Gelfand vs Kramnik, 1994

and

Actually, it's a bit deeper. As my Stockfish 7 points out, 13...d4!, putting up the threat of ...Qxg2# and simultaneously covering f3 against the rook, causes difficulties for White and, in the end, successfully defends (13.Nh5 d4! 14.Rf2! dxe3 15.dxe3 Nxh5 16.Qxh5 with 0.17 @depth 29; 16.Bxh7+ Kxh7 and 21.Qh5+ Kg7 22.Qg4+ or 22.Rf3 Qxf3 23.gxf3 is equal).

Who did better?>

A teaching video used the term "piece fist" which was new to me, with three pieces attacking an undefended Kingside.

<Strangely, despite Lasker's success with Bird's Opening, he never again played it in his life!>

One and done.

<Bauer should have played g6! on move 13, this prevents any chance of a Bishop sacrifice on h7, there was no time for such luxuries such as a6?? this was far too slow, but after Nh5 on move 14, the attack was under way and appears that there was not a lot that could have been done to stop it: Lasker had too many open lines for his pieces. This is very subtle and the flaws in Nxe5 and a6 are difficult to appreciate until looked at with close analysis.>

<Surely it's not a perfect game what with Bauer doing nothing despite the fact that Lasker's bishops are all hungrily eyeing his kingside, but who would have conceived this beautiful attack could be possible (well, Lasker)?>

*****

<For the record, here is Kasparov annotating the game at its key moment in On My Great Predecessors part I:>

<13.Qe2! A psychologically subtle move: both prophylactically defending g2, and threatening Bb5, which in fact is a sham - the bishop is looking in quite the opposite direction!>

<Kasparov then gives lines to show why the combination would not have worked with the queen left on d1 (13.Nh5), as some has suggested.>

*****

<Soltis gives 6. Nf3 and 7. Nc3 as the right move order in his recent opus "Why Lasker Matters." I think he's probably got it right since the order given above allows black the possibility of 6 ... d4.>

<I like how Lasker blocked his center pawns and almost single-mindedly attacked the kingside, then suddenly, out of nowhere, as it were, with Black having apparently done nothing wrong, Lasker unleashes a spectacular and original combination, with the final point having nothing to do with the kingside at all, but simply exploiting the line-up of the enemy bishops, which he must have had in mind before starting the attack!>

<Blacks Nbd7 is a fine move, it strengthens his f6-square, which takes some of the punch out of whites bishops in theory, although the main reason for it is mainly because its a fine square for the knight, it's developing the piece, and it's NOT blocking in his bishop on b7. As for c5, it is indeed dubious, Nc5! (another reason Nbd7 was a fine move) would have been much better as it would have eliminated one of whites powerful bishops. Although the biggest black mistake IMHO in that he did not play ...3 d4, when no matter what whites pawn structure is shattered, one reason to play Nf3 early on as white in the Bird's. Although, those moves were typical of the style of the ages, and although nowadays most strong players would find d4 and Nc5 immediately, that wasn't the way it was played then and you can't compare different eras. Overall though, a fantastic attack by Lasker, and one of my all-time favorite combinations.>

<11 ...Nxe5 This is also not bad, but black should have taken advantage of a tactical opportunity and strike with 11...d4!, which is a common theme in the queen side fianchetto lines: black shuts out the dark-squared bishop. here it works, despite insufficient control of d4, because of a tactic based on the exposed g1-a7 diagonal. After 11...d4! play might continue 12.cxd4 cxd4 13.Bxd4 Bc5 (the tactic mentioned above) 14. c3 Nxe5 15. fxe5 Qxe5 and black is slightly better. Therefore white should not take the pawn but instead play 13. Qe2 when 13...Qd6 leads to an approximately equal game, as white has kingside play, but his bishop suffers.>

Lasker's Qxd3 is a show of disdain for an idiot who's overdue to resign.

Even the first move could be called "Lasker-esque". Imagine yourself at age 20, playing your first game in your first international tournament, and your choice for your first move is <1.f4?!>. I'm sure Lasker knew about the dangers of that romantic KP4, so let me just add "boldness" to the list of why I admire him. (This seems to be the only serious game where he used this opening, by the way.)

Blocking his d-pawn with <5.Bd3?!> also isn't what I or Stockfish expected; but strangely, and as often with Lasker, the game proves him right. It feels as if Lasker had prepared his double bishop sac just for this occasion. It definitively was on his mind pretty early, and the reason for why he plays another relatively dubious move, <11.Ne5>. After Black's obvious answer <11...Nxe5?> (D), he actually could have won a pawn with <12.fxe5 Ne4 13.Bxe4 dxe4 14.Qg4>, and I can't imagine he missed that.

click for larger view

<12.Bxe5?> however is a clear mistake according to Stockfish -- but these two "bad" moves clearly pave the way to Lasker's famous combination.

<13.Qe2!?> (D) is another move that Stockfish doesn't like; Stockfish would have played <13.Nh5>, because even after <13...d4!>, White gets a slight (+0.5) advantage.

click for larger view

click for larger view

<14...d4?!> could also have held a little longer, but after <14...Nxh5??>, Black might as well resign.

I was glad to see that Lasker's sacrifices -- unlike many other 19th-century sacrifices I've analyzed -- are completely safe and sound. It's also very pragmatic: He forces Black to give up his queen to prevent mate, and then via <22.Qd7!> wins a piece (and threatens to eat a lot of Black's pawns).

Black now tries to get his king to safety, and by <24.Rf1!>, Lasker ensures that he won't cross the f-file. It's another nice little trap into which Bauer walks unsuspectingly, and as soon as walks onto f8, <27.fxe5!> (D) begins another combination that I actually like just as much as the bishop sacs.

click for larger view

And again, it's completely sound, Black has no way to prevent white from winning more material. I just love how Black is forced to play <29...f6> only to get the crushing <30.Rxf6!> (in yo' *face* XD) -- and all this resulting in Lasker winning the exchange in addition to the piece.

I have to hand it to Bauer that he keeps on fighting even after <34.Qxb7>, because I like how Lasker then finishes the game by just simplifying the position into a clearly won king-and-pawn endgame with <38.Qxd3!>. This is standard playing today of course, but I'm not sure many masters of the 1880s would have been so level-headed.