Apart from whatever else it may do, the move 18 Be4 appears to get ready to remove the Nd5 which guards the point c7, after which White's Q attacks and then invades the point c7.>

18 ♗d3-e4!

click for larger view

Yes, preparing to invade down the open c-file in general and the weak c7-square in particular seem to be a major point of 18 ♗d3-e4!.

Several moves later we get 23 ♖c1x♕c7, with the White c7-rook in <SEVENTH HEAVEN> *dominating* the position. Notice in particular the nasty <LATERAL PIN> of the Black f7-pawn to the Black g7-king.

23 ♖c1x♕c7

click for larger view

Well, turns out Russia had fallen behind by only 14 days so that would have been something like Dec 28, 1913 in the Julian...a few days short of 1914.

The fact is that the bishop is doing very little, while the Black knight at d5 is the key to Black's defense, hence the necessity of exchanging the almost useless bishop for a most valuable knight."

After White's 21st move, Capa explains, "Now the square at c7 is controlled by White, and this decides the game. Should Black attempt to protect it by Bc6 he will soon lose a pawn through knight takes bishop, as White will be able to bring up enough forces and win either the c-pawn or the a-pawn. It should be noticed that Black's weakness throughout the middle game is his inability to command the Black squares."

And after 27. Nh4, "The knockout blow. The bishop no longer defends the square at d7, so that the king cannot come out to f6 because of Nd7+, and so there is no way of defending the kingside pawns. Black could have resigned now."

Here's what Capa himself had to say...

"Looking back to this period from San Sebastian [1911] to Saint Petersburg [1914] it will be found that the play has gradually developed in strength. The endings are as ever before of a high type, the imagination has reached its full scope, and brilliant combinations and conceptions are the rule. The openings are much better played, and in fact there seems to be no special weakness in any of the departments of the game. I think I might be said to have reached the height of my power as a chess master.

Hereafter I may gain a little from experience, and the style may be somewhat changed accordingly, but whatever I may gain in one way I am sure will show a corresponding loss somewhere else. I may become more difficult to beat, but will also not be so apt to overcome strong opposition.

It is only in the openings that I have yet a great deal to learn, and this will soon be done as we shall see presently.

Hereafter, if I may be allowed to continue this dissertation, the interest in my play will centre mainly upon the question as to whether or how far I may be able to perfect certain phases of my game, and in which way this will affect my style of play, which will tend in the future to apparently ever-increasing simplicity, without losing, as some games will show, the former brilliancy when the occasion demands it."

Tarrasch initially turned down LASKER's challenge for a match and then never attempted to arrange a match until too late.

Steinitz' death as a public ward was a great incentive for Lasker to make sure he always got paid. And not even Steinitz accepted all comers, contrary to legend.

Lasker died poor anyway, but hyperinflation and the Nazis will do that to you.

The only really huge payday Lasker managed was the Capablanca match, $20,000.

<How about Pillsbury's record or Schlechter or Rubinstein.I didn't want to pull Tchigorin out of the trash bin but the question <focus>provoked.At least he finished ahead of Lasker at Hastings 1895.>

As did Pillsbury! But they both finished way behind the world champ at St. Petersburg 1895-96, Nuremberg 1896, London 1899, Paris 1900 and Cambridge Springs 1904.

Overall:

Pillsbury +4-5=4

Rubinstein +1-2 and some draws.