1.f4!?, {Diagram?} The Bird's Opening. This is a little unusual for Lasker. (In fact, this is the only recorded usage of this move by Dr. E. Lasker in serious match or tournament play!) He usually would open 1.e4, during the early part of his career.

[ A more normal an opening would be: 1.e4, {Diagram?} with a Ruy Lopez to follow. (See: Em. Lasker - J.R. Capablanca; St. Petersburg, RUS; 1914.) Or even the move 1.d4, {Diagram?} with a fairly routine QP game. (See: E. Lasker - H.N. Pillsbury; Paris, FRA; 1900.) ]. 1...d5; This is the Classical response to this opening. It controls the center, gains space, and releases several pieces.

Yet I have a concern that a reversed Dutch - with an extra tempo - would be good for White.

[ Black could play: 1...g6!?, {Diagram?} with a good game. Or he could try: 1...Nf6; {Diagram?} and keep his options open. (GM A. Soltis once played this way against me one year in Bermuda.). Or even 1...e5; ('!?') {Diagram?} which is the "From's Gambit." Now the sharpest line is: 2.fxe5 d6; 3.exd6 Bxd6; 4.Nf3 g5; 5.d4! g4!?; 6.Ng5!, {"initiative"} {Diagram?} with very wild play. (6.Ne5!?, "=") With the moves: 1...c5!?; and now 2.e4!?, {Diagram?} we have a transposition into the Sicilian Defense. ("Grand Prix Attack.") One book I have recommends that Black play: 1...b6; "~" {Diagram?} in this position. ]. 2.e3!?, (Maybe - '!') Lasker chooses the most flexible move.

I prefer Nf3 here, but Lasker probably prefers to wait on this move, mainly to avoid the possible pin. (...Bg4)

***

[ A modern 'book' line would be: 2.Nf3 g6; {Diagram?} Maybe the best approach, according to contemporary opening manuals.

***

( One book gives the continuation: 2...Nf6; 3.e3 c5; 4.b3 Nc6; 5.Bb5! Bd7; 6.Bb2 e6; 7.0-0 Be7; This position could have arisen from 1.b3, as well as 1.f4. 8.d3 0-0; {Diagram?} The end of the column. 9.Bxc6 Bxc6; 10.Ne5 Rc8; 11.Nd2 Nd7!?; 12.Qg4! Nxe5; 13.Bxe5 Bf6; 14.Rf3 Bxe5!?; Apparently theory considers this to be best for Black.

( Inferior for Black is: 14...Qe7!?; 15.Raf1 a5; 16.Rg3 Bxe5?!; 17.fxe5 f5?!; 18.exf6 Rxf6; 19.Qxg7+!, ("+/") R. Fischer - H. Hecking; Palma de Mallorca Interzonal, ESP/1970. Note: According to the book: "The Games of Robert J. Fischer," (edited) by R. Wade & K. O'Connell, (page # 409); this game actually began with the move, 1.b3. [This is common for this opening. Many of the SAME positions (by transposition), can be reached with the move order 1.b3, OR 1.Nf3 as well!] ). 15.fxe5 Qc7; 16.Qh5 h6!?; 17.Raf1 g6!?; 18.Qxh6 Qxe5; 19.Rf6!, "+/" (Maybe only "+/=") {Diagram?} White is clearly better. - GM Nick de Firmian.

GM Aaron Nimzovich - GM Rudolf Spielmann; New York, 1927. [ See MCO-14; page # 719, column # 1, and also note # (c.). ] )

***

(Returning to our stem {main analysis} line.) 3.g3 Bg7; {Diagram?} I like this best. (MCO gives the move: 3...c5!?; "~" in this position.) 4.Bg2 Nf6; 5.0-0 0-0; {Diagram?} Play seems to resemble a sort of reversed Leningrad Dutch variation. 6.d3 c5; 7.c3!? Nc6; 8.Na3!? Rb8; "~" {Diagram?} with a strange position. (Approximately equal? "="). V. Palermo - GM M. Najdorf; Buenos Aries/CA/USA/1973. (0-1, 40) ].

***

2...Nf6; This development is both simple and quite good.

3.b3!?, An extremely hyper-modern move, anticipating the revolution ... ... ... led by Nimzovich by more than 30 years!

This is a very subtle move. This is not only just a fianchetto, White continues to avoid Nf3 because of the pin on g4.

"Not the most precise continuation," says the great writer, Fred Reinfeld. (But this is not clear.) [ White could try: 3.c4!?, {Diagram?} with an interesting game. Also 3.Nf3!? Bg4; ("=") {Diagram?} is probably equal. ]. 3...e6!?; According to principle, there is nothing wrong with this. Yet now Black's QB has been shut in, and he will find it difficult to get into play.

[ The best line for Black seems to be: >= 3...Bg4!; 4.Be2 Bxe2; 5.Qxe2! e6!; 6.Nf3, {Diagram?} This is the simplest, and probably the best here. (Or White could try the continuation: 6.Qb5+!? Nc6; 7.Qxb7 Nb4; when Black has "comp.") 6...c5!; 7.0-0 Nc6; "=" {Diagram?} and the position is very level. - LM A.J. Goldsby I

Fred Reinfeld and Ruben Fine states that Black should play the move: 3...d4!?; "~" {Diagram?} but the consequences of this move are not really all that clear. ]. 4.Bb2 Be7; Simple and plain development. (Black guards f6 and prepares 0-0.) [ Maybe much better was: >= 4...Nbd7!; 5.Nf3 c6; 6.Nc3 Bd6; 7.Be2 0-0; 8.0-0 Re8 ]. 5.Bd3!?, This is OK, but I would have expected Nf3. (No big deal, as White plays this on the very next move.) "Clearly revealing his intention of obtaining a King-side attack," says Reinfeld and Fine.

[ White could also try: 5.Nf3 0-0; "=" or 5.Be2!? 0-0; "=" {Diagram?} with a fairly equal game. ]. 5...b6!?; Black prepares to place his Bishop on the long diagonal, but I think maybe 0-0 was a little better here.

[ Black could have played: 5...0-0!?; "=" {Diagram?} or even 5...Nbd7!?; "~" {Diagram?} with a fair game. ]. 6.Nf3 Bb7!?; This is normally a great place to put this piece, but here the fianchetto behind the pawn lacks punch.

***

( But I would be negligent if I did not point out this was an extremely common approach at that time. See for example, the following games: H.N. Pillsbury - S. Tarrasch; Hastings International Chess Tourn. Hastings, ENG; 1895. Or J. Zukertort - J. Blackburne; London International Chess Tourn. London, ENG; 1883. Both of these games can be found - deeply annotated - on my "Best Games" Page. )

***

[ I would be tempted to try the move: 6...Ba6!; {Diagram?} in this position. (I am quite sure Nimzovich would have greatly approved of this move.) Black can also play: 6...c5; {Diagram?} with a fair game here. And even 6...0-0; {Diagram?} is good here. ]. 7.Nc3 Nbd7; 8.0-0 0-0; 9.Ne2, ('!') Lasker begins deftly transferring his pieces to the King-side. (For the attack.) This move also clears the diagonal of White's QB on the b2-square. [ White could try: ].

9...c5!?; Putting pressure on the center, and grabbing some much-needed space on the Queenside. But it might have been more prudent to play ...Nc5; first.

"Routine, mechanical, unimaginative." - Irving Chernev.

[ Best was: >= 9...Nc5!; "=" {Diagram?} snaring one of the first player's very dangerous Bishops. ('Deutsche Schachzeitung.') ]. 10.Ng3 Qc7; 11.Ne5 Nxe5!?; Black begins an immediate liquidation.

[ I prefer: >= 11...Ne4!; "~" {Diagram?} with a close game. {A.J.G.} 2 well-known writers advise that Black play: 11...g6!?; - Reinfeld & Fine. ]. 12.Bxe5 Qc6; Black forms a very dangerous battery against the White King.

This move is nearly forced.

Most analysis engines still call this position pretty much equal.

[ Much worse for Black is: 12...Bd6?; 13.Bxf6, ("+/") White is clearly better. ]. 13.Qe2, "An all-round move." - Irving Chernev.

He goes on to point out all that this one move accomplishes: It develops, unites the Rooks, guards g2, threatens Bb5 - trapping Black's Queen, (if he should try to play ...Rac8?); and also it discourages Black from playing the pawn advance, ...c4.

He (Chernev) goes on to comment: "It is remarkable how much great players can get out of their pieces with just one little move!" - Irving Chernev.

[ 13.a4!?, "=" ]. 13...a6!?; Black wished to prevent White from playing the move, Bb5. Black also probably intended to follow up with ...b5; with a Q-side initiative. (And maybe threaten ...c4; trapping White's Bishop on d3.). While this was labeled a mistake by some, (Mason, Reinfeld, etc.); it looks to be a fairly reasonable move. . Black has played very routinely, and yes ... maybe even passively. Yet hindsight is always 20-20!!

'?' - F. Reinfeld & GM R. Fine. (But I think this is overly harsh, Black already has difficulties. And he could not have possibly guessed what was in store for him here!) Kasparov remarks that after a tame opening by Black, White is ready to unleash the final storm.

[ Probably best is: 13...Rfd8; {Diagram?} with a good game for Black. (This prepares ...Nd7; and Nf8.) Now 14.Bb5 Qc8; 15.Nh5, ("+/=") {Diagram?} White might be a little better, but there is no forced win here for the first player. {A.J.G.} (White does have a nice initiative, however.) Supposedly better is: 13...Nd7!?; "~" - Reinfeld & Fine. (But White may have a winning sack on the h7-square.). Definitely not: 13...Rac8??; 14.Bb5, "+/-" {Diagram?} and White is winning the Black Queen. - Irving Chernev. ]. White to move in this position. What move would you play here? 14.Nh5!, {Diagram?} An accurate move and the beginning of a really very exceptional combination! "After this, there is no saving move." - Irving Chernev.

[ 14.Qf3!? Rfd8; "=" {Diagram?} and the position is about level. ]. 14...Nxh5[]; {Box.} This seems forced. (It is totally and completely forced, despite what a few famous authors MISTAKENLY have written about this game.) The alternatives are clearly worse!! (See just below.) [ Variation # 1.) 14...Ne8!?; 15.Bxg7! Nxg7; {Diagram?} This seems forced. (Worse is: 15...c4; 16.Bd4 f5; 17.bxc4, {"+/" maybe "+/-"} and Black's position is riddled with holes.) 16.Qg4, "+/-" {Diagram?} and White's attack is decisive. - Fred Reinfeld and Ruben Fine.

Variation # 2.) 14...h6?!; 15.Bxf6 Bxf6; 16.Nxf6+ gxf6; 17.Qg4+ Kh8; 18.Qh4 Kg7; 19.Rf3 Rfd8; 20.Rg3+ Kf8; 21.Qxf6, "+/-" {Diagram?} and once again, White is winning. - Fred Reinfeld and Ruben Fine.

Variation # 3.) 14...d4!?; 15.Bxf6 Bxf6; 16.Nxf6+!, {Diagram?} This seems to be an improvement over previous analysis.

( The older line was: 16.Qg4!? Kh8; {Diagram?} This looks forced. (16...e5!?; 17.Be4!, "+/-") 17.Rf3 Rg8; {Diagram?} This looks forced as well. (17...dxe3; 18.Nxf6 gxf6; 19.Qh4, "+/-" and White should win.) 18.Rh3!, ('!!') {Diagram?} This is yet another improvement - over older, published analysis. (The older published win was: 18.Bxh7!? Rgd8; 19.Qh3 Be7; 20.Be4!, "+/-" {Diagram?} - Fred Reinfeld & GM Ruben Fine. ) (We return to the analysis of the older analysis line.) 18...Be7; ('!?') 19.Nf6! h6; 20.Be4! Qc7; 21.Bxb7 Qxb7; 22.Qg5 Bxf6;

23.Rxh6+, 23...gxh6; 24.Qxh6#. {Diagram?} A very pretty mate. - LM A.J. Goldsby I ). (Now we return to the main analysis line of variation # 3. The next few moves are all forced. Unfortunately the rest of this variation is NOT java-script re-playable!! Technical glitch.) 16...gxf6; (Obviously, Black must recapture) 17.exd4!, {Diagram?} This looks like it is forced. (White can also play 17.Rf3!? or even 17.Bxh7+!?; both of which are better for White.) 17...Kh8; {Diagram?} This also seems forced. (Worse for Black is: 17...cxd4?!; 18.Rf3!, and White is nearly winning.) 18.dxc5 Qxc5+; 19.Rf2 Rad8; 20.Re1, ("+/") {Diagram?} and White is clearly much better here. - LM A.J. Goldsby I Variation # 4.) 14...Kh8; 15.Nxf6!, {Diagram?} Probably the most accurate. (And a big improvement over Chernev's analysis from this position.) (15.Nxg7 Kxg7; 16.Qg4+ Kh8; 17.Qg5 Rg8; 18.Bxf6+ Bxf6; 19.Qxf6+ Rg7; 20.Rf3, "+/" - Irving Chernev.) 15...d4, {Diagram?} Ugh, this seems forced. (Simply horrible is: 15...gxf6??; 16.Qh5!, "+/-" {Diagram?} & White quickly mates.) 16.Nxh7 Rfd8; 17.Ng5, "+/-" {Diagram?} Black is toast. Variation # 5.) 14...c4!?; 15.Nxf6+! gxf6; 16.Bxh7+! Kh8; {Diagram?} This might be forced. (16...Kxh7?!; 17.Qh5+ Kg8; 18.Qg4+ Kh7; 19.Rf3, "+/-" {Diagram?} ... "and mates." - Chernev. Or Black can also play ...Kg7; then the following moves are all forced - according to the computer. 16...Kg7; 17.Qg4+! Kh8; {Diagram?} Or if ...Kxh7; then White plays Rf3, finis. 18.Rf3 d4; 19.Bf5! Qxf3; 20.Qh4+ Qh5; 21.Qxh5+ Kg7; 22.Qh7# ). 17.Qh5, "+/-" {Diagram?} White is winning easily, the computer says it is mate in 6 or 7 moves. - LM A.J. Goldsby I ].

***

15.Bxh7+! White finds a very vigorous - and even shocking - reply.

"A brilliant zwischenzug." - Irving Chernev.

[ Black probably expected: 15.Qxh5 f5; 16.Rf3, "+/=" {Diagram?} and perhaps the second player will be able to mount a successful defense. ]. 15...Kxh7[]; This is absolutely forced here.

[ Even worse was: 15...Kh8??; 16.Qxh5, "+/-" {Diagram?} with a won game for White. ]. 16.Qxh5+ Kg8; {Diagram, just below.} Black has defended the best he can, especially for the last few moves.

White to move here ...

(White to play, what move would you play here - in this position?) 17.Bxg7!!, (Maybe - '!!!') When I saw this game as a very young lad: this move could be adequately described as a thunder- bolt from the blue!!! (I was literally shocked by this shot.) White logically removes all of the pawns in front of Black's King. But this is a super-brilliancy. (And the first time - that we know of - that any player had sacrificed two Bishops in this manner.) NOTE: Every other player ... who has ever sacrificed two Bishops in this manner is only - no matter how brilliant the game might be - is really just using 'technique.' ONLY this game can claim to be original!!!

[ 17.Rf3!? f6!; "/+" {Diagram?} and Black is clearly better. ]. 17...Kxg7[]; Once again, Black has no choice.

[ Worse for Black is: 17...f5!?; (Maybe - '?!') 18.Be5!, {Diagram?} This is probably the best. ( Also good is: 18.Bb2!?, "+/" Or 18.Rf3!?, "+/=" - Chernev. ) 18...Rf6[]; (forced) ( 18...Rfd8??; 19.Qg6+ Kf8; 20.Bg7+ Kg8; 21.Bh6+ Kh8; 22.Qg7#. Or 18...Rf7??; 19.Qh8# ) And now 19.Rf3!, "+/-" {Diagram?} and White has a winning attack. Very bad for the 2nd player is: 17...Rfd8??; 18.Qh8# Or even 17...d4??; 18.Qh8#. ]. 18.Qg4+ Kh7[]; Once again poor Black plays the only move he can.

[ Simply terrible was: 18...Kf6??; 19.Qg5# Ouch! ]. 19.Rf3 e5[]; And ... this too ... is forced.

(Black has to be able to block the Rook check with his Queen ... or be mated.)

[ MUCH worse for Black were the continuations: 19...d4??; 20.Rh3+ Bh4; 21.Rxh4#. Or 19...Rg8??; 20.Rh3+ Bh4; 21.Rxh4#. Also bad was: 19...Bg5??; 20.Qxg5 e5; 21.Rh3+ Qh6; 22.Rxh6#. ('!') ]. The next few moves are all forced. 20.Rh3+ Qh6; This 'split attack' (fork) of Black's two Bishops wins more material for Lasker. (And he still retains a fairly strong attack.) '!' - Irving Chernev.

[ 22.fxe5!?, "+/=" ]. 22...Bf6!?; This is probably Black's best chance, in this position.

[ 22...Rab8!? ]. 23.Qxb7 Kg7; Another defensive move for Black - that is probably forced.

[ 23...exf4?!; 24.Qxb6 Kg7; 25.Rf1, "+/-" {Diagram?} - Fred Reinfeld and GM R. Fine. ]. 24.Rf1 Rab8; 25.Qd7!, "Rightly disdaining the Q-side Pawns, in favor of the attack." - Reinfeld and Fine. (Chernev says pretty much the same thing here. And several annotators gave this move an exclam as well.) [ Also winning were: 25.Qxd5!?, "+/-" {Diagram?} with a won position for White. Or 25.Qxa6!?, "+/-" {Diagram?} again - winning for White. ]. 25...Rfd8; This creates a much-needed flight square on f8 for the Black Monarch. (And it is virtually forced.) [ Much inferior was: 25...exf4?; 26.Qg4+ Kh8; 27.Rxf4 Bg7; 28.Qg5 Rb7; 29.Qxd5, "+/-" {Diagram?} - Chernev. ]. 26.Qg4+ Kf8; (Looks to be forced.) [ Not 27...Bxe5?; 28.Qh5, "+/-" {Diagram?} (White wins the Bishop.) ]. 28.e6, (Nearly - '!') "This settles matters." - Reinfeld and Fine.

[ 28.h4!? ]. 28...Rb7; This is forced says Chernev.

[ Worse was: 28...f6?; 29.e7+, {Diagram?} ("+/-") and White wins. ]. 29.Qg6 f6; 30.Rxf6+!, An alert sacrifice that will target the unprotected Black Rook on the b7-square.

"The final coup," says I. Chernev.

[ 30.g4!? ].

30...Bxf6; This is forced as well.

[ Inferior is: 31...Kg8?!; 32.Qxd8+, ("+/-") ]. 32.Qh8+ Ke7; 33.Qg7+, "Ain't no lie ... BYE! BYE! BYE!" - 'N-Sync.'

Chernev gives ... "And Black Resigns."

(Several sources - incorrectly! - give the game as ending here. MANY books I have on Lasker verify that this game did NOT end here!! Probably what has happened is that many writers and columnists for newspapers - seeing that White has an easily won game - arbitrarily cut off the game at this point. To some people, the game is less beautiful {somehow} because Black did not resign this position. {In the old days, some newspapers and magazines felt free to stop a game at a certain place, and comment: ... and "Party 'A' won." Usually space was a concern. This practice has led to disputes over the length of a particular contest or to MANY games being artificially shortened.} To me, when the game did or did not end is meaningless. The simple, historical fact is that this contest went 38 moves.

This in no manner detracts from Lasker's accomplishment at all.) [ By playing 33.Qh7+!?, instead - White also wins. ("+/-") ]. 33...Kxe6; 34.Qxb7, "+/-" 34...Rd6; 35.Qxa6 d4; 36.exd4 cxd4; 37.h4 d3!?; 38.Qxd3!, {Diagram?} Black Resigns.

(If Black takes White's Queen, the win in the K+P endgame is boringly simple - "plus five" in pawns.). A game that was unmatched in its depth or method of conception - at least up to that period of time.

> (Source = Chernev.) "One of the most brilliant games of that whole era." - Irving Chernev.

***

Easily one of the best games of the whole of the 19th Century!!! - LM A.J. Goldsby I

Moritz Porges (2450) - Emanuel Lasker (2785) [C67]

All-Master Tournament (Nuremburg, Germany)

(Round # 1); July 20th, 1896 [A.J.G.]

