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. ].  

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

***

***

            ( 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!] ).   

***

        (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)  ]. 

***

 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. ].  

     [  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.  ].  

     [  Maybe much better was: >=  4...Nbd7!;  5.Nf3 c6;  6.Nc3 Bd6;  7.Be2 0-0;  
         8.0-0 Re8 ].  

 "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. ].  

      [ Black could have played: 5...0-0!?; "=" {Diagram?} 
        or even 5...Nbd7!?; "~" {Diagram?} with a fair game. ].  

***

   ( 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.  ].  

 This move also clears the diagonal of White's QB on the b2-square. 

 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.') ].  

      [  I prefer: >= 11...Ne4!; "~" {Diagram?} with a close game. {A.J.G.} 

          2 well-known writers advise that Black play:  11...g6!?; - Reinfeld & Fine. ].  

 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. ].  

 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!?, "=" ]. 

  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. ].   

 "After this, there is no saving move."  -  Irving Chernev.  

      [ 14.Qf3!? Rfd8; "=" {Diagram?} and the position is about level. ].  

 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  ].  

***

 "A brilliant zwischenzug."  -  Irving Chernev. 

 White logically removes all of the pawns in front of Black's King. But this is a super-brilliancy. 
 (And the first time - that we know of - that any player had sacrificed two Bishops in this manner.)

 NOTE:  Every other player ... who has ever sacrificed two Bishops in this manner is only - no 
 matter how brilliant the game might be - is really just using  'technique.'  ONLY  this game can 
 claim to be original!!! 

     [  17.Rf3!? f6!; "/+" {Diagram?} and Black is clearly better.  ].  

      [  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#.  ].  

      [ Simply terrible was: 18...Kf6??;  19.Qg5#  Ouch!  ].  

 (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#. ('!')   ].  

   '!' - Irving Chernev. 

      [ 22.fxe5!?, "+/=" ].  

      [ 22...Rab8!? ].  

      [ Also winning were: 25.Qxd5!?, "+/-" {Diagram?} with a won position for White. 

         Or  25.Qxa6!?, "+/-" {Diagram?} again - winning for White. ].  

 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. ("+/-") ].  

  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. 

 << A leading critic said at the time, "From his conduct of this game, one sees something of the 
       extraordinary talent of the rising generation of chess players." >> 
       (Source = Chernev.) 

  "One of the most brilliant games of that whole era."  - Irving Chernev. 

***

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

   Bibliography: 
   (I have close to 2 dozen books about Lasker or that were written by him. 
    The following that are listed are the most important sources that I used for annotating this game.) 

1. "The Collected Games of ... Emmanuel Lasker,"  by  Ken Whyld. 
     (Copyright, 1998.) {With many credits to Hannak's work.) 

2. "Dr. Lasker's Chess Career"  (Games from 1880's to 1914.) 
     By Fred Reinfeld  &  GM Ruben Fine.  (Copyright © 1935.) 

3. "The Golden Dozen."  (The twelve greatest chess players of all time.) By Irving Chernev. 
     (Copyright © 1976,  Irving Chernev  - and also © Oxford University Press.) 

4.   ChessBase  annotations of this game. (- GM Garry Kasparov, ...  and other GM's as well.) 

 Copyright (c) A.J. Goldsby I. Copyright (©) A.J. Goldsby, 2002, 2003, 2004.
All rights reserved.

If you have not already noticed, this page is  VERY  different than most of my other creations. 

This is because this game is a milestone for me ... it marks the completion of a project I had 
in mind when I first created my web page(s). If you want to see what I mean by this, then 
  please click  HERE.  This game marks a major completion of a goal. Therefore, I felt this 
 web page - because it IS a great game .... AND represents something special to me - that it 
 should definitely look and feel a little different than many of my other web pages. ENJOY!!! 

***

 I have quite a history with this game. I remember a gentleman at the Pensacola Chess Club 
 virtually forcing me to analyze games with him every week back in the 1960's. (In those days, 
 I would much rather play - than look at a pretty game. He had many books of chess. He had a 
 book by  GM Ruben Fine,  and also the  "Golden Treasury Of Chess,"  by  I.A. Horowitz. 
 And! ... many others!!!)  But today I know I owe this person,  (I don't even remember his name!); 
 a tremendous debt - he instilled in me a deep appreciation for the history of the game. He also 
 helped me understand very early there were many great games out there and that by subjecting 
  these games to a deep analysis, I would definitely be able to improve. 

***

This is the original document I developed in  ChessBase.  I have NOT shortened 
it for publication here!  If you would like a copy of this game, (the actual ChessBase file); 
 to study on your own computer, please contact me. 

 Click  HERE  to go to,  (or to return!)  to my big chess web site. ("Best Games"  page.)

  Click  HERE  to go to (or return to)  my Yahoo/GeoCities chess web site. (Home Page.) 

 Click   HERE   to go to (or return) to my (Geo-Cities) "Annotated Games"  Page. (#2.) 

  Click  HERE  to go to (or return to) my 'Downloads' page about  "Recent GM Games." 

  Click  HERE  to go to my  (Angel-Fire)  "Downloads"  Home Page.  

Click  HERE  to go to (or return) to my Downloads  "Annotated Games"  page.

Click  HERE  to go to (or return to)  my  (GeoCities)  "Best Short Games"  page.

  (Or click the "back" button on your browser.)