra7+ Kd6 31.Rxg7. Of course, the game continuation is also a win for White. |
|
| May-07-09 | | shalgo: Khalifman gives Bogoljubow's suggestion on move 25 as 25...b4 26.cxb4 Rxb4 27.Ra5 Rb7, rather than 27...Rb2 as given in the notes here. That is probably correct, as Rb2 seems totally lost after 28.Rxa7+ Kd6 29.Rxg7. Bogoljubow's 37...Rb4 does not draw after either Reti's 38.Kf4!? Rxd4+ 39.Kg5 or Khalifman's more prosaic 38.Kxe6 Rxd4 39.Kf6. Therefore, 36.h5 was not a mistake. |
|
May-07-09
| | keypusher: Position after 22....b5
click for larger viewHere is Lasker on the defending side of a similar ending 30 years before. Pillsbury vs Lasker, 1895
After 24....Rd5:
click for larger view |
|
| Oct-04-11 | | druknight: Isnt the perfectly sensible move 9...b5? Why not hit the B and open up an extended fianch for your B? I bet 4 out 5 blitz guys would do it automatically. Ironically alek himself commented on move 9. But not very insightfully in my opinion... You'll notice at this pt in the game Spielmann's rooks are not connected (and Laskers are) and his B is entombed a little; i.e. it takes a couple of moves to free it and connect rooks. THus it makes no sense to open files like that. Look at how Colle hits the B in this game:
Tarrasch vs Colle, 1924 |
|
| Oct-04-11 | | Shams: <druknight> It sounds like you are suggesting not 9...b5 which just drops a pawn but rather 9...dxc4 10.Bxc4 b5, the standard development plan for Meran-type structures. To be honest I'm not sure what happens to this plan when White, as here, has taken on f6 and brought Black's queen to that square. Perhaps Black should look to his king first, before opening the game for his bishops? |
|
| Aug-20-12 | | master of defence: <One of the very rare cases of Lasker playing an ending with lack of precision and thereby enabling the opponent to force the draw by a subtle manoeuvre. White could have won quite easily by 36 b5.> I think it´s 36.g5 the move that wins for white. |
|
| Aug-20-12 | | master of defence: < Black misses his opportunity. It was only in the post mortem that Spielmann found out how he could have drawn the game here by 37...Rb4! 38 h6 Rb3! 39 Rxa4 Rh3 40 Kd6 Rxh6, etc.> 38.Kf4 Rxd4+ 39.Kg5 wins for white again. |
|
| Sep-03-13 | | JoergWalter: <master of defence: < Black misses his opportunity. It was only in the post mortem that Spielmann found out how he could have drawn the game here by 37...Rb4! 38 h6 Rb3! 39 Rxa4 Rh3 40 Kd6 Rxh6, etc.> 38.Kf4 Rxd4+ 39.Kg5 wins for white again.> The winning method <38.Kf4 Rxd4+ 39.Kg5> is analogous to: Capablanca vs Tartakower, 1924 and Reti charges his knowledge of it to F.J. Prokop in his Masters of the chessboard |
|
Sep-03-13
 | | tamar: 36 h5 <? One of the very rare cases of Lasker playing an ending with lack of precision and thereby enabling the opponent to force the draw by a subtle manoeuvre.> One of the numerous cases of Bogoljubov's notes lacking precision. Thanks to <shalgo> for pointing out that h5 is not a mistake on Lasker's part. |
|
| Sep-04-13 | | RookFile: Humorous notes here. And I'm sure that Bogo's analysis was copied uncritically, for decades, in numerous places. |
|
Kibitzing
Annotations by 