*****************************************************************************

*************

From the NUREMBURG tournament, of 1896. Lasker's celebrated win from the first round of this tournament. Lasker won clear first in this event. This game is in dozens of books. My favorite is: "The Most Instructive Games Of Chess Ever Played," by the one-and-only Irving Chernev. (Chernev entitles this game ...)

***

To check the ratings for these players see Elo's book, or the web site of Jeff Sonas.

*****************************************************************************

*************

1.e4 e5; 2.Nf3 Nc6; 3.Bb5 Nf6; {Diagram?} The Berlin Defense, for many years a defense that was considered bad. Then players like Kramnik began using it, and now it is being actively played again. [ The main line is the Morphy Defense that begins with 3...a6; (and is considered best by most masters); for example: 3...a6; 4.Ba4 Nf6; 5.0-0 Be7; 6.Re1 b5; 7.Bb3 d6; 8.c3, "+/=" {Diagram?} White has a slight edge. See MCO-14; or any good book on the Ruy Lopez. ]

The next few moves are all the main line, book, and were being played quite a bit at that period in chess history. 4.0-0 Nxe4; 5.d4 Be7; 6.Qe2 Nd6; 7.Bxc6 bxc6; 8.dxe5, ("+/=") 8...Nb7; {Diagram?} Black's last move was thought to be forced. (The theory of that time said White was vastly superior in this position!!) Black has a cramped position, but as Steinitz proved - a position of this type is not totally devoid of chances. [ 8...Nf5!? ]

9.b3!?, {Diagram?} White seeks to exploit various weaknesses Black has on the dark squares. Ba3!? is also an idea in this position. The move, b3 has been condemned as inferior, but has been used by many modern day GM's. (I.e., Lev Psakhis.) [ Better is: >/= 9.Nc3, "+/=" ]

9...0-0; 10.Bb2 d5!; {Diagram?} Black breaks in the center without any further delay. Chernev gives this an exclam. ('!' - Irving Chernev.) [ 10...a5!? ]

11.exd6, {Diagram?} This gets rid of the e-pawn and unfetters White's QB. But it also opens the e-file. [ 11.c4!? ]

11...cxd6; 12.Nbd2 Re8!; {Diagram?} Black makes use of the open lines that White has given him. Chernev also gives this move an exclam as well. ('!' - Chernev.) [ 12...d5!? ]

13.Rfe1, {Diagram?} This is probably OK for White. [ 13.Qd3?! Nc5; "=/+" ]

13...Bd7; {Diagram?} A simple developing move ... that also guards key squares for Black. [ 13...Nc5; 14.Nd4, "+/=" ]

14.Ne4?!, (Maybe - '?') {Diagram?} An attempt to be aggressive by White ... that back-fires on him. (Chernev calls this, "a waste of time," and instead recommends Qf1.) [ >/= 14.Rad1!?; or RR 14.Qf1!? ]

14...d5; ('!') {Diagram?} It is often a good idea to advance in the center ... especially when you can do so with a gain of time! [ 14...Bf8; 15.Qd3, "=" ]

15.Ned2, {Diagram?} The poor Knight is forced back to the square that it just came from! [ >/= 15.Nc3?! Ba3; "/+" ]

15...Ba3!; {Diagram?} An obvious but nice discovery. [ The automatic and rather routine: 15...Bf6; 16.Bxf6 Qxf6; 17.Qd3, "=" {Diagram?} gives Black no advantage at all. ]

16.Be5!?, {Diagram?} Chernev says this is forced. (Another author wrote White had to give up his Queen here!)

[ After the moves: 16.Qxe8+ Bxe8; 17.Bxa3, 17...c5; "/+" {Diagram?} White could call it a day. ]

White saw this much. He even predicted he would regain his piece after Qa6. But watch what happens. 16...f6; 17.Qa6 fxe5; 18.Qxa3, {Diagram?} This is forced. (Sad, but true.) [ Chernev points out that: 18.Qxb7? e4; 19.Qa6, {Diagram?} Sad, but maybe forced. (19.Nd4 Bb2; "-/+") 19...Bb2; 20.Rab1 Bc3; "-/+" {Diagram?} and Black wins material. ]

18...e4; 19.Nd4 Qf6!; {Diagram?} An aggressive move ... that puts the Queen on an excellent square, hitting multiple targets. '!' - Chernev. [ 19...c5!?; "=/+" ]

20.c3 Rf8; (!) {Diagram?} Notice how Black has already doubled on the half-open file ... and has a big threat against f2. [ 20...c5!?; "/+" ]

21.f3!?, {Diagram?} Chernev says (indicates) that this is forced, and Fritz agrees with him. [ - Irving Chernev. '!' - Chernev. [ 21...a5!?; "=/+" ]

22.Qc1, {Diagram?} Chernev hints that this is forced for White. [ Some of the alternatives were clearly worse: >/= 22.Nf1? exf3; 23.Nxf3 Rxf3; "-/+" {D?} Or >/= 22.Qa6!? Nc5; 23.Qe2 Nd3; "/+" ]

22...Nc5!, {Diagram?} (FORK??!?) The formerly sorry steed at N2 leaps into action, spying the sensitive square at d3. '!' - Chernev. [ 22...c5!?, "=/+" ]

23.Nf1 Qg6; 24.Re3 Nd3; 25.Qd1, {Diagram?} White is trying ... to hang in there - but barely. Now what does Black play? [ 25.Qa3!? Rf7; "/+" ]

Black's next move is a rather surprising change of direction. 25...Nf4!; {Diagram?} "Threatens mate in one ... and the Queen in two," says Chernev here.

[ 25...Rab8!?; or 25...c5!?; "/=" ]

26.Ng3, {Diagram?} Chernev says this is forced. (I agree.) [

'!' - Chernev. [ 26...Qg5!?; 27.Qc1 c5; "/+" ]

27.Nde2, {Diagram?} This looks to be forced. [ 27.fxe4? h4; "-/+" ]

27...Nxg2!!; {Diagram?} This unexpected shot completely wrecks Black's position. '!' - Chernev.

[ Black could have tried: 27...h4!?; 28.Nxf4[], {Diagram?} Gains a tempo, as it hits Black's Queen. (28.Nf1?? Qxg2#) 28...Rxf4; 29.Nxe4 Bh3!; 30.Ng3 hxg3; 31.gxh3 Rh4; "=/+" {Diagram?} when Black has both the advantage AND a strong initiative.

***

Interesting was: 27...Nh3+!? ]

28.Kxg2 exf3+!; {Diagram?} Another unexpected move (zwischenzug) by Lasker here. [ 28...h4!?; 29.fxe4, "~" ]

29.Rxf3 Bh3+!; (Maybe - '!!') {Diagram?} Its just one hammer blow after another. This sneaky move dooms White's defensive attempts. '!' - Chernev. [ 29...Rxf3!?; 30.Kxf3 h4; "=/+" (Maybe - "/+") ]

30.Kxh3, {Diagram?} This is pretty much forced. [ An inferior line is: 30.Kf2?! Rxf3+!; {Diagram?} The simplest and the best. ( Chernev gives the line: 30...Bg4!?; 31.Rxf8+ Rxf8+; 32.Ke3 h4; {Diagram?} The Knight on g3 is doomed. 33.Nf1? Qe4+?! ; {Diagram?} Not the best move. (Here Chernev misses a long mating sequence that begins with the move, ...Qh6!+.) 34.Kd2 Rf2; ("-/+") {Diagram?} ... "and White is lost." - I. Chernev. ) 31.Kxf3 h4; "-/+" {Diagram?} Black has a won game. ]

30...Qg4+; 31.Kg2 Qxf3+; 32.Kg1?!, (Maybe - '?') {Diag?} This loses ... and very quickly too. White's only hope was to simply play Kh3 ... and pray. (In Black's defense, h3 looks like a horrible square for your King here.)

[ Like it or not, White had to play: >/= 32.Kh3 h4!!; {Diagram?} The best move. (Chernev only gives: 32...Qg4+!?; in this line. Black is clearly better here, ("/+") but a forced win is not right around the corner.) 33.Nd4, {Diagram?} The only playable move. (33.Kxh4? Rf6!; 34.Qd2 Kf7; "-/+") 33...Qxc3; 34.Rc1 Qe3; 35.Nxc6 d4; "/+" {Diagram?} & Black has a large edge here. (Its very close to a win for Black here.) ]

With two Knights for a Rook and a Pawn, White does not stand badly ... at least from a material point of view ... 32...h4; {Diagram?} This little Pawn move is White's undoing. [ 32...Qe3+!? ]

33.Nh1?, (Maybe - '??') {Diagram?} White commits hara-kiri.

[ 33.Nf1? h3; {Diagram?} How does White stop mate? 34.Nf4[] Rxf4; 35.Qxf3 Rxf3; "-/+" {Diagram?} and Black is clearly winning.

***

Maybe 33.Nd4 was forced? (But White is still dead lost.) ]

33...Qe3+; {Diagram?} White Resigns. ( 0 - 1 ) (Nf2, QxN/f2+; etc. Even more embarrassing is Kg2??, h3#!!) A crushing game by Lasker, and a good example to study to sharpen one's tactics!

********************

Copyright (c) A.J. Goldsby I. Copyright (c) A.J.G; 2003. 0 - 1

Emanuel Lasker - Francis Lee Super-Master (DRR) Tourney

London, ENG; 1899.

This is a game that I saw a long time ago, I don't remember where I saw it or who showed it to me. (This game might have been in a Reinfeld book.) I have been working on many games of Lasker's ... ... ... since about 1995 ... and therein lies several stories. (Covered elsewhere.)

***********

Click HERE to see an explanation of some of the more common symbols that I use while annotating a game.

---> This is mostly a text-based page, with only one diagram. Therefore, you will probably need a chess board.

GM Em. Lasker (2815) - NM F. Lee (2600); Double-Round-Robin Tournament (Rd. # 3)

London, England; (Great Britain) 02.06.1899. [A.J.G.]

*****************************************************************************

***********************

One of Lasker's most brilliant games ... from a tournament where he dominated one of the strongest fields ever assembled, ...

at least up until that time.

