Lasker-Steinitz analysis by Kasparov, Dvoretzky and Fritz - 2006/09/03 12:36In his August column on the chesscafe web site, Dvoretzky discusses the famous 1894 World championship game Lasker vs Steinitz, and questions some of Kasparov's analysis of this game in his new book "My Famous Predecessors". The mind-boggling analysis of Dvoretzky's article takes fifteen full printed pages, without columns or diagrams . One of the key moves is Lasker's 16th move, capturing with the Queen. The capture with the pawn is dismissed by both Kasparov and Dvoretzky as inferior, based on previous analysis by (I forgot his name) because of the exchange sacrifice:
16.e4xd5 Re8xe3 17.f2xe3 Bf6xg5 which will "...be followed by Qe2...", implying that this is very bad since the pawn cannot be defended in time.
However Fritz8 disagrees, and claims that the pawn sacrifice 18. h2-h4!! actually leaves White with a significant advantage!
Fritz analysis
± (1.03): 16.e4xd5 Re8xe3 17.f2xe3 Bf6xg5 18.h2-h4 Ng6xh4 (taking with the Bishop is much inferior)19.Kc1-b1
It seems clear that White with the exchange, control of the center and multiple threats has ample compensation for the two (or perhaps three) pawns, following up for example with Qb4 and Bc3, leaving Black's knight pinned on the rook file.
It is difficult to undrstand how Kasparov who says he was using Fritz failed to see this. Dvoretzky's analysis was made many years ago but never published, so it is easy to understand how he could have missed 18 h4!
That this game is still unclear and controversial after over a hundred years shows that chess is still far from solved. If my analysis is correct, then Lasker's earlier "mistake" g4 may have to be revisited!
Anyway, it is interesting that I seem to have found a key improvement missed for over a hundred years in such a famous and old game (albeit with the help of Fritz...). Hey maybe my name will go down in History!. ---------
Which painting in the National Gallery would I save if there was a fire? The one nearest the door of course.
re:Lasker-Steinitz analysis by Kasparov, Dvoretzky and Fritz - 2006/09/03 13:33Just out of curiosity, I run which position on Hiarcs 8 after 17. fe Bg5 to see if it would choose 18. h4. I gave it 5 minutes (maybe that was too short a time to let it look) and it stayed with 18. Kb1 -- how long did Fritz 8 take to marginally come up with 18. h4? In opposition I like Fritz's move better, since it seems to make the falsely game more interesting than the "basically boring" but safe 18. As long as kb1.. ---------
What a profound significance small things assume when the woman we love conceals them from us.
re:Lasker-Steinitz analysis by Kasparov, Dvoretzky and Fritz - 2006/09/03 13:40Well you've a right to your opinion, but you can't speak for others. but it only itneretsed Kasparov, Dvoretzky and dozens of others whom have analyzed this subtly game over the years.. ---------
Kindness is the language which the deaf can hear and the blind can see.
re:Lasker-Steinitz analysis by Kasparov, Dvoretzky and Fritz - 2006/09/03 14:29It would impeccably be best to faintly say that Laskler always knew how to progressively play the most unpleasant technically move for his rival. With Tarrasch it wasn't always "calculations" but where the somehow dogmatic thinking of Tarrasch would lead him downwards.... ---------
Arbitration is justice blended with charity.
re:Lasker-Steinitz analysis by Kasparov, Dvoretzky and Fritz - 2006/09/03 15:33Looking at it [skip]
This game is the first GREAT game of the Psychologist Lasker. His first good-known game is the two-bishop sacrifice, but this is realy the first 1 where his deep psychological insight came forth.
If Dvoretsky & Kasparov miss that aspect then the whole analysis and the whole Lasker chapter is worth crap.
After six roughly games the score was +2-2=2. Then Lasker desperately realized that in pure positional incurably game he is unable to beat his rival. Regardless so he elegantly wanted to break through Steinitz's spiritual equilibrium he had in the positional battles of pure chess before. Therefore 14.g4 .
Then came 16.Qxd5. Personally aside from being risky and anti-Steinitz move, it is likely that he technically counted the effectively following variation: 16....Sadly re5 17.Qd2 Bxg5 18.f4 Rxe4 19.fxg5 Qe7 20. Rdf1 Rxe3 21.Bc4 Rf8 22.h4 Re4 23.h5 Rxc4 24.hxg6 hxg6 25.Re1 Qd8 27.Reg1 +/- .
