(
I have been studying this game for years, I have been through it maybe well over
1000 times.
{ChessBase makes this easy to do, you can go through a whole game
literally in 10-20 seconds.}
I started on this game about 10 years ago, right after a tourney in TX in
1993 or 1994. {But I had seen
it years before.} I was talking to another Master. His
favorite player is Lasker, and he knows many
of his games by heart. This is the game that he told me was
one of his own personal favorites!!!
He dared me to study it in depth.
{I went over the game one
afternoon shortly after the tourney,
then forgot about it for a year or so.} Then I started another
Lasker notebook, and started recording
my thoughts and ideas.
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.
***********************************************************************************************************
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; ('!')
The best move, even today.
(Some opening manuals give
this move an exclam.)
[ 2...Nc6; or 2...g6!? ]
3.f4!?,
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!,
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!?,
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.
( </= 5.e5!? d4!; "=/+" )
5...Nxd5; 6.Nxd5 Qxd5; 7.Bxf4
Bd6!; "=" {Diagram?}
GM D. Bronstein
- GM A. Matanovic; Vienna, (AUS); 1957.
[ See MCO-14;
page # 114,
and column number nine. (# 9.)
See also notes # (h.) through
note # (k.). ] ]
**************
5.fxe5!?,
This is pushing the envelope.
Steinitz wishes to 'break down' Black's center ... but at the same
time he opens the game up ... and he is falling further behind
in
his development.
[ Maybe White should consider:
(>/=) 5.Nf3 dxe4;
6.Nxe5,
"~" {Diagram?}
with a rather unbalanced position,
but White
is no worse, I think. ]
5...Nxe5;
This is probably both forced ... and/or best for Black.
[ Much worse for Black would
be the continuation:
</= 5...d4?!;
6.exf6, "+/=" {Diagram?}
and White is definitely
a little better here. ]
6.d4!?,
White 'kicks' Black's Knight with
a gain of time ... grabs the center,
and
gains space. Yet this is a
two-edged sword, as White is
somewhat
exposed here.
[ 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!?,
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;
This is just about forced. (And also quite good for Black.)
[ </= 7...Bb4?!; ('?') 8.Qe2+!, ("=") (Maybe - "+/=") ]
8.Nxd5!?,
(Maybe - '?!') {Diagram?}
A seemingly logical move by
White ... it is also the first choice
of several
strong computer
programs.
But the move helps Black out -
who now has the Queen developed
to a
very strong square, and also
holds a "Two-to-NOTHING" edge
in the
race to develop pieces.
Several authors - most notably
Fred Reinfeld - attach a question mark
here; and label this as: < THE LOSING MOVE. >
***
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;
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,
This is now virtually forced for
White in this position.
[ </=
10.c4?!
Qe4+; 11.Qe2 Bxf3; 12.gxf3 Qxe2+;
13.Bxe2 0-0-0;
14.Be3 Bd6!; "=/+" ]
10...0-0-0;
{See the diagram just below.}
You could really give this an
exclam if you wanted to ...
it is both strong and a tad more
daring than a mundane castling
on the King-side.
(Castling on opposite wings is
normally a little riskier than castling
on the same side of the board as
your opponent.)
**************
|
|
(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: </= 11...Bxf3!?; 12.Rxf3!? Qxd4+;
13.Qxd4 Rxd4; 14.Rxf7, "~" {Diagram?}
when White might be OK.
- K. Schlechter. ) ]
11...Bd6; ('!')
Again - simple development is
the order of the day.
[ Some have suggested that Black
(instead) play the move:
11...f6!?;
{Diagram?} and I guess the idea is to keep
the
White Knight off key squares,
most notably the crucial e5-post.
(But I think Lasker's idea is both simpler AND better!) ]
12.0-0 Rhe8; "=/+"
(Maybe - '!') {See
the diagram just below.}
With very simple, straight-forward,
and logical moves ... the (then)
current World Champion has built
up a very impressive position.
(In fact - Black is probably already
slightly better.)
**************
|
|
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.)
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 </= 13.c4?! Qe6; "=/+" ("/+") ]
13...Bd7; ('!')
This {seemingly tame} retreat looks
like a loss of time ...
but is absolutely the correct move
in this position!
