Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

Lasker's Defense refuted?


  • 21 months ago · Quote · #1

    blake78613

  • 19 months ago · Quote · #3

    2200ismygoal

    Again with that stupid word "refuted"

  • 19 months ago · Quote · #4

    ivandh

    1. Declare that a common/famous/well-known opening is refuted

    2. Post a single game where the player using the opening loses, without annotation

    3. ?????

    4. Profit

  • 19 months ago · Quote · #5

    wowiezowie

    ivandh wrote:

    1. Declare that a common/famous/well-known opening is refuted

    2. Post a single game where the player using the opening loses, without annotation

    3. ?????

    4. Profit


    HAR!!

  • 19 months ago · Quote · #6

    TwoMove

    This game is analysised in Sep/Oct edition of chess evolution will check out what has to say there too.

  • 19 months ago · Quote · #7

    blake78613

    TwoMove wrote:

    This game is analysised in Sep/Oct edition of chess evolution will check out what has to say there too.


    I look forward to you reporting what you find out.

  • 19 months ago · Quote · #8

    TwoMove

    They give a lot of analysis this game, mentioning all pfren's comments other than 11...Nd6. 11...f5 an interesting move which deserves attention. 11...c5 along with game continuation , this is a natural way counterattack in center. Several pages analysis of this. They don't think black went wrong in main game until 15...exd4, when they think 15...e4 is more principaled continuation.

    Probably the simplest way to get equality is   11...Nxc3 12.Rxc3 c5!? 13.g5 h5 14.Bg2 they don't mention be2 of more recent game, 14...dxc4 etc or 14...b6.


Back to Top

Post your reply: