F. J. Marshall - World Champ. Em. Lasker 

  Frank J. Marshall (2350) - Emanuel Lasker (2787)  
[D50]
Super-Master (Round-Robin) Tournament 
  Paris, France (Round # 6), 28,05,1900.  

[A.J. Goldsby I]

Marshall himself considered this one of his very best games. It  IS  notable, if for no other reason, than for the fact that this was the ONLY chess game that Lasker lost during the whole of this extremely strong event. 

A slightly unusual opening is quickly followed by a position where White basically traps a Black Knight behind the lines. The next segment of the game features White trying to encircle and win the poor beast ... and Lasker, of course!, struggling mightily to prevent this from happening. 

In the end, Marshall wins the Knight ... but Lasker was NEVER one to go quietly! Marshall indeed wins the game, but not before overcoming all the tricks and resistance that his opponent can muster. An very entertaining game. 

This win was also part of a 6-1 spurt in the early part of the tournament for young Marshall. Unfortunately (later) he dropped a couple of key games and did not get first or second prize.

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

{The rating for Lasker comes from the web site, "Chess-Metrics," by the statistician, Jeff Sonas. The rating for Marshall is merely a pre-tournament estimate. Marshall had little or no International experience prior to this event.} 

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

 1.d4 d5;  2.c4 e6;  3.Nc3 Nf6;  4.Bg5,  {Diagram?}    
The main line of the Queen's Gambit, and the method first extensively used by another 
great American player ... Harry Nelson Pillsbury.  (4.Bg5 =  "The Pillsbury Attack.") 

     [ After   4.Nf3,   Lasker used to (nearly) always play the move:  
        (4.)  ...c5!?;  {Diagram?}   claiming that Black gained complete 
         equality with this 'hit' on the center. ]   

 4...c6;  ('!?')  {Diagram?}     
"Somewhat unusual for Lasker," says the Hilbert book on Marshall. 
{See the Bibliography at the end of this game.} Normally Lasker played the move ...c5; 
  at this point. 
 (For one example, see Lasker's win over the great H.N. Pillsbury from the great St. Petersburg 
  [Quadrangular]  Match Tournament of 1895-'96. Lasker considered this game to be the greatest  
  game of the whole of his chess career.) 

Of course there is nothing wrong with the move ...c6 at this point, it greatly fortifies the center 
and also keeps the second player's options open.  

     [ Of course the move:  4...Be7;  {Diagram?}   
       (immediately breaking the pin), is still the one that is most often  
        played at this point - and almost always leads to the main lines.   

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

       With the moves of:  4...dxc4!?;  5.e3,  {Diagram?}     
        we could transpose to a  "Queen's Gambit Accepted."  ]   

 5.e4!?,  (premature?)  {Diagram?}     [ Please note: '?!' - GM Andrew Soltis.]      
An in-depth study of Marshall's games will reveal that he had a predilection for an early P-K4, 
and played it at almost every available opportunity. (He even invented a Gambit in the Slav - that  
is still named after him - that features an early e2-e4 advance.) 

Depending on which opening book that you read, this move is either good or bad! Some call it: 
 "an inferior simplifying advance, greatly increasing the odds of the game ending in a draw."  
Another opening manual praises this moves as: "the most vigorous response." (But does note that 
it presents the second player with increased opportunities for some early simplification.) 

My take on this move is that is fully playable, and it may also boil down purely to a question of style. 
Do you like active piece play  ...  or do you prefer a slower build-up in the opening phase of a chess game? 

*******

"For a number of years I was fond of this move in similar positions. Eventually I discarded it, 
 as it cannot lead to a permanent initiative."   - GM Frank J. Marshall. (M.F.Y.O.C.)  

     [ After the moves of:   (>/=)  5.Nf3 Nbd7;  6.e3 Be7;  7.Rc1 0-0;  8.Bd3,  {Diag?} 
        we have transposed to the main lines of the    "Queen's Gambit Declined."     
        ( See any good opening book, like  "Modern Chess Openings." {MCO} )  

       As this heroic contest was played over 100 years ago, I strongly feel any thorough 
       opening survey would be both pointless and completely misplaced!  ]   

The next few moves look reasonable.  
 5...dxe4;  6.Nxe4 Bb4+;  7.Nc3,  {Box?}  {Diagram?}     
This move appears to be virtually forced for White.  

