|
|
Click HERE to go to my favorite web site on this grand and truly great tournament.
**************************************************************************
Many thanks to the (many) {now former} Internet students:
--->
who
lived in Cleveland, Ohio ...
and copied material from the John G. White collection for me to use.
--->
to
the three different students who lived in or around Washington, D.C. These kind
individuals went to various libraries and resources, copied material and mailed
it to me. One fellow went the extra mile: He scanned all the material, then
e-mailed it to me. He also mailed me a small box full of copies.
(Not just for this game, but for other projects I am working on.)
---> I also wish to thank the one young man who lives in Germany. He found much material, (one fairly large box!); and sent it to me. (copies, mostly) As I speak little German, he was kind enough to have several magazine articles translated!
Without the kind and very generous work of these fantastic people, this web page would not have been possible.
This is a game I have gone over many, many, many times. Probably too many to count.
I
think I may have seen this game for the very first time from a member of the
Pensacola Chess Club.
He used to have an original edition (book) of Lasker's games, (hard-back);
the one by
Reinfeld and Fine.
One of the first times, (that I clearly remember); had to be as a teen-ager. I remember a group of us had been playing blitz. At the insistence of my good friend Scott, we went over a few games. (He said we should play less and study more.) So somebody pulled out a book, and we began to study. We studied this game for less than an hour before we all had to go home.
We got so interested in this game, we spent all afternoon the next Saturday trying to decipher this game. This was obviously an encounter of an unusual kind. Scott then suggested that we each take a position or a variation and try to 'solve' it. He also suggested that we record all of our observations in a notebook.
I was not real meticulous about recording my ideas, at least not at first. But I would find a really wild line, and I would try to remember it later, and I discovered I could not always recall exactly what I had looked at. I eventually left this game in the dust. I did not look at it again - at least not seriously - for almost five years. Then we were at a tournament in Mobile, and someone said he had gone over maybe the most amazing and complex chess game ever played. He whipped out this book on Lasker ... and we were off to the races again.
This scenario repeated itself many times. When I was in the military, a friend gave me a book of Lasker's games as a birthday present. (This was while I was stationed at Kirtland A.F.B. in New Mexico.) I began a study of this game, and this time I was much better about recording my thoughts and analysis. I would look at the Lasker book at night with a flashlight and pocket set while on post. Then I would get off work at dawn and come back to my room and spend several hours recording my thoughts in my notebook until I fell asleep.
I eventually moved on to study other games, and once again it was a period of maybe 5-10 years before I was to seriously study this game again.
Then when I began my web page, the e-mails began pouring. At one point, I must have been receiving close to 150 e-mails a day. When I began my project of finding and annotating all the best games of chess ever played, (click here); dozens of people suggested that I seriously look at this game. (I had some reservations about its soundness. An old friend, Master M. Appleberry and I had looked at it one night, and he did not think it was correct play.)
Of course I wanted to analyze it. I looked at it many times. When the Mammoth Book first came out, I went over all 100 games in less than a week. (I would go over 10 or 20 games a day when I got home from work.) This game was in there, and Nunn seemed to pretty much refute it. The same situation repeated itself when Soltis book first came out. This game was in there, but Soltis ranked it as one of the worst/most over-rated games of all time. This, and the fact that an Internet student told me Huebner had once took this game apart in an analysis for a German chess magazine, pretty much killed any chance of this game making it into my 'Top Ten.' (But I remained interested in it.)
I have worked for weeks at a time on this game, then laid it down. Sometimes I have worked on this game for 4-6 hours at one time. And I have done this more times than I care to count. I hope you enjoy this analysis. It is rather lengthy and rambling, but that is my style.
***
Click here to see an explanation of the symbols that I commonly use.
This is mostly a text-based page, with only a
few diagrams.
Therefore, you will probably want ... or need a chess-board.
Click HERE to see this game (UN-annotated) ... in java-script re-play form.
Tuesday; August 12th, 2003: IN THE FINAL analysis ... I wound up annotating this game 5-7 times. (I had difficulty getting a version I was completely happy with. I also wish to note that I did NOT finish several of those versions!) I was aiming for around three-to-five pages - when the game was printed out directly from the ChessBase document. (This version was close to 20 pages ... but I decided to use far fewer diagrams as I complete this HTML version of the game.)
November 22nd, 2005: This game continues to fascinate people ... click here to see more.
|
|
*****************************************************************************************************
One of THE most famous games
of chess ever played.
(A survey
done in both a California newspaper
AND a Dutch magazine confirms
this.
In both surveys, this game
was in the 'top ten' best known
games ever played.)
Virtually every annotator of any stature
has taken a whack at this game.
(The list is too long to go into. See
the bibliography at the end of the
game.)
Anyone who has ever seen this game
in the book by R.N. Coles ... or the
version by
Reinfeld and Fine ... will
understand how this game was once
viewed by previous
generations of
chess players. (It seems that every
move is given either an exclam or
even a double-exclamation point.
For White ... AND
Black! For example,
Coles hands
out something like 15
exclams, ... ... ...
and FIVE (5) DOUBLE-EXCLAMS during
the course of this entire game!)
{Depending on what edition of his
book you happen to own.}
This is also one of the most complicated
games of chess ever played. While it is
FAR
from being perfect, any player who
wants to learn should sit down with this
game and
spend several hours with it.
(Start with a UN-annotated version!)
At one time hailed as one of the
greatest games of chess ...
- it was
even referred to as an IMMORTAL
GAME by several authors -
... today
analysis has shown the considerable
deficiencies of this contest.
(Soltis calls this one of the MOST
OVER-RATED games of all time!!!)
*******
The ratings are only estimates, and
based on calculations of these two
players
last three events. (No reliable
ELO exists for that time period.)
{Sonas gives Lasker as being MUCH
higher, and Napier as slightly lower
than what I have given here.}
NOTE: Many authors have heaped
marks on this game ... mostly a lot
of exclamation
points. I tried to be
a bit more reserved, and ONLY
award exclams to moves that
really
deserve them. (Obvious ... and forced moves ...
should NOT be given an exclam!)
*****************************************************************************************************
1.e4 c5; 2.Nc3!?,
Is White threatening a closed
Sicilian? (I doubt it.)
I think Lasker wanted to avoid any
systems where Black played an
early ...e6;
he had gotten into
trouble in this line in a previous
tournament.
[ 75 years later, the move
2.c3!?, {Diagram?}
would be all the rage. ]
2...Nc6; 3.Nf3 g6;
Black intends a Dragon. ('!?')
One newspaper column of that era
questioned this, but it is obviously
playable ...
and even good.
[ With the moves: 3...d6;
4.d4 cxd4; 5.Nxd4 Nf6; 6.Bg5,
"+/="
we transpose into a modern form
of the Sicilian known as ...
"The Richter-Rauzer Attack."
]
Lasker makes the decision to go
into a type of the open Sicilian ...
certainly a very playable idea. (And maybe even the best.)
5.d4 cxd4; 5.Nxd4 Bg7;
6.Be3 d6;
By transposition ... we have reached
a completely modern opening line.
(Both sides have excellent play.)
[ One guy - who only wanted to
sell his book - questioned ...d6;
and said Black should instead play: 6...Nf6;
{Diagram?}
but of course both moves are
fully playable. ]
7.h3!?,
(Maybe - '?!') {Diagram?}
White prevents pins ... and keeps
all Black pieces off the g4-square,
at least for the time being.
By modern standards, this move is
bad ... and a complete waste of
time.
But I think restraint is in
order - for one thing, opening theory
when this game
was played was
almost non-existent. (for this line)
{One super-GM gave this move a
full question mark.}
In fact - if you consult books of that
period - some players thought this
was the
correct way to play this
particular variation.
(White plans Qd2, and 0-0-0;
followed by a King-side attack.)
[ Probably best would have been
for White to play:
>/=
7.Qd2! Nf6; 8.f3! 0-0; 9.Bc4!,
"+/=" {Diagram?}
with a strong initiative for White.
The only problem with this is that
the "Yugoslav Attack" versus
the
Dragon would not be invented ... for another FIFTY years!!!
[ See MCO-14; page # 267.]
***
By playing the moves:
>/= 7.Be2 Nf6;
8.Nb3 0-0;
9.0-0 Be6;
10.f4, "+/=" {Diagram?}
we transpose to the Classical
Variation of the Sicilian Dragon.
(These lines also would not be
thoroughly explored by Soviet
players
for another 30-40 years.) ]
7...Nf6; 8.g4!?,
It is hard to be sure what to really
think about this move.
(Soltis gives this move without
any comment whatsoever.)
Several writers have given it an
exclam and claimed it was the
beginning
of a very dangerous attack. While a "Top 50" GM - during the
decade of
the 1990's - gave this
move TWO question marks, and
said it blows any
chance for White
to gain an advantage!
(Obviously this is a little extreme ... to say the least!!)
It is ALWAYS risky to push pawns
in the opening ... and ignore your development.
On the other hand,
this is a real line, and has been
played by no less than Bobby
Fischer!! (See his match against
Sammy Reshevsky.) And most
computer programs
evaluate this
position as still pretty level. So I
will not condemn this move, and
simply
say it is interesting.
(Again a reminder: with virtually no
{real} theory on this line, the players
were free to
do as they pleased.)
[ Maybe better would have been:
>/= 8.Qd2 0-0; 9.0-0-0,
"~" {D?}
when White still has a slight
initiative in this position. ]
8...0-0!?; (Possibly - '?!') {Diagram?}
Black decides to castle, and
get his King out of the center.
MOST (modern) annotators
condemn this move and label it
as dubious,
or even attach ... ('?') - A FULL QUESTION MARK. (!!)
I saw a very famous teacher, and this
was quite a number of years ago -
close
to 30, in fact. (Hollywood even
made a movie about one of his
students!)
Anyway this famous teacher
was telling some little boy ... ... ...
"You can NEVER castle too early!"
It seems to me that many Masters,
(myself included!); are big, fat
hypocrites.
When a "Class D" player
fails to castle, we adorn his move
with bunches of
question marks.
Here a player of obvious Master
strength castles, and we
heap a
lot of strong criticism on his choice
as well.
But on a serious note, a modern
player might do well to avoid castling
here.
You see, to castle here is to
possibly - castle into an attack!
'?!' - GM Andrew Soltis.
(Personally I feel castling is fine
here. As the opening went, Black
was in no
real trouble!)
[ Maybe 8...Qa5!?; {Diagram?} instead?
***
Or perhaps: 8...Bd7!?;
{Diagram?}
with the idea of ...Rc8; ...Ne5;
and possibly then ...Nc4. ]
9.g5 Ne8!?;
(Maybe - '?!') {Diagram?}
Black obviously had to move
his Knight, and h5 was out of the
question as
Be2 is embarrassing.
But in my mind this move, (...Ne8)
is incorrect, and places the horse
on a bad
square. It was probably
better to play ...Nd7 in this position.
I don't know that many other annotators have really made this observation.
[ Clearly better was:
>/= 9...Nd7!; "~"
{Diagram?}
the main idea being to put the
Knight on e5 or c5. ]
10.h4?,
White wishes to attack ... but this
move is just too slow to be any good.
I also wish to note that modern
authors and writers are universal
in their
condemnation of this move.
'?' - GM Andrew Soltis.
"This is going too far." - GM John Nunn.
[ Better was: >/=
10.Qd2,
{Diagram?}
followed by castling on the Q-side,
according to GM Andy Soltis. ]
10...Nc7?!;
(Maybe even - '?') {Diagram?}
This looks nice - Black now
threatens ...d5; when White's
King in the center will
be a very
serious problem.
MOST annotators - including Soltis -
make no comment on this move at
all.
But it seems to me that the move
is very committal and also hems in
the Black
Queen. I think it would
have been better for Black to try
...Queen-to-a5 here, or
even to
exchange the Knights on d4.
*******
[ Black should seriously consider: >/=
10...Qa5!?; "<=>" {Diagram?}
with good play for Black.
***
Or >/=
10...Nxd4;
"=" {Diagram?}
with almost complete equality.
***
Interesting was: = 10...Qb6!?;
"~" {Diagram?}
with many complications. ]
*******
11.f4?!,
(Maybe - '?')
{See the diagram just below.}
Yet another (inept) pawn move.
*************************
|
|
R2QKB1R/PPP5/2N1B3/3NPP1P/6P1/2np2p1/ppn1ppbp/r1bq1rk1 (Black to move)
*************************
Lasker seems to have forgotten about
all the maxims he talked about in his
books!
(I am mainly referring to the
excellent book: "Common Sense
in Chess.")
What ever happened to the idea that
you are supposed to: ... "push one or
two
pawns - to control the middle of
the board - and (then) get your
pieces out as
quickly as possible?" - GM Emanuel Lasker.
*******
[ Most authors have recommended
that White play: 11.Qd2,
"~" {Diag?}
in this position.
***
I think White should go ahead
and play: >/= 11.h5!,
"--->" {Diag?}
and follow-through on his earlier
ideas of swiftly starting an all-out King-
side attack. ]
*******
11...e5!;
(CENTER!!)
Black takes advantage of White's
very slow development, and
decides
to open the game.
'!' - GM Andrew Soltis. '!' - GM John Nunn.
[ Another playable idea might be: 11...d5!?;
12.Nxc6 bxc6; "~" {Diag?}
with a fair position for Black. ]
12.Nde2!?,
I am not sure which square is the
correct one for the White Knight
here,
but this one obviously
blocks in the White KB.
(White was definitely concerned
about protecting f4 and probably
did not
wish to exchange pieces.)
[ After the moves: 12.Nb3 exf4;
13.Bxf4 Ne5; "=" {Diagram?}
Black is at least equal.
***
Maybe White should try:
>/= 12.Nxc6 bxc6; 13.h5;
"~" {Diagram?}
and hope to drum up an attack
down the h-file. ]
12...d5?!;
(Probably - '?')
Originally lauded as daring and even VERY brilliant, this move
today is seen
as the beginning of a
lot of problems for the second player.
(Black loses a vital center pawn,
and does not get adequate
compensation for
the material deficit.)
'??' - GM Robert Huebner. '?' - GM Andrew Soltis. '?' - GM John Nunn.
"This move is the trigger for the
exciting complications which follow,
but it is a mistake ... " - GM John Nunn.
**************
[ Maybe >/=
12...f5!?; "~"
{Diagram?}
instead would have been better?
***
Black should play: >/= 12...exf4!;
13.Nxf4 Ne5!?; "=" {Diagram?}
... which "was the better part
of valor." - GM A. Soltis.
(...Bxc3+!? here, wrecking White's
pawn structure is also an idea.)
***
Soltis points out that: </= 12...Bg4!?;
('?!') 13.f5!,
{Diagram?}
This is probably the most energetic.
(Nunn recommends Qd2?! here,
but this is not as convincing.)
(After the moves: 13.Rg1!? Qd7; 14.Qd2 exf4; 15.Bxf4 Ne5, "=" {Diag?}
Black is at least equal here.)
13...gxf5; {Diagram?}
This is virtually forced.
14.exf5 Bxf5; 15.Ng3, "comp"
("~") {Diagram?}
is probably very good for White.
- Vladimir Zak.
(White gets a very powerful K-side
attack ... that could be lethal.) ]
**************
The next few plies look forced.
13.exd5 Nd4; ('!?')
Several writers praise this move,
{even generously awarding exclams};
but without it - White gets very
nearly a won game.
[ </= 13...exf4?!;
14.Bxf4, '±'
(White is clearly
better.)
***
Obviously Black can NOT play:
</= 13...Nxd5
???; 14.Qxd5, "+/-"
which just drops a piece. ]
R.N. Coles gives both White and
Black an exclamation point for
their fourteenth moves.
14.Nxd4,
This looks practically forced. (To stop the check on f3.)
'!' - R.N. Coles.
[ Maybe the move: 14.Bg2!?
"+/=" {Diagram?}
was playable in this position?
(But definitely not: </= 14.Bf2????, Nf3#.) ]
14...Nxd5!;
{Diagram?}
A nice and tricky in-between move
by Black. If White is not careful,
he
will quickly get a bad game.
'!' - R.N. Coles.
'!' - GM Andrew Soltis. '!' - GM John Nunn.
'!' - Reinfeld and Fine.
This is an amazing move, Napier must have seen this when he played ...d5.
"A nasty surprise." - Dr. J. Hannak (Perhaps he is quoting Reti?)
[ One writer said Black could try:
14...exd4!?; ('?')
15.Bxd4 Re8+;
16.Be2 f6!?;
17.gxf6 Bxf6; 18.Bxf6 Qxf6; 19.Qd2 Bg4;
20.0-0-0,
'±' {Diagram?} but White is much, much, MUCH
better
here - in this position. (Maybe just "+/-").
]
15.Nf5!,
(Maybe - '!!')
A nice - and unexpected -
interposition by Lasker.
(Most authors give this move
one exclam, some gave it two;
and Fine gave it three!)
{See Fine's book on the best
chess games of all time. He also
wrote a series of articles for the
magazine, 'Chess Review' many
years ago. In one of those -
he covered this game.}
'!!' - R.N. Coles. '!!' - Reinfeld and Fine.
'!' - GM Andrew Soltis. '!' - GM John Nunn.
"Lasker responds in style." - GM John Nunn.
"A magnificent parry." - GM S. Tartakower and J. Du Mont
<< "White has to tread carefully to
avert disaster." (Nxd5!?, exd4!) >>
- GM Andrew Soltis.
[ Interesting was: 15.Nxd5!? exd4;
16.Bg2, "~" {D?}
with an unbalanced position. ]
15...Nxc3;
This looks to be virtually forced.
(For some reason R.N. Coles gives
this move TWO exclams!)
'!!' - R.N. Coles.
*******
[ Much worse for Black was: </=
15...Bxf5?!; ('?')
16.Qxd5!, '±' {Diag?}
which is probably a completely
winning position ("+/-") for
White.
***
Also very bad for the second player
would have been the continuation:
</= 15...Nxe3?!;
16.Nxe3 Qxd1+!?; 17.Rxd1 exf4; 18.Ned5,
'±' {Diag?}
and Black is a piece down. ("+/-")
(He has a one pawn, but it is
NOT nearly enough!) ]
*******
16.Qxd8 Rxd8;
{See the diagram just below.}
This is a difficult position.
*************************
|
|
R3KB1R/PPP5/2n1B3/5P1P/4pNP1/6p1/pp3pbp/r1br2k1 (White to move)
*************************
The fun is now about to begin!
17.Ne7+,
This is probably better than
the capture on g7. (Nunn.)
(More than one annotator has
given this move an exclam ...
but this looks unnecessary to
me.)
'!' - R.N. Coles.
"One fine turn follows another!" - GM S. Tartakower & J. du Mont.
[ Interesting was: 17.Nxg7!? ]
17...Kh8;
{Box?}
This is best. In fact it is the only
move for Black to continue the
game.
(Both Coles and Reinfeld give
this an exclamation point.)
'!' - R.N. Coles.
"So far the tactics are running in
Black's favor.
(18.bxc3, exf4;
19.Bd4, Re8; or 18.Nxc8, exf4;
19.Bxf4, Raxc8.)"
- GM Andrew Soltis.
Marco comments here that both
Lasker and Napier have displayed an
unparalleled depth to their play.
************
[ Much worse
(for Black!) would have been:
</=
17...Kf8?!;
('?') 18.Nxc8!,
A simple move, but a large
improvement over
previous
analysis.
***
( Not as good is:
18.Bc5!? Ne4; 19.Ba3 Nd6; 20.Nxc8 Raxc8;
21.0-0-0 Ke7;
22.Bg2!?, '±' ... "and (White) wins."
- Savielly Tartakower and James Du Mont.
(But 22.Bh3! "+/-" is much better.) {A.J.G.} )
***
18...Raxc8
[];
This is best - practically forced.
19.bxc3
('!') 19...exf4; 20.Bd4!, "+/=" (Maybe - "±")
when White is clearly better.
(I sent this position to one GM
from an on-line chess service.
{I had to pay for a lesson to
get this information!}
I did not tell him where it was
from, I just asked him to evaluate
the position.
He said that:
"White has an easy win, it is only a
matter of some [simple]
technique." ]
************
18.h5!,
This is good/best ... and I think it
deserves an exclam, although
Soltis does not give it one.
'!!' - R.N. Coles. '!!' - Fred Reinfeld and GM R. Fine.
'!' - GM John Nunn.
The key point about this move
is White leaves the N on e7 nearly
stranded,
ignores the enemy Knight
on c3, lets his development go, and
attempts to
open the h-file ... to re-ignite the embers of his attack.
************
[ White could play:
= or
>/= 18.f5!?,
('!') "+/=" {Diagram?}
with a small advantage.
(This possibility is not even
mentioned by most annotators. And I was one of the first
people to point this
possibility out. ---> See my old web page that was posted in
1995.)
***
But White can NOT play: </=
18.bxc3? exf4; 19.Bd4 Re8;
"/+" {Diag?}
when Black is close to winning.
]
************
18...Re8!;
This is subtle and definitely the
best move in this position. And I
am quite sure that the
great
Richard Reti was the first annotator
to truly appreciate the strength of
this particular
move. (Both Nunn and Soltis give this
move an exclam.)
Funnily enough, Coles failed to give
this move an exclam in the original
edition of his
book ... or even in any
of the updated {later} editions!
'!' - GM John Nunn. '!' - GM Andrew Soltis.
[ Probably less than ideal was:
18...gxh5; 19.Rxh5,
"+/="
with a slight edge for White.
( >/= 19.f5!, "+/=" - GM A. Soltis. ) ]
19.Bc5!?,
This could be nearly forced.
"White revives his threat ..." - GM Andrew Soltis.
(The threats are hxg6, Bc4, and
then Nxg6#.)
'!' - R.N. Coles.
Reinfeld, R.N. Coles, ... and others! ... award this move an exclam ...
but I am not entirely sure if this
move is even the best move at
this
particular point!
[ The following continuation:
>/= 19.hxg6!? Rxe7;
{Diag?}
This seems to be forced.
( After the relatively simple moves: </= 19...fxg6?; 20.Nxg6+ Kg8;
21.Bc4+ Be6; 22.Bxe6+ Rxe6; 23.f5 Ree8; 24.Nh4 Nd5; 25.Ng2,
25...Bf8; 26.0-0-0, '±' {Diagram?}
White has a very large edge. (Maybe "+/-") )
20.Bc5 Rd7;
This looks best, although Nunn
gives the grossly inferior ...Nd5.
( </= 20...Nd5?!; 21.Rd1!, '±' )
21.Rxh7+ Kg8;
22.bxc3!, "+/=
seems to yield a substantial
advantage to White.
(ALL the
programs agree on this. The
second player's biggest problem
in this line is that his King gets
badly exposed.) ]
19...gxh5?; {Diagram?}
This has been awarded exclams
by most authors, (and was highly
praised
by Reti and Tartakower);
but it definitely deserves one
question mark ...
and it may deserve
TWO, especially if Black cannot save
his game after
this move. (With correct play by both sides.)
'!' - R.N. Coles.
"A surprising, but very well
considered move."
- Dr. J. Hannak. (Reti)
"Probably best ..." says the
well-known and very respected author,
FM Graham Burgess.
"This was much praised by Reti and
others, although it is an obvious move.
There was only one alternative to
consider -- 19...exf4; -- and that would have
been easily handled by 20.Bc4, gxh5;
transposing into the game, or by
20.hxg6, fxg6;
21.Bc4!." - GM Andrew Soltis.
************
[ Black had to play:
>/= 19...exf4; ('!')
20.hxg6! fxg6!;
Black gets into real trouble with
any other move here.
(For example: </= 20...Nd5??; 21.Rxh7#)
21.Bd3,
{Diagram?}
This has got to be the best.
(I will resist the temptation to give
myself an exclam here ...
the move is just too obvious.)
Nunn (and Soltis!) gives the GROSSLY inferior
</= Bc4?! ('?') here.
Then Black should not play b5?, but instead
...b6! "=/+" (Maybe - "/+")
(Reinfeld and Fine give the moves: "21.Bc4!! b5!!"
Needless to say this
is just plain bad AND wrong!)
*******
( A.) Not </= 21.bxc3? Bxc3+; ("/+") {Diag?} Black is clearly better.
B.) The move Bc4, (on move 21) has
been much praised, and even been
awarded multiple exclams. But my analysis indicates it is completely
insufficient: </= 21.Bc4?!
b6!; "=/+" and Black is at least a little
better
in this particular position.
-----> (21...Bf5; may also work here as well. Click HERE to read more.)
22.Kf1, {Diagram?} This could be forced.
(22.Ba3? Bb7; 23.Rh3 Bf8; "/+")
22...Bf5; 23.Nxf5 gxf5; 24.g6!?,
{Diagram?}
White is already in a pickle.
***
( a.) White could also try:
24.Bf7!? Rec8; 25.Bf2 Ne4; 26.g6 h6;
27.c3 Rd8; "=/+" {Diagram?}
Black is at least a little better in this position.
b.) Maybe White's best chance would
have been:
24.bxc3!? bxc5; 25.Rd1 Re7; "/+" {Diagram?}
and Black is better, however White may yet retain some drawing
chances due to the presence of opposite-colored Bishops. )
***
24...h6; 25.Bd6 Rad8; 26.Bxf4
Rd4!; 27.Bxh6 Rxc4; 28.Bd2+ Kg8;
29.bxc3 Rd8; 30.Rh2 Rg4;
"/+" {Diagram?}
Black is clearly better here. ) (This
note added: Tues; August 19, 2003.)
*******
21...Nd5; 22.Rxh7+! Kxh7; 23.Bxg6+ Kh8; 24.Bxe8 Nxe7;
A reasonable move here (by
Black).
(One magazine examines the line: "="
24...Bg4!?; 25.Bd7!, Bxd7; 26.Nxd5, "~" {Diagram?}
... "as {being} about equal." - GM Pal Benko in
'Chess Life.')
This {sub} note added: Wednesday; January 12th,
2004.)
25.Bxe7 Bxb2!;
26.Rb1 Bc3+; 27.Kf2 Be6; "~" ("=")
{Diagram?}
And I rate this position as
unclear. (The computer gives
a tiny, tiny
edge to White.) I think the average GM would
have to admit that winning
this
position ... would be next to impossible.
(REPEATED computer tests have
confirmed this conclusion.)
This is my own, ORIGINAL
analysis. And it represents a HUGE
improvement
over all previously
published work!! {A.J.G.} ]
*********************************************************************
20.Bc4??,
{Diagram?}
This might seem harsh, but ...
Many annotators have praised this
move, and even adorned it with
1
or 2 exclams ... but it is really bad.
(White goes from a possibly winning
game to a losing one with this
one
very, very poor play.)
'!!' - R.N. Coles.
'?' - GM Andrew Soltis.
*******
"This Bishop move does hand away
whatever chances White had ... "
- GM Andrew Soltis.
(Burgess echoes this, calling it
brave, but gravely mistaken.)
************
[ With the very simple: >/=
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: </= 22.Bxe8?, - GM Andrew Soltis.
22...Rxe8; "/+" {Diagram?}
and Black evidently has a sizeable
edge in this particular position. )
22...exf4; "=/+"
(Probably - "/+")
and Black is very clearly much
better in this position.
(I gave this position to one friend
who is a Postal Master. He worked
on it
for a very long time. He says
he has worked this position out to
a win for
Black ... and I believe him!)
***
R.N. Coles gives a line that is
obviously much inferior to ...Ne4.
(He gives the following continuation,
but does not mention ...Ne4.)
</= 20...Be6?;
21.Bxe6 fxe6; 22.bxc3 Bf8; 23.Rxh5 Bxe7;
24.Bxe7 Rxe7; 25.fxe5 Rc8;
26.0-0-0! Rxc3?!; 27.g6, '±'
and White is clearly much better
than Black in this position. ]
************
21.Bxf7,
{See the diagram given. (below)}
This move was praised by some
annotators, but it looks like the
only decent
try for Lasker here. (To me.)
*************************
|
|
R3K2R/PPP5/2n5/5p2/2B3Pp/8/pp2NBbp/r1b1r2k (Black to move)
*************************
Coles (naturally) awards another
rather pointless exclam here.
(The move is too obvious.)
'!' - R.N. Coles.
*************************
[ Variation # 25W1.)
White's other moves are not all
that attractive, especially at first
glance. For example: = 21.bxc3!?,
('?!') {Diagram?}
This is condemned by most
authors ...
but I have never
found a clear-cut refutation.
21...Bxc3+!?; {Diagram?}
This is interesting, but it may
not be best.
***
( Black's trickiest line - and the one
that probably offers the most
chances - is: >/= 21...b6!; 22.Bb4 a5;
23.Bd6! Bxc3+; 24.Kf2 Bb7;
25.Rad1! Bxh1; 26.Rxh1 Rad8; 27.Nf5, "+/=" {Diagram?}
I spent months working out some
of the best lines. I e-mailed this
position to a strong IM on ICC.
{I took lessons from him several
years ago.}
(I told him this position
was from a postal game of mine.)
After studying the position for over
two days, he wrote back and said
that White has a completely won
position and that Black's extra
Pawns
are virtually meaningless! )
***
(Returning here to my main
analysis line.)
22.Kf2 Bxa1;
23.Rxa1 Kg7; {Diagram?}
This looks forced.
24.Nxc8 Raxc8; 25.Bd4+ Kf8; 26.Bd3,
"+/=" (Maybe - '±') {Diagram?}
This is a position I spent days
{weeks?} on,
and e-mailed to several chess
friends.
The consensus is that
White - with two Bishops for the
Rook - is clearly
better here.
(The extra Black Pawns are just
about insignificant here, due to
the shattered
structure. With best
play, Black's pawns are picked off
fairly easily.)
*******
Variation # 25W2.)
A big mis-fire is the continuation:
21.Rxh5?! Bg4!; 22.Rh4 Na4!;
23.Bd6 Bxb2!;
"=/+" (Maybe - "/+") {Diagram?}
and Black is the only one who
is better in this position. ]
*************************
21...Ne4?!;
(Maybe - '?')
This move was highly praised by
many authors.
("A magnificent
counter-effort," says Savielly
Tartakower and J. Du Mont.
And
Coles gives it TWO exclams.)
'!!' - R.N. Coles.
'?' - GM Andrew Soltis.
This move ... "comes one move too late." - GM Andy Soltis.
... "tempting, but unsound." - GM John Nunn.
With ...Rf8!, (Maybe - '!!'); Black can
make White's road to the
win much
more thorny.
[ >/= 21...Rf8!; - GM John Nunn. ]
22.Bxe8 Bxb2;
This is ugly, but Black had few
good choices hereabouts.
[ Even worse was: </=
22...Nxc5?!; ('?') 23.Bxh5, '±'
{Diag?}
and White is better here - if not
just plain winning in this position.
***
Or 22...Be6?; 23.Bxh5 Nxc5;
24.Bg6 h6;
25.Rd1!,
'±' (Probably "+/-") with White clearly on top. ]
23.Rb1 Bc3+; 24.Kf1,
This is forced for White.
[ </= 24.Ke2? Bg4+; 25.Kd3 Nxc5+; 26.Kxc3 Rxe8; "/+" ]
24...Bg4!;
Black is down a lot of material, and
thus he must play very precisely.
This is one of the few times Coles
awards an exclam in this game ...
that I actually agree with him!
'!' - R.N. Coles.
[ After some fairly reasonable moves
like the following:
</= 24...Nxc5?!;
25.Bxh5 Kg7;
This gives Black King some
escape squares.
( </= 25...Ne4?!; 26.Bg6!, "+/-" )
26.Nxc8 Rxc8; 27.Rh3 Ba5; 28.Rh4,
'±'
White is better ... and close to
winning. (An exchange up.) ]
25.Bxh5!,
(Maybe - '!!') {Diagram?}
Very nice ... White re-opens the
h-file to renew the attack ...
but it
costs Lasker a whole Rook to do
so!!
'!' - R.N. Coles. '!' - GM Andrew Soltis.
[ Interesting is: 25.Bf7!?, "+/=" ]
The next 3-4 moves look to be
relatively best.
(Coles gives White's
26th move an exclam, but I cannot
offer a
satisfactory explanation as
to why he did this, other than effect.)
25...Bxh5; 26.Rxh5 Ng3+;
27.Kg2 Nxh5; 28.Rxb7, ('!') {See
the diagram given.}
It is strange that this try, which
at first glance seems to simply re-establish
material equality, is the
beginning to a new phase of the
game - where White's
pieces seem
to gain in energy with every move.
*************************
|
|
8/P1P3K1/2b5/5p2/2B3Pn/8/pR2N2p/r6k (Black to move)
*************************
From this point on, White's piece play is fun to watch ... and most impressive. (!)
[ 28.Rb3!? ]
28...a5;
White threatened Rxa7 ... Black
could not lose this vital pawn.
R.N. Coles gives White's next
move an exclamation point.
29.Rb3!, (Maybe - '!!')
Soltis gives this move no mark
of any kind, although it has been
praised by
several other authors.
Does he feel that the Rook maneuver Rook-at-b7-to-b3-to-h3
is so common
and
hackneyed that it merits no
accolades? If so, I must ...
very respectfully ... disagree.
'!' - R.N. Coles. '!' - FM Graham Burgess.
[ 29.Kf3!?, '±' or 29.Bd6!?, '±' ]
29...Bg7!?;
This could be forced, but has the
unfortunate aspect of taking away
all the flight
squares away from the
Black King in this position.
[ Maybe 29...Ba1!?; was worth a try? ]
R.N. Coles gives exclams to both
White's 30th and 31st moves here,
but one
of them seems a little
extraneous to me.
30.Rh3 Ng3; 31.Kf3! Ra6!?;
This could be dubious and is
definitely less than absolute best.
(Black was logically trying to guard
the g6-square. And Black was much
worse - or even lost - no matter
what move he played here. When a
player
has a completely hopeless
game and makes a bad move, I
find it difficult
to be extremely harsh
or critical.)
...
"a final, time-pressure error." "Better was 31...Re8; 32.Bd6, Nf1."
- GM Andrew Soltis.
'?' - GM Andrew Soltis.
*******
[ The respected author gives:
>/= 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 </=
31...Be5??; 32.Ng6+, {Diagram?}
and Black drops a piece. ("+/-")
]
*******
All of Lasker's remaining moves
are probably the best ... and you
could give each
one an exclam,
if it pleases you to do so.
32.Kxf4 Ne2+; 33.Kf5 Nc3; 34.a3 Na4; 35.Be3, ('!')
("+/-")
{Diagram?}
Black Resigns.
(White's threats connected with
Pawn-to-g6 are simply too strong
for Black to overcome.)
[ White wins easily, for example:
35.Be3! Nc3!?; 36.g6 h6;
{Diagram?}
This might be forced.
(Or Black could play: 36...Rf6+!?; {Diagram?}
but he is still losing.)
37.Bxh6, "+/-" {Diagram?}
and Black will have to shed a
whole Rook to avoid an
impending mate. ]
It is almost funny to note that despite the equal material, Lasker has overwhelming threats.
In the book, "Dr. Lasker's Chess
Career," we find the following
comment:
"One of the most beautiful, most
profound, most exciting, and one
of THE
most difficult
games in the
whole literature of chess."
- GM Reuben Fine & Fred Reinfeld.
(My emphasis.)
Reti calls this a rich and complex struggle.
Tartakower and Du-Mont call this: ... "a magnificent encounter," ...
and ... "full of possibilities."
They close with the comment of:
"A justly celebrated game."
***
Soltis offers the following counterpoint:
(After noting that at one time that
this game had the aura of an immortal.)
<< Its reputation was enhanced by
Richard Reti's high praise in his book,
"Masters Of
The ChessBoard." And
in a book of Lasker's games, Reuben
Fine and
Fred Reinfeld (surely)
went
overboard: (See the quote above.)
It does not, however, stand up to
close scrutiny. >> - GM Andy
Soltis.
*****************************************************************************************************
Copyright (c) A.J. Goldsby I. Copyright (c) A.J.G; 2003.
*******
BIBLIOGRAPHY:
First, I annotated this game from memory - pulling just the raw
score from an
on-line database. Then I looked at the following sources, in the
order given:
# 1.) (A barely readable) Copy of the original tournament book.
# 2.)
[The Mammoth Book Of]
"The World's Greatest Chess Games,"
by Dr.
(& GM) John Nunn, GM John Emms, and FM Graham
Burgess.
(The main analysis here is by Nunn.
It is by far the most sober and
accurate
assessment of this game
that I have seen to date. It is also
extremely detailed
and thorough.)
Published by
Carroll & Graf books. Copyrighted by the authors, 1998.
#
3.) "The 100 Best,"
('The 100 Best Games of The 20th Century, Ranked.);
by GM Andrew Soltis. Copyright (c) 2000, by the author.
Published by McFarland Books.
(Soltis
considers this game to be one of THE MOST
OVER-RATED
games of all time!! His analysis begins on page 18.)
#
4.) "Epic Battles of The
Chess-Board," by R.N. Coles.
(c) 1952, David McKay Books.
{The analysis in this book was
pretty bad, I chalk it up to the
poor
technology of that era.}
#
5.) "Chess Highlights of The 20th Century,"
('The
Best Chess 1900-1999 In Historical Context')
by
FM Graham Burgess. (The year 1904.)
Published by Gambit
Books, Copyright (c), by G. Burgess. © 1999.
#
6.) I have many different game
collections of Lasker's games.
Ones by: Hannak, Whyld, Barden,
Reinfeld, etc.
(And other game
collections of great players that
also cover Lasker.)
But easily the
most significant is the one:
"The Collected
Games Of
Emmanuel Lasker," by Ken Whyld.
Copyright (c) 1998, by
the author. Published by The Chess Player.
{This is one of the most thoroughly
documented books I have ever
seen,
virtually every resource has
been checked and listed.}
#
7.) "EMANUEL LASKER,
The Life of a Chess Master,"
by Dr. J. Hannak.
Copyright (c) by the author, 1952,
& 1959. (1991? Dover reprint.)
Published by Dover Books of
New York. ISBN: # 0-486-26706-7
{My old/last copy of this book fell
apart after years of use/overuse.
So in May of 2003, I ordered a new
copy on the Internet.}
NOTE:
Most big Lasker fans inform
me this is THE book to own on
his
life and games!
#
8.) "The book of the
Tournament:
Cambridge Springs, 1904."
By various. (Reprint.)
#
9.) "Lasker's Greatest Chess
Games," ---> 'The years 1889 to 1914.'
By Fred Reinfeld
and Reuben Fine. (c) 1963, Dover Books.
(I also have an
original edition of this book.)
#
10.) "Masters Of The ChessBoard,"
by the great (GM) Richard Reti.
(Dover reprint.)
#
11.) The most excellent book: "500 Master
Games Of Chess,"
by
GM Savielly Tartakower & James Du Mont.
(c) 1975, Dover Books. (reprint)
#
12.) 'Chess Brilliancy,'
250 historic games; by NM Iakov Damsky.
Published by
EVERYMAN Chess, formerly Cadogan Books.
Translated by K.
Neat. (Copyright 2002.)
#
13.) This game is also given in
almost countless chess books
devoted
to chess tactics.
#
14.) I did NOT have this book when I
annotated this game, but I just recently purchased
the book on
NAPIER,
("The Forgotten Chess Master"); by J.
Hilbert. I like this book
and recommend
it highly to anyone interested in the life of this unique master.
(December 03rd,
2003.)
#
15.) See the January,
2005 issue of 'Chess Life'
magazine. GM Pal Benko's column,
("Endgame Lab"); beginning on page 44. (Benko
seems to have borrowed many of
his
ideas directly from this web page.)
*******
NOTE: Years back, they used to hold
a contest in Mobile, AL to determine
the
best commercial program (or box)
in the whole U.S.A. They called this
event,
"The U.S. COMPUTER Open." (I watched this event nearly every year
that it was played.)
The second or the third year, one of
the organizers asked me to put
together a list
of 30-50 games that
the computers might have trouble
analyzing. This was one of
the games
that I chose from my library. It was
almost comical to see these early
chess 'boxes,' (dedicated, micro-processors); attempt to analyze
games as
complicated as this one. (The evaluations would 'flip-flop'
every few seconds!)
*****************************************************************************************************
(Code Initially) Generated with ChessBase 8.0
Copyright (c) A.J. Goldsby I. Copyright (c) A.J.G; 2003.
Click here to go/return to my domain. There is no site map, but you can click here.
Click here
to go to - or return to - my page of:
ANNOTATED GAMES, (Angel-Fire 2) Page #3.
Click here to go to my (main) "Recent GM Games" page.
***
Click HERE
to go to (or return to) my page ...
devoted entirely to the great player, Emanuel
Lasker.
***
Click here
to go to, (or return to) my
"Best Games Page" on my Geo-cities
web site.
***
Click here to go to the site for this event.
(Or use the "back" button on your web browser.)
(To contact me concerning this analysis, click here.)
I have annotated this game MANY times ... I did a very brief version - based on R.N. Coles work - that was first published in the Alabama 'Chess Antics' sometime during the 1970's. (I am not sure of the exact year.)
My LONG version of this game, (on my main hard drive); which contains a comment and a diagram after every move, dozens of imported games, an opening survey, DEEP analysis of all possible variations ... this version now runs OVER 75 pages!!!!! (And I am not even done with it - in fact I have given up on ever finishing it!)
Around May or June of 2003, I mailed one version into 'Chess Life' magazine ... in the hopes that they might publish a few excerpts from that analysis. That version was mainly analysis and had a limited number of diagrams ... but, if my memory serves me, it was close to 25 pages in length. (double-column pages)
After a deep reflection, I decided to NOT try and publish the version that I sent in to the U.S. Chess Federation. (Chess Life) The VERY DEEP analysis at some points ... would make for variations and sub-variations, {and side-variations}; that would be almost impossible to follow ... and very, very, very, difficult to format. (And somehow I doubt that very many people would go over {and through} all of the various notes and sub-notes. This labyrinth would simply be too difficult to follow. In fact, the best response I have gotten to web pages has been the kind of pages that are MOSTLY verbiage and variations that are short - and very to the point!!) Therefore, I went back to a blank piece of paper, (new computer file); and started from scratch. I have felt free to consult any of my other work, and any of the original references. (Before this page is published, I will review all of them.) I did NOT set myself any page limits, but I did promise not to explore every possibility. I basically wanted to streamline both the verbiage and the variations. (If there are some lines I did not cover, please consult one of the works in the bibliography. Or fire up your favorite program and work it out yourself.) But at the same time, MANY mistakes and misconceptions exist as concerning this game. It is my hope to clear up as many of these as possible. I WANT THIS TO BE CONSIDERED ONE OF THE DEFINITIVE WORKS OF ANALYSIS ON THIS PARTICULAR GAME!!!
I had another page on
this game ... that was posted on my "Excite" web site in approximately
1994.
But that group of servers went bust a long time back. (Late '90's?)
This page was first posted, (here): April 24th, 2003. This page was last updated on 11/29/14 .
Copyright (c) A.J. Goldsby, 1975 - 2014.
Copyright (©) A.J. Goldsby, 2015. All rights reserved.
