21. Bb1

Here Black can no longer stop the pawn, and he is also menaced with a king-side attack via 22. e5 dxe5 23. Bxe5 followed by Bxf6, Qh7+ and Qxh6+.

21....Nd7(?)

So as to continue 22. Qxd4 Qxd4 23. Rxd4 Ne5, but above all to defend against the mate threat on h7 from f8.

<Soltis: The position remains "somewhere on the cusp of equality" after 21....Rc6 and then 22. e5 dxe5 23. Bxe5 Bc4. There isn't much for White in 24. Qxd4 Bc5 25. Qd2 (Khalifman/Soloviov) or 24. Qf3 Bd5 25. Qd3 with another draw by repetition.>

22. e5 Nf8 23. Qf3(!)

Lasker brings his queen into the attack on the black kingside and rolls it up completely in a few powerful moves <rollt ihn in wenigen kraftvollen Zugen vollen auf>. Naturally, regaining the pawn is much weaker, since now a higher goal beckons.

click for larger view

23....d5

An immediate 23....Kg7 is not better, because after 24. Qh5 then Black cannot play ...Ng6 because of 25. exd6 Bxd6 26. Rxe6 fxe6 Qxg6+, and after other moves also, e.g. ...Re8 (to defend the bishop on e6 from this combination) White always breaks the black kingside with f2-f4, for example 23....Kg7 24. Qh5 Re8 25. f4 dxe5 26. fxg5 Bxg5 (26....hxg5 27. Be5+ Bf6 28. Qxg5+) 27. Bxe5+ Bf6 (27....Kg8 28. h4 and Qxh6) 28. Bxf6+ and Qxh6+, and White, after also winning the d-pawn, will have the far better position and an extra pawn; or 23....Kg7 24. Qh5 Re8 25. f4 f5 26. exd6 and White wins a pawn and has a decisive attack, e.g. 26....Bxd6 27. fxg5, or 26....Bf6 27. fxg5 Bxg5 (27.....hxg5 28. Be5) 28. Be5+ Kh7 29. h4 Bd8 30. Bxf5+ Bxf5 31. Qxf5+ and Rd3 wins.

24. Qh5 Kg7 25. f4(!?)

<Bold, seemingly risky and certainly "complexifying" the game -- now both players will have to examine the possibility of ...d3+ on almost every move. I think Lasker had sized up his opponent well: Tarrasch immediately falls to pieces. Shredder slightly prefers 25. Nh2, but appreciates 25. f4 as well.>

25....f5(?)

Now the Black king-formation will be robbed of all its pawn-guards in a few moves; better was 25....Ng6!. Apparently this move cannot be played because of the fork f4-f5, but then would come first ...d4-d3+!, followed by an involved combination, the outcome of which for White would be not at all certain, namely 25....Ng6! 26. f5 d3+ 27. Bf2 Bc5 28. Ne3! Nf4 29. Qg4(?) d4! 30. Nf1 Bd5, and the position is at least as critical for White as for Black.

<Instead of 29. Qg4, Soltis thinks White is "probably" winning after 29. f6+ Kh7 30. Bxd3+ Nxd3 31. Rxd3 with threats of Nf5 and Ng4. Shredder finds a Tal-like shot in Soltis' line: 31. Nf5!!

click for larger view

...and despite loose White pieces all over the board, Black is defenseless. Better for Black is 30....Ng6, but he's still lost after 31. b4! Bf8 (31....Bxb4 32. Ng4! Bxg4 33. Bxg6+ fxg6 34. Qxg4 wins) 32. h4.>

But White can get off the path to these doubtful complications if, after 26....Ng6, he simply defends his f-pawn with 26. Qf3 <Allen diesen zweifelhaften Verwicklungen konnte Weiss jedoch aud dem Wege gehen, wenn er auf 25....Sg6 einfach seinen angriffenen f-Bauer mit 26. Qf3 deckte>, when, whether Black continues with 26....gxf4 27. Bxf4 Nxf4 28. Qxf4 or not, his broken king's wing remains under the threat of unending attacks <immer bleib sein aufgerissener Konigsflugel von nachhaltigen Angriffen bedroht>.

