Tinsley, perhaps recklessly, played 13...Qd5 to escape the pin of his Knight in the following position:

click for larger view

Tinsley should probably just have played 13...Qd4. His actual choice led to a fascinating game after Schlechter's powerful 14. f4. The Tournament Book says that this "...wins the exchange but at too high a price." In fact, after Tinsley's 14...Nd7, Schlechter would have had a vastly superior position after 15. c3.

But Schlechter went for the jugular with 15. c4, and Tinsley nabbed two pawns for the exchange he lost after 15...Qd4+ 16. Bf2 Qxf4 17. Bc5 Qxe5 18. BxR RxB. Indeed, had Tinsley followed up with 19...f5, he would have had the better game. Even after his 19...Qg5, chances were about even.

Needless to say, Schlechter was not looking for a draw against Tinsley, so he started playing recklessly. His 27. Rf3 (27. h3 would have been better) was met by Tinsely's accurate 27...Qd6. And Schlechter's further effort to complicate with 28. Qh4 allowed Tinsley to seize a powerful initiative with 28...e5. Had Tinsley followed this up with 29...e4, he might have had real winning chances. But his inferior 28...c5 gave Schlechter nearly even chances.

The Tournament Book faults Tinsley's decision to trade Queens with 32...QxQ+ and his 34...Ke6, but both moves look fine to me. After 34...Ke6 the Tournament Book states that Schlechter's win was merely a matter of time. In fact, chances look even after 34...Ke6:

click for larger view

But from this point on,however, Tinsley fell apart. 35...Re7 was inferior to 35...Ke5; 36...a6 was was misguided (36...Re8 was best), and 38...g5+ created fatal weaknesses (38...Rb7 was essential).

Schlechter could probably have won faster with 40. Rd8 (rather than his actual 40. Rf1), but Tinsley's 40...Rc7 was hopeless, and his 41...Ne8 (the only alternative to immediate resignation was 41...Ng8) opened the floodgates.