17.Kxh3 Qe6+ (or Qf5+ or Qh5+) 18.Kg2 Qg4+ 19.Kh1 Qh3+ 20.Kg1

Besides i doubt Steinitz is ganna be calculating all these moves.

Wasn't 14 Ng5 was a bit of a blunder? Why didn't the brilliant Steinitz develop other pieces?? Anyone tell what his plan might have been? Fork the...?? what?

And after committing the knight to attacking (f7?) why not use the bishop (15 Bf3) to counterattack the Queen?

Poor Lasker, he hardly ever wins a brilliancy prize and when he does, people complain about it.

<Because of Black's development, after 15 ..Nxg2 it seems like white's goose is cooked.>

Well, yes. It <is> cooked. If it wasn't cooked, then 15....Nxg2 would be an error. And the game wouldn't deserve a brilliancy prize in that case, surely? You can't swash if your opponent doesn't buckle, as they say.

<Wasn't 14 Ng5 was a bit of a blunder? Why didn't the brilliant Steinitz develop other pieces?? Anyone tell what his plan might have been? Fork the...?? what?>

The plan, probably, was 14....f6 15. Bf3 and 16. Ne4, with a quite good game. Steinitz didn't see 14....Nh4 coming.

If he had then played the consistent 15. Bf3, then 15....Nxf3+ 16. Qxf3 Qxf3 17. Nxf3 Bb5 leads to a ending that is somewhere between bad and lost for White. Steinitz had played plenty of those against Lasker already and decided to stay in the middle game -- with the result that he winds up losing a brilliancy instead of an ending.

<Strange choice for a brilliancy prize, I think.>

It got a brilliancy prize because of

(i) the depth and difficulty of the variations after 15....Nxg2 16. Kxg2 Bxh3+ 17. Kxh3 Qf5+ -- as you can see from the kibitzing on this page, even modern players with computers have a difficult time figuring out the variations. You don't give up two pieces just because you're ahead in development.

(ii) because of 17....f6!! -- having sacrificed a piece, Black doesn't take White's rook but instead takes a few moves to deploy his pawns, having accurately determined that White can do nothing in the meantime. 17....f6 is a very rare sort of attacking move, and I suspect the brilliancy prize judges were blown away by it.

But if this game doesn't do it for you, maybe you'll like F J Lee vs Lasker, 1899 or Lasker vs F J Lee, 1899 from the same tournament will suit you better.

Before turning to Lasker's spectacular combination beginning with 15...Nxg2 (which I will address in a subsequent post), it is important to examine the preceding play that allowed Lasker to unleash his fireworks.

As in the prior two rounds, Steinitz played his favored 4. d3 line in the Vienna Game. Unlike Pillsbury and Mason in those prior two games, Lasker played 4...Nc6 rather than 4...d4. And two moves later, Lasker played the seemingly unambitious 6...Ng6 (instead of the theoretically better 6...Nc6). What was Lasker doing?

My theory (Lasker not being here to answer our questions) is that Lasker was seeking: (i) a solid position that gave him at least equality; and (ii) an opportunity to engage in a battle of ideas with Steinitz. After 8...QxN, Steinitz had a d-pawn in the center while Lasker had better piece play. As soon became apparent, Lasker intended to win the game by winning the battle of ideas (piece play vs. strong pawn center). As also soon became apparent, Lasker's thinking was better than that of Steinitz, who rigidly adhered to his concept of controlling the center with pawns in the face of a situation in which flexibility was essential.

Lasker's 9...Bg4 was perhaps less accurate than 9...Be7, but--as Soltis notes in his book on Lasker--Lasker was going for a crush here, not just for play against the d-pawn.

With his 10...0-0-0, the battle lines were drawn. Steinitz should most definitely have simply played 11. 0-0. But for Steinitz it was critical to support his center with 11. c3. This move, however, handed Lasker a big advantage and allowed him to play 11...Bd6. This move, as Soltis has also noted, is usually bad in King's Gambit type positions, but Steinitz' position is "too loose" (to quote Soltis) to play the thematic c4-c5.

After 11...Bd6, Steinitz finally castled (12. 0-0), but now Lasker played 12...Rhe8, leaving the position as follows:

click for larger view

Hoffer in the Tournament Book pronounces Steinitz' game lost here. This is surely an overstatement. What is clear is that Lasker had much the better game and Steinitz was forced to play 13. h3. Had he tried 13. c4, he would have lost to 13...Qh5, and 13. Bd3 would have come to grief after 13...Nh4. Meanwhile, Steinitz could not move his Queeen to b3 or a4 because his e2 Bishop would then be hanging.

