Lasker´s Best Games

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; 7.00 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 superbrilliancy. (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.) [ /= 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. [ - 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.) 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-tofive 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 Kingside 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: /= 20.bxc3 Bf8; 21.Bb5, '±' {Diagram?} White gains an obvious advantage. (I will spare you a "30-move-deep" analysis ... any strong computer program will confirm that White is indeed much better ... and possibly even winning from this position.) ***

(According to R.N. Coles, the following continuation: 21.Bb5 Rxe7; 22.Bxe7 Bxe7; {Diagram?} ... "offers Black excellent drawing prospects," ... but this is just plain nonsense! After the further moves: 23.Rxh5 Bg4; 24.Rh4 Bf5; 25.fxe5 Bxg5; 26.Rb4 Be6; 27.Bd3! b6; 28.a4, '±' (Maybe "+/-") {Diagram?} most programs consider White to be simply winning here. ) ] ************ 20...exf4??; {Diagram?} Modern annotators are pretty much universal in their condemnation of this particular move, even Soltis points out that Black should play ...Ne4! "=/+" here, in this position. Black goes from a WIN to a LOSS ... with this one move. (This is why I felt I had to award this move TWO question marks.) '!!' - Reinfeld and Fine. '!!' - R.N. Coles. '?' - GM Andrew Soltis. '?' - GM John Nunn. (For like 10 to 15 years, I had noticed that this move caused a VERY dramatic change in a computer's evaluation of this position.) "Rightly seeking to improve his chances in a counter-attack." - GM Savielly Tartakower and James Du Mont (Of course we know today that they were incorrect.) "This is usually awarded an exclamation point -- and was given two by R.N. Coles. But Black would have had all the winning chances after the superior 20...Ne4!; 21.Bxf7 Bg4!; 22.Bxe8 Rxe8." - GM Andy Soltis. ************ [ It seems Black should play ...Ne4; in this position. And it seems to lead to a game that is very close to being a decisive advantage for the second player. 20...Ne4; ('!') 21.Bxf7 Bg4!; 22.Ba3!?, This is at least worth a try. (After Bxe8?; White's game is very close to crumbling.) ( After the moves: /= 31...Re8!; - GM Andy Soltis. (But after Bd6!, White may still be winning here.) *** I think that the best line was: >/= 31...Rd8!; 32.Kxf4 Ne2+; 33.Ke3 Nc3; 34.g6, '±' {Diagram?} although White is clearly very much better, (and probably winning); in this particular position. - LM A.J. Goldsby I. *** Not - GM Andy Soltis. Emanuel Lasker - Jose R. Capablanca

This is perhaps one of the most famous games of chess ever played. You cannot have played chess for more than five years without someone showing you this game at least once. Some have also said that this game is one of the best - if not the very best - Lasker ever played. (I definitely have to disagree there.) I have worked on this game for practically my whole chess career. I first annotated it for a Florida Scholastic publication around 1974. (It went bust just a short time later, I hope my writings were not the cause!) When I first went into the Air Force, one of my relatives stored a lot of things in their attic. I had a very large box full of writings, spiral-bound notebooks, legal pads, etc. I had two or three notebooks on this one game alone. (This box of writings was later destroyed in a fire.) I have since annotated this game many times. When I was in the Air Force, (and stationed at Albuquerque); I did a lot of writing for New Mexico, Texas, Oklahoma, etc. I clearly remembered annotating this game during that period. I went to a tournament shortly after this annotation job was published in a state magazine. One guy was very upset that I dare to criticize Capa's play, another guy wanted to punch my lights out for my daring to suggest that Lasker's play might have not been perfect. (Sigh.) This is another game that I have used to test dozens of computers on. (Before computers got so powerful, it was fun to see at what point they considered White to be winning. Most programs would not even consider e5!! for White - too materialistic, I guess.) I had a good friend who was a Navy pilot candidate here in Pensacola. (1985?) Shortly after he got transferred to his "permanent duty station," (North or South Carolina, I believe.) I annotated this game and sent it to him. They published a part of that analysis in their State Magazine. Since I started my web page(s), I have gotten literally HUNDREDS of e-mails about this game. (Asking me, "When are you going to analyze this game?") I have about 10 different jobs of annotations on floppy disks, that I have done on this game over the years. Most of the time, I was NOT very happy with the way I had annotated this game. While I am not entirely certain this version is my very best work, it will at least serve as a point of reference. Feedback is very welcome. But also bear in mind that you should check any ideas or questions against a good computer program BEFORE sending them to me. (PLEASE!!) I NEVER do any analytical work, (post 2000); that I do not check at least one time on the computer. Analysis engines are very good about catching the big tactical mistakes. (Mate in 'X' ... a combination that drops a piece.) They are still not 100% reliable when it comes to questions of strategy ... or complex end-games. (July, 2003.) 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. Click HERE to see an explanation of the symbols that I use in annotating a chess game. E. Lasker (2796) - J.R. Capablanca (2734) [C68] Super-All Master Tournament (finals) St. Petersburg, (RUS) (Round # 7), 18.05.1914 [A.J. Goldsby I]

**************************************************************************** *********************************** One of the most well-known games of all time, and also a very important game - in terms of chess history. (This contest also decided first place in the tournament.) It was rare - very rare - to see a game between two of the world's best players, and see them basically go all-out for a win. (This was the round seven encounter from the finals of the historic master tournament in St. Petersburg.) ************************* The ratings are exact, and come from Jeff Sonas's rating list for December 31st, 1913. (I would have rated Capa around 2750, based on his more recent performances.) *** According to Jeff Sonas, these two contestants were clearly ... THE TWO BEST PLAYERS! ... in the whole world. ***************************************************************************** ********************************** 1.e4 e5; 2.Nf3 Nc6; 3.Bb5 a6; 4.Bxc6, This is the Exchange Variation ... designed to give White a small but steady pull in the ending. (Lasker had used this before, and Capa had previously condemned it in print.) More than anything else, I think this variation shows respect. Lasker plays a line where only he has winning chances, and it is next to impossible to lose with. "A surprising choice ... " - GM Garry Kasparov. '!?' - GM Garry Kasparov. [ The following moves: 4.Ba4 Nf6; 5.0-0 Nxe4; 6.d4 b5; 7.Bb3 d5; 8.dxe5 Be6; 9.Nbd2 Nc5; 10.c3 d4!?; "~" {Diagram?} had been played between these same two players - in a previous round. They only agreed to a draw after 100 moves had been made!! J.R. Capablanca - Em. Lasker; Final (winners) Section, Rd. # 2 St. Petersburg, Russia, 1914. ]

4...dxc6; 5.d4!?, White immediately heads for a trade of the ladies ... and the ending that ensues. [ More often than not: >/= 5.0-0, {Diagram?} is played in this position today. [See MCO, or any good book on the Ruy Lopez.] 5...f6!?; {Diagram?} Black has many moves at this point. (...Bg4, ...Bd6; etc.) 6.d4 exd4!?; {Diagram?} This is probably the most reliable, although ...Bg4 is often played in this position as well. (6...Bg4!?; "~") 7.Nxd4, {Diagram?} This seems to be best, although the capture with the Queen is both interesting and playable. (= 7.Qxd4!?, "+/=") 7...c5; 8.Nb3 Qxd1; 9.Rxd1 Bg4; 10.f3 Be6; 11.Nc3 Bd6; 12.Be3 b6; {Diagram?} The end of the column. 13.a4 Kf7!; 14.a5 c4; 15.Nd4 b5; 16.Nxe6 Kxe6; "=" {Diagram?} GM Nick de Firmian considers this position to be equal, and I do not disagree with him.

V. Meyers - GM A. Onischuk; Hamburg, 1993. [ See MCO-14; page # 56, column # 2, and note # (k.). ] ]

5...exd4; 6.Qxd4 Qxd4; 7.Nxd4 Bd6!?; While this was condemned by many authors, it looks perfectly reasonable to me. [ Opening theory recommends that Black play: >/= 7...Bd7; "~" {Diagram?} in this position. For example: Kr. Georgiev (2529) - J.P. Le Roux (2364); 17th Masters Tourn, 2003. (Black won a long game.) ]

8.Nc3 Ne7!?; 9.0-0, This is rather routine, but it is adequate for a (very) small edge for White. [ 9.Bg5!? ]

9...0-0; 10.f4 Re8!?; Some writers called this ... "The Losing Move." But this is simply ludicrous. In fact, ...Re8 looks very playable ... even good! ... to me. [ Interesting was: 10...Bc5!?; Or >/= 10...f5!?; "~" - Tarrasch ] White now withdraws the Knight ... knowing that too many exchanges will lead to a draw. 11.Nb3 f6; {See the diagram just below.} The great Capablanca wishes to restrain White's central pawn majority. This appears to be a very logical idea. ***************

*************** The normally sober Reti - whose judgment is usually very accurate - condemns this move, and attaches a whole question mark. To me, this is MUCH too severe and really an over-reaction to Capa's loss. "An absolutely unnecessary defensive move ... " - GM Richard Reti.

I have DEEPLY analyzed this game, with the help of computers and the latest chess programs. (Fritz 8.0) Just about all the programs evaluate this position as equal, or even as a little better for Black. The move ...f6; looks not only playable ... but like a wise precaution as well. [ Black could also play: 11...Ng6!?; {Diagram?} or even the move: 11...Bg4!?; {Diagram?} but neither try looks as solid as the move actually played by the great Capablanca. Interesting was: 11...b6!?; "~" {Diagram?} possibly even with the idea of playing a later ...Pawn-at-a6-to-a5. ] 12.f5!, (Maybe - '!!') {Diagram?} A glorious move. White risks a permanently backward e-pawn to cramp Black and keep Capa from being able to develop his Queen's Bishop in this position. '!' - GM Garry Kasparov. [ After the moves: 12.Be3!? Nd5!; "=/+" {Diagram?} Black is OK, maybe even slightly better. And a line like this - that might catch the average player - clearly illustrates the venom in Capablanca's set-up. The continuation of: 12.Bd2!? Bd7; 13.Rad1 Rad8; 14.h3!? b6!; "~" {Diagram?} (with the idea of ...Pawn-at-a6 to-a5); leaves Black with no real problems. ]

12...b6!?; This move has many purposes, to prevent a White piece from landing on the c5-square, and also allow Black to be able to develop his Queen's Bishop. This was criticized as VERY weak by several authors, (Amos Burn); yet it appears to me that Black may have to play this sooner or later. [ Maybe better was: 12...a5!?; ('!') "~" {Diagram?} with the idea of ...a5-to-a4. ("=/+") ] 13.Bf4 Bb7?!; (Hmmm.) {Diagram?} This move has been viciously attacked and has even been labeled (by some) as the losing move. (again) {One author even gave this move a DOUBLE-QUESTION MARK, and said: "After this, Black is unable to save his game."} '?' - GM Andrew Soltis. '?' - IM Amos Burn. '?!' - GM Garry Kasparov. ("My Great Predecessors," Part I.) The main drawback to this move is that White leaves Black with a very weak and permanently backward pawn on the d6-square. And while this move is indeed inadequate, I am 100% certain that this move (alone) is not the reason for Black's loss in this game. Maybe Capablanca believed that Lasker would NEVER un-double his pawns??? If so, this would go a very long way in explaining Capablanca's conduct of this whole opening! [ With the very simple moves of: >/= 13...Bxf4; 14.Rxf4 Rd8; ('!') This is probably the best move here. *** ( Lasker, Capablanca, Nimzovich, and many others give a long line that begins with ...c5; here. The analysis of that line is quite extensive. I will give the very short version here:

14...c5; ('!?') 15.Rd1 Bb7; {Diagram?} Capa and Nimzo got this far in their analysis. 16.Rf2 Rad8; 17.Rxd8, {Diagram?} The correct move, according to the great Lasker himself. ( Capa gave Rfd2?! here ... but that is not at all that impressive. 17.Rfd2?! Rxd2; {Diagram?} This was thought to be incorrect. 18.Rxd2 Bc6!; "~" ("=/+") {Diagram?} and Black has nothing to fear. (One plan for Black is simply to play ...Kf7; ...Rc8; ...Ke8; and then ...Rd8; trading Rooks.) ) 17...Rxd8; 18.Rd2 Rxd2; 19.Nxd2, {Diagram?} Lasker got this far. Now I found a major improvement. 19...Nc8!; 20.Kf2 Nd6; 21.Ke3 Kf7!; "=" {Diagram?} Black is fine here, ALL the key squares are covered. Black has a very durable position here, MULTIPLE computer tests have confirmed this. (That Black has at least a draw from here. ) *** 15.Rff1 Bb7; 16.Rad1 c5; "=" {Diagram?} Black has almost full equality. ] 14.Bxd6!, The correct idea. Although this 'repairs' Black's Pawn Structure, Capa will always ... "feel the heat" down the d-file ... for the rest of the game. '!' - GM Andrew Soltis. [ 14.Rad1 Bxf4; 15.Rxf4 Rad8; "~" ]

14...cxd6; 15.Nd4!, White immediately heads for the "outpost" square on e6. "Capablanca admitted that he did not see this move when he played 13...Bb7." - GM Garry Kasparov. ("My Great Predecessors," Part I.) ??? (Source?) [ Average moves don't put any pressure on Capa, i.e., 15.Rf2!? Rad8; 16.Nd4 Bc8; and Black appears to be fine. ]

15...Rad8?; Just plain silly. While the piece congestion that Black experiences after this move may not be terminal, Capa is made to suffer for a long time. '?' - GM Garry Kasparov. (CB) '?' - GM Andrew Soltis. Black simply had to swallow his pride, and play ...Bc8[]; in this position. [ Black should play: >/= 15...Bc8; "=" {Diagram?} with a strange position. or even 15...Ra7!?; "~" ] 16.Ne6 Rd7; 17.Rad1 Nc8!?; (Maybe - '?!') {Diagram?} I think this is exactly the kind of position that calls for endless maneuvering. I also don't think this move is near as bad as it has been made out to be. But Capa and Soltis both harshly condemn this move. The great Cuban goes one step further, calling it ... "the fatal error." '?' - Jose R. Capablanca '?' - GM Andrew Soltis.

In his book, "The Art Of Defense," Soltis postulates that ... the majority of the time ... one weakness alone is usually NOT enough to lose a game!! If he is correct, all Capa has to do is avoid creating any more problems, and avoid opening lines and he should be able to hold this position. Another point to consider is that the move ...Nc8; has no real effect on most programs evaluations' of this particular position. Objectively, a truly bad move is going to have some impact on the way a machine 'scores' the position! [ Capa said better was: 17...c5!?; {Diagram?} in this position. But I am not so sure about this. (Black gains a diagonal for his Bishop, but White might play a later Nd5.) Many strong programs - like Fritz and ChessMaster - pick the move: 17...Kf7!?; {Diagram?} in this position. The move: 17...a5!?; {Diagram?} might also be playable in this position. ] 18.Rf2 b5!?; (Maybe - '?!') {Diagram?} Black gains some Q-side space. Probably the case of the wrong pawn. By advancing his QRP, with the idea of ...Ba6-c4xe6; I think Black may be able to hold the balance. Black plans a later ...a5, but he is never given that chance. [ After the move, >/= 18...a5!; "~" (Maybe "=") {Diagram?} I don't think Black will lose. (I played a correspondence game, {from this particular position}; with a player who is one of the better correspondence players at least by rating - in the USA. I held the draw ... without any great difficulties.) Interesting was: 18...Kf7!? (Unclear?) ]

19.Rfd2 Rde7; ('!') Correctly side-stepping White's battery, and avoiding any later tactical tricks. 20.b4!, This gains space, and fixes Black's Queen-side Pawns. It is also useful (later) when Lasker wants to open lines on that side of the board. '!' - GM Andrew Soltis. [ Interesting was: 20.Kf2!? ]

20...Kf7; It is very useful to have the King a little nearer the center in some variations. [ One author suggested ...c5 here, but I think he was on crank: 20...c5?!; ('?') 21.bxc5! dxc5; 22.Nxc5 b4!?; 23.Nd5, '±' {Diag?} and White is clearly MUCH better in this position. (Maybe "+/-") ] We are coming to a very critical point in this game. 21.a3 Ba8?!; (Probably - '?') {See the diagram just below.} "The question mark is deserved, not by the move, but for the idea to open the a-file, which can be used effectively only by the white rooks. Of course Black has lost the strategical battle, ... " - GM Garry Kasparov. '?' - GM Garry Kasparov. (CB & MGP) '?' - GM Andrew Soltis. ***************

*************** "Once more changing my plan ... and this time, without good reason." - GM J.R. Capablanca. In the end ... I think Black's next move should simply be ...Bb7. [ Maybe 21...Rh8!?; was better? /= 21...Rxe6; 22.fxe6+ Rxe6; {D?} as being better than the game - and he may be right. But I think that Lasker would have eventually found a way to win with his extra material. ] 22.Kf2 Ra7!?; Continuing a bad plan, placing the Bishop back on the b7-square may have been wiser. [ 22...Bb7!? ] Kasparov gives White's 23rd move here an exclam. ("23.g4!" - GM G. Kasparov.) 23.g4, ('!') 23...h6; Preparing a on the King-side. 24.Rd3 a5?!; (Probably - '?') Just about every manual ever written on defense ... says that the LAST thing a defender of a bad position should do is open lines ---> for the attacker ... or the player who is better!! (Soltis makes no comment here or attaches any kind of mark at all to Black's 24th move.) At chess club one night, I played ...Rae7; and then ...Bb7; and no one was able to prove a win for White. (There was one Master, and many strong players were also present. They actually lost many times trying break Black's position open.) '?' - GM Garry Kasparov. ("My Great Predecessors," Part I.) [ I am sure that >/= 24...Rae7!?; "~" {Diagram?} with maybe ...Bb7; next move, was much better than the game. ] 25.h4 axb4!?; 26.axb4 Rae7?; {Diagram?} Any good reason ... for abandoning the open a-file here ... escapes me completely.

'?' - GM Andrew Soltis. [ '?!' - GM Garry Kasparov. (MGP, Pt. I) ] "The only consistent move was 26...Ra3." - GM A. Soltis. (Capa said Black could draw here with ...Rxe6, but I don't buy it.) [ I like >/= 26...Ree7!; "~" {Diagram?} when White might be a shade better, but Black has chances to defend. /= 29.g5! - Soltis. "This move prolongs matters ... " - GM Andrew Soltis. [ After the moves: = 29.g5!? hxg5+; 30.hxg5 Rh8!; {Diagram?} Black gains the h-file. (If Rg1, then ...Ra7!) I let Fritz 6.0 run for over an hour one afternoon on this position. Although White is probably better, NO forced win was immediately evident. ( Soltis only gives the grossly inferior continuation of: /= 29.Ra1! Bb7; 30.g5!, "+/=" {Diag?} with a small, but clear advantage for White. ] Black may have done better to avoid his next move entirely ... the open h-file is one open line too many. 29...g5+!?; {Diagram?} Black figures he may as well try and play this ... and stop White from playing g5! himself. "Now White will open the King's Rook file with (a) decisive advantage." - GM Richard Reti. "The last move to be criticised by the annotators. But it's too late for good advice." - GM Garry Kasparov. *** [ Tarrasch, Brinckmann, and Chernev recommend that Black play the move: 29...P/g6xP/f5?; -----> but their analysis has more holes than swiss cheese! {My analysis of this line now runs almost a page and a half alone ... so I will definitely skip it here.}

(I have had literally dozens of requests for my analysis of this line. 10/30/04) 29...gxf5?!; ('?') {Diagram?} This move was recommended by Tarrasch, but I have doubts about this approach. {According to some programs, White's advantage DOUBLES after this inaccurate move.} ************ Brinckmann, (also quoted by poor Chernev); give the following (horrible) analysis: 30.exf5 d5; {Diagram?} White is clearly better here. Now Fritz (6.0) likes g5 here... 31.Rdg1!? Nd6; 32.g5?!; {Diagram?} Premature. (This advance must be timed a little better.) (>/= 32.Re1 "+/=") 32...hxg5+; 33.hxg5 fxg5+?; (Probably - '??') {Diagram?} Gross, and an oversight. ( Why not: >/= 33...Nxf5; ('!') "/+" {Diagram?} which practically wins for Black - in this line? ) 34.Nxg5+ Ke8; 35.Ne6?!, ('?') {Diagram?} This misses a much better move for White. (After the move: >/= 35.Nge4!, "+/=" White is clearly better.) 35...Rxg3; 36.Rxg3 Ra7??; {Diagram?} Throws the game away. ( >/= 36...Rf7; "~" (Maybe "=" or "+/=") ) 37.Rg8+ Ke7; 38.Rg7+ Nf7; 39.Ng5 Kf8?!; 40.Rxf7+?, ('??') {Diagram?} Just plain stupid. ( The simple 40.f6!, "+/-" wins easily for White. ) 40...Rxf7; 41.Nxf7 Kxf7; 42.Kg5, "+/=" (Maybe - '±') {Diagram?} ... "and White wins." But this analysis has more holes than swiss cheese! {A.J.G.} (This note added, and the game updated on Thursday; November 4th, 2004.) ] *** [ Maybe better was: >/= 29...Ra7!?; {Diagram?} and delay opening more lines. ] Now if White plays PxP, PxP/g5+; and Black will play ...Rh8 here the next move. (Black's defensive resources might be enough to hold.) 30.Kf3! Nb6?!; ('?') {Diagram?} This is very trappy, but I am not entirely sure if it is best. ("A desperate try." - Kasparov. Soltis makes no comment on this particular move.) Maybe Rxe6 was better than Nb6. (A BIG emphasis on the word, 'maybe' here!) Most programs notice a fairly substantial change in their evaluations of the position/game after this move. (Is this the losing move?) [ It seemed Black had to play: >/= 30...gxh4; ('!') 31.Rh3 Ra7!; 32.Rxh4, "+/=" (Probably - "±") {Diagram?} White is clearly better here, and Black's position is extremely ugly ... but anything even resembling a forced win is NOT immediately evident. (!!!) {In several tests at the time control of , the latest version of Crafty is unable to defeat Junior 6.0 from this position.}

(I have spent over 25 years analyzing this game, and I have tested this position on nearly every available computer program. With perfect play, a draw may yet be possible!!! It is certainly superior to the continuation in the game!) ] 31.hxg5!, The correct move. Capa left the d-pawn as bait, but Lasker does not bite! Now White gets to use the h-file as well ... and I think this dooms Black. '!' - GM Garry Kasparov. (MGP, Part. # 1) [ After the moves: