I do not like Schlechter's 16. c4 as this allows Lasker to force an exchange on c6 which posts his bishop well there. Schlechter was looking to gain some scope for his dark square bishop, I suppose. In the event, Lasker proceeds to turn it into a very unhappy creature.

It sets up some threats against g7 if Black goes ahead with his pressure against d4.

34 Rxf4 Rd6 35 Rg4 exd4 36 Rxg7+ wins the queen after 36...Kxg7 37 Bxd4+

It keeps White's options open to play either c5 or d5:

(34 Rxf4 Rxd6 35 Rg4)
35...Nf6 36 Rg3 Rd7 struck me as the most stubborn line, but White can just play 37 d5 with winning prospects/ pressure on e5 a pawn up.

and if Black tries to sidestep the g7+ idea, c5 comes into play:

33. ♖xf4 ♖xg2

(33...exf4 34. ♕xg6 ♘f6 35. ♗d2 ♖g5 36. ♕d3 ♕d6 37. c5 ♕c6 38. ♗xf4 ♖h5 39. ♕b3+ (4.66/16))

(33...♖hg5 34. ♖g4 ♖xg4 35. hxg4 ♔h7 36. d5 ♘c5 37. ♕e3 ♘d7 38. ♗xe5 ♕xa2 39. ♕c3 ♘xe5 40. ♖xe5 (2.16/13))

(33...♖d6 34. ♖g4 ♘f6 35. ♖g3 ♖d7 36. d5 ♖e7 37. ♗d2 ♕c5 38. ♕g6 (2.24/14)

(This from a comparison of Capablanca with Schlechter and Mason in "Mein Wettkampf mit Capablanca", 1922.)

I have reviewed the annotations of this game by Rosenthal in the Tournament Book as well as other contemporary annotations by Teichmann and Marco. Although these fine annotators did a good job with most of the intricacies of this game, they all missed 33. Rxf4, as apparently did both Schlechter and Lasker. Indeed, Rosenthal in the Tournament Book praises Schlechter's 33. R4e2 as "Well played." Further proof, if such were truly needed, of the excellence of much of the analysis on this site.

Bravo tamar, boomie, beatgiant, and others! Well done.

In this post, I will address what occurred before Schlechter's critical 33rd move. I plan to deal with the 33rd move in a subsequent post, and then consider what followed Schlechter's 33. R4e2 in a third post.

Lasker defeated Schlechter in the final round of the London 1899 tournament (costing Schlechter a share of 2nd place) and now faced him--again with the Black pieces-- here in the opening round of Paris 1900. Having been burned by Lasker in a Giuoco Piano in London as tamar points out, Schlechter sought refuge in a placid variation of a Four Knights Opening (4. Bc4 instead of the usual 4. Bb5). Lasker, in turn, decided to forego 4...Nxe4 and instead just played 4...Bc5.

Schlechter could perhaps have sought an edge with 7. BxN (followed by 7...QxB 8. Nd5), but played for equality with 7. Be3. Lasker could have swapped Bishops with 7...BxB, but chose 7...Bb4 and then 8...BxN, messing up Schlechter's Queen side pawn formation.

With fine play by both antagonists, the game remained approximately equal until Schlechter's 22nd move. Unlike paladin at large, I see nothing wrong with Schlechter's 16. c4, but I agree that 21. Qh5 was not best (21. Bb4 seems better).

Schlecther's 22. f3 was the first move in the game that could be deemed a "mistake." Instead of this weakening advance, Schechter could have played 22. Nf3.

ughaibu's comment concerning Lasker's 24... f4 is excellent. Yes indeed, the move adumbrates Lasker's famous victory over Capablance at St. Petersburg in 1914. I would note, however, that Lasker could have better exploited Schlechter's 22. g3 by playing 23...f4 immediately rather than his merely equalizing 23...Qg6.

The contemporary commentators debated whether Lasker's king-side attack was a real threat. Marco thought that Lasker was pushing Schechter back move by move, while Teichmann thought the attack was going nowhere and that Schlechter was getting the better game. In my view, the truth lies somewhere in the middle. Through move 26, prospects seem about even to me.

Rosenthat in the Tournament Book calls Schlechter's 28. Ne4 "weak." But Rosenthal's 28. Nf1 is no improvement. Lasker's 27...Rff5 was slightly inferior to 27...Re1, and Schlechter could perhaps tried 28. d4. But so far as I can see there was nothing much wrong with Schlechter's game after 28. Ne4.

Lasker began to get in trouble with 30...Qd6. Fritz recommends 30...b6, a move I fail to understand at all. Best seems Marco's suggested 30...c5, closing the door on d4 by White.

Once Schlechter played 31. d4, Lasker should have recognized that he was in trouble. The Tournament Book says that Schlechter could have obtained "good prospects" with 32. Ba1. But Schlechter's 32. Qd3 protecting the c3 Bishop seems best.

A) Had Lasker responded 33...exf4 Schlechter would have had a clear win with 34. QxR. I have nothing to add to Boomie's excellent analysis of this variation.

B) Had Lasker responded 33...Rd6, 34. Rg4 wins for White. The only thing I have to add to Boomie's analysis here is that if Lasker had responded 34...Nf6 to 34. Rg4, 35. Rg6 would have been even more devastating than Boomie's 35. Rg3 (which, to be fair, also wins for White).

C) Lasker's best chance had Schlechter played 33. Rxf4 would have been to try 34...Rxg2. Had Schlechter then played 35. KxR, Lasker would have been back in the game with 35...exR. But I see no salvation for Lasker against Boomie's far superior 35. Rg4 (tamar also found this fine move). Boomie's line after 35. Rg4 (35...RxR 35. fxR Rg5 36. Bd2 QxQ 37. cxQ Rg6 38. dxe5) seems best to me. Boomie queries whether Black would have drawing chances in this variation after the exchange of Rooks and Queens. Given that White would be up a pawn and would soon have a protected passed e-pawn in the center, there seems little doubt that White should prevail, especially since White's Bishop is better than Black's Knight in this endgame.

But, players tended to that when playing Lasker