30...Qxg2

<Now comes a very important manoeuvre, the key to White's defence>

31. b3

<If instead 31. Qe2, then Black replies 31...Qd5, when the entire queenside will be at his disposal>

31...Re8 32. Qe2 Qh3

<The first sign that Black's attack is gradually petering out. The queen would have stood better somewhere on the queenside, but 32...Qd5 cannot be played, however, for then 33. c4 forces the exchange of queens>

33. Kd1 Ra8 34. Rf2 Ra2

<Black's pieces are well placed but they are no longer threatening anything>

37...Qd3

<on 37...c4 there would have followed 38. bxc4 or 37...Nd3+ 38. Kb1 with exchanges to follow>

42...Nb4

click for larger view

I've found a number of contemporary sources indicating that Black's next move was <51...Rg5>, not <51...Rc5>.

Steinitz-Lasker Match / H.E. Bird, p. 21

http://books.google.com/books?id=ks...

The games in the Steinitz-Lasker championship match (reprint from BCM). p. 20

http://books.google.com/books?id=Gb...

Tijdschrift van de Koninklijke Nederland, May 1894, p. 87

http://books.google.com/books?id=JK...

Brooklyn Daily Eagle, 3/23/94, p. 8 [warning: loads slowly}

http://fultonhistory.com/Newspapers...

Of course, both rooks moves lose; Black's only chance was 51...Kd7.

In addition to the games, notes to the games were provided by Lasker and Steinitz.

Regarding the move 51...Rg5, Steinitz commented, <An awful blunder. There was still some chance of a draw by 51...Kd7. After the text move the game is lost, for if 52...Rg1+ 53. K-moves Rf1 54.Ne6 wins.>

Both the BCM and <Tijdschrift> sources mentioned above give March 21st. The Eagle, on March 23, said it finished on the previous day after an adjournment, which also seems to imply the 21st.

"W. Steinitz and Emanuel Lanker resumed play in the third game of the championship chess match at the Union Square Hotel yesterday afternoon. After six additional moves the champion had to resign. Lasker chose the shortest route to Victory by glving up the exchange at his forty-sixth turn. From the beginning of the play on Thursday the German expert had the best of the game and there was scarcely any hope left for Steinltz when the game was adjourned on Thursday, at 11 p.m."

This is incorrect, viz. 30...Qd3+.

The actual winning line, discovered by Mason, goes like this:

28.Kd2! Qxb2+ 29.Kd1 Qb3+ 30.Ke2 Qc4+ 31.Ke1 Qxc3+ 32.Bd2 Qa1+ 33.Ke2

The opening is the same as in the first game, Steinitz deviates with <10...Be6?! 11.f4 Nc4?>, which wasn't his best opening idea ever. Lasker answers by building his patented e4-f5 pawn chain, and although Stockfish isn't a big fan of it, it gives Lasker a very solid +2 advantage. Steinitz then plays <17...f6?> in order to castle long, however this allows Lasker to get a lovely outpost on e6 which he promptly does.

After <21.Ne6>, Steinitz blunders a pawn and a piece, so that by move 26, Lasker is already winning. Interestingly, Stockfish would actually just have taken the pawn with the bishop, and indeed, its line after <23.Bxa7!> by move 30 results in a position evaluated to +6 that looks won to me too (D):

click for larger view

So far, so good, but now the real fun starts when Steinitz plays <26...Qd3!?>, threatening perpetual check if the knight takes the rook. Stockfish sees through it immediately, but Lasker doesn't and plays <27.Rf1??>, one of his rare pure blunders -- "played somewhat hastily", as he puts it. Lasker also mentions that Chigorin first found out that White can escape the perpetual for the cost of a few pawns with a completely winning position. (And yes, there are various variations and permutations and transpositions.)

But even if Lasker didn't find this over the board, virtually every other move would have been better than the text move, because Steinitz could now have won back his lost piece with <29...Nc4! 30.Bf4 g5> (D), after which White would just be a pawn up. I know Steinitz loved grabbing pawns, but it's still quite unusual that he missed that and played <29...Qxe4??> instead.

click for larger view

Now Lasker is again winning and tries to get rid of that pesky queen (which actually seems to be the main theme of the whole match), while Steinitz complicates things by bringing in the rook on the a-file, but even though Lasker, like Stockfish doesn't seem overly impressed (after <34...Ra2> (D): "Black's pieces are well placed, but they do not threaten anything") and defends with perfection, this perfection is absolutely required, and maybe even more so for Steinitz, who just doesn't let loose and keep harrassing White.

click for larger view

<37.Kc1!?> (D) is another typical Lasker moves. To Stockfish, it's a major mistake, because the simple <37.Ne8 Qh4 38.Rg2> would have allowed him to finally enter the Black position and ease the pressure on his king by doing a bit of harrassing himself. But according to Lasker, he wanted "to bring matters speedily to a climax", and indeed, the move forces Steinitz to -- you guessed it -- trade queens with <37...Qd3>. Stockfish initially preferred <37...Ra1+>, but after <38.Kc2!> this turns out to be much better for White because now Black can't trade queens on d3. So again, an objectively "bad" move, but it just makes Lasker's life easier and his opponent's harder.

click for larger view

click for larger view

Steinitz helps quite a bit with series of weak moves, allowing the king to escape. and <45...Nd3+ 46.Kc2 Rb2+ 47.Kd1> (D), neither me nor Stockfish see any more trouble for the king and White will be peacefully and easily be able to march his f-pawn to queendom.

click for larger view

However, instead of <46.Kc2>, Lasker plays <46.Rxd3!?> -- and yes, this is another true Lasker, but Stockfish is utterly horrified, and I am a little doubtful. I see that the resulting endgame should be winning for White (two pieces, including the right-colored bishop, should be able to escort the f-pawn against one rook). But at least to me this seems to require *much* more work and accuracy than the straightforward way. Maybe Lasker could do this kind of endgames in his sleep, but I actually suspect that even Lasker's nerves were kinda frazzled at this point -- "threatening nothing", yeah right :) -- and I could actually imagine it was more a case of him just wanting to end this game, be it draw or win. (And yes, I know who I'm talking about!)

So I would definitively have loved Lasker showing us how he won that endgame. But while I don't know about the state of *his* nerves, Steinitz's obviously were terminally frazzled by this point, because he decides to end this thriller with the equally tragic as pathetic <51...Rg5??> (D). Oh boy. It's like Beethoven's Fifth, or Pere Ubu's "30 Seconds Over Tokyo", ending with a funny fart noise. Hell, even I wouldn't play this, and I would play *anything*! But of course, I haven't been sitting at the board for hours playing against Emanuel Lasker.

click for larger view