<Soltis (and Shredder) think that Black can bring the attacks to an end in Tarrasch's line after 28....d3+ 29. Kh1 Bg5 30. Qg3 Qd4 31. Rxd3 Qh4.>

<Black's other alternative to 25....Ng6 is the immediate 25....d3+. Soltis says 25....d3+ succeeds after 26. Kh2 Ng6 27. fxg5 Bxg5 28. Bxd3 Nf4, but not after 26. Bf2!, for instance, 26....Bc5 27. Bxc5 Qxc5+ 28. Kh2 gives White an "overwhelming initiative" (28....Ng6 29. fxg5 or 28....gxf4 29. Qh4! Ng6 30. Qf6+ Kh7 31. Bxd3).>

26. exf6+ Bxf6 27. fxg5 hxg5 28. Be5!

Thus White wins the g-pawn and the game. Lasker has conducted the attack logically and powerfully.

click for larger view

28....d3+ 29. Kh1 Ng6 30. Qxg5

<Soltis: here 30. Bxf6+! Kxf6 31. Rxd3 and Rf3+ would win faster. For example, 31....Nh4 32. Qh6+ Kf7 33. Rxd5!, or 31....Nf4 32. Qh6+ Kf7 33. Rf3 Rg8 and the quiet 34. g3 or 34. Re5 wins.>

30....Bf7 31. Ng3 Bxe5 32. Rxe5 Rh8

Black strives in vain to defend his king position. In addition to the attack on the king, the two connected passed pawns secure victory for White.

33. Bxd3 Ra7 34. Rde1

Threatening Re6.

34....Kf8

Here the game was adjourned, with White sealing the following move.

35. Bxg6 Nxg6 36. Qe3 <36. Qf4 is even stronger> 36....Rc7 37. Nf5

click for larger view

37.....Qc6

38. Qa3+ Kg8 39. Ne7+ was threatened. Best was ...b4.

38. Qg5 Resigns.

This game was played flawlessly by my opponent. The move 16. Bg5, which brought White the advantage in all variations <der Weiss immer in Vorteil bringt>, I had already recognized as the strongest immediately after the third game, but I had concluded that the game was not a forced loss, and that (as a master had informed me) Black could always respond with 16....h6 <hatte aber doch geglaubt, die Partie damit noch nicht verlieren zu mussen, da mich ein Meister damals belehrte, dass man dagegen immer noch h7-h6(?) ziehen konne.> But the move was not good, and I immediately got into difficulties; to escape them, I entered into new difficulties with ...g5. After I failed to play 25....Ng6, my position became completely untenable. This is the first game of the match in which I was outplayed from the outset.

<I wonder who the master was who told him Black was OK after 16....h6. The book makes clear that both Tarrasch and Lasker had seconds who assisted in making match arrangements, but did Tarrasch have a chess second as well? If so, blaming one's seconds for defeat, as Petrosian and Korchnoi tended to do, clearly has a long history. One thing I like about Topalov is that he always credits Cheparinov for his own opening successes, and never (as far as I know) blames him for his failures.

Turning to the game, Soltis and Shredder remain happy with Black's position much longer than Tarrasch (or Lasker) does. Though Tarrasch thinks Black is worse off throughout, the modern GM and the engine believe he starts to go astray only with 21....Nd7. It's interesting that neither Tarrasch nor Lasker so much as mentioned the possibility of 20....Bxa2 in his notes. In any case, Tarrasch, Lasker, Soltis and Shredder agree on one thing: after 25....f5?, it's hopeless.

It's worth pausing over that classic Lasker move, 25. f4!?, though neither Tarrasch, Soltis nor Lasker himself say anything about it. You could call it psychological, I suppose, but even an engine likes it! I do think it had practical virtues beyond a computer's ken: it's a hellishly difficult move to answer in time pressure, which Tarrasch was probably experiencing (the time control was at move 30, remember). Also, by that point in the match I think Lasker might well have concluded that his nerves were stronger and his tactical eye sharper than his opponent's. To the extent Lasker thought 25. f4 and, say, 25. Nh2 were equally good, these sorts of considerations might have helped him make up his mind. >

Lasker and Tarrasch repeated the first 15 moves of Game #3 (which Tarrasch won). Then Lasker introduced a new variation on Move 16. While this seemingly caused Tarrasch to get flustered, we claimed to have considered Lasker's 16. Bg5 before the game.

Examining the game objectively, Lasker's "surprise" had little to do with his victory in the match. But the follow-up led to a tactically complex struggle; the sort of double-edged position at which Lasker excelled.

<Keypusher> has already excellently analyzed this game, and I relied on his work in my own review of this Game #5. But there are a few wrinkles that I think need to be considered, so I have prepared my own notes to supplement the fabulous work <Keypusher> had previously shared on this site.

1. e4 e5

Including this game, all five of the first games in this match featured the Ruy Lopez. After the beating Lasker administered to Tarrasch in this game, Tarrasch switched to the French Defense (1...e6) in Games 7, 9, and 11. This did not achieve anything good for Tarrasch, who managed only one draw (against two losses) in these three games. As I will attempt to show, Tarrasch's loss here was in no way the objective result of the choice of opening:

2. Nf3 Nc6
3. Bb5 a6
4. Ba4 Nf6
5. 0-0 Be7
6. Re1 b5
7. Bb3 d6
8. c3 Na5
9. Bc2 c5
10. d4 Qc7
11. Nbd2 Nc6
12. h3 0-0
13. Nf1 cxd4
14. cxd4 Nxd4
15. NxN exN

click for larger view

Thus far repeating Game 3. See my notes and those of <Keypusher> on moves 1 through 15 in Game 3.

In Game 3, Lasker had here played 16. Ng3. Here he introduced:

16. Bg5

click for larger view

Some commentators considered 16. Bg5 to be an important improvement on 16. Ng3.

"...much stronger than the move Lasker played [in Game #3] 16. Ng3. The important difference is that the black king's Bishop cannot, as in the third game, reach f6 so as at least temporarily to support the pawn on d4." (Tarrasch)

"The text move is obviously an improved version worked out after the disaster in the third game. The main point being to prevent Black's Nd7 (a powerful move in the third game); to play Qd3 threatening e5, and so on." (Hoffer)

Others thought it was weak:

"Although the text is more immediately attacking [than 16. Ng3]...it does not appear adequate against the best defense." (Winter)

"...the challenger [i.e., Tarrasch] played the fifth game in a depressed state after his heavy defeat in the fourth. Otherwise he would easily have discovered the strong replay 16...Qc5!" (Kasparov)

Others decided the move was a psychological ploy by Lasker:

"Some accounts of this game border on the absurd. Hannek [Lasker's biographer] said Lasker 'won by shrewd psychology' because he repeated the moves of the third game. That made Tarrasch 'more and more nervous about the danger of falling into some prepared variation.' When Lasker finally deviated it happened 'when [Tarrasch] least expected it...and very soon Tarrasch went astray.' " (Soltis)

As I will endeavor to show, Lasker's move was objectively no better than 16. Ng3 (his move in the third game), and this move was--if Tarrasch is to be believed--one he had considered. Rather than attempt a psychological diagnosis of Tarrasch, I have concluded that 16. Bg5 raised complications that played into Lasker's strengths, and that Tarrasch was not worse before his hyper-active 18th move, not significantly worse before move 21, and not lost before his wild 25th move.

16... h6

Much ink has been spilled on the merits of this pawn push. In fact, it was--objectively--an entirely reasonable choice. It appears from Tarrasch's comments that he and some "unidentified master" had considered the move and concluded that it was "an adequate reply."

Kasparov has stated that 16...Qc5 was a "strong reply." But after his recommended line [quoted in fully in the post by <keypusher> Kasparov himself conceded that Black's advantage from 16...Qc5 "is not really so great."

Black also enjoyed a small edge after Tarrasch's actual 16...h6, which therefore cannot be considered any sort of mistake.

Tarrasch later recommend 16...Nd5, but that at best leads to equality: 17. BxB NxB 18. Nd2 [or 18. Nh2] Be6 19. Nf3 Nc6 20. Bb3 BxB 21. QxB after which White ultimately regains the lost pawn with about equal chances for both sides despite Black's isolated d-pawn.

In sum, no serious criticism should be leveled at Tarrasch's 16...h6, which left:

click for larger view

17. Bh4

I have not seen any discussion of this move in any of the many commentaries on this game, but surely 17. Bf4 was more natural. For what it is worth, both Stockfish and Fritz conclude that 17. Bf4 was significantly superior to the text and leaves approximate equality. The text seems to give Black the chance to obtain at least a small edge, the position now being:

click for larger view

But here Tarrasch, perhaps not having considered 17. Bh4, began to lose the thread of the game:

17... Qb6

"This is much too passive a move and Black will almost immediately get into trouble." (Lasker)

Lasker's assessment was almost certainly too harsh (since Black--still holding an extra pawn) was surely not worse after the text. But if we agree that 17...Qb6 was overly "passive," what should Tarrasch have played?