As is clear, Lasker had won the battle of ideas in this game. Steinitz, as Soltis points out, had achieved everything he strove for in this kind of opening, including a strong center, a Queenside majority, and no weaknesses. Yet Lasker controlled the board. In my view, Steinitz' unhappiness at this turn of events likely explains the catastrophe that was to befall him.

After 13. h3, Lasker retreated with 13...Bd7. A case can be made that 13...Be6 was better, but Lasker obviously wanted to keep the e-file open for his Rook.

After Lasker's 13...Bd7, Steinitz played his losing move: 14.Ng5? Many have asked why Steinitz would make such a misguided move, especially given that he immediately returned the Knight to f3 on his very next move. Both keypusher and Reinfeld-Fine have suggested that Steinitz probably only expected Lasker to respond 14...f6, after which Steinitz could have played 15. Bf3 followed gy 16. Ne4. In fact, even this would not have given Steinitz anything close to equality.

My theory is that Steinitz remained convinced that Lasker's play was wrong and was looking for a refutation. On his view, there had to be some sort of winning attack. Indeed there was, but not for him!

Lasker, of course, did not play 14...f6, but instead played 14...Nh4! Now Steinitz was in serious trouble. 15. Bf3 would have lost to 15...NxB+ 16. QxN (if 16. NxN Bb5 wins) QxQ 17. NxQ (better than Reinfeld-Fine's 17. RxQ) Bb5 18. Re1 RxR+ 19. NxR Re8.

1) 15...Nxg2!! was the one and only winning move at Lasker's disposal after Steinitz' 15. Nf3.

2) Lasker's 17...f6!! was (as keypusher has noted) the crown gem in this combination. Having now gone through approximately 90% of all the games in London 1899, I believe that 17...f6!! was not only the best move in this game; it was the best move in the entire tournament. I love it!

3) Steinitz could have defended better at some points after 15...Nxg2!!, but he had no way to save the game.

Steinitz had no alternative to 16. KxN, and his 17. Kf2 was also "best." As already shown here, had Steinitz accepted Lasker's second sacrifice with 17. KxB, he would have been crushed immediately with 17...Qf5+ (17...Qh5+ is equally decisive).

After Lasker's 17...f6!!, Steinitz could have offered somewhat better resistance with 18. Rh1 (though that "better" move would have run into 18...Qf5 as shown by Reinfeld-Fine in their commentary on this game).

After 18. Rg1 g5, Steinitz' 19. Bxg5, though allowing him to continue the game for a while, was inferior to the "better" 19. b3.

After Lasker's excellent 21...Bf4, 22. Re5 (strange as it looks to give up the Rook this way) was "better" than Steinitz' 22. Rh1.

4) After Steinitz gave up the exchange with 22. Rh1, what followed was a desperate effort by Steinitz to save a shattered position. Analysis of whether Steinitz' remaining moves were "best" seems pointless.

5) After Steinitz' 14. Ng5?, Lasker's play was good as gold. Even extended searches by my computer can not identify any significant improvements in Lasker's combination. The closest thing to an "improvement" I can spot in Lasker's play after Steinitz' 14. Ng5+ is that 27...Bg4 would have been even move decisive than Lasker's actual 27...Re7. (which was also a winning line). And I perhaps 28...Rf7 would have been even better than Lasker's 28...Bg4. But this is mere quibbling.

5) There was a cute trick at the very end of the game. After Lasker's 28...Bg4, Steinitz tried a neat swindle with 29. Rg5. The position after this move was:

click for larger view

This is a beautiful and flawless win by Lasker and a deserved brilliancy. Of course, he's helped by Steinitz' somewhat misguided opening, which allows him to quickly point all his pieces at the the enemy king. <14.Ng5?> hoped for something like <14...h6? 15.Bf3!> and now it's White that's winning, but he overlooks <14...Nh4!> and White's lovely sacrifices which strips the king naked of his pawns, but my favourite move is the quiet and unassuming <17...f6!!> which shuts out all of White's chances to get his pieces into play. Steinitz could have held out a little longer with <18.Rh1>, but after <18.Rg1?> the game is at -5.

<chessgames.com>'s formatting rules are here:

Chessgames Editor Guide