< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 4 ·
|May-04-07|| ||suenteus po 147: <chessgames.com> It seems game #9 has dropped out of the line-up above? Is it a bug?|
|May-14-07|| ||whiteshark: In 1999 <Robert Huebner; wrote in <"SCHACH">, a German chess magazine, a series of 5 articles on this match.|
Total 56 pages about both players, (bio, tournaments, characteristics of their style etc), conditions and circumstances of the match and a lot of game analysis, of course. Great documentation incl.!!
So, if you are interested in details of this match I would urge you to read it.
The 5 issues are:
SCHACH 05/99, p.39 onw.
SCHACH 06/99, p.49 onw.
SCHACH 08/99, p.53 onw.
SCHACH 10/99, p.36 onw.
SCHACH 11/99, p.53 onw.
|May-14-07|| ||vonKrolock: Schön... Aber wie? Hier ist es Südamerika, keine SCHACH-Magazine Sammlung gibt's hierzulande|
|May-14-07|| ||whiteshark: <vonKrolock>
copy + mail [no idea about postage]
copy + telefax [very expensive]
scan + email [sorry, have no scanner - but shall check + revert]
|May-14-07|| ||vonKrolock: <whiteshark> Thank you very much, a very kind offer - but I fear that my days of Schlechter researcher are far away; so, although Dr. Hübner's qualities as writer and analist - surely - inspire also for me the greatest respect and admiration, I can assure that You shall not worry (for the time being!) about sending me this valuable material|
|Feb-06-08|| ||tpstar: "LASKER'S NARROW ESCAPE"
Q: I love chess mysteries. My favorite mystery concerns the Carl Schlechter-Emanuel Lasker world championship match in 1910. Schlechter was leading by a point in the tenth and last game but apparently spurned a draw and lost, thus allowing Lasker to retain the title on a 5-5 tie. Many explanations have been offered to explain Schlechter's behavior; some historians maintain that because the match was so short, Lasker may have imposed secret conditions forcing the challenger to win by two points in order to wrest the crown. David Dathe, Milwaukee, WI
A: That myth already was punctured in this column and elsewhere. On the eve of the last game in Berlin, Lasker reported to the New York Evening Post: "The match with Schlechter is nearing its end and it appears probable that for the first time in my life I shall be the loser. If that should happen a good man will have won the world championship." Later Lasker confirmed: "The title hung in the balance till the last game."
Lasker never offered a draw because he had to win or lose the title. In front of 1,000 spectators, Schlechter buckled under the pressure, missed a crusher, then threw away the last chance to draw after 39. Ke1 Lasker vs Schlechter, 1910 :
click for larger view
Schlechter's decisive mistake was 39 ... Qh1+?, and he lost on move 71 after 40. Rf1! Qh4+ 41. Kd2! Rxf1 42. Qxf1 Qxd4+ 43. Qd3. Instead the drawing line is 39 ... Qh4+! 40. Kd2 Qh2+ 41. Ke3 Rxf3+ 42. Kxf3 Qh3+ 43. Ke2 Qxc8 44. Qxb5.
Dr. Hannak, in "Emanuel Lasker, The Life of a Chess Master," explains that the short match was due mainly to financial reasons: "Lasker soon had cause to regret that he had not insisted on what had heretofore been the usual procedure: victory to be decided by a given number of wins, draws not counting. To play for eight or ten wins (as against Tarrasch or Steinitz) might have involved dozens or even scores of games with a draw-wizard such as Schlechter, and although the backers of the match included the Viennese Baron Rothschild and other wealthy patrons, there just wasn't enough money to finance a match of such incalculable duration." Larry Evans, "Evans On Chess," "Chess Life" August 1998.
|Feb-17-08|| ||Agent Bouncy: Changing the subject from one mystery to another, does anyone know the original source of Capablanca's notes to the games? Many of them don't make any sense. For just one example out of many, in game 3 Capablanca says after White's 23rd move, "Black has a decisive advantage ( )." Then after White's 24th move he says, "Black certainly could not try anything, it was up to White." Capablanca's notes must be mistranslated, miscopied, misedited, or mis-something.|
|Feb-17-08|| ||SwitchingQuylthulg: <Agent Bouncy> There's a much simpler reason, explained in the kibitzing of game 10:|
<Calli: All of the ! and ? and stupid "Drawish" comments are computer annotations. Someone submitted the game with Capa's comments layered on top of an early annofritzed game.