Hoffer and Schlechter recommended 17...Be6 to "prevent White's Qd3 because of the reply Bc4" (Hoffer). Schlechter called the text "a mistake" which he claimed was likely based on fear of Rc1 by White.

Indeed, there is nothing terribly wrong with 17...Be6, but it gives Black little or no edge after 18. Rc1 (the move Schlechter believed Tarrasch feared) 18...Rac8 19. Qxd4 Qc5.

Lasker, according to Soltis, suggested 17...Nd5, but after 18. BxB NxB 19. Ng3 any edge for Black seems gone.

So far as I can discern, the only real chance for Black to seek any real advantage lay in 17...Re8, a move ignored by all the commentators. Play might then continue: 18. Bb3 [seems best] Qb6 19. Qd3 Be6 20. Rad1 BxB 21. QxB and now 21...g5! (better than the incarnation of this move by Tarrasch in the actual game).

18. Qd3

Now a key moment in the game was reached:

click for larger view

18... g5

"?"--(Tarrasch)(Reinfeld/Fine)

"?!"--(Soltis)

Tarrasch's move has come in for a load of unjustified and unfair criticism, even from Tarrasch himself:

"Very risky and not even necessary..." (Tarrasch)

"Most compromising in such an open position." (Hoffer)

"This must seriously compromise the position"--(Wilson)

"A more than doubtful move in view of White's at present masked attack."--(Sergeant)

"This creates a fatal weakness in the defence of Black's King." (Winter)

In fact, Tarrasch's move was--speaking purely objectively--the most dynamic option and, as will be seen, not the cause of Tarrasch's defeat in this game. The best assessment of 18...g5 was by Soltis:

"Annotators hated this--even though Black stands perfectly well afterwards."

I can easily see Fischer or Kasparov or Carlsen or even Lasker himself making this move as Black here.

There was, of course, a safer and easier way for Black to avoid trouble: 18...Re8. But as Soltis has pointed out, this would have provided minimal winning prospects for Black, and as the course of the actual game shows Black could have threaded his way to a decent position in the coming complications.

Meanwhile, the computer move, 18...Re8, was--though suggested by many annotators--poorly analyzed in mot commentaries.

After 18...Re8, Tarrsach claimed that 19. f4 was best, but he only considered 19...Be6 as a reply whereas, as <keypusher> has demonstrated in his analysis on this site, 19...Nh5 would have been a devastating retort since if then 20. BxB [20. Bg3 is White's best, though probably inadequate reply] 20...Nxf4 and White is in trouble [if 21. Qg3 d3+ and if 21. Qd2 Black stand batter after 21...RxB].

After 18...Re8, 19. Rad1 was probably White's best try at equality, but it does NOT lead to a better position for White as Winter mistakenly claims.

In his analysis of 18...Re8, Tarrasch also considered 19. e5?! which--again contrary to Winter--does not lead to advantage for White; e.g., 19...dxe5 20. Rxe5 [not 20. BxN? BxB 21, Qh7+ Kf8 and then indeed White is winning] 20...Be6 21. Rae1 Rad8 22. Nd2 Kf8 and Black with his extra pawn is probably for choice.

18...g5 was only a "mistake" to the extent it creates tactical complications and the sort of position in which Lasker was more comfortable than Tarrasch.

To return now to the actual game, after Tarrasch's much questioned 18...g5, the position was:

click for larger view

19. Bg3 Be6

click for larger view

20. Rad1

"!"--(Lasker)

"?!"--(Tarrasch)(Schroeder)

Objectively best was perhaps the simple 20. Nd2.

20. e5 has also been suggested, and Black then can achieve approximate equality with 20...dxe5 [but not with Soltis' 20...Bc4 which would run into 21. Qa3! (much better than Soltis' 21. Qf5 which could be answered by either 21...Be6 or 21...dxe5 with near equality) after which Black would have some difficulties.

But with Lasker's 20. Rad1, a new issue arose, the position now being:

click for larger view

20... Rfc8

"?"--(Reinfeld/Fine)

The above-cited evaluation by Reinfeld/Fine notwithstanding, there was nothing wrong with Tarrasch's actual move here. Stockfish and Fritz both rate the position as 0.00 after 20...Rfc8. But the sharper continuation--20...Bxa2--was also entirely playable. Reinfeld/Fine went further in this line and said that:

"...In spite of the apparent danger, the QRP
[i.e., the White pawn on a2] could and should have been captured."

As Soltis put it:

"20...Bxa2 is downright ugly--yet it's strong."

Schroeder, by contrast, contended that Tarrasch, who was already a pawn ahead, had no need to snatch the a2 pawn:

"...one Pawn is enough for a player of Tarrasch's ability. He wasn't greedy, nor was he foolhardy. He had confidence in his technique and his defensive skill and knew it wasn't necessary to risk more complications with 20...Bxa2. It's true that Black can draw after 20...Bxa2...But why should Tarrasch play for a draw?"

The above being said, let's examine the analysis of 20...Bxa2 by Reinfeld/Fine. The two main lines, the first of which has also been deeply analyzed by Soltis are 21. b3 and 21. e5. Let's consider both moves:

(A) 21. b3 Rfc8

21...Rac8 looks equally reasonable, but I will consider 21...Rfc8, the only response analyzed by Soltis and by Reinfeld/Fine.

22. e5

22. Ra1 is also discussed by Reinfeld/Fine, but that clearly leads to a significant edge for Black : i.e., 22...Rc3! 23. Qd1 d3 24. RxB dxB [Black could equally well play 24...RxB here] 25. Rxc2 RxR (much better than 25...Rxb3 26. h4 [which is perhaps an improvement on 26. Ne3 as given by Reinfeld/Fine] after which White, though at least temporarily down two pawns has at least equal chances) 26. QxR and now Black is plainly better after either 26...Re8 or 26...Bf8 [but not 26...Nh5 as given by Reinfeld/Fine which dissipates all of Black's advantage]

So let's go back to 22. e5 which is far stronger and far more interesting:

22. e5 dxe5
23. Bxe5 Rc3
24. Qf5 Rd8

24...Bxb3, as Soltis has pointed out, loses to 25. BxB RxB 26. Bxd4

25. BxN QxB
26. RxB! QxQ
27. BxQ Bxb3
28. Rde1

Slightly superior to 28. Ra1 as given by Reinfeld/Fine; and now White, with a Knight for Black's three extra passed pawns has in my view a slight edge in the complicated ending.

Even more interesting play results from:

21. e5 Bc4

Black can also just play 21...dxe5)

22. Qf5

White can more easily get equal chances with 22. Qa3, not mentioned by anyone I have seen.

22... Be6 (or 22...dxe5)
23. Qf3 dxe5
24. Bxe5 Bd5
25. Qd3 Bc4

with about equal chances.

In sum, there was nothing wrong with 20...Bxa2, but it does not appear on close analysis to yield any great winning chances for Tarrasch.

This all suggests that Tarrasch's actual 20...Rfc8 was entirely unobjectionable.

This left the position as:

click for larger view

21. Bb1!

click for larger view

A wonderful example of Lasker's accuracy in attacking the enemy King. He could, of course, have played 21. e5 immediately. But the text, especially in over-the-board play, serve several important functions. First, and perhaps least importantly, it defended his a2 pawn. Second, it cleared the c-file which--though this did not transpire in the game--in many variations can be used to advantage by White (or at least not completely dominated by Black. And third, White's Queen need no longer serve as a defender of the White-square Bishop.

After 21. Bb1, White was poised for the assault:

"White's game is no decidedly superior. He regains his Pawn or else works up a powerful attack." (Reinfeld/Fine).

Perhaps a more sober assessment is:

"The position remains somewhere on the cusp of equality"--(Soltis)

Tarrasch should now have played 21...Rc3 (as given by Soltis--21...Bc4 was probably also sufficient to maintain a playable position). Instead, beginning here, Tarrasch seemed to lose the thread of the game, and turned what was at least a fully defendible position into a completely lost one within five moves:

21... Nd7?

"?"--(Tarrasch)(Soltis)

The idea behind this move, as explained by Tarrasch (and similarly by Tarrasch), was:

"So as to continue 22. Qxd4 QxQ 23. RxQ Ne5."

In Tarrasch's line, however, 23...Bf6 would be better than 23...Ne5 as recommended by Tarrasch, Soltis, and Reinfeld/Fine,after which Black would probably be better. But all this is irrelevant because Lasker responded far more aggressively with:

22. e5!

"!"--(Lasker)(Sergeant)(Soltis)

click for larger view

Sergeant calls the text "decisive," but that is going overboard. What can be said is that White's threats are now formidable and the defense for Black will now be onerous. In any case, not even Tarrasch was up to task of holding the game from this point.

22... Nf8

Obviously forced.

23. Qf3

"!"--(Tarrasch)(Soltis)

click for larger view

"Lasker brings his queen into the attack...Naturally regaining the pawn is much weaker, since now a higher goal beckons" (Tarrasch--continuing to follow the translation on this site by <keypusher>).

"Preparing to attack the weak King's side. Regaining the pawn leads only to equality."--(Winter)

"Threatening 24. exd6, and if 24...Bxd6, then 25. Qf6." (Hoffer--echoing Lasker's commentary).

23... d5!

"There is nothing better." (Reinfeld/Fine)

23...Kg7 is insufficient, but not because of 24. Qh5 as given by Tarrasch and by Reinfeld/Fine after which Black can practically equalize with 24...d5!, but because of the simple 24. exd6 Bxd6 25. BxB QxB 26. Ng3.

24. Qh5

Perhaps even stronger was 24. Nd2 or maybe 24. Qd3.

The text left:

click for larger view

24... Kg7

Clearly best.

25. f4!

click for larger view

"Threatening f5." (Lasker)

"A splendid move which breaks the whole Black position wide open." (Winter)

"Another heavy blow. Black's defense crumbles rapidly." (Sergeant)

<keypusher> reports that Shredder slightly prefers 25. Nh2, but then Black looks OK after 25...Ng6.

As for Lasker's actual 25. f4, it was indeed a powerful move, but it need not have led to a win for White had Tarrasch not panicked. Contrary to what many commentators seem to have concluded, Black was NOT lost at this point. But here, under Lasker's relentless pressure, Tarrasch fell apart:

25... f5?

"?"--(Tarrasch)(Reinfeld/Fine)(Soltis)

"Like an ancient Roman hero, Tarrasch throws himself on his own sword! Evidently he did not feel like offering some prolonged but hopeless resistance by 25...Ng6." (Lasker)

Tarrasch later claimed that the Black position could have been held with 25...Ng6. But this contention does not bear close scrutiny. White then wins with 26. f5 d3+ 27. Bf2 Bc5 28. Ne3 Nf4 and now not 29. Qg4? which blows the win after 29...d4! but 29. f6+! as pointed out by, among others, Reinfeld/Fine and Winter after which White is clearly winning Kh7 30. Bxd3+ Ng6 (30...NxB gets crushed by 31. Nf5 as pointed out by <keypusher>) 31. b4 Bf8 [best] 32. Nf5 and Black is toast.

But much better--and likely saving--for Black here is 25...d3+. Soltis still thinks White is winning here, but I think not: 26. Bf2 (Soltis' move, 26. Ne3 appears equally good but also insufficient to win) Bc5 27. BxB QxB+ 28. Kh2 [Soltis' move, and clearly better than 28. Kh1 as suggested by Reinfeld/Fine] and now 28...Qe7 [far better than the two moves Soltis considers: 28...Ng6 (which runs into trouble after 29. fxg5, but may nonetheless not be losing and 28...gxf4 (which looks bad for Black after Soltis' 29. Qh4)] 29. fxg5 Qxg5 30. Ng3 after which Black seems very much alive with 30...Rc4 or 30...Ng6.

In sum, 25...d3+ probably would have allowed Tarrasch to hold the game. His actual move, however (25...f5?), fatally weakened his position which from this point can safely be deemed hopeless:

click for larger view

The balance of the game allowed Lasker to shine as he wiped Tarrasch off the board:

26. exf6+ e.p. Bxf6
27. fxg5 hxg5

Hopeless, but there was nothing better that I can see.

click for larger view

28. Be5!

"!"--(Tarrasch)(Lasker)(Soltis)(Shroeder)(Reinfeld/Fin- e)

"This wins the g-pawn and ultimately the game." (Soltis)

"Depriving Black of his last effective piece. The remainder is a massacre." (Winter)

click for larger view

28... d3+

This possibility had been in the wings for quite a while. At this point, it was far too late to affect the outcome.

29. Kh1

click for larger view

I should probably have discussed the line you give, but it doesn't change my conclusion.

29... Ng6

Hardly best, though criticism here seems churlish since Black has no way to save the game.

