I have played, studyed, analized this game several times....

Among the hundreds fantastic defensive performance whome deserve to be studyed there are this ones: ( I did it...)

Alekhine vs Reti, 1922

and

Teschner vs Portisch, 1962

P.S.: This outstanding Portisch's defence has not yet commentated (!)...

Or is unknow for the greatets part of CG's kibitzer, ...

Or the defence is not so "charming"?!

<ughaibu> Yes he does, though not all of it makes sense. He really should have used an engine for this game.

This last round game allowed Lasker to tie Janowski for second place. It was very famous in its day -- Soltis notes that, in addition to the participants, it was annotated by Tarrasch, Chigorin, and Marshall (and apparently others, according to the Europe Echecs article. How I would love to see that article!).

In 1904 the game seems to have been regarded as one that Janowski let get away. Soltis fights against that judgment in his notes, but not always successfully IMO. He also argues that there was a sort of error in judgment re this game and Lasker-Napier -- that game, he says, though highly regarded in its day, was very sloppy, while this game, which was annotated (he says) very critically, was played at an extremely high level. We'll see. Direct quotes from Soltis (and also his sometimes strange allocation of question marks and exclamation points) are in carets. Comments from me/Shredder are in plain text.

4....Bc5, Soltis notes, was in vogue in 1904. Nxe5 would be stronger after 5.0-0 0-0, he points out, because after 5.Nxe5 Nxe5 6.d4 Bd6 7.f4 Nc6 8.e5 Bb4 9.d5? Ne4 10.Qd3 Nxc3 11.bxc3 Ba5! Black remains a piece ahead.

Soltis also gives a recent example of this line, Nunn vs J M Hodgson, 1991, though he claims it was played in 1988.

Instead of 8....c6, in Flechsig vs Zukertort, 1877 Black had gotten a positional advantage with 8....Be7 9.exf6 Qxf6 10.0-0 0-0 11.Ne4 d5 12.Nxf6+ Qxf6 13. c3 Bf5 14.Bd3? Rfe8. But f4-f5, at White's 11th or 13th move, would have given him the advantage according to Soltis.

Instead of 9.Bc4, White could have played 9.exd6 cxb5 10.Qe2+ Kf8 11.f5 Nh4 12.0-0 h6 and now 13.g3 gives White a winning position, as Janowski (per Soltis) pointed out. So it's hard to understand why Soltis gave 8...c6 an exclamation mark.

After 11....d5<!>

<This game was cited to support the mind-game theory. It was the psychologist rather than the chessplayer at work when Lasker, out of a humdrum opening, steered the game into complications," wrote Hannak. Some annotators felt that Lasker tried to lure Janowsky into the piece sack at move nine and, when that failed, felt he had to try again.

But how about the alternative explanation -- that Lasker was trying to find the best moves and succeeding? If Black had played the natural 11....0-0 White would get a reasonable game from 12.Ne4 Qe7 13.Bd5 d5 14.Ng3 and 15.c3. Black's chances are a bit better after 11....d5 12.Bb3 0-0.>

12.Bxd5

<Marshall and Janowsky believed this was sound, while Tarrasch thought it offered insufficient compensation.>

16....f6 gets Soltis' first question mark of the game. He doesn't give another until Lasker has a won position. Instead after 16....Kf8! <[t]he attack (17.Bd2 a5 18.b4) runs out of steam quickly (18....Bd7 and ...Nxd5).>

17.Bd2 a5 18.Qh5+ g6<!>

<Lasker felt this allowed White to reload. He preferred 18....Kf8 19.f5 Qd7, which protects e8 and threatens to cripple the attack with ...Nxd5.

But let's carry that a step further. 20.Nxe7 Bxe7 21.Re4! That not only sets a trap -- 21....Qxf5? 22.Qe2! --- but also creates favorable complications.

