25... Rh6

"!" -- (Kasparov)(Soltis)(Reinfeld/Fine)

Moving his Rook to the 6th rank where it can harass White's pawns on both sides of the board.

"The Rook is on the alert."

"So as to bring the Rook to attack the new weakness. Had White refrained from the check on the 24th move he could have answered this move by b4." (Winter).

"An easy move to overlook or underestimate. It explains why White should have kept his Rook at a1." (Soltis).

"Lasker immediately honed in on Q-side weaness after 25. a3?! with the excellent 25...Rh6!

A glance at the position reveals the power of Lasker's move:

click for larger view

26. h4

"Not 26. b4 Ra6. The text is intended to free White's King. but it only creates an additional weakness." (Reinfeld/Fine).

"Marshall doesn't want to admit his error, but 26. Ra1 was best because after 26...a5 27. h4 White has solved the problem of both rook's pawns." (Soltis). [But in Soltis' line Black would hold a crushing edge after 27...Bg4 (or indeed after 27...Ra6).

Kasparov and Soltis (and before them Winter) explored the position after 26. b4 Ra6 and concluded (correctly in my view) that it provided no balm for White's infirmities here. If 26. b4 Ra6 27. Rf3 (best but hopeless) Bg4 28. Rb3 (28. Rd3 Be2 is no fun either and is even worse) Bd1 29. Rb1 Bh5 and White's game is in the last throes.

I can find no saving line for White here, especially after Lasker's next move.

26... Ra6

"!"--(Kasparov)

Lasker's Rook used the 6th rank to wreak havoc with Marshall's fast-deteriorating position.

"As a result of the impressive maneuver Rb8-b5-h5-h6-a Black has an enormous advantage." (Kasparov).

The position after 26...Ra6 was:

click for larger view

27. Ra1

"...a rare example of a GM moving a Rook away from an open file." (woldsmandriffield)

woldsmandriffield goes on to recommend 27. a4, but that move also loses (to 27...Bg4).

"27. a4 Bg4 was hardly better." (Kasparov).

'Now 27. a4 Bg4 and h5 shows why Rook and Bishop are usually so much better than Rook and Knight in endings." (Soltis).

"It makes little difference whether this (27. Ra1) or 27.. a4 is played." (Winter).

27... Bg4

"!" -- (Kasparov)(Soltis).

This left:

click for larger view

28. Kf2

White's game is awful and desperate measures were required. My suggestion here is 28. e5 limiting Black's access to d6 and f6 (though after 28...Re6 29. Re1 a5 White's condition would still be critical).

28... Ke6

"Black is ready to trade pieces because his King can finally invade." (Soltis).

The position was now:

click for larger view

Hi Keg

This is rapidly aiming to become one of the best posts on this site...Your others are good, very good, but this is reading like a grad students thesis oozing effort, research and clarity.

Adding to the 4.d4 discussion:

"Much ink has been spilled in the commentaries on this game criticizing Marshall's choice here."

This game is one of my favourites from Chernev's 'Most Instructive Games' (game 41). He states after 4. d4

click for larger view

'This is not an improvement on 4.0-0 but Marshall wanted an open game.'

In his 1904 book on openings Marshall says (page 54) White has four good lines of play, 4.d3, 4.d4, 4.Nc3 and 4.0-0 (best) The brackets come from Marshall.

https://archive.org/details/cu31924...

So it would appear Marshall knew 4.0-0 was the choice move but wanted to go his own way.

Interesting book that, Marshall kicks it off with:

"In Submitting this work to the Chess Public I am fully aware that my opinions of many of the lines of play given are in opposition to the dictum of some of the recognised authorities on openings."

Keep up the excellent work Keg.

Hi Keg,

If Marshall had won this game then Reti would have proudly proclaimed that Marshall was using Lasker's weapons against him.

Knowingly not playing the best move to unsettle an opponent.

29. a4

"If 29. Nf3 to avoid loss of a tempo, Black can capture [the Knight] and follow up with 29...Ke5." (Sergeant)

"29. Nf3 BxN 30. KxB Ke5 was just as bad." (Reinfeld-Fine).

Kasparov and Soltis echo the above analysis of 29. Nf3.

I see no saving line for White here. Perhaps 29. e5?! Kxe5 30. Re1+ would have created some problems for Lasker (which he likely would have solved).

The position after 29. a4 was:

click for larger view

29... Ke5

The decisive factor in this position is the greater activities of Black's pieces, especially of his King." (Tartakower-DuMont).

An amazing position; only ten simple moves and White's position is in ruins." (Kasparov)

30. Kg2

30. Rh1 might have allowed stiffer resistance, but this would at best delay but not alter the likely outcome.

In practice, the line Marshall pursued, hopeless as it appears, led to a position in which Lasker erred on move 37 allowing Marshall a chance he did not seize.

30... Rf6

"!"--(Fine).

"Black has a choice of move orders [i.e., he can now play 30...d3]." (Soltis).

The text does seem best, and Lasker now had the game well in hand (or should have):

click for larger view

31. Re1

31. Rf1 seems to gain time, but is probably no better than the text.

31... d3

"After the superb 31...d3 opening up an entry route for the Black King, Marshall could have resigned." (woldsmandriffield).

"My favorite move." (usiduodiego).

"The Black King now enters the White entrenchment with fatal effect." (Winter).

"The passed pawn supported by the King now brings about the decision." (Reti)

"The 'lust to expand' of the passed pawn!" (Reinfeld/Fine).

The position now was:

click for larger view

The position certainly looks hopeless for Marshall. But, as Tartakower once said, "No body ever won [or drew!!] a game by resigning," Even with Lasker playing Black, the subsequent course of the game shows that Marshall might have had a chance as a result of a momentary lapse on move 37 by Lasker.

32. Rf1

Should Marshall have played to exchange Rooks. The resulting Bishop versus Knight ending certainly looks hopeless. But something like 32. a5 Be2 doesn't look like much fun either.

"After the exchange of Rooks White will obviously be at a great disadvantage. But Black is threatening in any case to get a terrible bind on the position." (Sergeant).

32... Kd4

"Alas the heroic Rook will not be present to witness Black's triumph." (Kasparov).

33. RxR gxR

This left:

click for larger view

34. Kf2

"White is getting into Zugzwang since any move of the Knight would allow the King to penetrate." (Reti)

This temporarily keeps the Black King off e3, but Marshall was clearly running out of moves. The references to Zugzwang in the commentaries on this game were thus entirely apt.

34... c6

"Winning the e-pawn by zugzwant. He could also have won by 34...Kc3 35. Ke3 Bd1 (35...a5 also wins) or 35. Ke1 a5" (Winter)

34...Kc3 does seem to be the most brutal and immediate way to win. 34...a5 also would have done the trick.

The position after 34...c6 was:

click for larger view

Reti, Reinfeld/Fine, and Soltis all note White's helplessness here. A classic example of zugzwang.

35. a5

If 35. Nb1 a5 (or better still the simple 35...Kxe4) and Black wins.

35... a6

The position is remarkable. White cannot move without sustaining irreparable damage:

click for larger view

36. Nb1 Kxe4

"By scientific strangulation White has been compelled to give up a Pawn, and he might now resign." (Sergeant).

37. Ke1

This left:

click for larger view

Lasker had a simple win here with 37...Ke3. But:

37... Be2??

For a century, commentators had overlooked the fact that this move imperiled--and possibly blew--the win. So far as I can see, only <nezhmet> on this site noticed that this move by Lasker was a colossal error. The position was now:

click for larger view

The following comment by Reti exemplifies the erroneous evaluation of the position until nezhmet's brilliant comment. [Bravo nezhmet]:

"Now the Zugzwang is complete. The Knight must move [WRONG--KEG] and the Black King will be able to penetrate..." (Reti)

But, as apparently only nezhmet has noticed, 38. Kd2 makes Black's win difficult if not impossible.

The only efforts to consider how Black could play to win after 38. Kd2 are by Kasparov (who gives 38...f5 as the refutation) and estrick on this site (who gives 38...Kf3 39. Nc3 f5 as a win). The two lines transpose, and after 38. Kd2 f5 39. Nc3+ Kf3 or 38. Kd2 Kf3 39. Nc3 f5 [clearly not 39...Kxg3 40. Ne4+ with a likely draw] the position would be:

click for larger view

Continuing the analysis of what had occurred had Marshall played 38. Kd2 (instead of his hopeless 38. Nd2+), it appears that the critical question is whether White can develop sufficient counterplay by gobbling up Black's Queen-side pawns. Can White create enough threats to save the game, and perhaps Queen his a-pawn?

Let's see:

40. Na4

The only chance.

40... Kxg3

The sole chance to play for a win. Indeed, any other move by Black here would actually lose.

41. Nxc5 f4

Can this pawn promote before White Queens?

42. Nxa6

This would have left:

click for larger view

42... f3

43. Nc5 Kf4

(if 43...f2 44. Ne4+ and White wins!)

44. Ne6+ Ke5
45. Ke3 f2
46. Kxf2 Bg4
47. Ke3 BxN
48. Kxd3 c5

This is perhaps best play and looks like a win for Black:

click for larger view

There is still work to do, but if my analysis is best, this is all tough sledding for Black. The alternate line (42...Bg4) is also a tough win at best for Black:

42... Bg4
43. Nb4 f3
44. Nxd3 Bf5
45. a6

The a-pawn marches!

45... BxN
46. a7

White has no time to recapture since 46. KxB f2 47. a7 f1(Q)+

46... f2
47. a8(Q) f1(Q)
48. Qxc6 Bf5

This would leave:

click for larger view

Fritz and Stockfish assure me this is a win for Black. But--to say the last--Lasker would have had his work cut out for him.

Returning to the actual game, after Lasker's 37...Be2, the position was:

click for larger view

38. Nd2+?

This lemon gave Lasker no problems.

38... Ke3

This penetration effectively ends the game:

click for larger view

What followed was a massacre, but Lasker's winning method is a pleasure to behold.

39. Nb1

Marshall was reduced to shuffling his Knight back and forth, until Lasker foreclosed that possibility as well.

39... f5
40. Nd2 h5
41. Nb1

"White cojld resign now, but the finish is amusing." (Winter)

41... Kf3

The position was now:

click for larger view

Marshall could not defend his g-pawn, so he had to try a desperate counterattack on the Queen-side; a plan Lasker brushed aside with ease.

42. Nc3 Kxg3
43. Na4 f4

43...Kxh4 also wins easily.

44. Nxc5 f3

44...Kxh4 would also have won quickly.

The position was now:

click for larger view

45. Ne4+

45. Kd2 Kf4 was also hopeless.

45... Kf4
46. Nd6 c5

"A final reserve move with a pawn compelling Whhite to make some move which loses." (Sergeant)

If 47. Nb7 Ke3 and mate next move.

47. b4 cxb4
48. c5 b3

Now Lasker has a new threat with his b-pawn, leaving Marshall with no time to Queen his c-pawn.

49. Nc4 Kg3
50. Ne3 b2

This left:

click for larger view

Here Marshall abandoned the hopeless struggle and resigned.

To me, this feels like a relatively effortless win for Lasker. As usual, Stockfish doesn't really approve of his opening play. What I find most interesting is Lasker's moves 11 to 15, especially the last one -- <15...Qh3> (threatening 16...Bg4 and 17...dxe3) looks stronger than it is, but Stockfish still evaluates it to be significanly better than <15...Qf6> (-1 instead of -0.3). However, the latter forces an exchange of all heavy pieces resulting in a bishop vs knight endgame. And Marshall may have been a great attacker, but he sure wasn't a great endgame player.

I'm pretty sure Lasker saw all this (he was quite a good chess player I heard). Yes, he had to gamble that Marshall would play <15.g3?>, but even <15.Qd2> gets the minor pieces off the board, and I'm sure Lasker would have been able to draw this against Marshall.

As often with Lasker, I get the feeling that he took into account the strengths and weaknesses of his opponent, and that he liked to gamble, taking calculated risks.

