As for c5, it is indeed dubious, Nc5! (another reason Nbd7 was a fine move) would have been much better as it would have eliminated one of whites powerful bishops.

Although the biggest black mistake IMHO in that he did not play ...3 d4, when no matter what whites pawn structure is shattered, one reason to play Nf3 early on as white in the Bird's.

Although, those moves were typical of the style of the ages, and although nowadays most strong players would find d4 and Nc5 immediatley, that wasn't the way it was played then and you can't compare different eras.

Overall though, a fantastic attack by Lasker, and one of my all-time favorite combinations.

1. f4 d5 2. e3 Nf6 3. b3

<Lasker plays in his typical provocative style, avoiding the natural and superior 3. Nf3. He gets away with it but Nimzovitch - see below- was not so fortuate!>

3...e6 <Too solid - black should allow himself to be provoked! Correct is to cross the centre demarcation with 3...d4, when whites pawn structure will crack no matter what he plays. Nimzovitch vs. Steiner continued 4. Bd3 dxe3 5. dxe3 e5 and black had an excellent game. Incidentally Nimzovitch had an overwhelming score with the Bird: 5 wins (including one over WC Max Euwe), 2 draws and only that one loss to Steiner.>

4. Bb2 Be7
5. Bd3 <Lasker sets up his raking bishops to attack black's kingside - but this idea, while brilliantly succesful here, would hardly work against modern defensive measures>

5...b6 <One way to stop the danger immediatley would be 5...Ne4!? 6. Nf3 (6. Bxg7? Rg8) 6...Bh4+ 7. g3 Bf6 neutralizing both of white's mighty bishops!>

6. Nf3 Bb7 <6...Ba6 is another to eliminate white's bishop pair>

7. Nc3 <Usually in these fianchetto lines white develops this peice by way of d2-d3 and Nd2. Here because of Lasker's ecccentric (but aggressive) development of the light squared bishop, the knight has to go to this ackward square. Clearly the knight belongs on the kingside (Nc3-e2-g3) - and if it gets there without cost it can cause some serious damage - but objectively, black could equalize easily by snapping off a white bishop while all this is happening>

7...Nbd7
8. 0-0 0-0
9. Ne2 c5 <This is not a bad but, from a practical standpoint, much simpler is 9...Nc5. eliminating the dangerous bishop while also spoiling white's pawn structure (unless Lasker would be willing to play something like 10. Ne5 Nxd3 11. Nxd3 c5 when black has no problems). But again, I must state that Bauer's actual move, for all the criticism it has received over the years, is not an objective mistake, and black has, in fact, reasonable chances at this point.>

10. Ng3 Qc7
11. Ne5 Nxe5 <This is also not bad, but black should have taken advantage of a tactical opportunity and strike with 11...d4!, which is a common theme in the queen side fianchetto lines: black shuts out the dark-squared bishop. here it works, despite insufficient control of d4, because of a tactic based on the exposed g1-a7 diagonal. After 11...d4! play might continue 12.cxd4 cxd4 13.Bxd4 Bc5 (the tactic mentioned above) 14. c3 Nxe5 15. fxe5 Qxe5 and black is slightly better. Therefore white should not take the pawn but instead play 13. Qe2 when 13...Qd6 leads to an approximately equal game, as white has kingside play, but his bishop suffers.>

12. Bxe5 Qc6 13. Qe2 <White has to cover the mate threat before he attacks; the impetuos 13. Nh5 would only give black counterplay after 13...d4.>

13...a6? <Black fails to sense the danger, reacting to the sham threat of BB5 and completely missing the cyclone heading for his queen. Even now black could keep an apporximately level game in two ways. 13...Nd7 attacks a dangerous bishop, when the direct attack with 14. Bxh7+ leads only to a draw after 14...Kxh7 15. Qh5+ Kg8 16. Bxg7, while 14. Bb5 Qc8 15. Nh5 f6 16. Qg4 Rf7 also shuts down white's play. Alternatively black can play 13...Ne4 again obstructing a dangerous bishop with equality.>

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 forves 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.>

14...Nxh5
15. Bxh7+! <The cyclone hits. White begins an extraordinary combination which, as far as i know, is the first double bishop sacrifice of it's kind.>

15. Kxh7 16. Qh5+ Kg8 17. Bxg7!! <Like an unstoppable force of nature, Lasker keeps coming!>

17...Kxg7 <Declining it is no better.>

18. Qg4+ Kh7 19. Rf3 e5 <It is clear that black's every move is forced.>

20. Rh3+ Qh6 21. Rxh6+ Kxh6 22. Qd7! <The last sting of Lasker's brilliant combinations: white wins one of the loose bishops, remaining with queen vs. rook and bishop. Given his pawn superiority and continued attacking chances, white has a relatively easy win, although Lasker finds an artisitic way to close it out.>

click for larger view

21.Bxh7+ Kxh7 22.Qh5+ Kg8 23.Bxg7 Kxg7 24.Ra3 Qc7 25.Rd7 Bd6 26.Qg5+ Kh7 27.Rxc7 Bxc7 28.Qe7 Rac8 29.Rf3 c5 30.Qh4+ Kg7 31.Qg5+ Kh8 32.Rf6 Be4 33.Rh6+ Bh7 34.Qh5 1-0

The opening was a French Defence - I'll PGN the full score when I can track it down.

Imre Koenig was a Hungarian-born IM who spent 15 years in the UK before emigrating again to the US, where he died in 1992. For some reason he doesn't seem to have any games on the CG database as yet.

Indeed.

However, values are better compared as a ratio. Let's just assign the king a value of 3 in terms of its force in the endgame (due to it being close to the minor pieces in mobility). Then Lasker plays 38. cxd3 and the ratio of force would be 18:9. If he plays 38. Qxd3 and Bauer trades heavy pieces, then the ratio of force is 9:4. In this evaluation, Lasker hasn't sacrificed anything - black would be the one sacrificing by playing 38 ... Rxd3.

This ratio of force concept makes more sense to me for practical purposes in less clear situations. For instance, take the starting position minus all the pieces leaving only pawns and kings. Here a 2 pawn handicap would be sufficient for a class level player to beat Anand - whereas with all the pieces, 2 pawns would be of little value against Anand (it would require almost a queen to create such an overwhelming ratio of force).