Now, unfortunately, black is pretty much busted after white's 35. Re1 -- no matter what move he makes in response. Fritz 8 gives the following possibilities:

35...d4 loses as in the game continuation after 36. a7.

35...Re4 36. a7 Re8 37. Qxe3 Rc8 38. Qe8+ Qf8 39. Qe6+ Kh8 40. Ra1 Ra8 41. c3 (+2.06 @ 16/46 depth & 774kN/s)

35...e2 36. a7 Qf1+ 37. Kh2 Qf8 38. Qc7 Re4 39. Qxc6 Re8 40. Qxd5+ Kg7 41. Kg1 Ra8 42. Qb7+ Kh8 43. Rxe2 Qd8 44. Qe7 (+2.37)

35...Qf8 36. Rxe3 d4 37. Re6 d3 38. Qxd3 Rd4 39. Qe2 Rd8 40. Rxc6 Ra8 41. Qe6+ Kh8 42. Qc4 (+2.59)

35...Qf7 36. Rxe3 Qf1+ 37. Kh2 Qf8
38. Qe1 Qb8+ 39. g3 Re4 40. Rxe4 dxe4
41. Qxe4 Qa8 42. Qc4+ Kg7 43. Kg2
(+2.81).

35...Rf4, which <Dukenknight> wished to examine, loses quickly to 36. a7 Qf8 [36...Rf1+ 37. Rxf1 Qxf1+ 38. Kh2 Qf8 39. Qb8 ] 37. Ra1 Rf1+ 38. Rxf1 Qxf1 39. Kh2 (+9.06 & 16/55 depth & 766kN/s)

So given that black's game is hopeless after 35. Re1, where was the last chance for black to save the game? My thought is that it was by playing 32...Rb8! (not 35...Rb8??) instead of 32. Qe7?

Fritz 8 gives best play as 32..Rb8 33. Qg3 Re8 34. Ra1 Qg7 35. c3 Ra8 36. Qe3 Qa7 37. Qf4 Qe7 38. Qe3 Qa7 (+0.91) and it would appear black can take a draw by repetition or go for a bigger advantage if white wishes to complicate.

"So far Pillsbury has played the game splendidly, but now he begins to experiment, and finally loses a won game by careless play. The simple move 29...Re8, in combination with the advancing centre, must have won with certainty, as the analyses of the two players have shown. It is very often dangerous to move a rook away from the first line." Tarrasch

Siegbert is oversimplifying (as usual!). The move certainly contributed to defeat, but its not really clear that Re8 wins. For instance if Black charges forward with his pawn:

29...Re8 30.a5 d5 31.Qa4 e4 32.a6 e3 33.a7 e2 34.Re1 Ra8 35.Rxe2 Rxa7 (Crouch). Black is only a doubled pawn up with lots of play against his King.

True, but Lasker could have played Qg3 the previous move. Therefore 32.a6? is also an error allowing 32...Rb8. Several mistakes are bunched together here:

With all due respect to Tarrasch, I agree with you that Siegbert's claim of a win with 29...Re8 is an overstatement -- though 29...Re8 does give black a small advantage, as does 29...Kg7 and 29...Ra8, per Fritz 8:

29...Kg7 (-0.72 & 17 depth & 741kN/s)

29...Ra8 (-0.69 & 17 depth & 741kN/s)

29...Re8 (-0.63 & 17 depth & 741kN/s)

However, Fritz's analysis does not validate Tarrasch's claim that 29...Rb8 is "the error" (though I initially thougt it was without the aid of the computer analysis). After 29...Rb8 30. Qe1 black actually holds an advantage with the simple 30...Qc7 (-0.69 @ 16 depth & 722kN/s).

"The error" or losing blunder was 32. ..Qe7?, as 32. ..Rb8! was black's last chance to salvage his game.

