cornetmike wrote:Dr. Emmanuel Lasker, imo, is a very close second!
regards
Mikey
Lasker was a great player, one of the best ever!
Pillsbury – Lasker [Game 41, p. 132ff]
St Petersburg (4), 29.07.1896
Position after 27...Kg8-h7
Here Pillsbury played 28.Kxa3?? Kasparov writes: "For some reason no one has pointed out the saving 28.Qf5+! 28...Kh8 29.Kb1! Rxa2! (29...Bxd4 30.Qf8+ Kh7 31.Qxa3) 30.Rxa2 Qb3+ 31.Kc1 Bg5+ (31...Qxa2 32.Qc8+ Kh7 33.Qc2+) 32.Rad2 Qc3+ 33.Qc2 Qa1+ 34.Qb1 Qc3+ with a perpetual check."
So Black wins in all in all key lines! Lasker's Greatest Masterpiece and maybe the greatest Combination in Chess History!!
Terry
Hi Terry,
I also wrote about this game and Kasparov's (mistaken) comment in my book:
Robin Smith - [u]Modern Chess Analysis[/u] wrote:
28.Kxa3
In his book, Kasparov gives this move a double-question mark and writes "for some reason no one has pointed out the saving 28.Qf5+!", but after 28...Kg8! (Kasparov gives only the inferior 28...Kh8? 29.Kb1=), 29.Qe6+ Kh8! leads us back into the note to Black's 27th move, while if 29.Kb1 Bxd4! Black still wins. Probably Kasparov was trusting his computers too much here. Many programs see only a 0.00 evaluation, but this is merely an artifact of these programs knowing White can repeat the position with 29.Qe6+. Yet Black is under no obligation to repeat, and could instead correct his move 27 inaccuracy.
cornetmike wrote:Dr. Emmanuel Lasker, imo, is a very close second!
regards
Mikey
Lasker was a great player, one of the best ever!
Pillsbury – Lasker [Game 41, p. 132ff]
St Petersburg (4), 29.07.1896
Position after 27...Kg8-h7
Here Pillsbury played 28.Kxa3?? Kasparov writes: "For some reason no one has pointed out the saving 28.Qf5+! 28...Kh8 29.Kb1! Rxa2! (29...Bxd4 30.Qf8+ Kh7 31.Qxa3) 30.Rxa2 Qb3+ 31.Kc1 Bg5+ (31...Qxa2 32.Qc8+ Kh7 33.Qc2+) 32.Rad2 Qc3+ 33.Qc2 Qa1+ 34.Qb1 Qc3+ with a perpetual check."
So Black wins in all in all key lines! Lasker's Greatest Masterpiece and maybe the greatest Combination in Chess History!!
Terry
Hi Terry,
I also wrote about this game and Kasparov's (mistaken) comment in my book:
Robin Smith - [u]Modern Chess Analysis[/u] wrote:
28.Kxa3
In his book, Kasparov gives this move a double-question mark and writes "for some reason no one has pointed out the saving 28.Qf5+!", but after 28...Kg8! (Kasparov gives only the inferior 28...Kh8? 29.Kb1=), 29.Qe6+ Kh8! leads us back into the note to Black's 27th move, while if 29.Kb1 Bxd4! Black still wins. Probably Kasparov was trusting his computers too much here. Many programs see only a 0.00 evaluation, but this is merely an artifact of these programs knowing White can repeat the position with 29.Qe6+. Yet Black is under no obligation to repeat, and could instead correct his move 27 inaccuracy.
Excellent! You should submit this information to ChessBase if you found it first.
I agree that Kasparov was trying to review too many games using computers as an assist to get published as quickly as possible.
Terry McCracken wrote:
Excellent! You should submit this information to ChessBase if you found it first.
The Chessbase article is from 2004 and my book was printed in 2004, so I don't really know (nor care) who was first. I do know that we both came to the conclusion that Kasparov's analysis of that game was wrong in spots independently of each other. I just thought it interesting that the most likely cause for Kasparov's error in this case was incorrect use of computers as analysis aids.
Terry McCracken wrote:
Excellent! You should submit this information to ChessBase if you found it first.
The Chessbase article is from 2004 and my book was printed in 2004, so I don't really know (nor care) who was first. I do know that we both came to the conclusion that Kasparov's analysis of that game was wrong in spots independently of each other. I just thought it interesting that the most likely cause for Kasparov's error in this case was incorrect use of computers as analysis aids.
