230 Lasker And The Exchange Variation Of The Ruy Lopez by Steve Wrinn

Lasker and the Exchange Variation of the Ruy
Lopez

by Steve Wrinn

To many chessplayers, the name Emanuel Lasker evokes the image of a gray-haired
veteran, an endgame specialist famous for grinding out wins with the Exchange
Variation of the Ruy Lopez. Well it's possible that the game below, played when
Lasker was 25, may have given him a few of those gray hairs.

Lasker-Steinitz, Montreal 1894

13th game, World Championship Match

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Bxc6 dxc6 5.d4 exd4 6.Qxd4 Qxd4 7.Nxd4 c5 8.Ne2
Bd7 9.Nbc3 0–0–0 10.Bf4 Bc6 11.0–0 Nf6 12.f3 Be7 13.Ng3 g6 14.Rfe1 Nd7
15.Nd1 Nb6 16.Nf1 Rd7 17.Be3 Rhd8 18.b3 c4 19.Bxb6 cxb6 20.bxc4 Bb4 21.c3
Bc5+ 22.Kh1 Rd3 23.Rc1 a5 24.Nde3 f5 25.exf5 gxf5

26.h3 On 26.Nxf5 Rxf3 27.Ne7+ (27.gxf3??

Bxf3 mate) 27...Bxe7 28.gxf3 Bxf3+ 29.Kg1
Bc5+ 30.Ne3 Rd2 gives Black an excellent
game. 26...Rg8 27.Nd5 27.Nxf5 again runs into

27...Rxf3. 27...Bxd5 28.cxd5 Rxd5 29.Rcd1
Rxd1 30.Rxd1 f4 31.Kh2 Re8 32.a4 Kc7
33.h4 Kc6 34.c4 Bb4 35.Kh3 Re1 36.Rxe1
Bxe1 37.Kg4 Kc5 38.Kxf4 Kxc4 39.Ke4 Bxh4
40.g3 Bd8 41.Ne3+ Kb4 42.Kd3 Kxa4 43.Kc2
Kb4 44.f4 Kc5 45.f5 Kd6 46.g4 b5 47.Nd1
Ke5 48.Nc3 b4 49.Na4 Kd4 50.Nb2 b5
51.Kb3 Be7 52.g5 a4+ 53.Nxa4 bxa4+
54.Kxa4 Ke5 55.Kb3 Kxf5 0–1

I was taken aback when I first saw this game. Admittedly, it was a powerful
performance by Steinitz, who gave a textbook demonstration of Black’s main
resource in the Exchange Variation – active counterplay based on the strength of the
two bishops. Yet it was certainly not the sort of endgame squeeze one generally
associates with Lasker in this opening. Inexperience with the Exchange Variation
may have contributed to Lasker’s defeat, as he had played the line only once
previously in serious chess. Nor was that earlier game, from the 12-man British
Chess Association tournament, London 1892, a resounding success for the future
World Champion; since Lasker, the eventual tournament winner, drew with 10th
place finisher James Mortimer.

Lasker-Mortimer, London 1892

B.C.A. Tournament

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Bxc6 dxc6 5.0–0 The only recorded instance of

Lasker playing this move, a later Fischer favorite. 5...Bg4 6.h3 Bh5 7.d3 Bd6 8.Be3

Page 1 of 8

The Skittles Room

5/29/2004

file://C:\cafe\skittles\skittles.htm

c5 9.Nbd2 Qd7 10.Re1 Bg6 11.c3 Ne7 12.Qb3 b5 13.a4 0–0 14.axb5 axb5 15.Qc2
f5 16.Rxa8 Rxa8 17.exf5 Bxf5 18.c4 Nc6 19.cxb5 Nb4 20.Qb3+ Be6 21.Nc4 e4
22.dxe4 Qf7 23.Nxd6 cxd6 24.Qc3 h6 25.Nh2 Qb7 26.Qd2 Bc4 27.Qxd6

Material advantage comes and goes rather
casually in this game. White has acquired three
extra pawns, all of which Black regains within
the next half dozen moves. 27...Nd3 28.Rd1
Qxe4 29.Nf1 Bxb5 30.Ng3 Qc4 31.Nf5 Qf7
32.g4 Nxb2 33.Ne7+ Kh7 34.Rb1 Ra2 35.Qe5
Bd3 36.Rxb2 Rxb2 37.Qxb2 Qxe7 38.Qa3
Qe4 ½-½

No one who examined these two games in, say,
1895 could possibly have predicted that the
Exchange Variation would one day become a
famous and powerful weapon in Lasker’s
hands. Yet after the game versus Steinitz cited

above, Lasker never again lost another serious game with the Variation. His lifetime
total score in tournament and match games ultimately reached 10 wins, 1 loss, and 3
draws. Even in the dozen surviving scores from less serious events (simultaneous,
blindfold, and consultation games), there is not a single Lasker loss on the white side
of the Variation to be found. Five wins and seven draws have been preserved. For
good measure, Lasker also won all three tournament and match games in which he
faced the Variation from the black side.