----32.Qg3! Qe8 33.a6 Rb8 34.Qd6 Ra8 35.Qxc5 Rxa6 36.c4=

Lasker, however continued with
32.a6? This may give the draw away:

----32...Rb8! 33.Qg3 Ra8 34.Ra1 Qe7 35.c3 e3 etc

<One more offensive instead of defensive move. The Rook ought to have retired at least to b6, when 34. a7 would not have won: 33...Rb6 34. a7? Qxa7 35. Qd6 Rb8 36. Kg7!. If instead 34. Ra1, Black can stop the dangerous passed pawn with 34....Qa7 35. Qd6 e3 (not 35....Rxa6 on account of 36. Rf1 Qa8 37. Qe6+ and 38. Rf7) 36. Qxc5? e2 and 37....Rxa6, winning the pawn. But with 36. Rf1! Rb8 37. Qe6+ Kg7 38. Qxe3 White would still have had an advantage, as the a-pawn cannot be taken on account of 39. Qe5+, and Black's king is without defense.>

I haven't checked any of that analysis, though.

How about 41. Rxe1 Qxb7 42. Re8+ Kf7 43. a8=Q.

click for larger view

click for larger view

Lasker vs Pillsbury, 1895

Not because it's the most interesting position in the game, but rather to set up this story...

<PILLSBURY MEMORY

Just prior to Pillsbury's departure for the London tournament in May I happened to be playing over and analyzing his game with Lasker in the great Hastings international tourney, wherein he had a grand opportunity of defeating the world's champion, but missed it and lost. The game is a capital illustration of the latter's recuperative powers and wealth of resource in an uphill fight and always repays the playing of it over. Meeting the American champion shortly after ward at the Brooklyn Chess Club, I, as much to satisfy myself on a certain point in the game as to test the marvellous mental powers for which he is so justly famous, put to him the question without any preliminary introduction: "Harry, why, in your game with Lasker at Hastings, did you, when about to take his K P with Queen, first check his King before effecting the capture?"

I expected he would stop and think a while or possibly set up the position and treat us to an hour's learned discourse, for when the champion gets started at analyzing he will good naturedly satisfy the curiosity or ignorance of all who may ply him with questions. On the contrary, and with only a moment's hesitation as though he had been studying the position only the day before, he came back with:

"Why, yes. I first checked at Q 5 in order to force his King into the corner. This may not seem to have been absolutely necessary, yet I thought at the time it would pay to do so, if only to cause his rook to be more guarded in his action in view of the possible mate that might be brought about in various contingencies." Pillsbury supplemented this remark with further comments on the position and its ramifications greatly to our entertainment.

The game in question is one of over a hundred match and tournament games that he has contested with the leading players of the world since then and the position is one of several thousands of equal importance that he has had to deal with. Nevertheless, no sooner was it mentioned than he spotted it on the instant and the situation became immediately as fresh to him as on the day it first occurred four years ago. In addition to this he was equally prepared to run up the moves of the game from beginning to end and criticise any and all of the many interesting variations without touching either men or board.

The incident served as a capital illustration of the really wonderful development of memory with which the young chess master is endowed. Realizing its possibilities one can the better appreciate the remarkable nature of the performances given by Pillsbury for exhibition purposes, when he meets a given number of chess and checker players simultaneously and blindfolded and at the same time takes part in a game of duplicate whist. — Brooklyn Eagle.>

Just prior to Pillsbury's departure for the London tournament in May I ...>

<Calli>: After 25.Qxa7, Pillsbury is up a pawn with a strong Queen position. Plus, his central pawns look ready to roll. Somehow, Lasker wins! Hard to explain or even point to a blunder on Pillsbury's part. (This game is in my Lasker's Great Escapes collection) ======

If we do break up positions in terms of their Steinitzian elements, what Lasker brings to the table here is "exploitability" - some elements cannot be exploited if one has bad king safety - one is often held back by that or it justifies the opponent using dynamic pawn structures such as IQP or hanging pawns, etc.