KEG: As keypusher indicated elsewhere on this site, Tinsley's opening play in this game was awful. His strategy seemed to be to lock in his dark-square bishop and pray that Lasker blundered. By move 10, Tinsely was strategically lost.
The only remarkable thing about this game is the fact that Lasker, though taking his time to position his pieces for his eventual winning king's-side attack, never lost his grip on the game and maintained his winning edge from move 10 until the end.
I do, however, disagree with keypusher (whose analysis is almost always spot on) about the merits of Tinsley's 29. Nf4. I see nothing clever about this move. Lasker was obviously not going to play 29...gxN and lose his Queen, and 29. Nf4 only hastened Tinsley's defeat. 29. Bg2 offered the "best" hope of survival, though there is little chance that anyone could have held back Lasker by this point.
I did like what keypusher aptly called Lasker's "sham rook sacrifice" (36...Rc4). It was cute to see Lasker with a hanging Rook as Tinsely resigned the hopeless contest.
There were many games of real interest in the London 1899 tournament. This was not one of them.