Such dominating mastery from such humble beginnings deserves a closer
examination. Let’s bring the image into sharper focus by taking a look at when, how,
and against whom Lasker played the Variation.

I) He played it rather sparingly – only 14 times in all. Nevertheless, the Variation

appears in almost every phase of Lasker’s career, from his pre-championship days to
his last great tournament triumph, as ex-champion, at New York 1924. In between,
he played the Variation at major events such as Nuremburg 1896, London 1899,
Cambridge Springs 1904, and St. Petersburg 1914. He also used it in matches versus
Steinitz (in 1894 and again in 1896-7), Tarrasch (1908), and Janowski (1909).

The one phase of his career in which Lasker did not play the Variation was during
his four-tournament “comeback,” after a nine-year hiatus from chess, in 1934-36.
However, he had little opportunity to do so. At Zurich 1934, Moscow 1935 and
1936, and Nottingham 1936, Lasker played 1.e4 a total of 21 times, but only two of
his opponents (Romanovsky and Rabinovich at Moscow 1935) replied 1...e5. In
those two games, after 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6, Lasker retreated with 4.Ba4. Thus,
surprising as it may seem, the Grand Old Man never played the Grand Old Line. We
saw Lasker’s first use of the Variation in a game above. The following game, played
in the final round at New York 1924, when the Grand Not-Yet-Old Man had already
secured first prize, represents his last.

Lasker-Marshall, New York 1924

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Bxc6 dxc6 5.d4 Bg4 6.dxe5 Qxd1+ 7.Kxd1 0–0–0+
8.Ke1 Bc5 9.h3 Bh5 10.Bf4 f5 11.Nbd2 Avoiding the complications of 11.exf5

Bxf3 12.gxf3 Ne7 11...Ne7 12.Bg5 Bxf3 13.gxf3 Rhe8 14.Rd1 fxe4 15.fxe4 h6
16.Bh4 Bd4 17.Nc4 g5 18.c3 Ng6 19.cxd4 Nxh4 20.Ke2 Rd7 21.f3

White has a material advantage and a healthy
pawn center; he soon sacrifices the former to
advance the latter. 21...Ng6 22.Ne3 c5 23.dxc5

Page 2 of 8

The Skittles Room

5/29/2004

file://C:\cafe\skittles\skittles.htm

II) Lasker played the Variation almost exclusively against world-class opponents,

with overwhelming results. Of the 14 games in which he played it, a total of 12 were
against Steinitz (3), Janowski (3), Tarrasch (2), Marshall, Schlechter, Capablanca,
and Chigorin. In those 12 games, he scored 10 wins, one loss (to Steinitz) and one
draw (with Schlechter, at London 1899), for a total of 10½ - 1½, or 87½ %. Note that
the first six names on this list represent the full roster of Lasker’s World
Championship match opponents. To make such a score against such a group is
remarkable.

One great rival that Lasker never played the Variation against was Pillsbury, though
he certainly came close. In their very first meeting, at New York 1893, the American
genius answered 1.e4.e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 with 3...g6. Lasker then chopped off the
black knight anyway. Here is that game, in which Pillsbury first overlooks a Lasker
shot on move 46, and then, two moves later, misses a chance to offer more
resistance.