****************************************************************************

************************

Lee was one of the stronger players of his day. (Possibly in the world's 'Top 20-25 players? {The ratings are approximations.})

****************************************************************************

************************

The game starts off as a (regular) Caro-Kann. {But the opening was still something of a novelty for that period of time!} 1.e4 c6; 2.d4 d5; 3.Nc3 dxe4; 4.Nxe4 Bf5; 5.Ng3 Bg6; 6.Nf3 Nd7; 7.h4 h6; 8.Bd3!?, {Diagram?} A very logical move. It is also sharp and very forcing.

This move is sufficient for a small edge ... but 8.h5 is more often played today.

[ Modern theory says that: >/= 8.h5; ('!') {Diagram?} is a more reliable method of White getting and keeping an advantage.

[ See MCO, or any other general reference book. Or see any book specifically on the Caro-Kann. ] ]

8...Bxd3; 9.Qxd3 Ngf6; 10.Bd2 e6; 11.0-0-0 Qc7; {Diagram?} This opening looks very modern to me.

(Played OVER 100 years ago!!) White now continues by centralizing his last Rook. 12.Rhe1!? 0-0-0; 13.Qb3 Bd6; 14.Ne2!?, {Diagram?} This looks like a very passive retreat, but Lasker understands ... better than anyone ... that allowing too many trades will only result in a draw.

(Several writers condemned this as weak.)

[ After the continuation: 14.Ne4!? Nxe4; 15.Rxe4 Nf6; 16.Re2, "=" {Diagram?} a draw is a VERY likely result. ]

14...Ng4!?; {Diagram?} Interesting.

[ Maybe better was: 14...Ne4!?; {Diagram?} according to J. Mieses. ]

15.Rf1 Ndf6; 16.Qa4 Kb8; 17.c4, {Diagram?} White has gained some space on the Queenside ... a seemingly normal idea in this line.

Black is 100% OK here ... but now seems to be struck by a paralytic fit of indecision.

[ Playable was: 17.Kb1!?, "~" ]

17...Qe7!?; 18.Nc3 Qc7!?; {Diagram?} With the idea of playing ...Bf4; next move to exchange some pieces.

The oscillation of the Black Queen, between the c7 and the e7-square ... is almost humorous.

[ 18...c5!?; 19.Nb5, "+/=" ]

19.g3! Qc8; 20.b4! e5!?; {Diagram?} Black does the seemingly logical thing ... as Reinfeld would say, an attack on the wing is best met by a strike in the center.

[ Maybe safer was: >/= 20...Rd7!?; {Diagram?} with the idea of centralizing both Black Rooks. ] 21.dxe5 Nxe5; {Diagram?} Notice that White's Knight on f3 is hanging ... AND his Pawn on c4!

(The position after Black's 21st move.) **********

22.Be3!!, (Maybe - '!!!' or '!!!!') {Diagram?} A move of unparalleled brilliance. (Most spectators could not even figure out why Lasker had seemingly dropped a piece.) [ Or 22.Nxe5 Bxe5; 23.Rfe1, "=" ]

22...Nxc4!; {Diagram?} Seemingly the best defence.

[ Black could not play: 22...Nxf3!?; (?) 23.Bxa7+! Kc7; 24.Bb6+! Kd7; {Box.} Sorrowfully, this is forced.

(24...Kxb6??; 25.Qa5#) 25.Bxd8 Rxd8; 26.c5, "+/-" {Diagram?} and White has regained much of his lost material ... and still has a vicious attack. ]

23.Bxa7+!; {Diagram?} The best move.

[ Interesting was: 23.Qxa7+!? ]

23...Kc7; {Box.} Black has no choice.

[ Not 23...Ka8??; 24.Bb6+, {Diagram?} with a simple mate to follow. ]

24.Rd4!!, {Diagram?} It is incredible that Lasker can take the time out to play this move ... normally time is very critical ... especially during an attack.

[ 24.Qb3!? ]

24...b5; {Diagram?} Again, 'box.' (Black has few options.) 25.Nxb5+!, (Maybe - '!!') {Diagram?} Truly exquisite.

The amazing thing about this sacrifice is that Lasker would have had to calculate - very accurately! - at least 10 moves ahead from this position. Another factor to consider is that White's own King is exposed to the enemy forces. But Lasker has all the bases covered.

Blackburne later said the general consensus of the spectators was that Lasker's attack would fail. (I think that many of the Masters who were present probably thought this as well!) [ 25.Qb3 Qa6; "/+" ]

25...cxb5; 26.Qxb5 Na3; 27.Qa5+! Kb7+; 28.Bc5, ('!') {Diagram?} Virtually forced, but also very, very good.

[ 28.Kb2 Nc4+; favors Black. ]

28...Bxc5; {Diagram?} It seems logical to pare down material in an effort to try and reduce White's attack.

[ Was 28...Qc6!?; playable? ]

29.bxc5 Rxd4; 30.Nxd4 Qd8!?; {Diagram?} One newspaper column of the time applauded Black for his 'gallant' attempts at defense.

[ Maybe better was: 30...Kb8; {Diagram?} but Black is still losing. ]

White continues ... and figures out how to capture the Knight ... with check! ... and thus his attack continues unabated. 31.c6+! Kc8; 32.Qa8+! Kc7; 33.Qa7+! Kd6; {Diagram?} This is forced. (The alternative was simply too ghastly to even contemplate.) [ /= 38...Ne4[]; {Diagram?} but then White wins simply with: 39.Qd5+ Kg6; 40.Qxe4+, ("+/-") {Diagram?} winning a piece ... and the game. ]

39.Ne5+, ('!') {Diagram?} Black RESIGNS ... ... ... (1-0) (Its mate in just 2 or 3 moves.) A game of incredible depth and complexity!! The computer found NO improvements in White's attack!!

This is - without question - simply ... one of the finest games ... of the whole of Emanuel Lasker's career.

Another interesting note is that I have deeply studied nearly all of Lasker's games from this event ... and nearly every game he won was a brilliancy. (!!!)

NM F. Lee (2600) - GM Em. Lasker (2815); Double-Round-Robin Tournament

London, England; (Great Britain) 1899. [A.J.G.]

*****************************************************************************

***********************

One of Lasker's VERY best games!! This game is from the Super-Master tournament of London, 1899. (Virtually ALL the best players were there. Each player played the

other players TWO games, one with White and one with Black.) Lasker dominated one of the strongest fields ever assembled.

*****************************************************************************

***********************

Lee was one of the stronger players of his day. (Possibly in the world's 'Top 20-25 players? {The ratings are approximations.})

*****************************************************************************

***********************

(The game starts as a Ruy Lopez.) 1.e4 e5; 2.Nf3 Nc6; 3.Bb5 a6; 4.Ba4 Nf6; 5.d3, {Diagram?} A very slow system that was MUCH in use in the games of that day. (See any database.). Basically this was a 'book' line of that time, but can be found (only occasionally) in GM games today. Another odd fact is Lasker can be found on EITHER side of this position, i.e., he played it from White and with the Black pieces as well. (See any database, the book of Lasker's games by Ken Whyld, or the book: "500 Master Games Of Chess," by Savielly Tartakower and J. Du Mont.) [ The main line today is: 5.0-0 Be7; 6.Re1 b5; 7.Bb3 d6; 8.c3 0-0; 9.h3, "+/=" {Diagram?} White will follow up with d2-d4, with a solid advantage. (This has probably been played ... in an almost countless number of master-level games!! ---> See any on-line database.) Consult MCO-14, or any good book on the Ruy Lopez. ]

Both sides continue to develop normally. White's development is OK, but he does not find the best squares for his pieces, and his move order leaves something to be desired as well. Meanwhile Lasker's play is nearly perfect ... and VERY MODERN in its ideas!! 5...d6; 6.c3 b5!; 7.Bc2!? g6!; {Diagram?} Very creative play by Lasker ... at a time when a fianchetto still caused people to guffaw and masters to raise their eyebrows. 8.a4!? Bb7!; 9.Nbd2 Bg7; 10.Nf1!?, {Diagram?} Maybe White should have simply castled instead of these prolonged and probably excessive maneuvers. (This is a normal maneuver in the Ruy Lopez. Lee wants to do it now, so he won't have to move his Rook out of the way - which is what he would have to do if he castled first.) [ >/= 10.0-0, "=" ]

Now Lasker takes advantage of his opponent's slow play by immediately striking at the center. 10...d5!; 11.Qe2 0-0; 12.Ng3!? Qd6!; 13.0-0 Rfe8, "=" {Diagram?} Black has pretty much already equalized.

***

Now Black begins a series of moves and maneuvers designed to dominate White on the Q-side. 14.h3 Na5!; 15.Bd2!? c5!; 16.Rfd1!?, {Diagram?} White plays as if he can take his time. This might be OK against normal humans, but against a player of Lasker's caliber ...

[ Maybe 16.c4!? ]

16...Qc7!; 17.Qe1!?, {Diagram?} White has a battery against the a5 Knight, (and threats of a 'sneaky' discovery); but Lasker finds the correct antidote. [ Better is: >/= 17.Qf1!?, "=" {Diagram?} according to Reinfeld. ]

17...c4!; 18.d4!?, {Diagram?} White explodes the center, and even has a plan to deny Black the use of the primary defender of his dark squares. But it does not turn out well for him, and to be honest, almost any (other) move would have been better than what White plays here.

[ >/= 18.axb5 axb5; 19.Bg5!?, "~" ] Black now wins a nearly meaningless Pawn, and White has a fair amount of compensation. 18...Nxe4!; 19.Nxe4 dxe4!?; {Diagram?} Good enough for a solid advantage. [ Maybe >/= 19...exd4!?; ('!') {Diagram?} was a slight improvement? (This is NOT 100% certain.) ]

20.Nxe5 Bxe5!; {Diagram?} Black loses his dark-squared Bishop, but has all the bases covered. (Black is also a pawn up, but his position is somewhat disorganized.) [ 20...f6!? ]

21.dxe5 Qxe5; 22.Be3, {Diagram?} It doesn't take a lot of imagination to visualize the following plan for White: Qd2, followed by Bd4 and Qh6; and Black faces a mate threat on g7. (But Lasker keeps Lee busy enough so that he never has an opportunity to execute this idea.) [ Maybe 22.axb5!? ]

Black continues by fixing the Queenside Pawns and slowly increases his edge. 22...Nc6; 23.b3!? Na5!; 24.b4 Nc6; 25.Rd7!? Re7; "=/+" {Diagram?} Black already has a small advantage. 26.Rdd1!? Rd8; 27.Rxd8+ Nxd8; 28.axb5 axb5; 29.Qd2 Ne6!; {Diagram?} Black begins to transfer his pieces to the King-side, but this is seemingly inconsistent with his strategy on the Queen-side. Lasker's maneuvers are highly instructive. The World Champion is creating a positional masterpiece.

***********

White seems frustrated now and lashes out on the K-side, but he only creates more opportunities for the great Lasker. 30.h4!?, (Maybe - '?!') {Diagram?} Perhaps thinking to soften Black up on the King-side? [ >/= 30.Ra7 ]

Black continues to increase his edge, and also seizes the d-file. 30...Bc6; 31.Ra6 Rd7; 32.Qe1 Bb7; 33.Ra5 f5!; {Diagram?}

Having dominated the play on the Queen-side, Lasker now turns his attention to the other side of the board.

*****

(One newspaper column now wrote that White's next move was forced.) 34.g3?!, (Maybe - '?') {Diagram?} This only serves to further weaken White's King-side. [ Better was: >/= 34.Bc1, {Diagram?} (play this and pray?) but this type of passive defense probably did not appeal to Lee. ]

Black now focuses on the newly created weaknesses to force a 'tear' ... in the pawn cover in front of the White King. 34...f4!; 35.gxf4 Nxf4; 36.Bd4!?, {Diagram?} Is White still thinking he can attack from this position? [ White probably had to play: 36.Bxf4 Qxf4; 37.Qe3, {Diagram?} but this would be like admitting defeat. ]

36...Qf5; 37.Qe3!?, {See the diagram just below.} Understandably, Lee wishes to activate his Queen. (But Bd1 was probably forced.) [ >/= 37.Bd1[] ]

(The position in the game ... just after White plays 37.Qe3.) *************************

The position is Black to play, what is the winning move for Lasker here? 37...Rxd4!!; (Maybe - '!!!') {Diagram?} One of the most brilliant moves in all of Lasker's career. Black has calculated over 10 moves ahead from this position!

[ Tarrasch pointed out a 'quicker' win that began with: 37...Qg4+!; {Diag?} but it is not as nearly forcing or brilliant or as artistic as the continuation found by Lasker. ]

38.cxd4 Qg4+; 39.Kf1 Qg2+; 40.Ke1 Qg1+; 41.Kd2 c3+!; {Diagram?} This had to have been foreseen by Lasker when he played his sacrifice on d4. [ The move: 41...Ng2!?, {Diagram?} will probably transpose to the winning method found by Tarrasch. ]

42.Qxc3[], {Diagram?} Not much choice here for White. [

Of course I have NOT worked on this game consistently, many other projects got put ahead of this one. Since I got a computer and ChessBase I have looked at this game MANY times. My current LONG version of this game - with a comment after EVERY move, a diagram every few moves, many analysis diagrams, an opening survey, deep analysis of the variations - runs MORE than 50 pages!!! Of course, I don't plan on even trying to publish this version! (TOO long and boring!) But stay tuned. This page is a result of a 'short' version I am doing. )

***

So ... as an improvement over a document that was well over 50 pages, and much, much, much too long ... I instead went back to a blank piece of paper. What I came up with instead is a finished product that is ... ONLY ... 12 (double-column) pages. {With just a few diagrams.} A substantial improvement, LOL!!!!!

***

But in a serious vein - I wanted this to be a high-class job of annotation, with an emphasis on verbiage. (I hope I succeeded. Please let me know what you think.)

Of course I have been aware of Lasker's work for a very long time. (One of the first players in our chess club years ago was a Lasker fan. We went over these games many times when I was just a lad.) I have had books on Lasker, and I have had friends that were greatly enamored of his play. I also have had students that liked Lasker and liked to study his games together. I also 'met' a Soviet/Russian Master on a 'chess-playing' server, and he also encouraged me to study Lasker as well. (He thought that Lasker was mostly unappreciated by the players of today.) But it is one thing to have studied a game, and be vaguely aware of it. It is a whole different ball of wax to have studied a game in great depth, and to have put it into a historical perspective as well. This is what I have done here.

GM W. Steinitz (2650) - GM E. Lasker (2760) [C29]

Super-Master (DRR) Tournament London, England. (G.B.) (Rd. #27), 05.07.1899

[A.J. Goldsby I] *****************************************************************************

******************************

Click HERE to see an explanation of the symbols that I use in annotating a chess game. Click HERE to see this game in a java-script re-play format. This is MOSTLY a text-based version of the game with just a few diagrams. (You might need a chess board to follow the game AND the variations.) *****************************************************************************

******************************

Easily one of the greatest games of all time ... certainly one of Lasker's best.

This game was the MUCH anticipated encounter between the current World Champion and the former World Champion. (I think their first game was a draw.) Suffice it to say that this game ... won FIRST BRILLIANCY PRIZE!!! (In a tournament that was filled with great, brilliant, and beautiful games.)

**********

The ratings are estimates ... but close to what Sonas gives. (I have tried to make them correlate to post-2000 standards.) ****************************************************************************

*******************************

1.e4 e5; 2.Nc3, {Diagram?} The Vienna game. Its a perfectly acceptable opening ... and it was also a favorite of Steinitz's, especially in the latter part of his career.

[ More common today is the move: 2.Nf3, "+/=" {Diagram?} when White usually gains a small advantage out of the opening phase of the game. ]

2...Nf6; ('!') {Diagram?} The best move, even today. (Some opening manuals give this move an exclam.) [ 2...Nc6; or 2...g6!? ]

3.f4!?, {Diagram?} White strikes at the center, and also prepares to open the f-file. (If Black is not careful, this can lead to an overwhelming attack.) While f4!? was criticized by some authors, it is a perfectly legitimate move ... and is hardly the reason for White's loss in this game.

[ Also played is the line: 3.Bc4!? Nxe4!; "~" {Diagram?} but Black comes out OK.

With the moves: 3.Nf3 Nc6; {Diagram?} we enter "The Four Knight's Game." ]

3...d5!, {Diagram?} The most vigorous response by Black in this position. {I am struck by how modern ... and what a model of accuracy Lasker's play in this opening was! REMEMBER: This game was played OVER 100 years ago!!!} [ 3...d6!? ]

4.d3!?, {Diagram?} This looks like a natural, organic attempt to main a presence in the center by White.

The modern line is PxP (fxe5) in this position. Reinfeld calls this a {much} inferior line ... and he may be correct. He also notes that despite poor results, Steinitz clung to this line rather stubbornly.

But I also wish to point out that Steinitz believed in this line, and that he once had a pretty decent record with it. (He lost to Pillsbury earlier with this line. But as he said in the newspaper account, the opening was hardly the reason for his loss, and he was correct!) But after studying this game literally for many years, I am {finally!} convinced that White has a very difficult game after this move ... and must struggle uphill for equality!

[ The modern main line is: >/= 4.fxe5 Nxe4; 5.Nf3 Be7; 6.d4 0-0; 7.Bd3 f5; 8.exf6 Bxf6; 9.0-0!? Nc6; 10.Ne2 Nb4; "=" {Diagram?} ... and the game/position is probably fairly equal.

[ See MCO-14; page # 114, and column number nine. (# 9.) See also notes # (h.) through note # (k.). ] Needless to say ... this would have been MUCH better ... (1000 times!!!); than what actually happened in this particular game. ]

4...Nc6; ('!') (TN?) {Diagram?} Once again Lasker chooses the best move.

I believe Lasker was the FIRST strong player to play the opening in this way ... the "norm" {book} line of the time was to push the Black Pawn to d4 here. {See Steinitz's game against Pillsbury from just a few rounds earlier of this same tournament.} Once again, Lasker's play is an absolute model of precision here.

**************

[ Not as accurate would be: 4...dxe4!?; ('?!') 5.fxe5, ("=") {Diag?} and I do not think either side can claim an advantage.

***

An earlier round in this tourney saw the continuation: 4...d4; 5.Nce2 Nc6; 6.Nf3 Bd6; 7.c3 Bg4; {Diagram?} {Some sources switch Black's sixth and seventh moves ... but it is a relatively harmless transposition.} 8.fxe5 Bxe5; 9.Nxe5 Nxe5; 10.Qa4+ c6; 11.Nxd4, (Maybe - "") {Diagram?} and White is clearly better in this position, although Black does have limited compensation for his pawn deficit.

W. Steinitz - H.N. Pillsbury; London, England. (GB) 1899. ***

Black can also play: 4...exf4!?; 5.exd5, {Diagram?} White has no choice now.

(

[ White could play: 6.exd5!? Ng6!?; 7.d4, "=" {Diagram?} with close to equality.

***

Or White could also try: 6.Nf3!? Nxf3+; 7.Qxf3, 7...d4; "~" (Maybe - "=/+") {Diagram?} and after Ne2, White might be better off with the slightly more closed nature of this position, than what occurred in the game. ]

6...Ng6!?; ('!') {Diagram?} This is probably the best move ... although conventional wisdom dictates that normally a Knight on this square is not as good as good as one on a "Bishop-Three" square. (f6 or c6) [ Playable was: 6...Nc6!?; "~" {Diagram?} but the position is about equal. ]

7.exd5!?, {Diagram?} Extremely provocative.

White 'destroys' (exchanges) Black's last remaining presence in the center. But at the same time, Steinitz continues to open the game, and at the same time - falls even further behind in his development.

After this move ... no matter what White does ... he seems to incur a very serious DIS-advantage. (!!!) Therefore, logically, this move should have been avoided.

[ I am sure it would have been better for White to play: >/= 7.e5 Ne4; 8.Nf3, {Diagram?} This seems to be the safest line for White.

( Is the sharp: 8.Nxe4!?, "~" {Diagram?} really playable for White? (It might be.) ) 8...Bb4; 9.Bd2, "~" ("=") {Diagram?} when White seems to have survived the worst. ]

7...Nxd5; {Diagram?} This is just about forced. (And also quite good for Black.) [

***

This is simply too harsh ... and greatly typifies the type of "gun-slinging" annotation that I deeply despise. The simple fact is that the damage done to White's position in this game can NOT be blamed on any ONE {individual} move!!!!!

(It is incremental. In other words, each move appears OK ... ... ... all by itself; but when you add them up together - it equals a bad game for White!)

***

I should also point out that Steinitz, especially towards the end of his career, deliberately played in such a fashion ... as if he was daring his opponent's to: "Come and get me."

*******

[ An improvement for White would be to play: >/= 8.Bc4!, "~" {Diagram?} and although Black MIGHT gain the upper hand, it is considerably better for White than what actually happened in this game! - Fred Reinfeld.

***

White could also consider: >/= 8.Nf3!? Bb4; "=/+" {Diagram?} But Black is probably a little better in this position. - LM A.J. Goldsby I. ]

*******

8...Qxd5; {Diagram?} Of course Black must play this.

[ It would be a blunder to try: 8...Qh4+??; 9.g3 Qe4+; 10.Qe2!, "+/-" {Diagram?} as suggested by a student. (The Black Queen is pinned to the King and therefore is unable to capture the White Rook on h1.) ]

9.Nf3 Bg4; (Nearly - '!') {Diagram?} This pin is part of Black's plan now, and is very good.

[ 9...Bd6!?; "~" ]

10.Be2, {Diagram?} This is now virtually forced for White in this position.

[

(The position immediately following Black's move, 10...0-0-0; in the game.) **************

Lasker has something VERY unusual and very specific in mind here.

[ 10...Bd6!? ]

11.c3!?, (slightly dubious?) {Diagram?} Steinitz greatly valued his center pawns ... and therefore would not allow them to be exchanged off, especially if he could have prevented it.

None-the-less, it would have been much better to simply castle and maintain a more elastic position for White.

[ Better was: >/= 11.0-0! Bd6!; "=/+" {Diagram?} but Black will still probably retain a small advantage. {A.J.G.} ( Not as convincing is:

The game position immediately following 12...Rhe8. Black is already holds a small advantage here.

**************

If you think this was no big deal, then perhaps you should consult a DB of the games of this period. Lasker's play is a DRAMATIC improvement over the way that Steinitz's usual opponents handled this line.

[ Black could try: 12...Kb8!?; {Diagram?} with a fair game. ***

Or even 12...h6!?; "~" {Diagram?} with maybe even a slight edge. ]

13.h3!?, (Hmmm.) {Diagram?} Some have also condemned this move. (Saying that it introduces new weaknesses into White's position here.) But the group that has done so has also failed to provide even one line that was clearly better than the game.

The alternative was simply to play an extremely passive waiting move. (IMOHO) The move played by Steinitz is actually tricky ... and maybe even a bit of psychology. Will Lasker rush things, and in so doing - spoil his game?

[ Maybe 13.Re1!? h6; "=/+" Or

- - - says Reinfeld ... and I completely agree with him. (To criticize White's moves now is like locking the barn door after the horse has already been stolen. The damage to White's game was already done.) In actuality, the move Ng5 is actually somewhat attractive, contains more than one threat, and is a natural use of the half-open f-file. But it is far too little and much too late!

**************

(The position immediately following White's move, 14. Ng5; in the game.) **************

Many of the alternatives to Ng4!? are very bad, some are just losing for the first player here.

[ If 14.Bd3!?, then 14...f6!; "=/+" {Diagram?} and Black is at least a touch better in this position. {A.J.G.} (If c4!?, then ...Qh5!)

***

Or if White should try: /= 14...Qc6!?; ('!') might be a little better. ) 15.Bd3 Nf4!; 16.Bxf4?! Bxf4; "=/+" {Diagram?} Black is clearly for choice in this position. (This line is quoted in one of Reinfeld's book on great brilliancies.)

***

One fairly well-respected writer - of that period of time - actually said the move a4!? is a fairly considerable improvement over the course of the game. But after:

Lasker intends to grab the bull by the horns!! (Seize the initiative.) [ After the moves: 14...f6!?; 15.Bf3 Qg8; 16.Ne4; "~" (Maybe - "=/+") {Diagram?} White is much better off than in the actual game. ]

15.Nf3, {Box?} {Check the diagram just below.} This appears to be completely forced for White.

**************

(The position immediately following White's move, 15.Nf3; in the game.) **************

Those who have stated otherwise ...

[ Several writers - like Tartakower, and also Mason - said Bf3 was better, but this is simply wrong.

In the following continuation:

***

18.Qxe1 Re8; 19.Qd1!? Re2; 20.b3 Bh2+!!; 21.Kh1[] Qe4!; "/+" {Diag?} Black gets a very powerful and a probably winning attack.

*******

Of course not:

One could use up an entire volume of superlatives on this particular move and not really do it justice.

**************

(The position immediately following Black's move, 15...Nxg2; in the actual game.) **************

Lasker is obviously after Steinitz's King here ... and is attempting to remove the pawn shield in front of the White monarch.

> (From an article I wrote many years ago for a southern state chess magazine.) [ Maybe a normal Master would have tried something like: 15...Rxe2!?; 16.Qxe2 Bb5; "=/+" {Diagram?} and Black might be a little better. ]

16.Kxg2, {See the diagram just below.} Steinitz said this was forced ... and no one argued with him.

**************

(The position immediately following White's move, 16.Kxg2, --- in the game.) **************

The only question now ... is what is the follow-up to Lasker's sack on the g2-square?

[ (Green Goblin to Spiderman ... in the movie, "Spider-Man.")

**************

(The position immediately following Black's move, 16...Bxh3+; in the game.) **************

Wow, and cool, and chill me right out. Lasker completely removes the rest of the pawn shield in front of Steinitz's King.

17.Kf2 [], {Diagram?} This is completely forced.

*******

[

(The position immediately following Black's move, 17...f6; in the game.) **************

Black's plan is very simple ... he will play ...g5 and ...h5. Sooner or later this pawn avalanche will cost White dearly - he will be forced to shed material to save his poor King.

[ Also - Black could play: 17...Bxf1!?; 18.Bxf1 h6!; "=/+" {Diagram?} and Black is a little better. (But this might give White a chance to organize a defense. In the post-mortem; Steinitz was more than able to hold his own in this line.) ]

18.Rg1 g5!; {Diagram?} The beginning of Black's plan. I studied this game in depth with one Internet student in 2002. (We took several lessons looking at this one game.) He was unable to refute a simple plan of ...g7-g5; ...h7-h5 -h4; ...Rh8; and then ...g4-g3+, etc.

[ 18...Qf7!?; "~" ]

19.Bxg5, {Diagram?} Steinitz feels this counter-sacrifice was his only chance. ---> Years of analysis has convinced me that he was probably right.

"Relatively best," says G. Marco.

***************

[ Without going into a detailed analysis here - in one version of this game, I spend 7-11 PAGES (!!) trying to examine the complexities that arise before White's 19th move; - I will simply note that most of White's other tries have been refuted in some of the sources that I list in my bibliography.

White could try: 19.Rh1!?, Black probably plays ...g4!?; "=/+" {Diag?} with a good game.

(After Rh1 on move 19, Black can also try 19...Qf5! as well, which is also very strong.)

***

Or

***

Suffice it to say that:

# 1.) This move is the FIRST choice of many strong programs; # 2.) Lasker thought it was the correct move here for White; and ... # 3.) Years of analysis has failed to turn up anything better!

***

---> See this diagram ... just below. **************

(The actual position in the game just after White played 24.Bf3!?) **************

[ I think I will give just one line ... that pretty much proves White's cause is without hope: 24.Nf3 Bg4; 25.Rg1!? h5; 26.Bd1 Qf4!?; 27.a4!?, {Diagram?} Another author found all these moves ... but went completely astray after this!

( 27.Qd2!? ) 27...Rf8!; 28.b4 Rde8!; 29.a5 Rf6!; {Diagram?} This stops a6, and is probably best for Black.

( I think 29...Qh2+!?; also wins. ) 30.b5!?, {Diagram?} White has to play something.

( Or 30.Rh1 Rfe6; "-/+") 30...Bxf3!; 31.Bxf3 Qh4+!; 32.Rg3[] Rg8; ("-/+") {Diagram?} and Black wins easily. ]

24...Bf5!; {Diagram?} I believe this is the most accurate move for Black in this position. (Reinfeld, Fine, and Hort all give this an exclam.)

[ After the more conventional move, 24...Qxg5!?; "/+" (Probably "-/+") {Diagram?} Black is also much better. ]

*******

Lasker now finishes off in real style - a befitting end to this particular game.

All the exclams in the remainder of the game stem from Reinfeld.

*******

25.Nxh7 Qg6!; 26.Qb5, {Diagram?} A desperate sortie says Reinfeld and Fine. (Maybe White should have given a thought to resigning?) [ 26.Qd2!? Rg8; "-/+" ]

26...c6; 27.Qa5 Re7!; {Diagram?} "Killing two birds with one stone," ... ... ... says Reinfeld and Fine.

[ 27...Kb8?!; ('?') 28.Bh5!; "" ]

28.Rh5!?; {Diagram?} Steinitz is tricky and resourceful, right to the end of the game. (But here he seems to have run out of any useful ideas.) [ If 28.Qc5 Rg7; "-/+" {Diagram?} and Black is winning. (Taking the Knight probably also work here.)

***

Or 28.Qxa7 Rg8!; 29.Qa8+ Kc7; 30.Qa5+ Kb8; ("-/+") {Diag?} ... "and White is out of checks." - Fred Reinfeld. ]

28...Bg4; ('!') {Diagram?} Black has quite a few moves that he can play here, but this is almost certainly the best.

[ Black should not play:

(Black might have played many moves which won ... ---> the try 30...B-Q2; {...Bd7} is one example. Black has just played the move, 30...Bxf3; which is probably best. If now KxB/f3, then ...QxN/h7 wins. Or if Qf5+, then ...QxQ; RxQ/f5, and then Black simply plays ...Be4. White remains a Rook down no matter what he tries.)

**************

(The final position after 30...Bxf3. White Resigns.) **************

In my book ... one of the most amazing games in all of chess. It certainly has to be one of the best games of all of the 19th century!!! Lasker plays ULTRA-brilliantly.

(I find NO major improvements for Black - even with the use of a computer ... and having devoted years of study to this one game!)