[ Black should not play:
</= 13...Bxf3?!;
('?') 14.Bxf3 Qc4;
15.Qb3,
"=" (Maybe - "+/=")
{Diagram?}
and White is OK ... maybe
even a little better! ]
14.Ng5!?;
{See the diagram just below.}
"This move has been strongly
criticized, but the fact is that
White is at a dead end,"
- - -
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.c4!?, ('?!')
14...Qe6!?; {Diagram?}
The safest but not necessarily the
best here in this position.
( The move: >/= 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:
</= 14.a4?!,
(Maybe - '?') {Diagram?}
most programs score a sizeable
advantage for Black. And I fail to
see what the
move really does! (In any positive manner.)
]
14...Nh4!; "/\"
This is NOT just a simple one
move mate threat ...
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:
</= 15.Bf3?!, ('?')
15...Nxf3+; 16.Nxf3!?,
{D?}
This could be forced.
( Even worse is the endgame after:
16.Qxf3?! Qxf3; 17.Nxf3,
{Diag?}
I think this is best.
( One noted author gives: </= 17.Rxf3?! Re1+; 18.Rf1 Bh2+; 19.Kf2 Bg3+;
20.Kg1 Rde8; 21.Bd2 Rxa1; 22.Rxa1 Re2; "/+" {Diagram?}
... and "Black has a winning
position." - Fred Reinfeld. )
17...Bb5;
18.Re1 Rxe1+; 19.Nxe1 Re8; 20.Nf3 Re2;
"/+" {Diag?}
landing a Rook on the always
sensitive seventh rank. )
16...Bb5!; 17.Re1 Rxe1+;
{Diagram?}
This could be best ... I analyzed
this move in depth while I was
a teenager.
***
( Black could also play the move: 17...Qf5!?; "=/+" (Maybe -
'/+') {D?}
with a clear advantage.
One noted author gives: 17...Bg3; "=/+" (Maybe - '/+')
{Diagram?}
with a very good position for
Black. ( - Fred Reinfeld.) )
***
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: </= 15.c4?? Qxg2#. ]
*************************
15...Nxg2!!; (Maybe - '!!!/!!!!')
{See the diagram just below.}
"Stunning!" "Shocking!!" < Freaking ... UNBELIEVABLE!!! >
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.
<< Maybe one of the best and most surprising/shocking moves of all of the 19th century.
This move amazed and confounded
not just the gallery of spectators, but
also many of the
masters - who were
present at this tournament and were
all closely watching this game! >>
(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?
[ </= 16.c4? Qe6; 17.Ne5 Bxe5; 18.Bg4 Qxc4; "-/+" ]
16...Bxh3+!!; HUH?!?!?
{Consult the diagram just below.}
(Does this really work?)
<< IMPRESSIVE!!!!!!!!!! >>
(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 [],
This is completely forced.
*******
[
</= 17.Kg1?!
Qe4!; "/+" {Diagram?}
and Black probably has a
winning attack.
***
Definitely Black cannot play:
</=
17.Kxh3? Qf5+!; 18.Kg2,
{Diagram?}
This is also forced.
(18.Kh4?? Re4+; & mates.)
18...Qg4+;
19.Kh1, {Diagram?}
Once again, White really
has no choice.
( 19.Kf2, (???) and 19...Qg3# )
19...Qh3+;
20.Kg1, {Diagram?}
At the risk of repeating myself,
White has no choice.
(20.Nh2?? Qxh2#)
20...Qg3+!;
21.Kh1 Re4!; "-/+" {Diagram?}
and White has no good defense
against the main threat of ...Qh3+,
followed by ...Rg4+, mating.
---> ( One author {now} gives:
21...Re4!; 22.Bg5, {Diagram?}
This is forced.
(Of course not: 22.Qe1? Rh4+; 23.Nxh4 Qh2#)
22...Rg4!?;
23.Rg1? Qh3+; 24.Nh2 Qxh2#; {Diagram?}
- The one and only ...
Fred Reinfeld. ) ]
*******
17...f6!; (Probably - '!!')
{See the diagram just below.}
"Very subtle and unexpected,
and certainly stronger than
...BxR/f1."
- Dr. J. Hannak.
(Who probably based his notes on
those by George Marco.)
**************
|
|
(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!;
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,
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 </=
19.Qb3?!,
('?') 19...e4;
"/+"
{Diagram?}
with the better game for Black.
