That they did, but his plus scores against both were huge -- blunders only explain a small part of it. E.g., look at Lasker's two wins over Marshall at St. Petersburg 1914. Marshall doesn't blunder, he just gets outplayed tactically.

search "marshall vs lasker"

Sure, most of the time Marshall and Janowski would just drift (or charge) into dodgy positions vs Lasker, but it's remarkable to me how often they would botch the few decent chances they managed to create (or stumble upon).

Anyhow, I suppose Marshall and Janowski probably weren't quite as good at chess as a whole as Rubinstein or Capablanca, but it's interesting to compare, say, Rubinstein's very close match with Marshall (I forget the final score) or Pillsbury's/Schlechter's close tournament records vs Tarrasch/Janowski/Marshall to Lasker's one-sided match scores against the same trio. Of course, tournaments aren't matches, but I suspect that a Lasker - Rubinstein (Or Lasker - Pillsbury) match would have been much closer to the drawn Schlechter match than the Tarrasch/Marshall/Janowski routs.

Well, exactly. And if you look at his games you quickly see that he was a quite good positional player. Here is an example of which he was rightly proud:

Teichmann vs Marshall, 1911

Since he was positionally strong, I think the necessary inference is that he wasn't quite as good at tactics as the best players of his own time.

Alapin vs Marshall, 1912

Marshall vs Spielmann, 1906

click for larger view

As mentioned above Black did not play 33.Qg5 it was 33.Qe6+

The major problem, of course, was not the opening. The major problem was that Lasker was a vastly superior player. Given this, Marshall needed to find a way to obtain an advantage with White. This he failed to do here and throughout the match.

1. d4 d5
2. c4 e6
3. Nc3 Nf5
4. Bg5 Be7
5. e3 Ne4

click for larger view

This was Lasker's surprise in this match. The contemporary reaction was mixed:

"This is known as Lasker's Defense, which he played in response to requests for some defense to the Queen's Gambit that would give Black winning chances." (Schroeder).

"A favorite move of Mr. Atkins, who played it both in this country (i.e., England), and at the Hanover Tournament, but there is hardly any more use for it, whatever its merits might be, as 4...Nbd7 is almost invariably played now." (Hoffer).

"This move has been tried,but never with much success." (Tchigorin)

"M. Janowski also disapproves of this move as the Knight cannot remain long in its position." (Wilson)

Capablanca was apparently impressed by 5...Ne4 and played in seven times in his 1909 match against Marshall (winning three, losing one, and drawing three).

The best overall and historical assessment of 5...Ne4, however, comes from Soltis in his excellent book on Lasker:

"This became the 'Lasker Defense' after he used it three times in this match. It became a favorite of Capablanca's and, in revised form (5...h6 6. Bh4 0-0 7. Nf3 Ne4), of modern GMs such as Artur Yusupov. But it wasn't well received in 1907.

'This move has been tried before but never with much success.' Teichmann wrote of 5...Ne4. Tarrasch called it a mistake because Black will be forced to exchange on c3, strengthening White's center. When Leonhardt played 5...Ne4 (after 5. Nf3 0-0 6. c3) against him at Ostend 1905, he declared it the 'decisive error.' "

The current game, as will be seen, was not won or lost because of 5...Ne4.

6. BxB QxB
7. Bd3

This was played again by Marshall in Game 5 of this match. In Game 15, he switched to (the better--but not best) 7. cxd5. Against Capablanca, Marshall played 7. Bd3 three times, 7. cxd5 three times, and 7. Qb3 in one game.

Contemporary commentators argued that 7. cxd5 was best:

"White's best continuation is 7. cxd5." (Teichmann)

"The Bishop move is not in order. The correct continuation, whch was played by Alapin v. Leonhardt in Ostend 1905, is 7. cxd5." (Tarrasch).

While 7. cxd5 was indeed superior to the text, better still are 7. Rc1 or 7. Nge2.

In fairness to Marshall, however, the text is hardly a blunder, and White is certainly not worse after 7. Bd3. It had the merit here of persuading Lasker to trade off his advanced Knight and thereby strengthening the White center.

7... NxN
8. bxN

click for larger view

8... Nd7

Probably best here for Black is 8...dxc4 as played by Capablanca in Game 11 of his 1909 match with Marshall (Capablanca, however, played 8...Nd7 in Games 5 and 7 of the 1909 match). 8...0-0 was also good.

Tarrascah, however, had other ideas:

"Black should immediately take advantage of the weak 7. Bd5 with 8...c5. The move c5 for Black in the Queen's Gambit, when it can be played at all, leads to equality."

9. Nf3

"Better is 9. cxd5 exd5 10. Qb3 [even better here is 10. Nf3--KEG] followed by c4. Marshall certainly does not recognize what advantage his opponent his bestowed upon him by strengthening his center through the exchange of Knights." (Tarrasch).

Tarrasch arguably (and characteristically) overstates his case, but 9. cxd5 does look best. 9. Qb3 immediately also gives White a small edge.

9... 0-0

While the text was certainly sound, 9...dxc4 was probably best. In Game 5 of this match, Lasker played 9...e5 here, which also leads to decent chances for Black. Capablanca played the text in Games 5 and 7 of his match with Marshall.

After 9...0-0, the position was:

click for larger view

10. 0-0

White has several reasonable options here.

"10. Qc2 first seems better, as Black would then have been forced to weaken the Pawns before the King or play Nf6, which move allows White to establish his Knight on e5." (Wilson).

Following the above reasoning, Marshall played 10. Qc2 in Game 5 of his 1909 match with Capablanca (in a game Capablanca eventually won). In Game 7 of that same match, Marshall played 10. cxd5 against Capablanca (and scored his one and only win in the match).

The text is also reasonable, but yields virtually no advantage to White.

10... Rd8

As Hoffer pointed out, Lasker was making room for Nf8. But 10...dxc4 or 10...e5 were much better.

11. Qc2

Yet again declining to play the (better) 11. cxd5. 11. Qb3 was also a good choice.

11... Nf8

As planned on his prior move. But--yet again--dxc4 was superior.

12. Ne5

"He could simplify the position with 12. cxd4 exd4 13. Bf5." (Hoffer).

I agree that 12. cxd4 is probably best here for White. But 13. Bf5 is a lemon. In this line, White can seize the initiative and much the better game with 13. e4.

After 12. Ne5, the position was:

click for larger view

12... c5?!

Lasker was playing with fire with this move. He should have driven away the e5 White Knight with 12...f6.

13. Rab1

"It may be that the move 13. Rab1 develops the Rook to the wrong file, although the file does seem half opened for White. Black is able to obstruct the Rook by b6 and the Rook does little on the file. If we assume that the way for White to make use of his central pawn superiority is to play the Pawn advance to f3 and e4, this suggests that he may need his Rook on d1. This suggests Rad1." (Ulhumbrus on this site).

But if White decides to put a Rook on d1, 13. Rfd1 looks better. Ulhumbrus' reasoning is sound, except he uses the wrong Rook.

13... Qc7!

"So as to play b6 (now impossible on account of Nc6." (Tarrasch).

The position was now:

click for larger view