For much of the struggle, Lasker seemed content with a draw, and Pillsbury--needing a win to have any chance of catching Lasker--tried desperately to complicate play. Lasker's play was excellent and exploited the chances Pillsbury's risky play presented.

From my review of this game, however, despite Pillsbury's risk-taking, he was not lost until move 31 at the earliest. In this I differ from other commentators here and historically. I will be grateful if keypusher, beatgiant, or others can tell me if I have overlooked something.

Lasker's opening play revealed his lack of ambition. After Pillsbury's 6...Qa5, Lasker avoided the theoretically better 7. exd4 and played the more stolid 7. Nxd4. By so doing, Lasker had fewer open lines, but did not have an isolated d-pawn.

Yet again, after Pillsbury's 7...NxN, Lasker avoided getting an isolated d-pawn with the solid 8. QxN instead of the probably better 8. exd4. As seems obvious, Lasker was keen on keeping the game in hand rather than entering a slugfest with the always dangerous Pillsbury.

Pillsbury's 8...e5 set a trap. Had Lasker played 9. Bb5+, Pillsbury would have won two pieces for a Rook and probably had a won game after 9...QxB !! 10. NxQ exQ 11. Nc7+ Kd8 12. NxR Bd6.

Lasker didn't fall for that. Instead, he played the hyper-drawish 9. Qd5 (9. Qd1 was theoretically better, but not if a draw is the object).

After the resulting exchange of Queens and of two sets of minor pieces, and after Pillsbury's 15...0-0-0, I must agree with the Tournament Book that the game was flat and would likely have been abandoned by many grandmasters as a draw.

Reinfeld-Fine in their book on Lasker's greatest chess games say that Pillsbury's 18...f6 was "unnecessary and bad." They say he should have played 18...Kd7. While 18...Kd7 was fine, I see nothing wrong with 18...f6. Pillsbury's pawn structure was still sound, and after Lasker's 19. Rc1 Pillsbury had the slightly better game.

Reinfeld-Fine also criticize Pillsbury's 19...d6, calling it a "further weakness." They again say that 19...Kd7 was best. In fact, 19...e5 seems best. But after 19...b6 20. Kf1, Pillsbury still had at least an even game, despite all his supposedly "weakening" moves.

The Tournament Book joins the chorus and faults Pillsbury's 21...a5 as "compromising and ill-judged." While I would have preferred 21...e5, I still see nothing wrong with Pillsbury's game after 21...a5. Both the Tournament Book and Reinfeld-Fine next go after Pillsbury's 22...b5 as "still worse" and "likewise undesirable." Once again, while I think 22. e4 would have been best, I still see nothing wrong with Pillsbury's game.

The first even arguably bad move in this endgame by Pillsbury was his 28...f5, a move which, ironically, Reinfeld-Fine says was "practically forced." In fact, best here is the move Reinfeld-Fine claim was impossible, 28...Rc5. This does NOT lead to a win for White, Reinfeld-Fine notwithstanding.

After 28...Rc5, Reinfeld-Fine's proposed 29. RxR (29. Kd3 seems slightly better) leads nowhere. After 29...KxR 30. Kf3 (as Reinfeld-Fine proposed, missing the better 30. Kd3 or 30. b3), Pillsbury could simply have played 30...a4 with better chances. Even after Reinfeld-Fine's inferior 30...f5, Pillsbury had at least an even game. Reinfeld-Fine's 31. e4 was bad (31. b3 looks best) and Pillsbury could here have played 31...fxe4+ with the better chances. Even after the inferior move championed by Reinfeld-Fine, 31...g4+, Pillsbury was just fine.

Reinfeld-Fine outrageously claim that after 31...g4+ Lasker would have had a won game with 32. Kg3. This is nonsense. Pillsbury only needed to play 32...fxe4 to reach the following position:

click for larger view

How is this winning for White? In fact, White had best be careful not to overreach here with something like 33. Kxg4 Kc4 34. Kh5?? a4 and White is lost.

But for all that, 31...gxh4 was bad, and with 33. f4 Lasker would have had good winning chances. His actual move, 33. Kd3 was not as good, and Pillsbury would have had decent drawing prospects with 33...Kb5. But after Pillsbury's inferior 33...Rd6+ and his very bad 34...Rg6 (34...Re6 was essential), Lasker had a winning advantage that he never relinquished, despite Pillsbury's heroic defense over the course of th next 40 moves.

I have said little about Lasker in my posts on this game because all of the efforts to make something happen came from Pillsbury. But once Lasker got a winning advantage, his handling of Rook and Bishop was superb.

I agree with Reinfeld-Fine that Lasker could also have won with 35. Bxe5. In fact, this move was probably best play. But I also agree that Lasker's 35. b4+ was sufficient to win and probably a simpler procedure.

Much of the commentary on Lasker's winning procedure seems bad to me. For example, Reinfeld-Fine say that after Pillsbury's 54...Bc5 55. Bxe5 Bxe3 would only have been a draw. Really? How about 56. Rc7+ Kb6 57. Kxb RxB+ 58. Kd4 sure looks like a win to me:

click for larger view

Am I missing something?

0.18 (depth 31) 28...h5 29.h4 g4 30.e4 Bd6 31.f3 g3 32.Kd3 Bc5 33.Kc2 Kb7 34.Be1 Bf2 35.Bd2 Bc5 36.b3 Kb6 37.f4 Bd4 38.f5 Bf2 39.Bc3 Bc5 40.Be1 Bf2 41.Bd2 Bd4 42.Ra4 Bc5 - I think. positional draw

Your exchange sacrifice idea also would have worked well on moves 46 and 47, and were probably best play there. But Lasker's method, though not as immediately decisive as your excellent idea, was relentless and left Pillsbury no chances.

click for larger view

<How is this winning for White?>

At first glance, White would play 33. b3 to block the Black king's inroad, after which the weak kingside pawns would fall. And 33. b3 <a4?!> does not look quite good enough to me.

13...Bg4 Stockfish 030417 64 BMI2 -0.69 (depth 35) 14.Ba5+ Kd7 15.h3 Be6 16.O-O-O Ne7 17.Nc7 Rc8 18.Kb1 Bxc7 19.Rxd4+ Ke8 20.Bxc7 Rxc7 21.b3 h6 22.Rc1 Rxc1+ 23.Kxc1 Nc6 24.Rd1 f5 25.Kb2 Ke7 26.Kc3 Kf6 27.Rd2 Ke5 28.f4+

13....Be6 according to analysis gives a little bit more advantage for black but I can't recognize difference-:))

I see nothing better than 33. b3 or 33. Kxg4, and neither leads anywhere for White.