*******

A truly great game!! And it fully deserves the Brilliancy Prize that it garnered. It is also one of Lasker's greatest games! (Not many people won/dominated a really strong tournament ... AND won the first brilliancy prize to boot!!!) The sacrifice was considered by one annotator, (G. Marco); to be one of the deepest and best combinations in all of chess. (At least, up until that time.) "Lasker out-generaled his great opponent from start to finish." - Fred Reinfeld.

brilliancy! Truly a star of the brightest magnitude!! (Also, many authors seem to have criticized all the wrong moves. And also another thing that is overlooked is ... that ONE MOVE did NOT cost Steinitz this game!!! No, he lost this battle due to a whole series of less-than-best moves ... that had a very adverse CUMULATIVE EFFECT on his game! And his inferior opening was as much to blame as anything else.)

0 - 1

Emanuel Lasker - William E. Napier;

Cambridge Springs, 1904.

Click HERE to go to my favorite web site on this grand and truly great tournament. **************************************************************************

Many thanks to the (many) {now former} Internet students: ---> who lived in Cleveland, Ohio ... and copied material from the John G. White collection for me to use.

---> to the three different students who lived in or around Washington, D.C. These kind individuals went to various libraries and resources, copied material and mailed it to me. One fellow went the extra mile: He scanned all the material, then e-mailed it to me. He also mailed me a small box full of copies. (Not just for this game, but for other projects I am working on.) ---> I also wish to thank the one young man who lives in Germany. He found much material, (one fairly large box!); and sent it to me. (copies, mostly) As I speak little German, he was kind enough to have several magazine articles translated!

Without the kind and very generous work of these fantastic people, this web page would not have been possible.

This is a game I have gone over many, many, many times. Probably too many to count. I think I may have seen this game for the very first time from a member of the Pensacola Chess Club. He used to have an original edition (book) of Lasker's games, (hard-back); the one by Reinfeld and Fine. One of the first times, (that I clearly remember); had to be as a teen-ager. I remember a group of us had been playing blitz. At the insistence of my good friend Scott, we went over a few games. (He said we should play less and study more.) So somebody pulled out a book, and we began to study. We studied this game for less than an hour before we all had to go home. We got so interested in this game, we spent all afternoon the next Saturday trying to decipher this game. This was obviously an encounter of an unusual kind. Scott then suggested that we each take a position or a variation and try to 'solve' it. He also suggested that we record all of our observations in a notebook. I was not real meticulous about recording my ideas, at least not at first. But I would find a really wild line, and I would try to remember it later, and I discovered I could not always recall exactly what I had looked at. I eventually left this game in the dust. I did not look at it again - at least not seriously - for almost five years. Then we were at a tournament in Mobile, and someone said he had gone over maybe the most amazing and complex chess game ever played. He whipped out this book on Lasker ... and we were off to the races again. This scenario repeated itself many times. When I was in the military, a friend gave me a book of Lasker's games as a birthday present. (This was while I was stationed at Kirtland A.F.B. in New Mexico.) I began a study of this game, and this time I was much better about recording my thoughts and analysis. I would look at the Lasker book at night with a flashlight and pocket set while on post. Then I would get off work at dawn and come back to my room and spend several hours recording my thoughts in my notebook until I fell asleep.

I eventually moved on to study other games, and once again it was a period of maybe 5-10 years before I was to seriously study this game again. Then when I began my web page, the e-mails began pouring. At one point, I must have been receiving close to 150 e-mails a day. When I began my project of finding and annotating all the best games of chess ever played, (click here); dozens of people suggested that I seriously look at this game. (I had some reservations about its soundness. An old friend, Master M. Appleberry and I had looked at it one night, and he did not think it was correct play.) Of course I wanted to analyze it. I looked at it many times. When the Mammoth Book first came out, I went over all 100 games in less than a week. (I would go over 10 or 20 games a day when I got home from work.) This game was in there, and Nunn seemed to pretty much refute it. The same situation repeated itself when Soltis book first came out. This game was in there, but Soltis ranked it as one of the worst/most over-rated games of all time. This, and the fact that an Internet student told me Huebner had once took this game apart in an analysis for a German chess magazine, pretty much killed any chance of this game making it into my 'Top Ten.' (But I remained interested in it.) I have worked for weeks at a time on this game, then laid it down. Sometimes I have worked on this game for 4-6 hours at one time. And I have done this more times than I care to count. I hope you enjoy this analysis. It is rather lengthy and rambling, but that is my style.

***

Click here to see an explanation of the symbols that I commonly use.

This is mostly a text-based page, with only a few diagrams. Therefore, you will probably want ... or need a chess-board.

Click HERE to see this game (UN-annotated) ... in java-script re-play form.

Tuesday; August 12th, 2003: IN THE FINAL analysis ... I wound up annotating this game 5-7 times. (I had difficulty getting a version I was completely happy with. I also wish to note that I did NOT finish several of those versions!) I was aiming for around three-to-five pages - when the game was printed out directly from the ChessBase document. (This version was close to 20 pages ... but I decided to use far fewer diagrams as I complete this HTML version of the game.) November 22nd, 2005: This game continues to fascinate people ... click here to see more.

GM Emanuel Lasker (2735) - IM William Ewart Napier (2525)

[B34] Super-Master Tournament

Cambridge Springs, PA; U.S.A. (Round #3), 28.04.1904

[A.J.G.]

********************************************************************************

*********************

One of THE most famous games of chess ever played. (A survey done in both a California newspaper AND a Dutch magazine confirms this. In both surveys, this game was in the 'top ten' best known games ever played.) Virtually every annotator of any stature has taken a whack at this game. (The list is too long to go into. See the bibliography at the end of the game.) Anyone who has ever seen this game in the book by R.N. Coles ... or the version by Reinfeld and Fine ... will understand how this game was once viewed by previous

generations of chess players. (It seems that every move is given either an exclam or even a double-exclamation point. For White ... AND Black! For example, Coles hands out something like 15 exclams, ... ... ... and FIVE (5) DOUBLE-EXCLAMS during the course of this entire game!) {Depending on what edition of his book you happen to own.} This is also one of the most complicated games of chess ever played. While it is FAR from being perfect, any player who wants to learn should sit down with this game and spend several hours with it. (Start with a UN-annotated version!) At one time hailed as one of the greatest games of chess ... - it was even referred to as an IMMORTAL GAME by several authors - ... today analysis has shown the considerable deficiencies of this contest. (Soltis calls this one of the MOST OVER-RATED games of all time!!!)

*******

The ratings are only estimates, and based on calculations of these two players last three events. (No reliable ELO exists for that time period.) {Sonas gives Lasker as being MUCH higher, and Napier as slightly lower than what I have given here.} NOTE: Many authors have heaped marks on this game ... mostly a lot of exclamation points. I tried to be a bit more reserved, and ONLY award exclams to moves that really deserve them. (Obvious ... and forced moves ... should NOT be given an exclam!) *****************************************************************************

************************

1.e4 c5; 2.Nc3!?, Is White threatening a closed Sicilian? (I doubt it.) I think Lasker wanted to avoid any systems where Black played an early ...e6; he had gotten into trouble in this line in a previous tournament. [ 75 years later, the move 2.c3!?, {Diagram?} would be all the rage. ]

2...Nc6; 3.Nf3 g6; Black intends a Dragon. ('!?') One newspaper column of that era questioned this, but it is obviously playable ... and even good. [ With the moves: 3...d6; 4.d4 cxd4; 5.Nxd4 Nf6; 6.Bg5, "+/=" we transpose into a modern form of the Sicilian known as ... "The Richter-Rauzer Attack." ]

Lasker makes the decision to go into a type of the open Sicilian ... certainly a very playable idea. (And maybe even the best.) 5.d4 cxd4; 5.Nxd4 Bg7; 6.Be3 d6; By transposition ... we have reached a completely modern opening line. (Both sides have excellent play.) [ One guy - who only wanted to sell his book - questioned ...d6; and said Black should instead play: 6...Nf6; {Diagram?} but of course both moves are fully playable. ]

7.h3!?, (Maybe - '?!') {Diagram?} White prevents pins ... and keeps all Black pieces off the g4-square, at least for the time being. By modern standards, this move is bad ... and a complete waste of time. But I think restraint is in order - for one thing, opening theory when this game was played was almost non-existent. (for this line) {One super-GM gave this move a full question mark.}

In fact - if you consult books of that period - some players thought this was the correct way to play this particular variation. (White plans Qd2, and 0-0-0; followed by a King-side attack.)

[ Probably best would have been for White to play: >/= 7.Qd2! Nf6; 8.f3! 0-0; 9.Bc4!, "+/=" {Diagram?} with a strong initiative for White. The only problem with this is that the "Yugoslav Attack" versus the Dragon would not be invented ... for another FIFTY years!!! [ See MCO-14; page # 267.]

***

By playing the moves: >/= 7.Be2 Nf6; 8.Nb3 0-0; 9.0-0 Be6; 10.f4, "+/=" {Diagram?} we transpose to the Classical Variation of the Sicilian Dragon. (These lines also would not be thoroughly explored by Soviet players for another 30-40 years.) ]

7...Nf6; 8.g4!?, It is hard to be sure what to really think about this move. (Soltis gives this move without any comment whatsoever.) Several writers have given it an exclam and claimed it was the beginning of a very dangerous attack. While a "Top 50" GM - during the decade of the 1990's - gave this move TWO question marks, and said it blows any chance for White to gain an advantage! (Obviously this is a little extreme ... to say the least!!) It is ALWAYS risky to push pawns in the opening ... and ignore your development. On the other hand, this is a real line, and has been played by no less than Bobby Fischer!! (See his match against Sammy Reshevsky.) And most computer programs evaluate this position as still pretty level. So I will not condemn this move, and simply say it is interesting. (Again a reminder: with virtually no {real} theory on this line, the players were free to do as they pleased.) [ Maybe better would have been: >/= 8.Qd2 0-0; 9.0-0-0, "~" {D?} when White still has a slight initiative in this position. ]

8...0-0!?; (Possibly - '?!') {Diagram?} Black decides to castle, and get his King out of the center. MOST (modern) annotators condemn this move and label it as dubious, or even attach ... ('?') - A FULL QUESTION MARK. (!!) I saw a very famous teacher, and this was quite a number of years ago - close to 30, in fact. (Hollywood even made a movie about one of his students!) Anyway this famous teacher was telling some little boy ... ... ... "You can NEVER castle too early!" It seems to me that many Masters, (myself included!); are big, fat hypocrites. When a "Class D" player fails to castle, we adorn his move with bunches of question marks. Here a player of obvious Master strength castles, and we heap a lot of strong criticism on his choice as well. But on a serious note, a modern player might do well to avoid castling here. You see, to castle here is to possibly - castle into an attack! '?!' - GM Andrew Soltis. (Personally I feel castling is fine here. As the opening went, Black was in no real trouble!)