Lasker-Pillsbury, New York 1893

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 g6 4.Bxc6 dxc6 5.d3 Bg7 6.Nc3 Be6 7.Be3 Qe7 8.Qe2 c5
9.h3 c6 10.a4 b6 11.Nd2 Nf6 12.f3 Nd7 13.0–0 g5 14.Nd1 h6 15.c3 0–0 16.Nf2
Rfd8 17.Rfd1 Nf8 18.a5 Ng6 19.axb6 axb6 20.Qf1 Nf4 21.Rxa8 Rxa8 22.Ra1
Qb7 23.Qb1 Ra6 24.Kh2 Bf8 25.g3 Ng6 26.Kg2 Qa7 27.Rxa6 Qxa6 28.Nf1 Bd6
29.c4 f6 30.Bd2 h5 31.Ne3 h4 32.Nfg4 Bxg4 33.hxg4 hxg3 34.Nf5 Bf8 35.Kxg3
Qa7 36.Qf1 Qd7 37.Qb1 Ne7 38.Be3 Nxf5+ 39.exf5 Qh7 40.Kg2 Qd7 41.Kf2 Qa7
42.Ke2 Bd6 43.Bd2 Qa4 44.Qh1 Qa7 45.Be3 Kg7 45...Qg7 would have avoided the

following pair of surprise moves.

Nf4+ 24.Kf2 Rxd1 25.Rxd1 Rxe5 26.Nd5

Nxh3+ 27.Kg3 g4 28.Nf6 h5 29.f4 Rxc5 30.Re1 Rb5 31.e5 (see next diagram)

31...Kd8 32.Nxh5 Ke7 33.f5 Ng5 34.Kxg4
Nh7 35.Nf4 Rxb2 36.Nd5+ Kd7 37.e6+ Kd6
38.e7 Kxd5 39.Re6 Rg2+ 40.Kf4 Rg8 41.e8Q
Rxe8 42.Rxe8 c5 43.Rd8+ Kc6 44.Rh8 1–0

46.Bxg5 fxg5 47.f6+ Kg8 47...Kxf6 (or

47...Kg6) leads to the loss of black’s queen.
48.Qh6 Qf7 In Pillsbury’s Chess Career,

Sergeant and Watts suggest 48...Qh7 49.f7+
Qxf7 50.Qxd6 Qf4, with drawing chances.
49.Qxg5+ Kh8 50.Qf5 Bf8 51.g5 Qh5
52.Qxe5 b5 53.Ke3 Qh4 54.f7+ Kh7 55.Qf5+
1–0 56.Qf6+ and 57.g6+ will win black’s

queen. We’ll see Lasker keep the queens on the

Page 3 of 8

The Skittles Room

5/29/2004

file://C:\cafe\skittles\skittles.htm

III) Lasker played the Variation on important occasions.

He used it in three World Championship matches: versus Steinitz in 1894
(game 13) and 1896-7 (games 10 and 14), as well as versus Tarrasch in 1908
(game 1).

He used it in his first game ever as white versus Tarrasch, Schlechter, and
Capablanca.

He used it in the final game of his 4-game series with Janowsky in 1909,
when trailing by 2 wins to 1.

And, of course, he used it in the famous game against Capablanca at St.
Petersburg 1914, at a moment when the two players stood equal on points,
but the Cuban had four games left to play to Lasker’s three.

The latter two occasions may be considered “must-win” games; the others were not
necessarily so. In fact, there is evidence that Lasker, especially early in his career,
used the Variation as a safe way to keep a draw in hand, for he played it on occasions
when a win was not strictly necessary, and a draw would do him some good and no
harm.

For example, consider the game with Tarrasch from Nuremberg 1896. The year
before, at Hastings 1895, Lasker, the new World Champion, playing black, had lost
his first-ever meeting with Tarrasch when he blundered in a winning endgame
position. Now, at Nuremberg, Lasker led Tarrasch (and Pillsbury) by 1½ points
when he met the good doctor in the penultimate round. A win would of course be
welcome, but a draw was vital.

Lasker-Tarrasch, Nuremberg 1896

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Bxc6 Not an obvious choice, bearing in mind that at

this point Lasker’s lifetime score with the Variation was +0 -1 =1. If Lasker indeed
chose this line merely to reach a safe position, then the results certainly exceeded his
expectations. 4...dxc6 5.Nc3 Bc5 6.d3 Bg4 7.Be3 Qd6 8.Bxc5 Qxc5 9.Qd2 Bxf3

Tarrasch faults this move in the tournament book, and recommends 9...f6. 10.gxf3
Ne7 11.0–0–0 Ng6 12.Qe3 Qxe3+ 13.fxe3 Rd8 14.Ne2 f6 15.Rhg1 Kf7 16.Rdf1
Rhe8 17.Ng3 Nf8 18.f4 c5 19.Nh5 g6

20.fxe5 Rxe5 20...gxh5 allows mate in two.