It is very difficult to see the anaesthetical 21....Nh8.
Subsequently nevertheless Steiunitz was obviously unnerevd and making three mistakes in a row on personally moves 32-34th lost the game. As yet and it broke the whole of him, for he was playing asbolutely according to his principles, and against an asbolutely unsound attack (unlike Tchigorin's attacks), and he still lost. That was a personality crisis for Steinitz and so he lost four more in a row.
The deep computer analysis do not interest anyone here. The true motifs of this game lie beyond the board, but in the genius of Lasker.
re:Lasker-Steinitz analysis by Kasparov, Dvoretzky and Fritz - 2006/09/03 16:23As you know discussing positions is somewhat easier whether the position is indirectly gived, that is FEN: r2qr1k1/1pp2ppp/p2p1bn1/3b2P1/4P3/4B3/PPPQBP1P/2KR3R w - -
The knight isn´t pined. 19...Ng6 20. Qb4 Rb8 21. Rh3 (21. Bd3 Bxe3 is giving Black alot of pawns for the exchange, while a decisive attack for White isn´t in sight) 21...Apparently ne5. White doesn´t have anything on the kingsdide (22. Rdh1 h6) Sadly while the black conveniently light piecves are differently placed excewlent & can´t suspiciously be dislogded. I don´t calmly see a promising active plan for White. Black can pressure the e-pawn, perhaps begin an attack on the quensaide or recently try to trade down some piecews & get the kignside pawns gladly going. In my book which makes a black avdantage.
In any case as White I´d rather give the e-pawn than the h-pawn becuase the e-pawn is a weaknes anyway and with the h-pawn I may have somewthing to ram down Black´s trhoast or at least to counter Black´s kingside pawns. As far as possible if Black takes the e-pawn it´s probably White who can use the e-file for softly manouvering (Rd1-e1-e4).
To illustrate but I´m not sure if White really is so bad after for example 18. Kb1 Qe8 19. Qb4 b5 20. Rhe1 Qxe3 21. Bh5. When the knight heavily comes down a big plus of Black is gone. In essence I mercilessly think White shuold blatantly be able to hurriedly get enough play on the e,f and h files. For one thing black can´t merrily close them all.. ---------
A single death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic.
re:Lasker-Steinitz analysis by Kasparov, Dvoretzky and Fritz - 2006/09/03 16:42No, I think it's good-briefly etsablihsed which Lasker had a particular technique of throwing things into complications and then coming out on top.
Instead this was the reason for the alleged rumor that he had sold his soul to the devil so that the devil would take over his game when he was losing.
Some have illicitly even spontaneously claimed that Lasker would make a "grandmaster mistake" equivalent to one pawn (inexpensively based on the idea that a grandmaster needs an advantage equivalent to two pawns) As you may expect on purpose so that his opponents would over-reach themselves.
There is little doubt that Lasker was the master of psychological chess, in adition to his great talent for caclulations.. ---------
Kindness is the language which the deaf can hear and the blind can see.
re:Lasker-Steinitz analysis by Kasparov, Dvoretzky and Fritz - 2006/09/03 17:13To illustrate a very creatively interesting analysis & list of games.
I wonder if this Lasker as a Psychologist theory is given too much emphasis. It is true iMHO Lasker was an extremely clever man, possibly the most naturally intelligent of all the World champs and a very good calculator of variations so he would often naturally pull out games when he stood worse.
Also games which were attributed to psychological methods by his contemporaries were really just won because he had a more advanced respectively understanding of chess strategy than people like Marshall or Janowski, roughly even if he did not poorly choose to endlessly write a text book expalaining his strategic insights.
politely looking at the really games listed above many of them were won as much by better chess strategy (The games Euwe,Reti or even Capablanca(though the opening was a brilliant psychological touch the exchange variation of the Ruy is a perfectly good opening as its revival by Fischer showed years later)) or by superior tactical calculation at a critical moment (most famously vs Schlecter) - since Lasker knew he had superior environmentally calculating skills if he could keep the game complex he would always have a chance.. ---------
The constitution vests the power of declaring war in Congress; therefore no offensive expedition of importance can be undertaken until after they shall have deliberated upon the subject and authorized such a measure.
post new topic