Anyways, the endgame after the big exchange is a pretty one-sided affair. Even though <34...Kc3> or <37...Ke3> would probably have won faster, Lasker keeps the initiative throughout and makes sure to restrict White's play to the point where the knight is forced to hop back and forth. Very nasty, and also very instructive!

The strength gap between highly-rated players is larger than their ratings would show and that between lower rated is smaller. Contrary to Marshall (and Spielmann and others), one cannot really separate matches from tournaments. To borrow from The Big Tuna, "You are your record." Sans matches, Marshall has a much better score vs Tarasch and against Rubinstein.

I'm the first to agree that any kind of rating is only a very rough approximation to the strength of a player. Beginning with the fact that chess and the human playing it both are too complex and psychological that it may be possible to accurately and fully represent the strength(s!) of a player in a simple one-dimensional number.

As you said, some guys are great in certain kinds of positions and bad in others. Some are great at strategy, some at tactics. Some guys just know how to handle the specific strengths and weaknesses of another guy. Some people are good in matches and suck in tournaments, others vice-versa. Etcetera etcetera etcetera.

In fact, although I am of course interested in Elo-style ratings and rankings because they're such a neat simplification, privately, I mostly and completely informally divide chess players into classes or "tiers". Tier 1 is World Championship candidates level. To get there, you must be well rounded and have reasonably good nerves in all situations. Tier 2 is Grandmaster level, people who in their strengths are probably equal to tier 1, but who aren't quite able to completely get rid of a few weaknesses, whatever they may be. Tier 3 is about Master level -- people with this awe-inspiring ability to just "think" and "see" chess, and calculate more than just a couple of moves ahead like the legion of players like me, myself & I.

But as usual, even these categories are abstractions. For example, I'm not sure whether I would put Marshall into the WCh candidates tier. I guess I would, both edochess and chessmetris agree he was a top 10 player throughout the early 20th century, peaking in the top 5 around 1905 and 1915. But what I've seen so far of his play told me that while he was deadly at tactics, he wasn't great and everything else. And by the early 20th century, you had well-rounded players that were great at both tactics and strategy, and who knew how to steer the game into a direction they liked: Lasker, Capablanca, and Rubinstein at least. (I'm only beginning to have a deeper look at games by the great masters of this time, maybe Alekhine, Schlechter and a few others also belong onto this list.)

(Maybe I should add another tier 0, "World Champion material". Then Marshall definitively isn't WCh material, but definitively candidate. (Ding Liren also is tier 0, while poor Nepo isn't -- the nerves...) However, I know that creating more categories only leads to more border cases, so I'll keep it as it is.)

But one also has to keep in mind with these kind of informal categorizations is that they are necessarily subjective (unlike Elo and other numerical rating/ranking schemes). I'm aware that I do value and admire positional play more than tactics, so my ranking is definitively biased -- and I'm actually fine with that, I'm not deluded to think that I am righter or wronger than anybody else.

The problem is that people often mistake their view of the reality with reality itself, which is the root source of all human suffering. At least in chess it only leads to boring arguments on the internet and not to wars and child abuse. That's why I like chess.

First place I ever came across the above was as the header for Fischer-Bisguier in <My 60 Memorable Games>. No idea as to its etymology, tho.

<....You are your record only if you limit yourself and let yourself be squeezed and flattened onto the one-dimensional scale of success/failure, win/loss....>

There is a poster who is fond of the variant:

<You are what your record says you are>

Whatever one might have guessed about the outcome of the match after this first game, objective observers could have safely predicted a Lasker win--especially given their earlier respective records (Lasker had won his last four major tournaments and won two world championship matched against Steinitz). But given that in the previous Lasker--Marshall games in which Marshall was +1 (Marshall beat Lasker at Paris 1900 and drew their game at Cambridge Springs 1904), it would have been impossible to predict the eventual 8-0 demolition of Marshall in the match.

I was thinking that maybe 16.Bh3 was the move, but, as can easly be seen, it is of outmost importance to remove the White's Queen from d1-h5 diagonal to make room for checks on f2 and f3.