Things go downhill for Black from this point
on. 21.Nxf6 Kg7 22.Rf2 h5 23.Nd5 c6 24.Nf4
c4 25.Rfg2 Rd6 26.h4 cxd3 27.cxd3 Kf7
28.Rg5 Rxg5 29.Rxg5 Rf6 30.e5 Rf5
31.Rxf5+ gxf5 32.d4 Ke7 33.Kd2 c5 34.Kd3
cxd4 35.exd4 Kd8 36.d5 Kd7 37.Kd4 Kc7
38.b4 Kd7 39.Kc5 Kc7 40.d6+ Kd7 41.Kd5
1–0

A few months later, in his return match with
Steinitz, Lasker led after eleven games by the
enormous score of +7 -0 =4. Ten wins were

board in games with the Variation itself later in

this article.

Page 4 of 8

The Skittles Room

5/29/2004

file://C:\cafe\skittles\skittles.htm

required for victory in the match. Steinitz then won games 12 and 13. In game 14, in
an effort to halt this minor slide, Lasker trotted out the Variation. He won a pawn
quickly, and the game slowly.

Lasker-Steinitz, Moscow 1896-97

Game 14, World Championship Match

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Bxc6 dxc6 5.Nc3 f6 6.d4 exd4 7.Qxd4 Bd6 8.Be3
Ne7 9.Nd2 c5 10.Qd3 b5 11.Qe2 c4 12.Qh5+ g6 13.Qh6 Kf7 14.f4 Qf8 15.Qh4
Nc6 16.Nd5 f5 17.Qf6+ Kg8 18.Qxf8+ Bxf8 (Better was 18...Kxf8 19.e5 Nb4!)
19.Nxc7

19...Rb8 20.0–0–0 Kf7 21.Nf3 h6 22.e5 Be7
23.Nd5 Bd8 24.h4 Rg8 25.Rhe1 Be6 26.Bc5
b4 27.Ne3 Rb5 28.Bd6 c3 29.b3 a5 30.Rd3 a4
31.Nd4 Nxd4 32.Rxd4 Bxh4 33.Re2 axb3
34.cxb3 Be7 35.Nc2 g5 36.Bxe7 Kxe7
37.Nxb4 gxf4 38.Nc6+ Kf7 39.Rxf4 Rg4
40.Rd4 h5 41.Nd8+ Ke7 42.Nxe6 Kxe6
43.Rd6+ Ke7 44.Rh6 Re4 45.Rf2 Rbxe5
46.Rxh5 Ke6 47.Rh6+ Kd5 48.Rf6 Kd4
49.Rd6+ Kc5 50.Rd8 Re2 51.Rf3 Rxa2
52.Rxc3+ Kb4 53.Rc2 Rxc2+ 54.Kxc2 Re2+
55.Rd2 Re4 56.Rf2 Rg4 57.Kb2 Re4

Bachmann, in Schachmeister Steinitz, says
57...Rg3 or 57...Rg5 draws. 58.g3 Re5 59.Rf4+

Kb5 60.Ka3 Rd5 61.Rf3 Ka5 62.b4+ Kb5 63.Kb3 Kb6 64.Kc4 Kc6 65.Rb3 Re5
66.b5+ Kb6 67.Kd4 Re4+ 68.Kd5 Re8 69.Kd6 Re1 70.Rf3 Kxb5 71.Rxf5+ Kc4
72.g4 Kd4 73.g5 Rg1 74.Ke6 Ke4 75.Kf6 Ra1 76.g6 Ra7 77.Re5+ Kf4 78.Re7 1–0

One similar later example comes from the Lasker-Tarrasch world championship
match of 1908. The two players had not met over the board since their Nuremberg
encounter twelve years earlier. When their long-awaited title match began, Lasker
used the Variation in Game One.

