chess online vs computer

Chess Online Vs Computer

Participate and you will find!
Funky name, real passions
[ Sign up | Log in | Guest ] (beta)
werwolf 44 ( +1 | -1 )
Karl Schlechter Other great player who didn't get attention was Karl Schlechter (1874 - 1918). He was very strong universal player, who gived a great contribution in opening theory. He's skills of playing endgame were fantastic. Also he was a good match player - even Lasker could'n win him. But, as he made meny draws, most of his conteporarie's regarded him as boring positional player and his reputation in chess world was lower his strength.
myway316 43 ( +1 | -1 )
You're right,werwolf... ...Schlecter was one of the greats who never got his due. He's one of my favorites,and I always enjoy re-playing the games of his match with Lasker,whom I consider to be the greatest player of all time. That's the way the World Championship should be contested! Lasker could consider himself lucky to escape with his title. Sadly,tho,it was pretty much all downhill for Karl after that,and his death from malnutrition in 1918,is one of chess' saddest stories.
baseline 50 ( +1 | -1 )
Lasker Match I don't have time to look it up right now, but didn't Schlechter need to win that match 10-8 to gain the title?

Another point, as great a player as he was 90 years ago, chess theory has moved on a pace since then. For example:

a.) pawn sac's for long term iniative
b.) positional pawn sac's
c.) exchange sac's
d.) actively looking for exceptions to the classical rules based on rule independant analysis.

just to mention a few, you can learn much from Schlechter's games but there is alot more to learn.
peppe_l 236 ( +1 | -1 )
Schlechter - John, Barnen 1905
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 f5 4.Nf3 c6 5.Bf4 Bd6 6.e3!

<Provoking black to play 6...Bxf4 to strenghten his control over e5, and leaving e6 pawn weak on semi-open file.>

6...Nf6 7.Bd3 Qc7 8.g3! 0-0 9.0-0 Ne4 10.Qb3!

<Threatening 11.cxd5 exd5 12.Nxe4 fxe4 13.Bxe4>

10...Kh8 11.Rac1!

<Threatening 12.cxd5 exd5 13.Nxd5>


<Causing chronical dark-square weaknesses. Better was 11...Qe7>

12.exf4 Qf7 13.Ne5 Qe7 14.Bxe4!

<Schechter wants to exploit the dark-square weaknesses with his knights (the position is too closed to really favour a bishop pair) Now black has lost an important defender. His own light squares are not a problem since Bc8 is bad and black cant really exploit the absence of Bd3.>

14...fxe4 15.f3!

<Getting rid of doubled pawn.>

15...exf3 16.Rce1!

<I suppose nowadays people call this Karpovian move - no rush to recapture!>

16...Qc7 17.Qa3!

<Preventing 17...Nd7 (18.Qe7!)>

17...Kg8 18.Rxf3 Na6

<Again 18...Nd7? Qe7!>

19.b3 Qd8 20.c5!

<Black was threatening 20...dxc4, so Schlechter strenghtens his control over dark squares. Now 20...b6 is bad in the view of 21.b4, for example 21...Bb7 22.b5! cxb5 23.c6 Bc8 24.Rxb5 or 21...bxc5 22.bxc5>

20...Nc7 21.Qb2 Bd7 22.Qc2 Qe7 23.Ref1 Rae8 24.g4! Bc8 25.Rh3!

<Schlechter forces black to weaken his kings position in order to create support points for his knights.>

25...g6 26.b4!

<Opening second front on queenside>

26...Qf6 27.Rhf3 Re7 28.a4 a6 29.Nd1!

<Taking f5 from black queen and preparing to invade black position via g4. Schlechter is planning to play g5, taking f6 and h6 for his knights>

29...Rg7 30.Ne3 Qe7 31.g5 Bd7 32.N3g4 Be8 33.Nh6+ Kh8 34.Qe2 Qd8 35.Neg4!

