It's well worth having if you are interested in 19th century chess. I got the strong impression from the games as a whole that Lasker was definitely the strongest player there. I know he was a psychologist, a fighter, etc. but mostly he was just good! See his demolitions of Janowski, Pollock, Steinitz, Teichman and Burn, as well as lots of good endings (although he missed winning Mason's rook -- definitely an uncharacteristic number of errors for Lasker in this tournament). He started badly, losing to Tchigorin and Von Bardleben in early rounds, and ended badly as others have commented here, but for most of the tournament he was just unstoppable.

Pillsbury also impresses -- a relentless player, just bulled his way to victory several times from not particularly good positions. And he had the great win over Tarrasch in round 2 (after Tchigorin beat him in Round 1).

Tchigorin has a funny repetoire, mixing Evans Gambits and what essentially is a King's Indian attack (1 e4 e6 2 Qe2). Like Lasker, he collapsed towards the end, losing in 15 moves to Janowski in the penultimate round. Like Lasker, he got a bit of redemption at the end, beating the drawing King, Schlecter, in a long ending. Fun fact -- there was a prize, a copy of Salvio's book on gambits, to the player who won the most Evans Gambits. Tchigorin won the book by winning just once! No question it wasn't the Evans' finest moment -- I think its final record was 1-8.

Of course there is the "Pearl of Hastings" by Steinitz, but the second brilliancy prize was won by Tarrasch for a combination that is almost equally amazing. Here it is:

Tarrasch vs Walbrodt, 1895

Chigorin is very far from having a blockade when the 2B v. 2N ending arises, of course. In OMGP I, Kasparov queries 15...Rc8, saying 16....f5 was <essential>. But even then, <after 17. a4 Rc8 18. Bc1 Rf7 19. Ba3 all chances are with White.>

As per Ray Keene's notes, 17. f5 would have been very strong, and 18. f5 was still possible.

Kasparov says that after 26. Bxe7 Nxe7 27. Kd2 Nd5 28. Rb5 <White would still have retained some edge>.

After 35...g5?!, Lasker found 36. Ke2 <threatening 37. fxg5 Nxg5 38. e4> gxf4 37. e4 Nf6 38. Bxf4!, and Kasparov says <the game is opening up to White's obvious advantage>. After 38....Nh5, Kasparov (or, let's be honest, maybe Plisetsky/Fritz) writes:

<39. Be3?!

In a time scramble White misses a chance to consolidate his unexpected advantage. Previous commentators recommended 39. Bd2, but to me the most promising seems to be 39. Rg1+!? Kf8 40. Bc1! Ra5 41. Ra1.>

The fights of knights vs bishops can be compared with the debates on state vs the church or even the material vs the spirit.

"Tchigorin's practical genius is almost privileged to defy theoretical modern principles, but I must consistently dissent. Black's game is inferior ; White's two Bishops and his compact centre will more than neutralise the drawback of the doubled King's Bishop's Pawn, and the two open Knight' file for the Rook ought also to outweigh the isolation of the two Rook' Pawns, which are practically inaccessible to Black's attack. White little alterations, chiefly of a transposing character, White has copied the lines of attack first adopted by Steinitz in his second Havanna mach against Tchigorin, 1891-92."

His comment to 15. f4 is also interesting:

"If he intended in the near future to dissolve the doubled Pawn by P to B5, then this was all right. But events show that he does not, and no good cause can be given why five of his centre Pawns should all have been placed on black squares and on diagonals where they exercise little command, when 15. P to K4, with the view perhaps of proceeding with P to QB4 later, would have grouped a strong front of Pawns abreast. 15. ...P to K4, which perhaps he feared, would have been no good on account of simply 16. PxP, Kt x P ; 17. B to K2."

What's wrong with White's position? What are Black's threats? There are now obvious weaknesses, or easy-to-reach fat squares. No pawns to be easily squeezed and grabbed.