Lasker-Tarrasch, Düsseldorf 1908

Game 1, World Championship Match

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Bxc6 In Chess Secrets I Learned from the Masters,

Edward Lasker wrote of his conversation with Emanuel shortly before this match
began. The Champion said that he was thinking of playing the Variation if he drew
the white pieces in the first game, and asked, “Can you tell me how anyone can lose
that opening?” The question is revealing. It seems that Lasker was more concerned
with not losing the first match game than he was with winning it. 4...dxc6 5.d4 exd4
6.Qxd4 Qxd4 7.Nxd4 c5 8.Ne2 Bd7 9.b3 Bc6 10.f3 Be7 11.Bb2 Bf6 12.Bxf6 Nxf6
13.Nd2 0–0–0 14.0–0–0 Rd7 15.Nf4 Re8 16.Nc4 b6 17.a4 a5 18.Rxd7 Nxd7
19.Rd1 Ne5 20.Nxe5 Rxe5 21.c4 Re8 22.Nh5 Rg8 23.Rd3 f6 24.Kd2 Be8 25.Ng3
Bd7 26.Ke3 Re8 27.Nh5 Re7 28.g4 c6 29.h4 Kc7 30.g5 f5 31.Ng3 fxe4 32.Nxe4
Bf5 33.h5 Rd7 34.Rc3 Rd1 35.Kf4

35...Bd7 Various commentators, including

Georg Marco in the Wiener Schachzeitung, who
cites Lasker, call this the losing move, and say
that Black could have reached a drawn rook
ending with 35...Bxe4. After the text move,
White, with knight vs. bishop and an extra
kingside pawn, wins an endgame typical for the
Variation. 36.Re3 Rh1 37.Ng3 Rh4+ 38.Ke5

Page 5 of 8

The Skittles Room

5/29/2004

file://C:\cafe\skittles\skittles.htm

Rh3 39.f4 Kd8 40.f5 Rh4 41.f6 gxf6+ 42.Kxf6 Be8 43.Nf5 Rf4 44.g6 hxg6
45.hxg6 Rg4 46.Rxe8+ Kxe8 47.g7 Kd7 48.Nh4 Rxg7 49.Kxg7 Ke6 50.Nf3 Kf5
51.Kf7 Ke4 52.Ke6 Kd3 53.Kd6 Kc3 54.Kxc6 Kxb3 55.Kb5 1–0 With this game,

which brought their lifetime score to Variation 2, Tarrasch 1, Lasker had taken his
first step on the way to a convincing +8 -3 =5 match victory.

Perhaps successes like these caused Lasker to begin to employ the Variation as a
winning attempt. In any case, a year after the Tarrasch match, the Variation was
Lasker’s choice when a win was definitely imperative. On the eve of the final game
of a short match versus Janowsky, he found himself trailing +1 -2 =0. That game is
given in section IV, below.

And then there is The Game, Lasker’s win versus Capablanca from St. Petersburg
1914. That encounter, one of the most famous in chess history, has been
anthologized many, many times, and most chessplayers are familiar with the story of
Lasker’s cunning choice of a quiet, simplifying, drawish line against an opponent
whose peaceable inclinations were at odds with the requirements of his position that
he play actively. I don’t intend to cover old ground here, readers interested in a
thorough examination of the game might wish to consult, for example, Wolfgang
Heidenfeld’s article, Doomsday Encounter, in Lasker & His Contemporaries, #4, in
which Heidenfeld collates and compares the views of a number of annotators.

Lasker-Capablanca, St. Petersburg 1914

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Bxc6 dxc6 5.d4 exd4 6.Qxd4 Qxd4 7.Nxd4 Bd6
8.Nc3 Ne7 9.0–0 0–0 10.f4 Re8 11.Nb3 f6 12.f5

“A piece of finesse which Capablanca did not
expect. This advance seemingly marks the e-
pawn as a candidate for death. Upon closer
inspection, however, one sees that the pawn can
nevertheless stand, and the move,
notwithstanding all these surface weaknesses,
has much in compensation. It hinders the f-
pawn, the QB, as well as the KN, and in
addition forces the exchange of the strong KB.”
Lasker, in the American Chess Bulletin, 1914.

“It has been wrongly claimed that this wins the
game, but I would like nothing better than to
have such a position again. It required several

mistakes on my part finally to obtain a lost position.” Capablanca, in Chess
Fundamentals.

“It is not best that we all should think alike; it is differences of opinion that make
horse races.” Mark Twain.