[ Maybe 8...Qa5!?; {Diagram?} instead?

***

Or perhaps: 8...Bd7!?; {Diagram?} with the idea of ...Rc8; ...Ne5; and possibly then ...Nc4. ]

9.g5 Ne8!?; (Maybe - '?!') {Diagram?} Black obviously had to move his Knight, and h5 was out of the question as Be2 is embarrassing. But in my mind this move, (...Ne8) is incorrect, and places the horse on a bad square. It was probably better to play ...Nd7 in this position. I don't know that many other annotators have really made this observation. [ Clearly better was: >/= 9...Nd7!; "~" {Diagram?} the main idea being to put the Knight on e5 or c5. ]

10.h4?, White wishes to attack ... but this move is just too slow to be any good. I also wish to note that modern authors and writers are universal in their

condemnation of this move.

'?' - GM Andrew Soltis. "This is going too far." - GM John Nunn. [ Better was: >/= 10.Qd2, {Diagram?} followed by castling on the Q-side, according to GM Andy Soltis. ]

10...Nc7?!; (Maybe even - '?') {Diagram?} This looks nice - Black now threatens ...d5; when White's King in the center will be a very serious problem. MOST annotators - including Soltis - make no comment on this move at all. But it seems to me that the move is very committal and also hems in the Black Queen. I think it would have been better for Black to try ...Queen-to-a5 here, or even to exchange the Knights on d4.

*******

[ Black should seriously consider: >/= 10...Qa5!?; "" {Diagram?} with good play for Black.

***

Or >/= 10...Nxd4; "=" {Diagram?} with almost complete equality.

***

Interesting was: = 10...Qb6!?; "~" {Diagram?} with many complications. ]

*******

11.f4?!, (Maybe - '?') {See the diagram just below.} Yet another (inept) pawn move.

*************************

R2QKB1R/PPP5/2N1B3/3NPP1P/6P1/2np2p1/ppn1ppbp/r1bq1rk1 (Black to move) *************************

Lasker seems to have forgotten about all the maxims he talked about in his books! (I am mainly referring to the excellent book: "Common Sense in Chess.") What ever happened to the idea that you are supposed to: ... "push one or two pawns - to control the middle of the board - and (then) get your pieces out as quickly as possible?" - GM Emanuel Lasker.

*******

[ Most authors have recommended that White play: 11.Qd2, "~" {Diag?} in this position.

***

I think White should go ahead and play: >/= 11.h5!, "--->" {Diag?} and follow-through on his earlier ideas of swiftly starting an all-out King- side attack. ]

*******

11...e5!; (CENTER!!) Black takes advantage of White's very slow development, and decides to open the game. '!' - GM Andrew Soltis. '!' - GM John Nunn. [ Another playable idea might be: 11...d5!?; 12.Nxc6 bxc6; "~" {Diag?} with a fair position for Black. ]

12.Nde2!?, I am not sure which square is the correct one for the White Knight here, but this one obviously blocks in the White KB. (White was definitely concerned about protecting f4 and probably did not wish to exchange pieces.) [ After the moves: 12.Nb3 exf4; 13.Bxf4 Ne5; "=" {Diagram?} Black is at least equal.

***

Maybe White should try: >/= 12.Nxc6 bxc6; 13.h5; "~" {Diagram?} and hope to drum up an attack down the h-file. ]

12...d5?!; (Probably - '?') Originally lauded as daring and even VERY brilliant, this move today is seen as the beginning of a lot of problems for the second player. (Black loses a vital center pawn, and does not get adequate compensation for the material deficit.) '??' - GM Robert Huebner. '?' - GM Andrew Soltis. '?' - GM John Nunn. "This move is the trigger for the exciting complications which follow, but it is a mistake ... " - GM John Nunn.

**************

[ Maybe >/= 12...f5!?; "~" {Diagram?} instead would have been better?

***

Black should play: >/= 12...exf4!; 13.Nxf4 Ne5!?; "=" {Diagram?} ... which "was the better part of valor." - GM A. Soltis. (...Bxc3+!? here, wrecking White's pawn structure is also an idea.)

***

Soltis points out that:

14...Nxd5!; {Diagram?} A nice and tricky in-between move by Black. If White is not careful, he will quickly get a bad game. '!' - R.N. Coles. '!' - GM Andrew Soltis. '!' - GM John Nunn. '!' - Reinfeld and Fine. This is an amazing move, Napier must have seen this when he played ...d5. "A nasty surprise." - Dr. J. Hannak (Perhaps he is quoting Reti?) [ One writer said Black could try: 14...exd4!?; ('?') 15.Bxd4 Re8+; 16.Be2 f6!?; 17.gxf6 Bxf6; 18.Bxf6 Qxf6; 19.Qd2 Bg4; 20.0-0-0, '' {Diagram?} but White is much, much, MUCH better here - in this position. (Maybe just "+/-"). ]

15.Nf5!, (Maybe - '!!') A nice - and unexpected - interposition by Lasker. (Most authors give this move one exclam, some gave it two; and Fine gave it three!) {See Fine's book on the best chess games of all time. He also wrote a series of articles for the magazine, 'Chess Review' many years ago. In one of those - he covered this game.} '!!' - R.N. Coles. '!!' - Reinfeld and Fine. '!' - GM Andrew Soltis. '!' - GM John Nunn. "Lasker responds in style." - GM John Nunn. "A magnificent parry." - GM S. Tartakower and J. Du Mont > - GM Andrew Soltis. [ Interesting was: 15.Nxd5!? exd4; 16.Bg2, "~" {D?} with an unbalanced position. ]

15...Nxc3; This looks to be virtually forced. (For some reason R.N. Coles gives this move TWO exclams!) '!!' - R.N. Coles.

*******

[ Much worse for Black was:

R3KB1R/PPP5/2n1B3/5P1P/4pNP1/6p1/pp3pbp/r1br2k1 (White to move) *************************

The fun is now about to begin! 17.Ne7+, This is probably better than the capture on g7. (Nunn.) (More than one annotator has given this move an exclam ... but this looks unnecessary to me.) '!' - R.N. Coles. "One fine turn follows another!" - GM S. Tartakower & J. du Mont. [ Interesting was: 17.Nxg7!? ]

17...Kh8; {Box?} This is best. In fact it is the only move for Black to continue the game. (Both Coles and Reinfeld give this an exclamation point.) '!' - R.N. Coles. "So far the tactics are running in Black's favor. (18.bxc3, exf4; 19.Bd4, Re8; or 18.Nxc8, exf4; 19.Bxf4, Raxc8.)" - GM Andrew Soltis. Marco comments here that both Lasker and Napier have displayed an unparalleled depth to their play.

************

[ Much worse (for Black!) would have been:

(But 22.Bh3! "+/-" is much better.) {A.J.G.} ) ***

18...Raxc8 []; This is best - practically forced. 19.bxc3 ('!') 19...exf4; 20.Bd4!, "+/=" (Maybe - "") when White is clearly better. (I sent this position to one GM from an on-line chess service. {I had to pay for a lesson to get this information!} I did not tell him where it was from, I just asked him to evaluate the position. He said that: "White has an easy win, it is only a matter of some [simple] technique." ]

************

18.h5!, This is good/best ... and I think it deserves an exclam, although Soltis does not give it one. '!!' - R.N. Coles. '!!' - Fred Reinfeld and GM R. Fine. '!' - GM John Nunn. The key point about this move is White leaves the N on e7 nearly stranded, ignores the enemy Knight on c3, lets his development go, and attempts to open the h-file ... to re-ignite the embers of his attack.

************

[ White could play: = or >/= 18.f5!?, ('!') "+/=" {Diagram?} with a small advantage. (This possibility is not even mentioned by most annotators. And I was one of the first people to point this possibility out. ---> See my old web page that was posted in 1995.)

***

But White can NOT play: /= 19.f5!, "+/=" - GM A. Soltis. ) ]

19.Bc5!?, This could be nearly forced. "White revives his threat ..." - GM Andrew Soltis. (The threats are hxg6, Bc4, and then Nxg6#.) '!' - R.N. Coles. Reinfeld, R.N. Coles, ... and others! ... award this move an exclam ... but I am not entirely sure if this move is even the best move at this particular point!

[ The following continuation: >/= 19.hxg6!? Rxe7; {Diag?} This seems to be forced. ( After the relatively simple moves:

22...Bf5; 23.Nxf5 gxf5; 24.g6!?, {Diagram?} White is already in a pickle.

***

( a.) White could also try: 24.Bf7!? Rec8; 25.Bf2 Ne4; 26.g6 h6; 27.c3 Rd8; "=/+" {Diagram?} Black is at least a little better in this position. b.) Maybe White's best chance would have been: 24.bxc3!? bxc5; 25.Rd1 Re7; "/+" {Diagram?} and Black is better, however White may yet retain some drawing chances due to the presence of opposite-colored Bishops. )

***

24...h6; 25.Bd6 Rad8; 26.Bxf4 Rd4!; 27.Bxh6 Rxc4; 28.Bd2+ Kg8; 29.bxc3 Rd8; 30.Rh2 Rg4; "/+" {Diagram?} Black is clearly better here. ) (This note added: Tues; August 19, 2003.)

*******

21...Nd5; 22.Rxh7+! Kxh7; 23.Bxg6+ Kh8; 24.Bxe8 Nxe7; A reasonable move here (by Black). (One magazine examines the line: "=" 24...Bg4!?; 25.Bd7!, Bxd7; 26.Nxd5, "~" {Diagram?} ... "as {being} about equal." - GM Pal Benko in 'Chess Life.') This {sub} note added: Wednesday; January 12th, 2004.)

25.Bxe7 Bxb2!; 26.Rb1 Bc3+; 27.Kf2 Be6; "~" ("=") {Diagram?} And I rate this position as unclear. (The computer gives a tiny, tiny edge to White.) I think the average GM would have to admit that winning this position