      [ Another move had been played by White in this position:  
        </=  7.Bd2?! Bxd2+!;  {Diagram?}   
        This is definitely the most accurate move for Black in this position.  

            ( Less accurate is:  </=  7...Qa5!?; ('?!')   8.Nd6+ Ke7;     
              9.c5!, "+/="  {Diagram?}  and White went on to win ...     
              as actually occurred in one of Pillsbury's games. )       

        8.Nxd2 [],  {Diagram?}   This is completely forced.  

            ( </= 8.Qxd2?? Nxe4; "-/+" )      

        8...Qxd4;  "/+"  {Diagram?}  
        is - in all probability - an unsound pawn sacrifice. ]    

 7...c5!?;  (counter-attack)  {Diagram?}     
Almost dogmatically - as he advised in his "Manual of Chess," - Lasker  pursues the 
c7-c5 advance here. {But it may not even be the best move here, despite the fact that 
many authors have given it an exclam.} 

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

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

"It begins to appear as if White will have trouble with his Queen-side Pawns." - F.J. Marshall.   

     [  >/= 7...h6!;  8.Bf4!? 0-0;  9.a3! Be7;  10.Nf3, "="  ]   

 8.a3 Bxc3+;  9.bxc3 Qa5!;  10.Bd2[] Ne4;  ('!?')  {Diagram?}    
I am sure that this move is very sharp, and also fully playable. And contrary to what he advised all students to do, 
(in his book, "Lasker's Manual of Chess"); Lasker often sought out complications in the opening phase of the game ... 
often (even) deferring his development to do so!  

     [ Maybe Black should play:  
       (>/=)  10...0-0;  11.Nf3 Ne4;  12.Bd3 Nxd2;    
       13.Qxd2, "="  {Diagram?}   with a good game for both sides. ]    

 11.Nf3!?,  (Maybe - '!')  {Diagram?}    
"Very subtle, and - in view of the (end) result - quite sound." William Ewart Napier.  
(Napier was a strong player, and the subject of a book I recently purchased.  
 "Napier - The Forgotten Chess Master,"  {© 1997}  by John S. Hilbert.)    

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

In actuality, this move sets a trap ... albeit a very deep one. Marshall offers the c-pawn as bait ... 
and hopes Lasker will accept.  

     [ After the moves:  11.Bd3 Nxd2;  {Diagram?}   
        we transpose into the last note. ]    

 11...Nxc3!?;  (dubious?)    {See the diagram ... just below.}      
Lasker accepts the challenge ... grabs the proffered pawn  ...  "and is - from
 this point on - clearly outwitted."  - W.E. Napier. (- Brooklyn Eagle,1900.)  

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

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

"Although careful analysis proves this move to be playable, the results it achieves are 
  hardly worth the risk involved."  - F.J. Marshall.  ( '?!' - Frank J. Marshall ) 

     [ Probably better is:  >/=  11...Nc6!;  12.Qc2!? Nxd2;  13.Qxd2 0-0; "="  {Diagram?} 
        when Black has at least full equality from this position. (Possibly -  "=/+") ]   

 12.dxc5!, '±'  (pin, on the e1 to a5 diagonal)  {Diagram?}   
Based on the newspaper accounts in Paris about this game, it is highly probable that Lasker  
underestimated, or simply missed this move. (One account said he gave a small snort and 
shifted in his chair about the time that this move was played.)   '!' - Frank J. Marshall.   

"White has been outplayed in the opening, but makes a fine decision at move(s) 
  11 and 12." - GM Andy Soltis.  ('!' - GM Andrew Soltis.)   

     [ Much less accurate would be:  </=  12.Qc2!?, ('?!')   12...cxd4;  13.Nxd4,     
        13...Qe5+;  14.Be3 Ne4; "~"  {Diagram?}   when Black is probably 
       already just a little better. ]   

Now White threatens the very plain Qc2, and the Knight on c3 is simply lost for little or no 
compensation. This forces Lasker to capture on d1, and hope that he can ride out storm. 
(The next few moves appear forced.)  
 12...Nxd1;  13.Bxa5 Nb2;  {Diagram?}   
The Knight tries to escape on a4, but this is easily ruled out by Marshall.  

Soltis ... MOST incorrectly - gives this move a dubious mark. ('?!') He goes on to note 
that Black could have played ...b6; as recommended by the great Karl Schlechter. 
(But the idea simply does not stand up to close scrutiny.) 