Those differences of opinion apparently make classic chess games, too. 12...b6
13.Bf4 Bb7 14.Bxd6 cxd6 15.Nd4 Rad8 16.Ne6 Rd7 17.Rad1 Nc8 18.Rf2 b5
19.Rfd2 Rde7 20.b4 Kf7 21.a3 Ba8 22.Kf2 Ra7 23.g4 h6 24.Rd3 a5 25.h4 axb4
26.axb4 Rae7 27.Kf3 Rg8 28.Kf4 g6 29.Rg3 g5+ 30.Kf3 Nb6 31.hxg5 hxg5
32.Rh3 Rd7 33.Kg3 Ke8 34.Rdh1 Bb7 35.e5 dxe5 36.Ne4 Nd5 37.N6c5 Bc8
38.Nxd7 Bxd7 39.Rh7 Rf8 40.Ra1 Kd8 41.Ra8+ Bc8 42.Nc5 1–0

IV) The fame of that endgame win versus Capablanca has perhaps obscured an

important point: Lasker did not always play the Variation in order to bring
about early simplification through the exchange of queens. Sometimes, after the

bishop for knight swap, he played 5.Nc3 or 5.d3, kept the queens on the board, and

Page 6 of 8

The Skittles Room

5/29/2004

file://C:\cafe\skittles\skittles.htm

delayed or dispensed with the opening of the center via the pawn push d4. In the
subsequent middlegame, he often attacked on the kingside. We’ve already seen one
example of this in the Pillsbury game above; here are some others:

Lasker-Steinitz, Moscow 1896-97

Game 10, World Championship match

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Bxc6 dxc6 5.Nc3 Bg4 6.h3 Bxf3 7.Qxf3 Ne7 8.d3 c5
9.Qg3 Ng6 10.Be3 Bd6 11.0–0–0 0–0 12.h4

Not the sort of position one usually associates
with Lasker and the Variation. 12...Nf4 13.Kb1
Ne6 14.Qg4 Qe8 15.Ne2 Nd4 16.Nxd4 exd4
17.Bh6 Be5 18.Bc1 Qe6 19.Qe2 f5 20.f4 Bd6
21.e5 Be7 22.h5 Rad8 23.g4 b5 24.Rdg1 c4
25.Rg2 cxd3 26.cxd3 fxg4 27.Rxg4 Rf5
28.Rhg1 Bf8 29.Rg5 Rxg5 30.Rxg5 Rd5
31.Qf3 Rd7 32.Qe4 Rd5 33.Rg2 c6 34.Re2
Qg4 35.e6 Be7 36.Rc2 Qxh5 37.Rxc6 Rd8
38.Rxa6 Qe8 39.Ra7 h5 40.f5 h4 41.Qg4 1–0

Lasker-Chigorin, Cambridge Springs 1904

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Bxc6 dxc6 5.d3 Bd6 6.Be3 Ne7 7.d4 Bg4 8.Nbd2
Ng6 9.h3 Bxf3 10.Nxf3 Qe7 11.Qd3 0–0 12.0–0–0 Rfe8 13.Rhe1 exd4 14.Bxd4
Bf4+ 15.Kb1 c5 16.Bc3 Rad8 17.Qe2 b5 18.g3 Bd6 19.h4 f6 20.h5 Nf8 21.Nh4 g6
22.hxg6 hxg6 23.f4 Qf7 24.Qg4 b4 25.Nf5 Qc4 26.Bxf6 Rd7 27.Nh6+

Lasker-Janowsky, Paris 1909

Game 4 (of 4), 1st series

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Bxc6 dxc6 5.Nc3 Bc5 6.d3 Qe7 7.Be3 Bxe3 8.fxe3
Bg4 9.Qe2 Nh6 10.0–0–0 0–0–0 11.h3 Bh5 12.d4 exd4 13.exd4 Rhe8 14.Rhe1 f6
15.g4 Bf7 16.Qf2 Kb8 17.Kb1 Bg8 18.Nh4 Nf7 19.Nf5 Qf8 20.b3 Nd6 21.Rd3
Nb5 22.Na4 b6 23.c4

Again this is not in the style of a man aiming
for the endgame. As noted above, Lasker
needed a win to draw the 4-game series.
23...Na3+ 24.Kc1 g6 25.Ng3 Qe7 26.Qd2 Kb7
27.Qc3 a5 28.Rf3 Rf8 29.Ref1 h5 30.gxh5
gxh5 31.Nf5 Qb4 32.d5 Bh7 33.Nd4 Bxe4

White makes things look very easy in this
game. 27...Kh7 28.e5 Qe6 29.Qh4 g5 30.Qxg5
1–0

Page 7 of 8

The Skittles Room

5/29/2004

file://C:\cafe\skittles\skittles.htm

[

ChessCafe Home Page

] [

Book Review

] [

Bulletin Board

] [

Columnists

]

[

Endgame Study

] [

Skittles Room

] [