Yes, to the point that it has lost most of its luster.>

(25...Qe7 26.Rxe7+ Kxe7 27.Nd3)

Ow, announcing mate is only showing off and bluff. I've only done it once in my life and that's because my opponent treated me unfairly. I had played a neatly beautiful Giuoco Piano in Hastings against Von Bardeleben. A correct rook sacrifice gave me a winning game. Von Bardeleben saw that he had to lose and preferred the loss of the game due to time overrun to an honorable one. After the break he stayed away and let me wait. Finally his time had passed. I called one of the members of the committee to claim the win, which was immediately granted and told him that I has a mate in nine or queen loss for Von Bardeleben in store. All of the public, the masters included, flowed to me and burst, after I had shown them the solution, into loud applause.

In one of the games with Tchigorin in 1892 I could announce a mate in seven and didn't do it out of respect for my opponent. After all, it is as if I want to say: "Look! I have seen that mate and you did not!"

<The "New Orleans Tlmes-Democrat" gives a complete translation, by Mr H Ernst of an article by Dr Tarrasch in the Frankfort "General Anzeiger,' in which the eminent German expert criticises the performances of all the competitors (including himself) in the recent Hastings tournament. In the course of his remarks on Bardeleben, Dr Tarrasch says :- To our regret, we have to say that Herr von Bardeleben provoked the indignation of all participants in the tourney by the singular way in which he used to surrender lost games. As soon as he became conscious of having a losing position, he followed the advice given in a well-known humouristic chess oouplet -

Whenever your game is bad and sore, Then sneak out and return no more.

First, we're humans and luckily we are not "perfect" as those mathematical machines in a mathematical game. As we're not mathematical machines, chess is an intellectual contest of two human beings, influenced by their unique life experiences. Indeed, it's this psychological aspect that is one thing I do love this game for (and I think this is what Lasker may have understood better than anyone else).

Second, what this mechanistic view of chess also ignores is the aesthetic aspect. And I'll join the choir of those saying that this final combination is one of the most beautiful ones in the history of the game. It's just so reckless and brutal at the same time; that rook mercilessly follows the king, taunting him to be taken, but that's just never possible because White always has another check. And all of this with Black being only one move away from mating White.

And that's why I do totally get that von Bardeleben (whose nervous system has been described as not the most robust by his contemporaries) was so unnerved by that brutal combination that he just couldn't take whole room bursting into applause and just went off. ("I hope Bardeleben has not betaken himself to the sea.", as Blackburne remarked who played next to this board.) As Winter said, most of what is said about his reaction are just fabrications (by Soltis and Kasparov, to name but two).

Again, if this game and the stories and myths surrounding it do not fascinate you, I do think you're missing what makes chess such a wonderful thing.