     [ After the moves:  </=  13...b6?!; ('?')  14.cxb6 axb6;  15.Bxb6 Nb2;     
        16.Bd4 Na4;  17.Bxg7, '±'  (Maybe  "+/-")  {Diagram?}     
         Black is two Pawns down ... and his position is a wreck.  
         (I think - and all the computer programs agree with me - that this is even 
          WORSE than what happened in the game!!)  ]   

 14.a4!!,  (encirclement)  {See the diagram just below.}     
This is easily the most ambitious move, and it is far from being simple.  
But, of course, Marshall was never one to shy away from complications! 
(Not even all the computers play this move, even after several minutes ...  
  of  "thinking"  time.) 

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

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

This is the move - Soltis says - that Lasker must have missed in his calculations 
earlier in the game. 

     [ White can also play:  (</=)  14.Bc3! Na4;  15.Bxg7 Rg8;  16.Bd4 Nc6;  
        17.Be3 e5;  18.Rb1, "+/="  {Diagram?}  
       Several different programs confirm that White has a fairly solid edge in 
       this position. (But this is far from the winning advantage that Marshall  
       actually got in the game.)  ]  

 14...Bd7;  (piece-play)  {Diagram?}   
Now a4 is attacked twice, and Black threatens ...Nxa4; and then ...Nxc5; 
with a considerable advantage.  

"The only reply to the threatened R-R2."  - Frank J. Marshall   

 15.c6!, (interference, delaying)   {See the diagram ... just below.}      
The Hilbert book calls this a very pretty move, and it is. The main point is that White will try 
to exchange off the Black QB, and thus continue to try and win the Black Knight. 

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

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

In his early days, at the Hope Coffee House in Montreal, Frank J. Marshall (supposedly)  
spent a lot of time studying chess problems. Here it is shown in a fine move ... that clearly 
has its roots in that field.  

*******

"A surprise reply," says F.J. Marshall.   ('!' - Frank J. Marshall.)    

*******

"A splendid move ... that forces Black to occupy c6 in an awkward way."  - GM Andy Soltis  
 ('!!' - GM Andrew Soltis.)    

*******

     [ One old book points out the line:   
        </= 15.Bb4?! Na6;  16.Ba3?! Nxa4;  17.Ne5 N4xc5;  "/+"  {Diagram?}    
        and Black has no problems here. ]   

 15...Bxc6;  16.Ne5!,  ('!!')  {Diagram?}    
A nice tactic, the Bishop is attacked, even the retreat to d7 is cut off.  

     [ Also very good was:  16.Nd4!,  "+/="  {Diagram?}   
        when White does not have to worry about a later ...f6; by Black. ]   

 16...Be4?;  (error / '??')   {See the diagram ... just below.}     
It is not unlike Lasker - as in his game versus Napier from CS 1904 - to go seeking more complications 
at every possible turn. But here the great player outwits himself and greatly worsens his position, with  ...Nd7;  
his game would have been only slightly worse.  

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

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

(I think both Soltis and Marshall award this move a question mark as well.)  

     [ After the moves:  >/=  16...Nd7!;  17.Nxc6 bxc6;  18.Bc3 Rb8;  
        19.Bxg7 Rg8;  20.Bd4! c5!?;  (Maybe - '!')  {Diagram?}   
        This is probably best here.  

           ( Napier gives the continuation:  </=  20...e5?;  21.Bxa7 Rb4?!;        
              when  (22.) a5, yields a fairly large and substantial edge to White.  )        

        21.Bc3 h6;  22.a5!? Ke7;  23.Kd2!, "+/="  (To ---> c2)  {Diagram?}  
        and White may only be a tiny bit better in this position.  ]    

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

Several different databases ... and at least two books! ... give White as playing Bc3 in this position.   
(But this appears to be clearly incorrect. See Ken Whyld's book on Lasker.)  

I was both amazed - and thoroughly disgusted - to find that the Soltis book on Marshall also 
gives the moves:  17.Bc3, f6;  18.f3, Bc2!   Ugh! Yuk!!  And  ...  Wrong, wrong, wrong!!!  
 17.f3!?, (hmmm)   {Diagram?}   
While seemingly a very strong move ... a deep analysis of this position with a    
computer demonstrates that it may not be the best move that White has here.   
(If I were from the modern school of annotating - which I am proud to say that    
 I am not! - I would attach marks to Marshall's move for missing the win here,    
 at this particular juncture. Even Bc3 was {probably} better than this move.)   

Every book that I consulted gave this move without any comment at all! 

     [ The best move was Ra2 here for Marshall, which should win in a rather 
        elementary fashion. Viz:  
        >/=  17.Ra2! f6[];  18.f3!,  {Diagram?}     
        The sharpest rejoinder.  

           ( </= 18.Rxb2!? fxe5; 19.Re2, "~" )     

        18...Bf5;  19.g4! fxe5; {Box?}  {Diagram?}     
        This - now - appears close to being forced in this position.  

           ( </= 19...Bg6?; 20.Nxg6 hxg6; 21.Rxb2, "+/-" )     

        20.gxf5 Nc6;  21.Bc3 Nxa4;  22.Rxa4 exf5;  23.c5!, '±'  {Diag?}    
        when I think that a Master would consider White's game to be a win  
        ("+/-")  from this position.  

        As far as I know, I am the first to notice anything wrong with 17.f3,  
        the move that Marshall actually made here.  ]   

 17...f6?;  (A terrible mistake.)  {Diagram?}    
This is a move that had a fairly simple refutation. 
(The only question is why didn't Marshall find it?)  

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

     [ Black simply had to play:  >/=  17...Nc6[];  18.Bc3!,   
         18...Nxe5[];  {Diagram?}   This definitely looks forced here.  

           ( </=  18...Nxa4??;  19.Rxa4, "+/-" )     

        19.Bxb2! Nd3+;  20.Kd2! Rd8;  {Diagram?}    
        Once again - this looks to be the only real try for Black here.  

            ( Worse was:  </= 20...Nxb2?;  21.fxe4 Rd8+;  22.Kc2 [], {Diag?}      
               The King must guard d1 and d3.  

                 ( </= 22.Kc3?? Nd1+, etc. )     

              22...Nxc4;  23.Bxc4, '±'  {Diagram?}    
              White is just a piece ahead, and should win with best play. )    

       21.fxe4! Nf2+;  22.Ke3 Nxh1;  23.Bxg7 Rg8;  24.Bf6 Rd7;      
       25.Be2 Rxg2;  26.Rxh1, '±'  {Diagram?}      
       With two Bishops for a R+P, the position should be one which Marshall 
        would be quite happy to play. (Maybe "+/-") 
        (But it still was an improvement over the course of the actual game.) 

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

        Also no good for Black would have been the continuation:   
        </= 17...Bf5?;  18.g4 Bc2;  19.Ra2! Bxa4; 
        20.Rxb2, '±'  (Probably  "+/-")  {Diagram?}     
        and White should win. ]    

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

 18.Bc3!?,  (tricky)   {Diagram?}    
While very complicated and possibly winning  ...  why not the simple f3xe4 
here; with a piece ahead and a fairly elementary win for White? 

Marshall (harshly) gives this move a full question mark, ('?') and says:  
"Not the best." (He goes on to note that PxB was much more exact.)   

     [ Obviously better was:   >/=  18.fxe4! fxe5;  19.Bc3 Nxa4 [];   
        20.Rxa4,  "+/-"  (+ 2.27)  {Diagram?}    
        when most programs consider White's advantage to be winning.  
        (F.J. Marshall also gives this line as well.)  ]   

 18...Bc2?!,  (Maybe - '?')  {Diagram?}    
This is obviously an inferior move here, the only question here has to be:  
"Why did Lasker essentially make three bad moves in a row?"  

I think the answer has to be something to do with time. Older tournaments often used time 
controls like 20 moves per hour. If this were true, then it could have been very possible that 
both Lasker and Marshall were running short of time and had to hurry their moves from this 
position. Otherwise, I am at a complete loss to explain how two such very strong players 
could miss such fundamental and fairly easy continuations - as they did in this particular game.  

It is almost comical to note that this causes a severe dip in most boxes' 'evals' of this position. 
It is even funnier when you realize that Marshall gave this move an exclam! (As did Soltis.)   

     [ Black had to play something like:  >/=  18...Bf5 [];  19.g4 Bc2;  20.Kd2 Nd1;  
        21.Kxc2 Ne3+;  {Diagram?}  This is probably best here.  

           ( It was even worse for Black to play instead:      
             </=  21...Nxc3?;  22.Nd3!, "+/-"  {Diagram?}      
             and the White Knight on c3 is trapped ...       
             seemingly a recurring theme in this game! )     

        22.Kd2 Nxf1+;  23.Rhxf1 fxe5;  24.Bxe5, "+/="  (Maybe - '±')  {Diag?}    
        and White is at least a little better in this position. ]  

 19.Kd2!,  (cool)  {Diagram?}    
The most accurate.  

     [ </= 19.Bxb2!? fxe5;  20.Bxe5, "+/="  ]    

The next few blows are forced.  
 19...Nxa4;  20.Kxc2 Nxc3;  21.Nd3!,  ("+/-")  (nice)   {See the Diagram below.}    
The final insult, the Black Knight on c3 is trapped and Marshall will remain a piece ahead.  

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

************************* 

Lasker does get three Pawns for his lost cavalryman, but his position is simply too bad 
for this fact to be of any real significance. 

 '!'  - GM Frank J. Marshall.      

     [ </=  21.Kxc3?! fxe5; "=/+"  (or)  21.Ng4!? f5;  22.Ne5, '±' ]    

 21...Nd5;  ('!?')  {Diagram?}   
Black tries to get as much material for the lost horseman as he can, and this is certainly 
easy to understand.  

     [ Or  21...Ke7;  22.Kxc3, '±'  ("+/-")  ]   

 22.cxd5 exd5;  (3BP's vs. a WN)   {Diagram?}    
Marshall notes that Lasker has three buttons for the Knight, and says that:   
  ... "White still has his work cut out for him."  - F.J. Marshall   

 23.Nc5 b6;  24.Bb5+!?,  {Diagram?}    
This is - absolutely! - good enough to win the game. 
(But did White perhaps have a small improvement here?)   

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

     [ White can get into trouble with:  </=  24.Ne6!? Kf7!;  25.Nc7??,  
        25...Rc8; "-/+"  {Diagram?}   and White loses a piece ... thanks 
        to the pin on the c-file.   

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

        Maybe a slight improvement would have been the continuation of:   
         (>/=)   = 24.Na4! Nd7;  25.Nc3! d4!?;  {Diagram?}     
        Not a great move, but Black's position is probably not salvageable  
         from this point, anyway.  

        26.Bb5! dxc3!?;  27.Rhe1+! Kf7;  {Diagram?}  
        This is forced.  

           ( </=  27...Kd8?;  28.Red1 Kc8;  29.Rxd7 g6;      
              30.Raxa7 Rxa7;  31.Rxa7, "+/-" )       

        28.Bxd7 a5;  29.Kxc3, "+/-"  {Diagram?}      
        From here the win is only a matter of some technique. ]   

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

 24...Kf7;  25.Na4 Nc6!;  {Diagram?}    
"A neat play,"  says the Hilbert book.  ('!' - Frank J. Marshall)    

                                             *******                

"Clever tactics." - GM A. Soltis.  ('!' - GM Andrew Soltis.)   

                                             *******       

     [ </=  25...Rc8+?;  26.Kb2 Nc6;  27.Nxb6! axb6;  28.Bxc6! Rxa1;  
        29.Bxd5+ Ke7;  30.Rxa1, "+/-" ]    

 26.Nc3,  ('!?')   {Diagram?}    
Marshall passes on any tricks ... or a pin in the c-file. 
(But maybe he should have just taken on c6, the simplification seems to favor  
 White from this position.)  

      [ Maybe the best line for White is the straight-forward:    
         (>/=)  26.Bxc6!? Rhc8;  27.Rhd1, '±'  {Diagram?}  
         when White is substantially better. ]  

 26...Rhc8!?;  27.Rhd1 Ne7;  28.Kb2!? Rc5;  29.Bd3!? a5;  {Diagram?}    
This seems to be pretty much forced.  

     [ </= 29...b5?!;  30.Nxb5 Rb8;  31.Rxa7 Rcxb5+;  32.Bxb5 Rxb5+;   
         33.Kc3 Rc5+;  34.Kd3, '±'   ("+/-")  {Diagram?}  ]    

Marshall gives his 31st play an exclam.  (As does GM Andrew Soltis.)    
 30.Na4 Rc6;  31.Rac1! Rb8;  {Diagram?}   
Understandably, Black is hesitant to exchange anything, as he is a piece 
down here.  

     [ Black could also try:   31...Rac8!?;  or even:   31...Rxc1;  {Diagram?}   
        but White is winning in either case. ]   

 32.Rxc6 Nxc6;  {See the diagram ... just below.}    
Black seems to be OK here ... 

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

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

But there is a hidden tactic in this position that  everyone  seems to have missed 
at this point in the game.  

 33.Rc1!?,  {Diagram?}   
This is good, but perhaps better was Nc3!, which seems to be winning nearly instantly 
for Marshall.  

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

     [ A much superior line was the following continuation:    
        >/= 33.Nc3! Ne7;  {Diagram?}   This is nearly forced.   

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

            ( Much inferior was:  (a.)   </=  33...Ke6?!;  34.Re1+!,  {Diagram?}    
               This is probably best.   

*******

                   ( Not quite as effective would be:  </=  34.Nxd5!?, Kxd5;  {Diagram?}     
                     Otherwise - Black loses a button for no compensation.       

                     35.Be4+, Kc5;  36.Rc1+, Kb4;  37.Rxc6,  '±'  (Maybe "+/-")  {D?}      
                     and White should win.  (The main difference between this continuation ...      
                     and the main line, is that Black's King is MUCH more active here.)        

*******

               34...Kd6;  35.Nb5+ Kd7;  {Diagram?}  
               This is forced, the only other move loses much more material.  

                   ( </=  35...Kc5??;  36.Rc1+! )      

               36.Bf5+ Kd8;  37.Rd1 Nb4;  38.Bxh7, "+/-"  {Diagram?}   
               winning easily.

   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   

               Also less than best was:  (b.)  (</=)  33...d4!?;  ('?!')  34.Nb5, Rd8;  35.Be4,  
               35...Ne5;  36.Rxd4, '±'  ("+/")  {Diagram?}      
               when Fritz 8.0 says that White is winning easily. ("+/-")  )     

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

        34.Nxd5! Nxd5;  35.Bc4, "+/-"  {Diagram?}   
        and White should without any real difficulty.  
        (Again - I may be the first one to find this tactic for Marshall on move 33.)   

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

        Also interesting was:  33.Bxh7!? g6;  34.Rxd5 Rb7;     
        35.Rd6, '±'  {Diagram?}   and White is clearly better. ]    

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

 33...Ne5;  34.Rc7+ Ke6;  {Box?}   {Diagram?}     
Other moves lost even more rapidly, at least according to Marshall.  

 35.Bb5 g5!?;  36.Ra7!?,  {Diagram?}     
I believe it was Marshall himself who said that taking the h-pawn would 
have allowed Black's Q-side Pawns to become too dangerous. 
(But none-the-less, this may have been the indicated course for White.)  

     [ Perhaps White can consider:  (>/=)  36.Rxh7!? d4;  37.Kc1 Kd5;     
        38.Rh6, '±'  (Maybe  "+/-")  {Diagram?}    
        when White is clearly (much) better. ]  

 36...d4!?;  (Maybe - '?!')   {Diagram?}    
This is OK, but maybe ...h5; or even ...Nc4+; was a little better.  

Surprisingly - GM Andy Soltis awards this move an exclam here! 

     [ >/=  36...h5;  37.Ra6, "+/=" ]     

 37.Ra6!? Kd5!?;  {Diagram?}     
Black is trying to activate the King ... but this may not be the very best  
move that Black had in this position.  

     [ >/=  37...Kd6!;  38.Kc1, "+/=" ]   

Soltis awards White's next move an exclam ('!'), and it probably deserves one. 
(White re-centralizes the King, and avoids an unpleasantries ... like a Knight fork.)   
 38.Kc2! Rb7!?;  (defense)  {Diagram?}   
This could be the best that Black has in this position. Note that because of the threats 
to the b-Pawn, Black's Rook is more or less frozen here.  

     [ A less accurate defense would be:   </=  38...Nc6!?; ('?!')  39.Kd2,  
        39...Nb4?!; {Diagram?}   This is bad,  ...Kd6;  was indicated. 
        40.Ra7 Ke6;  41.Rxh7, '±'  {Diagram?}  and White is clearly better. ]   

 39.Ra8 Nc6!?;   (Maybe - '?!')   {Diagram?}   
Black continues to play a somewhat less-than-best defense. 
(Probably the best move was ...Nc4; but maybe Lasker was trying to avoid exchanges.)    

     [ Black should probably try:  >/=  39...Nc4;  "<=>"  {Diagram?}   
        aiming for   ...Ne3;  next.  ]  

 40.Kd2 Nb4!?;  (hmmm)   {Diagram?}   
I am not sure about this move either. 
(It seems Black should play ...f5; or even ...h5; trying to exchange off a couple 
 of the K-side Pawns. Or maybe even just the simple ...Ne7.)  

     [ I like:  (>/=)  40...h5!?;  {Diagram?}   which is a move 
       I wrote in the margin of one of my books as a teenager. ]   

 41.Rd8+ Ke5;  42.Nb2 Rc7;  43.Nc4+!,  {Diagram?}   
The most active move for White, four, (out of five that were tested); students wanted 
to play ...Nd3+; in this rather complex and somewhat bizarre position.  

     [ </= 43.Nd3+!? Nxd3;  44.Bxd3, "+/=" ]   

 43...Kf5;  44.Rxd4, ('!')  {Diagram?}   
"After the win of this Pawn, the rest is easy."  - GM Frank J. Marshall.  

     [ Not  </=  44.Nxb6? Rc2+;  "<=>"  {Diagram?}    
        when Black has play. ]   

 44...Rc5!?;  {Diagram?}   
Black continues to play actively, and it no longer matters as the game is more 
or less falling apart for the great Lasker from here.  

     [ Maybe  (>/=)  44...Kg6;  {Diagram?}   was OK. ]   

 45.Be8!?,  (Maybe - '!')   {Diagram?}   
"Well played. He now threatens Re4, followed by g4 mate or Nc3 mate.  
  Black's only escape would be ...g4; which, however, would cause a loss 
  in material. Black is thus obliged to play ...Rd5; which gives White a 
  winning advantage" (from here). - from the Hilbert book on Marshall.  
 (Maybe quoting Napier or Adams.)  

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

     [ Or   (>/=)  45.Ba4! h5;  {Diagram?}      
        Something like this could be forced.  

*******

           ( </=  45...b5?;  46.Bxb5! Rxb5??;  47.Nd6+ Ke5;      
              48.Nxb5, "+/-"  {Diagram?}      

  ***  

              (or)  = 45...Nc6!?;  46.g4+ Kg6;  47.Bc2+ Kg7;  48.Rd7+,      
               48...Kf8;  49.Nxb6, ("+/-") {Diagram?}  - CM 9000 )       

*******

        46.Nxb6,  ("+/-")  {Diagram?}  
        with a relatively easy win for White from here. ]    

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

 45...Rd5;  {Box?}   {See the diagram just below.}      
I could not believe it, but several different programs confirm that this  
move is pretty much forced for Lasker.  

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

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

All of the alternatives here for Black are worse ... and clearly losing. 

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

     [ Simply losing is:  </=  45...Nc6?;  ('??')  46.g4+ Ke6;  47.Rd6+ Ke7;   
       48.Rxc6 Kxe8;  49.Rxc5 bxc5;  50.Nxa5 Kd7;  51.Kd3 Kd6;    
       52.Ke4 Ke6;  53.Nc4 h6;  54.h3, "zug"  ("+/-")  {Diagram?}      
       Black is in Zugzwang.   

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

       A line that shows the venom of Marshall's Be8 idea is:   
       </=    45...a4?;  46.Re4! g4[];  {Diagram?}     
       This move ... or something like it ... is clearly forced here.  

            ( </=  46...b5??;  47.g4# )      

       47.Nd6+ Kg5;  48.Rxg4+ Kh6;  49.Nf7+ Kh5;  50.Nd8+ Kh6;  
       51.Ne6 Rd5+;  52.Kc3 Na2+;  53.Kb2,  ("+/-")   {Diagram?}      
       Lasker's Knight is trapped, and even if Black manages to defend  
       this threat, White also has the threat of Rh5#.   

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

       The other Black defense also fails:  
       </=  45...Ke6?!;  ('?')  46.Re4+ Kd5[];  {Diagram?}  
       Not much of a choice here.  

           ( </= 46...Kf5???;  47.Nd6# )    

       47.Nxb6+ Kd6;  48.Nc4+, etc.  {Diagram?}  
       White has a win ("+/-") from this particular position. ]    

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

 46.Ne3+ Ke5;  47.Nxd5 Kxd4;  48.Nxb4!,  (simplify)  {Diagram?}     
The best - when you have a win, why mess around?   

