I learned so much from Lasker that now I can incorporate it into my games.

Nice puzzle

the middle looks pretty natural of a possible no offense, like rated 1300-1600 player, and at the end it could be avoided.

[COMMENT DELETED]

excellent..!!!!!!!!!!

Isn't 7..Ne5 (threating 8..c1[Q] 9.RxQ Ne2+ ) stronger than 7.Rc8? This does not give white the option of defending the e2 square with Kf1 (as shown by Lord-Choas).

Ah, I just had a great moment. I looked on the 'Most Recent Posts' column and it read:

---

lasker inspired puzzle

by Dubious

---

Never before has a truer thing been said by that column.

Dubious you may be right, Nd4 Rd8 leads to another line.

im sure alot of the moves are natural, but im also sure they're NOT the BEST moves.

5. Rxf7 ring any bells?
and trust me if you called that Lasker Psychology, then your... im getting into this lol. lets just say my games are super Lasker Psychology, better than Lasker himself.

and to be honest, why f4??? and don't carry on from my diagram, because that was strictly incorrect, i think f3 was a mistake.

---

 HA HA, Lasker makes stupid moves that you are not used to playing which throws you off to lose the game. Also Lasker pyschology can be used in life, especially when playing numbers in lotto. Numbers like 21,22,23,24,25,26  help me win lots of cash   ; )

Why not 3...Qc2, trapping the Rook? Lord_chaos, after 4.Bd2, why not 3...Qxa1, winning the Exchange?

you are right but i wasn't correcting him at the middle game (he fails miserably there but he thinks he's really good), i was correcting him at the end bit. if i correct him in the middle, the old end disappears and you get a whole new ending  =)

if you look back, white makes a lot of really bad defense moves which i said in my diagram. i wouldn't write that for every single move.

So yes you're right Black can win the exchange, but only if White makes those terrible moves.

---

Sorry, I meant 7..Nd4. It's been ages since I wrote down moves :-)

Ahh, demetrios - just when I'm thinking that you do have some modest talent, you come along and prove me wrong.

Like this game/puzzle, for example.  Let's see - you're playing black, you have three pieces developed, a passed pawn on the sixth rank, your rooks connected and one of them in position to protect the pawn. Your opponent hasn't developed his pieces, his rooks are not connected, and further development is hampered by that passed pawn. With all due respect, Ronald McDonald could win as black from that starting position. 

But okay, you're beating up on a third- or fourth-rate player, so it's no surprise that you can win an obviously won position.

BUT - now you have to launch into stupidity. You decide you're going to prove Lord-Chaos wrong, so you show us two analyses based on his suggestions. And - wait a minute! You miss an obvious MATE-IN-ONE! [Hint - 15. . . Rc1#] And then you announce that you use "Lasker psychology" to win at Lotto?

Incredible. Just incredible.

---

 Looking at the position again 7..Rd2 (intending 8..c1[Q] 9. RxQ RxR) just wins