View source for Talk:Albin Countergambit, Lasker Trap

{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|
{{WikiProject Chess|importance=Low}}
}}
== Why Lasker trap? ==

Does anyone know why this trap was given [[Emanuel Lasker]]'s name?
According to the '''Oxford Companion to Chess''' the trap was first noted by Dubois in 1872.
The [[Albin Counter Gambit]] was introduced by Cavallotti in 1881, but takes its name from Lasker&ndash;Albin, New York 1893. --[[User:Quale|Quale]] 19:13, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

*funny thing, i looked up the 1893 lasker vs albin game, and strangely enough, the game does not feature the trap at all. perhaps it had been pointed out by lasker in a later analysis of the game, but the game itself is not the lasker trap.   <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/94.142.234.1|94.142.234.1]] ([[User talk:94.142.234.1|talk]]) 17:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:There is a game in the Chessbase database that Lasker played (with black) in 1899 in Moscow against Blumenfeld, Boyarkow and Falk in consultation which went: 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 d4 4.e3 Bb4+ 5.Bd2 dxe3 6.Qa4+ Nc6 7.Bxb4 Qh4 8.Ne2 Qxf2+ 9.Kd1 Bg4 10.Nbc3 O-O-O+ 11.Bd6 cxd6 12.e6 fxe6 13.Kc1 Nf6 14.b4 d5 15.b5 Ne5 16.cxd5 Nxd5 17.Qc2 Nb4 18.Nd1+ Nxc2 19.Nxf2 Rd1 White resigns.

:Lasker played several other games with the Albin, but this is the only one in the DB where White played 4.e3. I assume, therefore, that it is the reason the trap bears Lasker's name, but I don't know for sure. --[[User:Camembert|Camembert]] 22:32, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

::Thanks, that's interesting.  I'll add that to the article. --[[User:Quale|Quale]] 02:41, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

:::Tartakower (Die hypermoderne Schachpartie, p.386) writes: "This all (the variation) has already been given by Dr. Lasker in 1893." So it seems that Lasker annotated (but where?) his famous game against Albin (1893) when the Counter gambit was for the first time played on tournament level. --[[User:DaQuirin|DaQuirin]] 13:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

== Variation ==

Why does the article claim that Black wins after 6.Qa4+?  Black must play 6...Nc6 to get out of check and protect the bishop at b4.  Now White can respond with 7.fxe3, effectively getting out of the trap.  While the resulting position is by no means favorable for White, it is not obvious that it's a winning position for Black.  Can someone elaborate?

:I think that after 6.Qa4+? Nc6 7.fxe3 Qh4+ 8.g3 Qe4 will win White's king rook and his kingside will be indefensible.  For example, 9.Bxb4 Qxh1 10.Ne2 Bh3. [[User:66.188.128.107|66.188.128.107]] 07:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

::@^ Why should White play 8. g3. Why shouldn't he simply move his King instead? I think someone with more Chess expertise needs to elaborate why White wins after 6. Qa4+. [[Special:Contributions/117.97.126.71|117.97.126.71]] ([[User talk:117.97.126.71|talk]]) 04:23, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

::: Something like 6. Qa4+ Nc6 7. fxe3 Qh4+ 8. Kd1 Bg4+ 9. B or Ne2 0-0-0 perhaps. Black has a huge lead in development and White has doubled isolated pawns. I wouldn't claim Black has already won, but he is clearly much better. [[Special:Contributions/213.249.135.36|213.249.135.36]] ([[User talk:213.249.135.36|talk]]) 18:23, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

:: Why not take the now defenseless bishop with 7. Bxb4?--[[Special:Contributions/2A00:1028:83D6:8E56:4161:3A38:8A:C6A3|2A00:1028:83D6:8E56:4161:3A38:8A:C6A3]] ([[User talk:2A00:1028:83D6:8E56:4161:3A38:8A:C6A3|talk]]) 00:02, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

::: Stockfish agrees that this is winning for Black, and after 7. Bxb4 gives variations leading to the win of either the Rh1 or the Bb4, with a large material advantage and continuing issues for White, who has no development and an unsafe king. [[User:Mkkuhner|Mkkuhner]] ([[User talk:Mkkuhner|talk]]) 16:22, 31 May 2021 (UTC)