"Better perhaps than 48.Nxb6, for Black answers ...Nd3, and eventually ...Nf4;  
 with some fighting chances."  - The Hilbert book on Marshall.  

     [ If White plays:  48.Nxf6!? h6;  49.Ng4 h5;  50.Bxh5 a4; <=>"  {Diag?}   
        Black might be given a little hope; and thus encouraged to  
        struggle on from here. ]    

The rest really requires no comment. (Other than to note that Soltis gives 
 White's 54th and 58th move a full exclamation point.)   
 48...axb4;  49.Bf7 f5;  50.Bg8 h5;  51.Bf7 h4;  52.h3 b5;  53.Be8 Kc4;  54.Bd7! b3;      
 55.Bxf5 Kb4;  56.Bd3 b2;  57.Kc2 Ka3;  58.Kb1, ('!')  ("+/-")  {Diagram?}      
  --->  Black  -  finally!  -  Resigns.    

It is hopeless to struggle on from this particular position. 

"This stops the Black King from getting to the a2-square. White will now win both Pawns 
  on the Queen-side ... and by (then) playing the King to the other side of the board, the win 
  is easily enforced."  - Jimmy Adams.  

Personally I find this to be a rather flawed game, the computer reveals that both sides may 
have missed the best move at numerous junctions in this struggle. But when taken in the context  
of the time in which it was played, and also given the fact that Lasker lost so few games, it is 
historically an important struggle. It was also obvious that Lasker played this defense, while 
perhaps not perfectly;  with all the resistance of his great intellect, and all the legendary 
will-power that he could muster.  

"The defeat of Lasker was a sensation, and quick wins in the next two rounds left Marshall    
  with a surprising score of 6-1, {which left him} tied with Pillsbury."    
  (Lasker and Mieses had 6.5!!!)  - GM Andrew Soltis.  (In his book - see just below.)    

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

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

 BIBLIOGRAPHY:   

Below are the books that I consulted, given in the order that they were used.  

# 1.)  "The Collected Games of EMANUEL LASKER,"  by  Ken Whyld.  
Copyright (c) 1998, by the author. Published by The Chess Player.  
(Printed in the Czech Republic.)  ISBN:  # 1-901034-02-X  

# 2.)  "Young Marshall," (The early chess career of F.J. Marshall, with collected 
games from 1893 through 1900.) By  John S. Hilbert,  Copyright (c) 2002.   
(The series Editor: Vlastimil Fiala)  Copyright CAISSA-90. 
Printed by the Publishing House of Moravian Chess.  ISBN:  # 80-7189-438-9   
{This excellent book lists several sources for this game that are not readily obtainable today.} 

# 3.)  A photo-copy ... of the book;  "Paris, 1900."  

# 4.)  "My Fifty Years of Chess,"  ('The Triumphs of an American Chess Champion'); 
by  GM Frank J. Marshall.  Copyright (c) F.J. Marshall, 1942.   
Copyright (c) 2002, by the Publisher.
[ A Hardinge Simpole, UK; re-print. ]   ISBN: # 1-84382-053-6 

# 5.)  "Frank Marshall, United States Chess Champion," 
           ('A Biography with 220 Games');  by  GM Andy Soltis.  
           Copyright (c) 1994, by the author.  Published by McFarland & Company. 
           (Box 611; Jefferson, NC;  U.S.A.)  ISBN:  # 0-89950-887-1  (library binding)  

# 6.)  I used to have a copy of the book:  "Marshall's Chess Swindles,"   floating around the 
house. But I could not find it when I went looking for it. (I have been over the games in there 
many times.) 

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

I consulted at least a dozen opening books, plus many general reference works like MCO, NCO, ECO, etc. I also looked at a handful of other books, like "Great Chess Upsets." (But the above books were up and away the most help in my attempts to annotate this game.)  I also have a book in German on Marshall, and also one in Russian. But these were mainly used just to verify just the moves. 

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

   Copyright (c) A.J. Goldsby I.   
  Copyright (©) A.J. Goldsby, 2001-2004.  
  (Apparently I started analyzing this game several years ago,   
  but never got around to finishing it.)  
   Copyright (©) A.J. Goldsby, 2005.  All rights reserved.   

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

  All games - HTML code - initially generated with the program,  ChessBase 8.0.  

   My diagrams on this page were generated with the program   Chess Captor 2.25.    

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

   1 - 0