| Nov-26-05 | | WMD: The story of the misattribution of this spurious game appears in Winter's book Chess Explorations. It was actually played between Soldatenkov and Durnovo in or before 1898. Lasker / Taubenhaus vs Janowski / Soldatenkow, 1909 is genuine though. |
|
| Dec-05-05 | | popski: I really would like to see thematic C21 tournament machine vs. man. This games are so exciting! |
|
| Dec-05-05 | | syracrophy: I think 4...cxb2? was a bad move. I would have preferred 4...d5! and then 5...Nf6. But I liked the game. Very good attack by David Janowsky |
|
| Jan-08-06 | | MorphyMatt: if 15... Qxc7 than 16. Qxf7+! Rxf7 Re8# |
|
Feb-12-11
 | | Penguincw: Poor development often leads to bad games. |
|
| Feb-12-11 | | Owerbart: nice danish game. |
|
| Jun-22-12 | | Infohunter: <syracrophy: I think 4...cxb2? was a bad move. I would have preferred 4...d5! and then 5...Nf6.> Though your line of play is perfectly good, there is nevertheless nothing at all wrong with 4...cxb2. I like Schlechter's line, wherein Black returns the two Pawns posthaste and then simplifies quickly to an endgame wherein he promptly mobilizes his 3-1 Queenside majority. To be specific: Black replies to 5.Bxb2 with 5...d5! Play then proceeds 6.Bxd5 Nf6 7.Bxf7+ Kxf7 8.Qxd8 Bb4+ 9.Qd2 (else Black remains a piece up) 9...Bxd2+ 10.Nxd2 c5! That's my preference. |
|
| Nov-21-12 | | Naniwazu: Instead of 19. Qh4+ there's a quicker mate 19. Qe7+ Kf5 20. Qxf8+ Kg5 21. Re4 Kh5 22. g4+ Kg5 23. h4+ Kxh4 24. Qh6# |
|
Jan-06-18
 | | GrahamClayton: If 13...♕g5 14. ♘xc7 and 15. ♘xa8 winning material, although Black would probably last longer than what he does in the actual game. |
|
May-18-18
 | | fredthebear: FTB confirms this game can be found in Art of Attack in Chess by Vladimir Vukovic (reprint 2003) on p.99-100 under the chapter "Focal-points". Vukovic put some effort into analyzing this miniature. Vukovic's book lists this as a consultation game. See the first note above by WMD regarding misattribution. (It appears Vukovic's book has the wrong label and chessgames.com has the correct information.) |
|
| Jan-24-25 | | Petrosianic: You feel like no world champion should lose to the Danish Gambit, especially Lasker... to Janowski. But there are so few Danish Gambit games that it's hard to get a feel for its full potential. 7...Qe7 isn't great. The pin looks good, but it's better to play something like d5 to start developing those minors. But having played Qe7, why not follow it up with 8...Qxe5? I'm not really wild about Ne4. Blacks think that swapping two minors will help them, but they're left with White almost completely developed and Black almost completely undeveloped. 14...c6?? is a losing move, of course. Blacks both overlooked that White could play Nc7 anyway. After 14...Nc6 Black is still in the game, but is walking on eggshells. There are so many of these miniatures where the losing side just gets in the habit of not developing pieces, and doesn't do it even when they can. In this case, even though Black would still be in the game after 14...Nc6, they've done something very wrong, by not only <not> developing the Bishop, but actually making it <harder> to do so, but having their Queen... block the Pawn... that's blocking the Bishop! That's why 7...d5 would have been a good move. In fact, just on general principles, Black should always be looking for a chance to play d5 in double King Pawn Openings. In hindsight, seeing how much damage the White KN did, maybe 11...c6 was the move to play instead of O-O. O-O didn't make the game worse, but made it more difficult. |
|
Jan-24-25
 | | perfidious: Black might have tried 3....Qe7, which seems typically Laskerian: Opening Explorer |
|
| Jan-25-25 | | Petrosianic: <perfidious>: I like the Danish Gambit Declined and Danish Gambit Returned. But those are different openings. I've played the King's Gambit Declined a lot too, which almost nobody plays, but that's just me. Lasker don't play like that. I accept that the Blacks decided to accept the Gambit here, and you should be able to accept it. If you're going to decline, I think 3...d5 is a better way than 3...Qe7, but both are playable. |
|
Mar-29-25
| | GrahamClayton: "The Consultation Game That Never Was" by Edward Winter: https://www.chesshistory.com/winter... |
|
Kibitzing
sac: 16.Qh6