For example, 21....Kg8 22.Rxe7! Qxe7 23.Re1 and then 23....g6 24.fxg6 Be6 25.g7! Kxg7 26.d5!. Lasker defended better than he thought.>

19.c5<!> <"The winning move," claimed Janowski (19....Qxd5?? 20.Qxd5 and 19....gxh5? 20.cxd6 both lose).>

19....Qa6

Soltis, continuing analysis originally published by Janowski and Tarrasch, concludes that 19....Qc6 20.Nxe7 Bxe7 21.Qe2 Qc7 22.f5! g5 is unclear after 23.Qh5+ Kf8 24.h4 (24.Re6? Bxe6 25.fxe6 Kg7 26.Qf7+ Kh6 27.Rf1 Raf8 28.Rxf6+ Bxf6 29.Qxc7 Bxd4+ and Black mates). But Shredder immediately finds 23.Bxg5! (instead of 23.Qh5+) and White has a winning advantage. This is why Soltis should have used an engine.

20.Qh6 (threatening 21.Rxe7+, 21.Nb6, and 21.Nxe7 Bxe7 22.Rxe7+ Kxe7 23.Qg7+)

20....Be6

click for larger view

<One of the most famous positions of the start of the century," wrote Janowsky biographers Dimitry Plisetsky and Sergei Voronkov. White has four tempting moves and none is crystal clear.

Tarrasch and Janowsky thought 21.Qg7 was best, since it virtually forces 21....Bxd5 22.Qxh8+ Kd7 and White can coast to victory with 23.Qxh7. But Zak showed that 23....Qd3! 24.Rad1 Qf5 leaves the game up for grabs.> Von Krolock already covered this, I see. Shredder sees White as +0.40 better after running forever.

21.Nxe7 Bxe7 22.d5 Bxd5 23.Rxe7+ Kxe7 24.Qg7+ Bf7 25.Re1+ Kd7 26.Qxf7+ Kc8 and now either 27.Bc3 or 27.c6 are strong, possibly winning, for White.

21.Nb6 was Chigorin's recommendation. 21....Bxb6 22.Rxe6 wins on the spot and 21....Bf7 22.Qg7 Rg8 23.Qxf6 planning either Rxe7, doubling rooks on the e-file, or pushing the d-pawn also win2. But: 21....Kf7 22.Rxe6 Nf5! (not 22....Kxe6 23.Qg7! Rg8 24.Re1+) 23.Qh3 Kxe6 24.Qb3+ Ke7 25.Re1+ Kf8 26.Nxa8 Qxa8 27.Qe6 h5 28.d5 and Shredder thinks it's equal.

22.Ne4<!>

<At various points White can weigh the line-clearing d4-d5. But it never quite works, e.g. 22.d5 Nxd5 23.f5 Bxf6 24.fxe6+ Kg8 and Black's material should win.>

Shredder finds an amazing continuation after 22....Nxd5, 23.Ne8!! and if ...Rxe8? 24.Qxh7+ Kf6 25.f5! gxf5 26.h4! f4 27.g4! Bxg4 29.Rxe8 and White wins. 23....Kxe8 24.f5 Qd3 25.fxg6 Be7 26.Rxe6 Kd7 27.g7 Bxc5+ 28.Kh1 Rhg8 29.Rae1 and White is a little better.

22....Nf5<!> 23.Qh3 Be7

<Despite the annotators claims that White was lost, the chances are in rough balance. Or to put it another way, in such a position the better tactician will win.>

I don't think this is correct; Shredder sees Black as nearly a full pawn up now. White has three paws for the piece, but Black is finally developed, and White has terrible light-square weaknesses.

24.Bc3

<It's been claimed that 24.d5 Bxd5 25.Bc3 was best. But it wouldn't be hard to find the refutation: 25....Qc6 26.Bxh8 Rxh8 27.Nc3 Bxc5+ (Shredder thinks 27....Qxc5+ 28.Kh1 Bc6 is much better) 28.Kh1 Kg7.>

24.....Bd5 25.g4 Nh4 26.Nd6+

<Another try is 26.Nd2, which stops ...Nf3+, a major defensive resource, and also threatens 27.Rxe7+ and Qxh4. After 26....Bd8 27. Re5 Qc6 28.Rae1 and Ne4 White can still mount threats.>

26....Kf8<!>

<Not 26....Bxd6 27.Qxh4 Bf8 because of 28.f5! with a powerful attack, e.g. 28....gxf5 29.Rf1 Be4 30.Rae1 Re8 31.Rxe4! Rxe4 32.Rxf5+ Ke8 33.Qh5+ and wins (Khalifman/Soloviov).>

This is not at all clear after 33....Kd7 34.Rf7+ Be7 35.d5! (35.Qd5+ Ke8) 35....Qe2! and Black will win if anyone does.

27.Rxe7<!>

<"Desperation," Tarrasch wrote. "Janowsky decides to die prettily." The alternative was 27.Kf2 (27....Nf3?? 28.Qh6+) which threatens 28.Rxe7.

But White is dead lost after 27....g5 28.fxg5 Ng6, e.g. 29.Rxe7 Kxe7! 30.Re1+ Kd7 or 29.Qh6+ Kg8 30.Ne4 Qc6 31.Ng3 Bf8.>

27....Nf3+ 28.Qxf3

<Forced in view of the hopeless 28.Kf2 Kxe7 29.Re1+ Nxe1 or 29.f5 Qd3.>

28....Bxf3

click for larger view

29.Rf7+<??>

<White's only hope -- which nearly saves the game -- was 29.Rae1! threatening 30.Rf7+ and 31.Ree7, or 30.d5!

After 29....Bd5 30.g5! White threatens a perpetual check (Re8+). Black can avert that with 30....Qc6, but 31.Rxb7, which eliminates ...b6xc5, points out how powerless he is.

If he threatens mate with 31....Bh1, White has at least a perpetual check (32.Rf7+ Kg7 33.Rg7+!).

If he liquidates with 31....Qxb7 32.Nxb7 Bxb7 he is a rook ahead -- in an ending -- but has the worst of it after 33.d5!.

Black's best is 31....h6! which should win -- and it's a pity we'll never know how it would have turned out in mutual time pressure.>

29....Kg8

<The audience, who thronged around the table, waited for the dramatic conclusion that Janowsky must have foreseen. But this was none -- 30.Re1, threatening Ree7, loses to 30....Bd5 31.Rc7 Rf8.

30.d5 Bxd5 31.Rg7+ Kf8 32.Re1 Qc6 33.b4 Rd8

<Faster was 33....axb4 but Black takes the practical route of killing the knight.>

34.Bd4

<A trap is set by 34.Rxb7 because White is only slightly worse after 34....Rxd6 35.Rb8+ Kf7 36.Rxh8 Rf6? 37.Bxf6 and there's a lot of problems remaining after 36....Re6.

But 34....axb4! is a simple win (35.Bg7+ Kg8 36.Bd4 Rxd6!).

34....Rxd6! cxd6

<Hope (35....Qc2?? 36.Re8+! Kxe8 37.d7+ and wins) springs.>

35....Bh1!

Compare the move 9.Bc4 and 12.Bxd5

Move 12.Bxd5 is a good one...yes, black slightly better at that time...and i can say 12.Bxd5 is a good move to response.

But had he didnt choose the move 9.Bc4, he could win the match in a quick style.

It SHOULD 9.exd6!....why he chose 9.Bc4 instead of exd6! that not so hard to calculate towards 4 or 5 moves ahead and CLEARLY would get a win but after some moves he chose the more problematic sacrifice 12.Bxd5 only can be explained that in his aggressive mentality of playing, he just couldnt do consistently the right way to do it. It was his psychological problem for me.

9.exd6!...i give this 3 out 5 stars to calculate, but in chessgames.com it probably Sunday/Saturday. You can imagine the white d6 pawn would be an aching in the blacks camp.

9.exd6 cxb5 (now black position worsened, with the frozen bishop and others)

10.Qe2+ Kf8 11.f5

11...Qb6 12.fg hg 13.Nxb5 Rh5 (13...a6 14.Qe7+ Kg8 15.Nc7 Rb8 16.c3 ) 14.c4 a6 15.Nc7 Rb8 16.c5 Qb4+ 17.Qd2 Qxd2+ 18.Bxd2

11...Nh4 12.0-0 b4 13.Nb5 Nd5 14.f6! (14.Qe4 also good a6 15.Qxd5! axb 16.f6 ) Nxf6 15.Nc7 Rb8 16.Bg5...

11...b4 12.Nb5 Nd5 13.Qf3/0-0

It was claimed by Tschigorin that white missed his chance of not only winning the game but also the brilliancy prize with 21.Nb6!