I wonder if Lasker sensed his move 23 as he played his move 9.

Can anyone recommend a good book they've read on sacrifices ... their calculation is probably the weakest part of my game. ?

click for larger view

<14.Nh5!><Now Lasker has finally set up the attacking position he's been aiming for, and there is no valid defense, e.g. 14...d4 15. Nxf6+ (15. Bxf6 with the idea of Qg4 also leads to a powerful attack) 15...Bxf6 (15...gxf6 16. Rf3 fxe5 17. Bxh7+ Kh8 [17...Kg7 18. Rg3+ Kf6 19. Qh5 and mates] 18. Rg3 mates or wins the queen) 16. exd4 cxd4 17. Bxf6 gxf6 18. Rf3 and white wins at least a pawn. Also ...14 Ne8 loses to 15. Bxg7! with the idea of Qg4, and the relative best 14...Rf8 (giving the king somewhere to run) allows 15. Nxf6+ Bxf6 16. Bxh7+ (intending to meet 16...Kxh7? with the crushing 17. Qh5+ Kg8 18. Bxf6 gxf6 19. Qh6 and black can only watch in horror as white forces mate with Rf3-g3 etc.*) 16...Kf8 and black can "continue to resist a pawn down" (Kasparov) but that would be a thankless task against a player of Lasker's ability.>

This and 15.Bxh7+!! established Lasker's reputation, much like Carlos Torre's 25.Bf6!! against Lasker at Moscow 1925 and Fischer's 17...Be6!! against Donald Byrne. The 2 bishop-sack has been copied dozens of times and dubbed "Lasker's Combination," (more info >>> http://www.amazon.com/Laskers-Combi...) the title of a 1998 book devoted to it.

But this raises a question that will recur in these pages. Just how original was Lasker? There had been published examples of the 2 bishop-sack before, played in Great Britain in 1867 and 1884. Those combinations were carried out by masters (Cecil de Vere and John Owen) much better known than Lasker was in 1889. Why isn't it "de Vere's Combination"?

One school of thought would argue: What counts is who played an idea for the first time. Lasker doesn't deserve the credit for coming in third.

Another school replies: But Lasker was almost certainly unaware of the British games. (They were little known until mentioned in the British Chess Magazine in 2003.) Therefore Lasker was being original in terms of his own understanding of chess.

Besides, this school would argue, the Bauer game was played in an international tournament, one of the few held in the 1880s. Surely a player who first tests his ideas in major events deserves the credit. That's why openings such as Alekhine's Defense or the Benko Gambit have those names even though others played the moves earlier.

Scroll ahead to 1914: World Champion Lasker has won the St Petersburg super-tournament. Tarrasch, his bitter rival, finished fourth but consoled himself with a brilliancy prize victory. However, it was only the second brilliancy prize because Tarrasch's winning idea, a 2 bishop-sacrifice, seemed to lack...something.

At the final banquet, Tarrasch looked for an ally to appeal the prize jury's decision. According to Pyotr Romanovsky, who was present, he found himself asking Lasker for support. "Isn't it true, Doctor, that my victory over Nimzovich was a genuine creation of art?" he asked.

For the previous decade, the biennial German Chess Congress had included an "Hauptturnier" in addition to the master tournament. The winner of the Hauptturnier was recognized as a Master, with the right to play in major international tournaments.

Sometimes the winners went on to great careers (Siegbert Tarrasch, 1883). Others had average to mediocre careers (Curt von Bardeleben, 1881) or ended up not doing much of anything (Max Harmonist, 1885)

This game matched the two most recent winners, Bauer in 1887 and Lasker about a month before Amsterdam. Bauer hadn't played much since his victory, so Amsterdam was the first international test for both.

Would either of the players turn out to be a superstar? The game certainly provided an indication.