| |
Main
Date: 20 Mar 2008 16:41:21
From: Albert
Subject: Understanding what Edward Lasker is trying to say here
|
I'm reading Edward Lasker's Chess Strategy currently and in Part II,
Illustrative Games From Master Tournaments, Game No. 1, White:
Tartokower, Black: Burn, King's Gambit Declined there is some
commentary I don't follow. All of the commentary can be found on
http://www.gutenberg.org/catalog/world/readfile?fk_files=9315&pageno=116
(and on 117)
but here I'll just copy and paste the game moves to the point where I
do not follow
1. P-K4 P-K4
2. P-KB4 B-B4
3. Kt-KB3 P-Q3
4. PxP4 PxP
5. P-B3 Kt-QB3
6. P-QKt4 B-Kt3
7. B-Kt5 Kt-B3
8. KtxP Castles!
9. KtxKt
Here he writes: After 9. BxKt, PxB; 10. KtxP, Q-K1 wins; 10. P-Q4
would also lose
because Black gains two pawns after KtxP; 11. O-O, KtxP. It is
interesting to note how speedily the weakness at White's QB3 is
brought to book.
My questions: 1. How does 'Black gain two pawns after KtxP'?
2. How is there a 'weakness at White's QB3'?
|
|
| |
Date: 21 Mar 2008 16:58:10
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Understanding what Edward Lasker is trying to say here
|
On 21, 2:48 am, Offramp <[email protected] > wrote:
> > > 2. How is there a 'weakness at White's QB3'?
>
> > There isn't, really; the real weakness is
> > White's exposed King, which /in this
> > particular variation/, allows a sacrifice on
> > that square to demolish a key defender
> > of the d4 pawn.
>
> In your line the coup de grace is given at c3. Perhaps that's it.
No, because White doesn't have to castle
into the sacrifice. EL can't just give a poor
defense for the opponent, and then claim
that "his weakness on square x" is what
did him in, when in reality, it was EL's own
poor defense (O-O?) that did the trick.
The real problem here is White's exposed,
un-castled King. This is precisely the same
problem he has in the line where he grabs
the pawn on c6 with his Knight, only to be
embarrassed by the reply ...Qe8.
I think the original post was asking in
what sense was there a "weakness" at c3
which brought down White's house of cards;
but that is not what happened at all; 'twas
*greed* which brought him low, greed,
combined with recklessness.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 21 Mar 2008 06:28:40
From:
Subject: Re: Understanding what Edward Lasker is trying to say here
|
On 20, 7:41=A0pm, Albert <[email protected] > wrote:
> I'm reading Edward Lasker's Chess Strategy currently and in Part II,
> Illustrative Games From Master Tournaments, Game No. 1, White:
> Tartokower, Black: Burn, King's Gambit Declined there is some
> commentary I don't follow. All of the commentary can be found onhttp://www=
.gutenberg.org/catalog/world/readfile?fk_files=3D9315&pageno=3D116
> (and on 117)
> but here I'll just copy and paste the game moves to the point where I
> do not follow
>
> 1. P-K4 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0P-K4
> 2. P-KB4 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0B-B4
> 3. Kt-KB3 =A0 =A0 =A0 P-Q3
> 4. PxP4 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 PxP
> 5. P-B3 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Kt-QB3
> 6. P-QKt4 =A0 =A0 =A0 B-Kt3
> 7. B-Kt5 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Kt-B3
> 8. KtxP =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Castles!
> 9. KtxKt
>
> Here he writes: After 9. BxKt, PxB; 10. KtxP, Q-K1 wins; 10. P-Q4
>
> would also lose
> because Black gains two pawns after KtxP; 11. O-O, KtxP. It is
> interesting to note how speedily the weakness at White's QB3 is
> brought to book.
>
> My questions: 1. How does 'Black gain two pawns after KtxP'?
Help-bot has already answered that correctly.
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 2. How is there a 'weakness at=
White's QB3'?
Evidently because in the 10.P-Q4 line, White has weakened c3 by
advancing his b- and d-pawns. However, Lasker's comment strikes me as
a bit strange, because normally one uses such terms when describing a
more or less permanent, organic weakness, for example if the c-pawn
were left backward on a half-open file, where it is subject to
pressure by the rooks and is hard to defend. In this case the weakness
is not an enduring feature, it's a temporary artifact of the
vulnerable white knight on e5, the strong posting of the black knight
on e4 bishop on b6, and the exposed position of White's king on the
open e-file or, if he castles, the diagonal of Black's bishop. In
static terms, Black's doubled, isolated c-pawn is actually the greater
weakness, but Black's better development renders the white c-pawn a
much greater temporary, dynamic weakness.
|
| |
Date: 20 Mar 2008 23:48:43
From: Offramp
Subject: Re: Understanding what Edward Lasker is trying to say here
|
On 21, 2:39 am, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> On 20, 7:41 pm, Albert <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I'm reading Edward Lasker's Chess Strategy currently and in Part II,
> > Illustrative Games From Master Tournaments, Game No. 1, White:
> > Tartokower, Black: Burn, King's Gambit Declined there is some
> > commentary I don't follow. All of the commentary can be found on
> >http://www.gutenberg.org/catalog/world/readfile?fk_files=9315&pageno=116
> > (and on 117)
> > but here I'll just copy and paste the game moves to the point where I
> > do not follow
>
> > 1. P-K4 P-K4
> > 2. P-KB4 B-B4
> > 3. Kt-KB3 P-Q3
> > 4. PxP4 PxP
> > 5. P-B3 Kt-QB3
> > 6. P-QKt4 B-Kt3
> > 7. B-Kt5 Kt-B3
> > 8. KtxP Castles!
> > 9. KtxKt
>
> > Here he writes: After 9. BxKt, PxB; 10. KtxP, Q-K1 wins;
> > 10. P-Q4 would also lose
> > because Black gains two pawns after KtxP; 11. O-O, KtxP. It is
> > interesting to note how speedily the weakness at White's QB3 is
> > brought to book.
>
> > My questions: 1. How does 'Black gain two pawns after KtxP'?
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Very simply, Black demolishes the defender
> of d4, forking just about every piece White has
> left.
>
> 1. e4 e5
>
> 2. f4 Bc5
>
> 3. Nf3 d6
>
> 4. fe de
>
> 5. c3 Nc6
>
> 6. b4 Bb6
>
> 7. Bb5 Nf6
>
> 8. Nxe5 O-O
>
> 9. Bxc6 bxc6
>
> 10. d4 Nxe4
>
> 11. O-O Nxc3
>
> 12. Nxc3 Bxd4+
>
> 13. Kh1 Bxc3 (forking the Knight on e5,
> and the Rook at a1, and that is just the
> half of it!)
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
> > 2. How is there a 'weakness at White's QB3'?
>
> There isn't, really; the real weakness is
> White's exposed King, which /in this
> particular variation/, allows a sacrifice on
> that square to demolish a key defender
> of the d4 pawn.
In your line the coup de grace is given at c3. Perhaps that's it.
|
| |
Date: 20 Mar 2008 19:39:38
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Understanding what Edward Lasker is trying to say here
|
On 20, 7:41 pm, Albert <[email protected] > wrote:
> I'm reading Edward Lasker's Chess Strategy currently and in Part II,
> Illustrative Games From Master Tournaments, Game No. 1, White:
> Tartokower, Black: Burn, King's Gambit Declined there is some
> commentary I don't follow. All of the commentary can be found on
> http://www.gutenberg.org/catalog/world/readfile?fk_files=9315&pageno=116
> (and on 117)
> but here I'll just copy and paste the game moves to the point where I
> do not follow
>
> 1. P-K4 P-K4
> 2. P-KB4 B-B4
> 3. Kt-KB3 P-Q3
> 4. PxP4 PxP
> 5. P-B3 Kt-QB3
> 6. P-QKt4 B-Kt3
> 7. B-Kt5 Kt-B3
> 8. KtxP Castles!
> 9. KtxKt
>
> Here he writes: After 9. BxKt, PxB; 10. KtxP, Q-K1 wins;
> 10. P-Q4 would also lose
> because Black gains two pawns after KtxP; 11. O-O, KtxP. It is
> interesting to note how speedily the weakness at White's QB3 is
> brought to book.
>
> My questions: 1. How does 'Black gain two pawns after KtxP'?
------------------------------------------------------------------
Very simply, Black demolishes the defender
of d4, forking just about every piece White has
left.
1. e4 e5
2. f4 Bc5
3. Nf3 d6
4. fe de
5. c3 Nc6
6. b4 Bb6
7. Bb5 Nf6
8. Nxe5 O-O
9. Bxc6 bxc6
10. d4 Nxe4
11. O-O Nxc3
12. Nxc3 Bxd4+
13. Kh1 Bxc3 (forking the Knight on e5,
and the Rook at a1, and that is just the
half of it!)
----------------------------------------------------------
> 2. How is there a 'weakness at White's QB3'?
There isn't, really; the real weakness is
White's exposed King, which /in this
particular variation/, allows a sacrifice on
that square to demolish a key defender
of the d4 pawn.
Note that Mr. Lasker did not even come
close to giving the "best defense" for White
in his analysis. For instance, there is no
need for White to castle into this sacrifice,
though he is lost in any case.
-- help bot
|
|