***
Or 19.c4!?
Qe6!?, "/\" ("=/+") {Diagram?}
but each line has its own
problems for the first player. ]
***************
The next few moves all appear to be close to being the best.
19...fxg5; 20.Rxg5 Qe6;
21.Qd3 Bf4!;
This is best - (the computer also
picks this move) - and wins an
exchange, says Reinfeld.
{There were at least five moves
worthy of deep analysis at this
point.}
[ 21...Kb8!?; or 21...Re7!?; "=/+" ]
22.Rh1,
Steinitz felt this was forced.
(But White is losing an exchange,
and the game goes with it.)
*********************************************************************************
[ After the tricky moves: 22.Rb5!? Bg3+!;
23.Kg1, {Diag?}
This might be forced.
( After the continuation of: 23.Kxg3 Qg4+; 24.Kf2[] Qg2+;
25.Ke1 Qf1+; 26.Kd2 Qxa1; "/+" {Diagram?}
Steinitz felt that White was
also lost. )
23...Qxe2; "-/+" {Diagram?}
White is probably just lost.
***
It was incorrect for White to
try the continuation of:
</=
22.Rg7? Bf5!; 23.Qb5 Qe3+; 24.Kg2,
{Diagram?}
Unfortunately for White, this is
also pretty much forced.
( 24.Kf1? Bh3+; 25.Ke1 Qxf3; ("-/+") and White is lost. )
24...Qxe2+; 25.Qxe2 Rxe2+; 26.Kh1 Be4;
("-/+")
{Diagram?}
and White should simply resign.
***
Interesting is: 22.Ra5!? Kb8; "/+" (Maybe "-/+") {Diagram?}
***
Simply bad was: </= 22.Rh5? Qg4!;
23.Rxh3 Qxh3; {Diagram?}
and Black is winning. ("-/+")
]
*********************************************************************************
22...Bxg5; 23.Nxg5 Qf6+;
24.Bf3!?, {Diagram?}
One author (Reinfeld) questioned
this move ...
attached a whole question mark ...
and said it was bad because it
lost more material.
(Without
informing us what line White
should have played. And the
computers rate White as losing,
no matter what he plays.)
***
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!;
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!;
"Killing two birds with one stone," ... ... ...
says Reinfeld and Fine.
[ 27...Kb8?!; ('?') 28.Bh5!; "<=>" ]
28.Rh5!?;
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;
('!')
Black has quite a few moves that
he can play here, but this is almost
certainly the best.
[ Black should not play: </=
28...Rxh7?; ('??') {Diagram?}
This is a mistake.
29.Qxf5+ Qxf5;
30.Rxf5 Rh2+; 31.Ke3 Rxb2; 32.a4,
32...Rh8;
"/+" {Diagram?}
and although Black is better,
White has drawing possibilities,
due to the reduced material. ]
29.Rg5 Qc2+;
Accurate to the end.
[ NOT </=
29...Qxh7??; 30.Bxg4+, "~"
{Diagram?}
and White will probably not
lose this game. ]
30.Kg3 Bxf3;
('!') ("-/+")
{Diagram below.}
White ... Resigns.
(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.
<< A very brilliant game. Its most
striking feature is Black's "double
sacrifice,"
(moves 15 and 16); followed by a "quiet move."
(17...f6.) This was a logical
result
of ultra-rapid and concentric
development. >>
- GM S. Tartakower &
J. Du Mont.
I knew this was a great game. But
just how great or how complex this
struggle was ...
I had no clue. Then
I spent over 5 weeks, off-and-on,
studying this game. (With the help
of several strong programs.) Only
then did I get a hint as to the depth
of this incredible
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.)
***********************************************************************************************************
BIBLIOGRAPHY:
I have seen this game in many books
and magazines. For instance, I have
many collections
of Lasker's games,
including the ones by Barden, Hannak,
Reinfeld, etc. Also - several of
my
{former} Internet students did research
and sent me material as concerns this
game.
(And the London tournament of 1899.)
And I also must mention ... - generically - ... the (former) student in Washington
D.C.
He went to the Library of
Congress and dug up a ton of stuff on
Lasker ...
and on this player's games.
I consulted (EASILY!!!) over a dozen
books in annotating this game.
(NOT counting opening manuals!)
