For example,after 14 Bg5 Rg8 15 Qxf7 Rxg5 16 Qe6+ Ke8 17 Rxf6 Rg7 18 Qxe5

"An ingenious manoeuvre, whose outcome is that the bishop is exchanged for the knight. Pretty though it is, it appears doubtful whether it was now the opportune moment to exchange anything which only makes the White Pawns so much stronger and his King safer. The right play seems to be--

23. ... B to B4
24. RxKt, P to B3
24. B to B4ch, K to R2
25. Kt to B7, Q to Q5

or

14..Qd7 15.Bxf6 c6 16.Qh6 Bxf6 17.Qxf6 Qe7 18.Qxe7 Kxe7.

14..c6 15.Bxf6 Qd7 16.Qh6 Bxf6 17.Qxf6 Qe7 18.Qxe7 Kxe7.

Later in his analysis after text move 14.Qxf7? he gives 14.Bg5 Rg8. However, 14..Rf8 puts black in a more shallow grave than does Rg8.

15.Bxf6 Bxf6 16.Rxf6 c6 and White is still winning but the margin is much less.

Maybe Lasker didn't devote much time to his analysis or something. Of course, we have Rybka to catch their oversights.

A BRILLIANT game by both players!!!

********

[Event "corr"]
[Site "corr"]
[Date "1886.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Ranneforth, Heinrich"]
[Black "Michaelson, M."]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "C30"]
[PlyCount "48"]
[EventDate "1886.??.??"]
[EventType "tourn (corr)"]
[EventRounds "9"]
[Source "ChessBase"]
[SourceDate "2000.04.19"]

1. e4 e5 2. Nc3 Bc5 3. f4 d6 4. Nf3 Nf6 5. Bc4 Nc6 6. d3 Bg4 7. h3 Bxf3 8. Qxf3 Nd4 9. Qg3! Nh5 10. Qg4 g6 11. f5 Nxc2+ 12. Kd1 Ne3+ 13. Bxe3 Bxe3 14. fxg6 hxg6 15. Rf1 Bf4 16. h4 Ng3 17. Bxf7+ Kxf7 18. Qxg3 Kg7 19. Qf2 Qxh4 20. Qxh4 Rxh4 21. Nb5 c6 22. Nxd6 Rd8 23. Nxb7 Rxd3+ 24. Ke2 Rd2+ 0-1

(I submitted this game for posting, here. There are also several games in print with 9.Qg3 that are NOT in any DB, see the book: "The Oxford Encyclopedia of Chess Games," for just a few examples.)

********

9.Qg3!! (This idea had been played before, believe it ot not ... so I guess this was a "book" continuation ... but you have got to remember that there weren't hardly any books back then, NO computers, NO databases, etc.)

As late as move thirty, (30.Bc3, "="); Fritz 12 shows this game to be dead equal.

About russian, chinese, japanese, italian, spanish, irish, african and arabian books about this tournament I must confess I do not know (rire!!!) but Schallopp reproduces mainly the first book, and only adds sometimes (not many) variants, or, scarcely also, gives his own opinion here and there...;

certainly the centennial edition and the formidable work of Crouch and Haines are the two most important and interesting!!

More seriously, I guess an analysis by the Soviets would be very instructive and interesting too, and even more seriously, the publishing of a more detailed study about the Vienna tournament 1898 should be available, the book of Halprin and Marco being very poor for the games of the first half of this monumental double robin tournament with it's fascinating race of Tarrasch and Pillsbury for the first place, race which can by compared for his thriller value to the one of Lasker and Capablanca in St Petersburg 1914...

Find the winning line, as an exercise. But you need to be a really strong player! Good luck!

I just came across it while computer-checking my own analysis, and was surprised by this new move with the +3.5-4.5 value by the computer. There is a sizable variation tree, with about a half-dozen “only” moves.

It was missed by Chigorin and Lasker in their post-game notes, in the Fine book, and in the 1995 book by Crouch and Haines 100 years later.

As far as I know, no book has this move in it, and it’s one of those computer-age findings. But you can see it in the online ChessBase computer-checking. One entry is from 2017.

When you’re ready to get the move, fire up your Houdini, Fritz, or Stockfish, and enjoy.