Understanding what Edward Lasker is trying to say here
On Mar 21, 2:48 am, Offramp 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
|