Soltis suggests 29...Bf7 was superior to Tarrasch's move, but he assumes that White would now continue 30. BxB+ after which Black should hold with 30...QxB. But White wins easily with 30. Qxg5+ Ng6 31. Ng3 BxB 32. RxB Kg8 (there is nothing better) 33. Nf5 Ra7(best) 34. Bxd3 leaving White a pawn to the good with a still unhalted attack.

Probably best for Black here was 29...Nd7, but even then White should have the game in hand after 30. Qxg5+ Kf7 (forced) 31. Qh5+ Kg7 32. Bxd3 NxB 33. RxN since if now 33...BxR? Black gets crushed: 34. QxB+ Kf8 35. Qf6+ Kg8 36. Bf5 Rc6 (forced) 37. Rd3! and Black cannot possibly survive for long.

30. Qxg5

Soltis' 30. BxB+ KxB 31. Rxd3 is indeed a quicker win, but Lasker's workmanlike move was more than adequate.

After Lasker's move, the position was:

click for larger view

Hoffer said that Tarrasch could here have safely resigned.

30... Bf7

30...BxB might have offered more onerous resistance, but held out no true hope.

31. Ng3

"After being in reserve for 18 moves, the Knight comes into the game again with a strong threat." (Sergeant)

31... BxB

There was nothing better.

32. RxB

Lasker could equally well have played 33. Nf5+

The text left:

click for larger view

Threatens 32. Nh5+. (Schroeder)

32... Rh8

32...Qd8 would have been countered by 33. Re7." (Lasker)

And even stronger in Lasker's line would have been the crushing 33. Nf5+

Simply put, by this point Tarrasch had no real defense.

33. Bxd3 Ra7

33...Qd8 was the only way to prolong the game, though it--like the text--would have been hopeless.

34. Rde1

As everyone and his uncle has noted, the text threatens Re6.

An even faster way to win was 34. Rc1, but, of course, Lasker's move was more than adequate.

34... Kf8

click for larger view

After 30. Qg4, I agree that White is for choice if Black plays 30...BxN 30. QxB (though, as you say, probably nothing close to a winning edge). But can't Black put an end to White's hopes for an advantage with the superior 30...Rh8. Play might then continue 31. Rf1 (looks best) after which Black has many reasonable options (e.g., 31...Rcc8; 31...Rc4; or possibly 31...d4?!)

At a minimum, I think we can agree that 25... d3+, even if not a panacea, is a far better try than Tarrasch's actual 25...f5 after which Black was plainly lost.

The finale was quick and brutal:

35. BxN

There were many roads to victory for Lasker here. Probably quickest was 35. Rc1 taking control of the c-file. If then 35...Rc7 White romps after 36. RxR QxR 37. Nf5+

Over the board, Lasker's method seems strong and straightforward, since it eliminates Black's best defender.

35... QxB
36. Qe3

Another winning line begins with 36. Qf4. But Lasker's line-up on the e-file with Nf5 soon to follow was quite decisive.

36... Rc7

Desperation:

click for larger view

37. Nf5

"Threatening Qa3+." (Winter)(see similarly Reinfeld-Fine)

37. Rf1 is another--and arguable faster--conclusion to the game.

37... Qc6

"38. Re8+ was threatened. But the removal of the Queen allows another dearly threat." (Sergeant)

Tarrasch said 37...b4 here was "best," but White then wins easily with 38. Nd4.

38. Qg5!

click for larger view

1-0

"[Black] cannot defend both the threatened mates [i.e., Qg7 and Qd8--KEG]." (Winter)

Your move does indeed look strong, but by throwing the kitchen sink at the Black king-side White gives Black the opportunity to seek counter-play on the Queen-side with 31...b4 or in the center with 31...d4 (which 31. Nf6 renders entirely possible). It was because of such responses that I elided over 31. Nf6.

But even after giving further thought to 31. Nf6, I see no reason to conclude that Tarrasch would have been anywhere close to losing.. The move does indeed paint a pretty picture:

click for larger view

...but I still see no reason for Black to despair.

I think we in basic agreement, and I certainly see that the alternatives you have presented would have provided Lasker opportunities after my 25...d3+ to continue to throw tactical problems at Tarrasch. Perhaps Lasker would have prevailed for this reason. But looking at the board objectively, I still think Tarrasch could have saved the say with 25...d3+