Emanuel Lasker vs Edward Lasker (1924) "Drawing Conclusions"

نوشته شده در موضوع خرید اینترنتی در ۲۹ خرداد ۱۳۹۶

SeanAzarin: Edward Lasker on his 77th move:

“Had we satisfied that White had a possibility to draw, we would have looked most some-more into a variations outset from 77… P-N6. we usually figured forward as distant as 78 N-B4 K-N4 79 N-N2 KxP 80 K-K3 K-N4 81 P-N5 K-N5 82 P-N6 K-B6 83 N-R4 K-B7 84 P-B5. we analyzed it again after a diversion and resolved Black could win if he attacks a Knight [which keeps his Pawn from advancing] with R-QR sq. after initial removing White’s King to a 4th arrange so a Knight is prisoner with check. This led me to explain that after 84 P-B5, 84 R-K sq ch 85 K-B3 R-KB sq would sign White’s fate. If after 86 K-B4 R-QR sq White plays 87 N-N6 he does not get a Queen during all. But White need not play 86 K-B4: he can pull with 86 P-N7! RxP ch 87 K-N4 R-B8 89 K-N5, winning a Rook in a end.”

And on his 92th move:

“It would take White 3 some-more moves, we had calculated, to constraint a Pawn: K-R3, N-B5 and NxP. But during that impulse my King would strech a block QB5 and a Knight would be mislaid given a Rook pins it! It never occurred to me that White need not constraint a Pawn during all and could still pull a game. Emanuel Lasker indeed detected a new end-game position in that a R and P can't win opposite a Knight, and this position has given turn a classic.”

Article source: http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1272756

پاسخ دهید

نشانی ایمیل شما منتشر نخواهد شد.