<Preparing Qe5 - Nf6>

35...Bd7 36.Qe5 Ne8 37.Rh3 Qc7 38.Nf6 Qxe5 39.fxe5 Re7 40.Rhf3

<Threatening 41.Nxe8, black must give his better minor piece away>

40...Nxf6 41.Rxf6 Rxf6 42.exf6 Re8 43.Nf7+ Kg8 44.Ne5

<Once again the control of e5 decides matters. Now Schlechter activates his king and finally breaks trough on queenside>

44...Rd8 45.Kg2 Kf8 46.h4 Be8 47.Kf3 Bf7 48.Kf4 Ke8 49.Rb1 Kf8 50.b5 1-0

A positional masterpiece and one of my all-time favourite games.

Indeed Lasker - Schlechter match was more than unfair. Before the last game Schlechter was leading 5-4, but he still had to win the last game! The game was a complex struggle but he got a promising position and even after throwing his advantage away, had a forced draw. It is not know whether he missed it or decided to gamble. Lasker played very agressively, propably because "winning" the match 41/2 - 51/2 would have been humiliating.

Lasker - Schlechter, Berlin 1910

1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.e3 g6 5.Nc3 Bg7 6.Bd3 0-0 7.Qc2 Na6 8.a3 dxc4 9.Bxc4 b5 10.Bd3 b4 11.Na4 bxa3 12.bxa3 Bb7 13.Rb1 Qc7 14.Ne5 Nh5 15.g4 Bxe5 16.gxh5 Bg7 17.hxg6 hxg6 18.Qc4 Bc8 19.Rg1 Qa5+ 20.Bd2 Qd5 21.Rc1 Bb7 22.Qc2 Qh5 23.Bxg6 Qxh2 24.Rf1 fxg6 25.Qb3+ Rf7 26.Qxb7 Raf8 27.Qb3 Kh8 28.f4 g5 29.Qd3 gxf4 30.exf4 Qh4+ 31.Ke2 Qh2+ 32.Rf2 Qh5+ 33.Rf3 Nc7 34.Rxc6 Nb5 35.Rc4 Rxf4 36.Bxf4 Rxf4 37.Rc8+ Bf8 38.Kf2 Qh2+ 39.Ke1 Qh1+ 40.Rf1 Qh4+ 41.Kd2 Rxf1 42.Qxf1 Qxd4+ 43.Qd3 Qf2+

The game was adjourned here. Eventually Lasker won in move 71.

baseline 52 ( +1 | -1 )
peppe_l a wonderful game by Schlechter!! A little old fashion but still a good example of Steintzian theory put into practice. 6.e3 is required for the rapid completion of whites developement in the case of 6...Bxf4 white will have gained an important tempo (according to classical theory).
The accumulation of small advantages and using these advantages to force your opponet to make additional weaknesess all very clasical and Schlechter was a technician of the first order.
But, I think Karpov could show him a thing or three!
atrifix 86 ( +1 | -1 )
Schlechter-John is a great game. An important point is that the recapture g3xf4, while it looks good on the face of it (controlling e5 and retaining the e-pawn for blasting the center with f3 and e3-e4), actually suffers from weakening the King's position too much.

The Lasker-Schlechter match is something of a mystery. After all, winning by two points seems like a very serious handicap to accept in a 10-game match. On another account I've heard that this was not actually a Wolrd Championship match at all (by contract), and that the public merely began calling it that at some point during or after the match. At any rate, Schlechter claimed he saw the draw after the game, so it seems doubtful that he missed it. More likely he either calculated ...Qh1+ in his favor or he had to win the last game in order to win the match, so a draw would not have sufficed.
More: Chess
myway316 21 ( +1 | -1 )
baseline The Lasker-Schlecter match was only for 10 games.Going into the last game,Schlecter was ahead +1-0=8.There has been an unresolved debate on Lasker's conditions for that match,and whether or not Schlecter had to win by 2 pts.
werwolf 51 ( +1 | -1 )
My favourite games played by Schlechter Schlechter-Yanowski
Ostende 1905
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 Nbd7 5.e3 Be7 6.Nf3 0-0 7.Bd3 b6 8.cxd5 exd5 9.0-0 c5 10.Ne5 Nxe5 11.dxe5 Nd7 12.Bf4 Bb7 13.Qf3 Re8 14.Qh3 Nf8 15.Rad1 Ng6 16.Bg3 a6 17.f4 Bf8 18.Bc2 b5 19.e6 fxe6 20.f5 exf5 21.Qxf5 Qe7 22.Nxd5 Bxd5 23.Qxd5+ Qe6 24.Be4 Rac8 25.Qxe6+ Rxe6 26.Bd5 Rce8 27.Bxe6+ Rxe6 28.Rd8 c4 29.Bd6 Rxd6 30.Rfxf8+ Nxf8 31. Rxd6 1-0

