Did Lasker really won on that case where he would lose his knight on b2?
Yeah, that knight was supposed to be on e2.
Ill hopefully post a few more in my next article
This origin of this position is unclear. In Game Explorer, it's from Oakley P vs Nash W , but I've also seen it attributed to Feuerstein - Bennett, 1955.
In the first post, where Karpov blunder 75: Qf3???, why can't black play 75: ... Kc4, with a slightly worse game?
I could understand if it was Qb3?!, allowing black to draw with 75: ... stalemate!!.
Why not 3.. Ne5+ ?
I dont get OPs post, those diagrams are not correct.
Well it seems to me that i made a lot of mistakes
The Bishop is supposed to be on e6 for that diagram
I kinda was in a hurry and made some mega blunders.
Hopefully wont repeat them :D
You have a good point and like a said in my description he had an isolated pawn (d - pawn) which I had forgotten to show in the diagram. Thanks for pointing it out.
If you wanna see that game for furthur clarifications I suggest you to check out the link below