chessgames.com
Members · Prefs · Laboratory · Collections · Openings · Endgames · Sacrifices · History · Search Kibitzing · Kibitzer's Café · Chessforums · Tournament Index · Players · Kibitzing
Arnold van Foreest vs Heinrich Wagner
Germany - Netherlands (1922), Berlin GER, rd 1, Jun-04
Italian Game: Two Knights Defense. Polerio Defense Kieseritsky Variation (C58)  ·  1-0

ANALYSIS [x]

FEN COPIED

explore this opening
find similar games 1 more A van Foreest/H Wagner game
PGN: download | view | print Help: general | java-troubleshooting

TIP: You can change the color of the light and dark squares by registering a free account then visiting your preferences page. Or, you can change it with the "SETTINGS" link in the lower right.

PGN Viewer:  What is this?
For help with this chess viewer, please see the Olga Chess Viewer Quickstart Guide.
PREMIUM MEMBERS CAN REQUEST COMPUTER ANALYSIS [more info]

Kibitzer's Corner
Jan-16-19
Premium Chessgames Member
  Telemus: The final position of this game is subject of two CNs. In the first one (C.N. 11175) Mr Winter writes: "This position was analyzed by Emanuel Lasker. Can White win?"

In C.N. 11185 Lasker's analysis for adjudication is shown as published by Bachmann in Schachjahrbuch 1922.

There is no additional comment. So, what is the point? SF is not convinced by all of Black's moves in Lasker's line. Does Mr Winter think the position is a draw?

***

Interestingly, I found quickly another source dealing with this ending: https://resolver.kb.nl/resolve?urn=...

Here it is said that Lasker and Bernstein analysed the position. The result is the same (White wins), but the line differs.

Okay, let's wait for clarification in another CN.

Jan-16-19
Premium Chessgames Member
  Telemus: In Lasker's line from Bachmann's book, SF prefers 73.. ♗d5 in this position:


click for larger view

and gives ⩲.

Only at depth 54 it begins to change the evaluation and turns it step by step to clearly +-. So, is the starting position won? It probably takes more than one line to make a decision.

Jan-16-19
Premium Chessgames Member
  Telemus: Interesting endgame. Maybe that's the point.

Let's have a look at Lasker's analysis: 60. ♔b6 ♔c8 61. b4 ♗d3 62. a4.


click for larger view

Here Lasker continues with 62.. ♗xc4 which allows White's f-pawn to advance.

What about 62.. ♗c2 63.a5 ♗d3 64.b5 axb5 65.cxb5 ♗xb5 66.f5 ♗a6.


click for larger view

This looks drawn to me: Black's king stops the f-pawn and his bishop protects a6 and h5.

Jan-16-19
Premium Chessgames Member
  Telemus: So, after 60.♔b6 ♔c8 61. b4 ♗d3 62. a4 ♗c2 63.a5 ♗d3 64.b5 axb5 White should try (more in Lasker's spirit) 65.a6:


click for larger view

65.. bxa6 66.♔xc6 b4!:


click for larger view

Has Black a draw here? One idea for White is to try to get Black's bishop for the f-pawn without allowing Black's queenside pawns to advanve too far. I don't see how this can be achieved. The other possibility is 67.♔b6 ♗xc4 68.f5! This will probably lead to positions similar to the main line.

Jan-17-19
Premium Chessgames Member
  offramp: <Telemus: ...In C.N. 11185 Lasker's analysis for adjudication is shown as published by Bachmann in Schachjahrbuch 1922.>

No one seems to have given Lasker's analysis.

As far as I can make out, this is all it.


click for larger view

59...Kd7 60. Kb6 Kc8 61. b4 Bd3 62. a4 Bxc4 63. f5 Bg8 64. f6 Be6 65. a5 Bd5 66. Ba1 Bc4 67. b5 axb5 68. a6 bxa6 69. Kxc6.


click for larger view

69...b4. [<69. b5xb4.>]
70. Kb6 b3 71. Bb2 Kd7 72. c6+ Kc8
73. Ba3.


click for larger view

73...a5


click for larger view

74. c7 a4 75. Kc6 Bg8 76. Kd6 Bc4 77. Ke7 Kxc7 78. f7 Bxf7 79. Kxf7 Kc6 80. Ke6...


click for larger view

<and White must win>.

NOTE: Create an account today to post replies and access other powerful features which are available only to registered users. Becoming a member is free, anonymous, and takes less than 1 minute! If you already have a username, then simply login login under your username now to join the discussion.

Please observe our posting guidelines:

  1. No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.
  2. No spamming, advertising, duplicate, or gibberish posts.
  3. No vitriolic or systematic personal attacks against other members.
  4. Nothing in violation of United States law.
  5. No cyberstalking or malicious posting of negative or private information (doxing/doxxing) of members.
  6. No trolling.
  7. The use of "sock puppet" accounts to circumvent disciplinary action taken by moderators, create a false impression of consensus or support, or stage conversations, is prohibited.
  8. Do not degrade Chessgames or any of it's staff/volunteers.

Please try to maintain a semblance of civility at all times.

Blow the Whistle

See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform a moderator.


NOTE: Please keep all discussion on-topic. This forum is for this specific game only. To discuss chess or this site in general, visit the Kibitzer's Café.

Messages posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors.
All moderator actions taken are ultimately at the sole discretion of the administration.

This game is type: CLASSICAL. Please report incorrect or missing information by submitting a correction slip to help us improve the quality of our content.

<This page contains Editor Notes. Click here to read them.>

Home | About | Login | Logout | F.A.Q. | Profile | Preferences | Premium Membership | Kibitzer's Café | Biographer's Bistro | New Kibitzing | Chessforums | Tournament Index | Player Directory | Notable Games | World Chess Championships | Opening Explorer | Guess the Move | Game Collections | ChessBookie Game | Chessgames Challenge | Store | Privacy Notice | Contact Us

Copyright 2001-2025, Chessgames Services LLC