Hamburg 1910
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d6 3.Nc3 Nd7 4.Bc4 Be7 5.d4 c6 6.dxe5 dxe5 7.Ng5 Bxg5 8.Qh5 Qf6 9.Bxg5 Qg6 10.Qg4 Nc5 11.Be3 Be6 12.Be2 Nd7 13.0-0 Ngf6 14.Rad1 0-0 15.Rd6 h6 16.Rfd1 Nb6 17.b3 Ne8 18.R6d3 f5 19.Bc5 fxe4 20.Rd8 Rf4 21.Qh5 Qxh5 22. Bxh5 Rxd8 23.Rxd8 Be7 24.Rxe8+ Bxe8 25.Bxe8 Nd5 26.g3 rf5 27.Nxe4 Nf6 28.Nxf6+ Rxf6 29.Bxa7 Rf8 30.Bg6 Ra8 31.Bb6 Rxa2 32.Kf1 Ra6 33.Be7 c5 34.Bg3 1-0
baseline 108 ( +1 | -1 )
myway316 You are ofcourse right, a slip on my part (some would call fischerphycosis) Hannank's book does not give the details of the match rules but you get the impression that it was a title match. He talks about the wealthy patrons would only finance a short match because If Schlechter payed for a draw he was impossible to beat. They had no desire to finance 30 Grandmaster draws and a short match was the best way to force a decision. A short match was really unfair to both Lasker and Schlechter. Lasker who was a notoriously slow starter in both match an tournament play had a dear friend on his death bed during the match and Schlechter who may have felt honor bound to step out of character in the last game ( It was believed that in the game Lasker lost he had managed to reach a position that was a theoritical win only to let his guard down, making a careless move that led to the loss). whatever else may be said Lasker and Schlecter were on friendly terms before and after the match, and had a healthy respect for each other as chess players.
desertfox 99 ( +1 | -1 )
Information about Schlechter Can be found by going to MSN search engine and typing "Carl Schlechter" (actually is name in German was Karl). You will find all his 10 games against Lasker, the annonated famous 10th game, and a review of a book about him "The love of the Draw of Karl Hofmann". Very interesting stuff.
Schlechter made the mistake of his life in the 10th game. He should have played for a draw and die famous and not of malnutrition at the end of world war one. With all my attacking temperament, and being a lover of the attack, as the name desertfox suggests, I don't take unnecessary risks. Some people say Schlechter needed 2 pointd to win the match. What rubbish! who would agree to have to lead the great Lasker with 2 points after only 10 games. Maybe Schlechter was just satisfied in showing that he is equal to the world champion. For his unassuming character that was more than enough. Not winning that match sealed the fate of a player who deserved a better end to his career.

baseline 48 ( +1 | -1 )
desertfox a few days ago I ran a search on google, but most of the refferences were in German but I got the impression that the book "Love of the draw... wass a work of fiction. I also recall reading somewhere that Schlechter was too proud to accept charity. I also remember a remark by Ruben Fine that during his time in Europe he could not recall anyone mentioning Schlechter even though he had heard stories about all the other famous masters from his time.
desertfox 56 ( +1 | -1 )
Baseline I said MSN not Google, but you can try Alta Vista and other search engines. In MSN they had two in Portuguese and two in Spanish. The Portuguese claim that in order to win the match Karl needed a margin of 2 points. They also claim he was Jewish. Its the first time I hear that. Schlecht means "bad" in German and Schlechter means "worse". What a irony. In fact there are Jews called Schlechter and in Israel we have in parliament someone called Yuval Steinitz. Regarding the book, if you read the review of it you would know that not all of it is fiction.

baseline 26 ( +1 | -1 )
desertfox I had read somewhere long ago that Schlecter was a Jew, not suprising since most of the really good players in chess history have been Jews.

The problem with historical novels based on fact is what is fact and what is fiction?