But the following were my chief
sources of information for {my
attempts at}
annotating this game:
**********
# 1.) A (barely readable) copy of the original tournament book.
# 2.) A photocopy - from an archive,
probably on microfilm - of several
old magazines
of that era ... all of
which are on this game.
(Courtesy of several German chaps.)
# 3.) "The {complete} Collected
Games of Emanuel Lasker,"
by Ken Whyld.
Copyright (c) 1998, by the author.
ISBN: # 1-901034-02-X
Published by 'The Chess Player.'
(The best Lasker book, in my opinion.
Every game is given, hundreds of
references. A
cross-table for practically
every event Lasker played in. Etc.)
# 4.) "Lasker's Greatest Chess
Games, 1889 - 1914." (Dover reprint.)
By Fred Reinfeld ...
and Dr./GM Reuben Fine.
Copyright (c) 1935, 1963 by the
authors.
Published by Dover/G.P.C.
Canada.
# 5.) "EMANUEL LASKER, The Life
of a Chess Master," by
Dr. J. Hannak.
Copyright (c) by the author, 1952,
& 1959. (1991? Dover reprint.)
Published by Dover Books of NY.
ISBN: # 0-486-26706-7
{My old/last copy of this book fell
apart after years of use/overuse.
So in May of 2003, I ordered a new
copy on the Internet.}
NOTE: Most big Lasker fans inform
me this is THE book to own on his
life and games!
# 6.) The most excellent book:
"Great Brilliancy
Prize Games of
The Chess Masters."
By Fred Reinfeld,
copyright (c) 1961.
(Dover reprint, that was first
{re-} published in 1995.) ISBN: # 0-486-28614-2
{I have had several copies of this
book over the years. My original book,
which
was a gift to me when I was
very young, was a hardback edition
signed by
Fred Reinfeld himself!}
# 7.) The truly great book:
"500 Master
Games Of Chess."
Game # 209, page # 270.
By GM (and Dr.)
Savielly Tartakower
and James Du Mont.
Copyright (c) 1952, by the authors.
(Repeated in 1975.)
(The copy here is a Dover reprint.)
Published by G.P.C. Ltd;
Toronto, Ontario. (Canada)
#
8.) "The (complete, collected) Games
of Wilhelm Steinitz,"
'First World Chess Champion.'
Annotated by W. Steinitz.
(Edited by Sid Pickard.)
Published by Pickard & Sons.
ISBN: # 1-886846-00-6
#
9.) 'Chess Brilliancy,'
250 historic games; by NM Iakov Damsky.
Published by EVERYMAN Chess, formerly Cadogan Books.
Translated by
K. Neat. (Copyright 2002.)
(Note: I also purchased a CD-ROM
of annotated games, this was one of
the games that
was included in that
collection ... but the notes for this
game look as if they were simply
copied {directly} from Hannak's book.)
***********************************************************************************************************
Copyright (c) A.J. Goldsby I Copyright (c) A.J.G; 2003, & 2004.
(All HTML code - initially) Generated with ChessBase 8.0
Page first
posted in January, 2001. (But it went unused and 'not-linked' for
very long time.)
This page was last updated on 03/19/06
.
***
Click HERE to go to, (or return to); my Home Page for this site.
Click HERE to go to, (or return to); my End-Game School on this site.
Click HERE to go to (or return to) my page on Emanuel Lasker.
***
Click HERE to go to, (or return to); my page on Paul Morphy.
Click HERE to go to, (or return to); my web page on Mikhail TAL.
***
Click HERE to go to, (or return to); my Geo-Cities page on the Best Chess Players who ever lived.
Click HERE to go to, (or return to); my page on the Best Chess games of all time.
***
(Or click the 'Back" button on your web browser.)
***
I basically worked on
this game close to FIVE months ... (on-and-off)
annotating it. (Several times!)
Then it took OVER a month, (two ... actually); to get the HTML page ready for publication.
(I only worked on it a few minutes ... 10-15 ... every day. Several other PAYING
projects got moved
ahead of this one.)
I will gladly mail you
a copy of this game if you contact
me. (For a very modest fee.)
[I have to charge a fee to cover my costs ... printing, paper, and postage fees.
That sort of thing.]
Copyright (©) A.J. Goldsby, 2003 - 2005.
Copyright © A.J. Goldsby, 2006. All rights reserved.
