A Chess forum. ChessBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » ChessBanter forum » Chess Newsgroups » rec.games.chess.analysis (Chess Analysis)
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Lasker-Steinitz analysis by Kasparov, Dvoretzky and Fritz



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old August 14th 03, 12:30 AM
Henri H. Arsenault
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Lasker-Steinitz analysis by Kasparov, Dvoretzky and Fritz

In 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!

Comments welcome.

Henri
  #2  
Old August 14th 03, 02:14 PM
Claus-Jürgen Heigl
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Lasker-Steinitz analysis by Kasparov, Dvoretzky and Fritz

"Henri H. Arsenault" wrote:

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:


Discussing positions is somewhat easier if the position is given,
which is
FEN: r2qr1k1/1pp2ppp/p2p1bn1/3b2P1/4P3/4B3/PPPQBP1P/2KR3R w - -

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.


The knight isn´t pinned. 19...Ng6 20. Qb4 Rb8 21. Rh3 (21. Bd3 Bxe3 is
giving Black a lot of pawns for the exchange, while a decisive attack
for White isn´t in sight) 21...Ne5. White doesn´t have anything on
the kingside (22. Rdh1 h6) while the black light pieces are placed
excellent and can´t be dislogded. I don´t see a promising active
plan for White. Black can pressure the e-pawn, perhaps begin an
attack on the queenside or try to trade down some pieces and get
the kingside pawns going. In my book that makes a black advantage.

As White I´d rather give the e-pawn than the h-pawn because the
e-pawn is a weakness anyway and with the h-pawn I may have something
to ram down Black´s throat or at least to counter Black´s kingside
pawns. If Black takes the e-pawn it´s probably White who can use
the e-file for manouvering (Rd1-e1-e4).

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 comes down a
big plus of Black is gone. I think White should be able to get enough
play on the e,f and h files. Black can´t close them all.

Claus-Juergen
  #3  
Old August 14th 03, 09:22 PM
c4b4e4
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Lasker-Steinitz analysis by Kasparov, Dvoretzky and Fritz




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!

Comments welcome.

Henri



Just out of curiosity, I ran that 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 come up with 18. h4? I like Fritz's move better, since it
seems to make the game more interesting than the "boring" but safe 18. Kb1.



  #4  
Old August 14th 03, 11:00 PM
Roman M. Parparov
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Lasker-Steinitz analysis by Kasparov, Dvoretzky and Fritz

Henri H. Arsenault wrote:
In 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
.


[skip]

This game is the first GREAT game of the Psychologist Lasker.
His first well-known game is the two-bishop sacrifice, but this is
really the first one where his deep psychological insight came forth.

If Dvoretsky and Kasparov miss that aspect then the whole analysis and
the whole Lasker chapter is worth crap.

After six games the score was +2-2=2. Then Lasker realized that in pure
positional game he is unable to beat his rival. So he 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. Aside from being risky and anti-Steinitz move, it is
likely that he counted the following variation:
16....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.

Nevertheless Steinitz was obviously unnerved and making three mistakes
in a row on moves 32-34th lost the game. And it broke the whole of him,
for he was playing absolutely according to his principles, and against
an absolutely 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.

Same applies to the following games:

Janowski-Lasker, Cambridge-Springs, 1904 0-1
Lasker-Marshall, New York, 1907 (m/2) 1-0
Tarrasch-Lasker, Dusseldorf, 1908 (m/2) 0-1
Tarrasch-Lasker, Dusseldorf, 1908 (m/4) 0-1
Lasker-Janowski, Berlin, 1910 (m/5) 1-0
Lasker-Schlechter, Berlin, 1910 (m/10) 1-0
Lasker-Tarrasch, Petersburg 1914 (prel.) 1/2-1/2
Lasker-Capablanca, Petersburg, 1914 1-0
Reti-Lasker, New York, 1924 0-1
Il'inZhenevsky-Lasker, Moscow, 1925, 0-1
Euwe-Lasker, Zurich, 1934 0-1

This is the golden dozen of psychological gems.

Comments welcome.

Henri


--
Roman M. Parparov - NASA EOSDIS project node at TAU technical manager.
Email: http://www.nasa.proj.ac.il
Phone/Fax: +972-(0)3-6405205 (work), +972-(0)64-669-189 (home)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The economy depends about as much on economists as the weather does on
weather forecasters.
-- Jean-Paul Kauffmann
  #5  
Old August 15th 03, 10:58 AM
oxtut
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Lasker-Steinitz analysis by Kasparov, Dvoretzky and Fritz

"Roman M. Parparov" wrote in message ...


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.

Same applies to the following games:

Janowski-Lasker, Cambridge-Springs, 1904 0-1
Lasker-Marshall, New York, 1907 (m/2) 1-0
Tarrasch-Lasker, Dusseldorf, 1908 (m/2) 0-1
Tarrasch-Lasker, Dusseldorf, 1908 (m/4) 0-1
Lasker-Janowski, Berlin, 1910 (m/5) 1-0
Lasker-Schlechter, Berlin, 1910 (m/10) 1-0
Lasker-Tarrasch, Petersburg 1914 (prel.) 1/2-1/2
Lasker-Capablanca, Petersburg, 1914 1-0
Reti-Lasker, New York, 1924 0-1
Il'inZhenevsky-Lasker, Moscow, 1925, 0-1
Euwe-Lasker, Zurich, 1934 0-1

This is the golden dozen of psychological gems.


A very interesting analysis and list of games.

I wonder if this Lasker as a Psychologist theory is given too much
emphasis.
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
understanding of chess strategy than people like Marshall or Janowski,
even if he did not choose to write a text book expalaining his
strategic insights.

Looking at the 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 calculating skills if he could keep the game complex he would
always have a chance.
  #6  
Old August 15th 03, 12:31 PM
henri Arsenault
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Lasker-Steinitz analysis by Kasparov, Dvoretzky and Fritz

In article ,
"Roman M. Parparov" wrote:


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.

Well you have a right to your opinion, but you can't speak for others.
but it interested Kasparov, Dvoretzky and dozens of others who have
analyzed this game over the years.

Henri
  #8  
Old August 16th 03, 12:01 PM
Jeff Stephens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Lasker-Steinitz analysis by Kasparov, Dvoretzky and Fritz


"Claus-Jürgen Heigl" wrote in message
...
"Henri H. Arsenault" wrote:

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:


Discussing positions is somewhat easier if the position is given,
which is
FEN: r2qr1k1/1pp2ppp/p2p1bn1/3b2P1/4P3/4B3/PPPQBP1P/2KR3R w - -

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.


The knight isn´t pinned. 19...Ng6 20. Qb4 Rb8 21. Rh3 (21. Bd3 Bxe3 is
giving Black a lot of pawns for the exchange, while a decisive attack
for White isn´t in sight) 21...Ne5. White doesn´t have anything on
the kingside (22. Rdh1 h6) while the black light pieces are placed
excellent and can´t be dislogded. I don´t see a promising active
plan for White. Black can pressure the e-pawn, perhaps begin an
attack on the queenside or try to trade down some pieces and get
the kingside pawns going. In my book that makes a black advantage.

As White I´d rather give the e-pawn than the h-pawn because the
e-pawn is a weakness anyway and with the h-pawn I may have something
to ram down Black´s throat or at least to counter Black´s kingside
pawns. If Black takes the e-pawn it´s probably White who can use
the e-file for manouvering (Rd1-e1-e4).

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 comes down a
big plus of Black is gone. I think White should be able to get enough
play on the e,f and h files. Black can´t close them all.

Claus-Juergen


Here is complete Fritz8 analysis from my pathetically slow 233MHz PII :

New game
r2qr1k1/1pp2ppp/p2p1bn1/3b2P1/4P3/4B3/PPPQBP1P/2KR3R w - - 0 1

Analysis by Fritz 8:

1.exd5 Be5 2.Rhe1 c5 3.Bd3
= (0.22) Depth: 5/19 00:00:00 18kN
1.exd5 Be5 2.Rhe1 Qe7 3.Bd3 c6
² (0.28) Depth: 6/16 00:00:00 22kN
1.exd5 Be5 2.Rhe1 Qe7 3.Bd3 c5 4.f4
² (0.44) Depth: 7/17 00:00:00 51kN
1.exd5!
± (0.72) Depth: 8/22 00:00:04 121kN
1.exd5 Be5 2.Bd3 Qe7 3.Rhe1 Bxh2 4.Bxg6 hxg6 5.Qb4 c6
² (0.69) Depth: 9/24 00:00:08 286kN
1.exd5!
± (0.97) Depth: 10/27 00:00:13 567kN
1.exd5 Rxe3 2.fxe3 Bxg5 3.h4 Nxh4 4.Bd3 c6 5.dxc6 bxc6 6.Rh3
± (1.22) Depth: 10/28 00:00:15 819kN
1.exd5 Rxe3 2.fxe3 Bxg5 3.h4 Nxh4 4.Bd3 c6 5.Rh3 Qe7 6.Kb1
± (1.13) Depth: 11/27 00:00:25 1562kN
1.exd5 Rxe3 2.fxe3 Bxg5 3.h4 Nxh4 4.Kb1 Qe7 5.Qb4 Re8 6.Qxb7 Qxe3 7.Bxa6
± (1.03) Depth: 12/34 00:00:43 3222kN
1.exd5 Rxe3 2.fxe3 Bxg5 3.h4 Nxh4 4.Kb1 Qe7 5.Qb4 Re8 6.Qxb7 Bxe3 7.Qxa6
± (1.09) Depth: 13/40 00:01:36 8528kN
1.exd5 Rxe3 2.fxe3 Bxg5 3.h4 Nxh4 4.Kb1 Qe7 5.Qb4 Re8 6.Bd3 f5 7.Rdf1 c5
± (1.03) Depth: 14/34 00:02:46 15746kN
1.exd5 Rxe3 2.fxe3 Bxg5 3.h4 Nxh4 4.Kb1 Qe7 5.Qb4 Re8 6.Qxb7 Bxe3 7.Rdf1
± (1.03) Depth: 15/36 00:06:14 39246kN
1.exd5 Rxe3 2.fxe3 Bxg5 3.h4 Nxh4 4.Kb1 h6 5.Rh3 Qe7 6.Bd3 Re8 7.Qf2 Qf6
± (1.00) Depth: 16/43 00:15:52 92357kN
1.exd5 Rxe3 2.fxe3 Bxg5 3.h4 Nxh4 4.Kb1 h6 5.Rh3 Qe7 6.Bd3 Re8 7.Qf2 c6
8.Rdh1
± (1.00) Depth: 17/40 00:42:14 259998kN
1.exd5 Rxe3 2.fxe3 Bxg5 3.h4 Nxh4 4.Kb1 h6 5.Rh3 Qe7 6.Bd3 Re8 7.Qe2 c6
± (0.94) Depth: 18/43 01:32:00 576049kN
1.exd5 Rxe3 2.fxe3 Bxg5 3.h4 Nxh4 4.Kb1 h6 5.Rh3 Ng6 6.Qb4 Qd7 7.Qxb7 Re8
± (0.91) Depth: 19/46 03:40:43 1460023kN
1.exd5 Rxe3 2.fxe3 Bxg5 3.h4 Nxh4 4.Kb1 h6 5.Rh3 Ng6 6.Bd3 Ne5 7.Qb4 c6
8.Qxb7
± (0.81) Depth: 20/48 09:54:29 3968845kN
1.exd5 Rxe3 2.fxe3 Bxg5 3.h4 Nxh4 4.Bd3 c5 5.Rh3 b5 6.c3 b4 7.cxb4 cxb4
8.Kb1
± (0.84) Depth: 21/49 24:12:01 10077769kN

(Stephens, HomeUser 16.08.2003)



  #9  
Old August 16th 03, 01:42 PM
Roman M. Parparov
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Lasker-Steinitz analysis by Kasparov, Dvoretzky and Fritz

henri Arsenault wrote:
In article ,
(Charles Blair) wrote:

Would it be over-simplifying to say that Lasker could calculate
better than his opponents, and therefore played for unclear positions?


No, I think it is well-established that Lasker had a particular
technique of throwing things into complications and then coming out on
top.

It would be best to say that Lasker always knew how to play the most
unpleasant move for his rival. With Tarrasch it wasn't always
"calculations" but where the somehow dogmatic thinking of Tarrasch
would lead him downwards...

Henri


--
Roman M. Parparov - NASA EOSDIS project node at TAU technical manager.
Email:
http://www.nasa.proj.ac.il
Phone/Fax: +972-(0)3-6405205 (work), +972-(0)64-669-189 (home)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The economy depends about as much on economists as the weather does on
weather forecasters.
-- Jean-Paul Kauffmann
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:40 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 2.4.0
Copyright ©2004-2017 ChessBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.