I have begged CG to remove all that junk but to no avail.>
|Feb-17-08|| ||Calli: They are not all Capa's comments. See kibitzing at Schlechter vs Lasker, 1910|
|Mar-02-08|| ||Knight13: Schletchter was the closest guy that ever came to grabbbing the title away from Lasker (in a pool that didn't manage to succeed); all others before him sucked, and the guy after, Janowski, didn't even stand a chance, until Capablanca came out of the ground.|
|May-05-08|| ||Phony Benoni: From the match description above: <Others maintain that Schlechter was too honorable to win the title by a fluke (he had been lucky in a lost position in the fifth game) and therefore strove to win at all costs.>|
I've heard this before, and it's always sounded fanciful to me. And yet...
In 1897, a consultation match was held in Vienna. With the score tied going into the last game. the team including Marco got an advantage but agreed to an early draw. Sergeant's "Charousek's Games of Chess" records the following:
<...White accepted a draw, Marco explains, feeling that it would have ben unfair to let the result of the match depend on this one game.>
Marco's partner in the match was Carl Schlechter.
|May-05-08|| ||Petrosianic: That tells you what Marco thought about a consultation match in 1897. Doesn't really tell you what Schlechter thought about a world championship match in 1910, though.|
You were right to consider the statement fanciful, given that there are no quotes from Schlechter saying anything of the sort.
But if you're right, if he really felt that way, then that adds fuel to the notion that Lasker would have retained the title in a 5½-4½ defeat. How much sense does it make to think that Schlechter considered it unfair to win by 1 point, and then turn around and say that he'd have refused a rule to that effect?
We know Lasker supported such a rule. The Lasker-Capablanca negotiations broke down the next year over the very same thing.
|May-11-08|| ||Phony Benoni: <Petrosianic> After thinking it over, I guess the only point I was making was that Schlechter had been exposed to the kind of thinking that regarded it as somehow "dishonorable" to win a match on the basis of one fluke win, such as the one Schlechter had gotten in game 5. |
However, as you point out, we'll probably never know what Schlechter was really thinking. Was he simply sick and tired of being called "The Drawing Master" and decided to prove everyoone wrong? Did he anticipate that Lasker would use psychlogical tactics to force him to fight, and try to counter them by coming out in a fighting mood himself? Had he simply lost track of the score?
By the way, I'm a proponent of the one-point theory myself. I can think of no other way to explain Lasker's behavior. If he had been so careful about losing his title to stipulate a two-point margin, why was he risking everything by playing for a win in the last game?
|May-12-08|| ||Petrosianic: <After thinking it over, I guess the only point I was making was that Schlechter had been exposed to the kind of thinking that regarded it as somehow "dishonorable" to win a match on the basis of one fluke win, such as the one Schlechter had gotten in game 5.>|
Maybe. You know, he played a match with Tarrasch once, which would be declared drawn if one player wasn't two points ahead by a certain end date. (It ended up tied. REALLY tied, not with one player ahead by only one.)
Frankly, that doesn't make a lot of sense to me. I can imagine them agreeing to split the money equally if one player wins by only one. That's something tangible. But as far as saying that the match ended up tied, when really one player lost by a point, who would have accepted that if it had happened?
We'll probably never know about this match, but if Lasker liked the rule (as we know), and Schlechter thought it would be unfair not to have the rule (as everyone seems to think), then I bet the rule was in there somewhere, whether they publicized it or not.
Besides, it just seems incredible that someone as cagey as Lasker should risk his title in something as chancy as a 10 game match, without some kind of protection. Protection which everyone seems to think Schlechter was all too willing to give.
<Was he simply sick and tired of being called "The Drawing Master" and decided to prove everyoone wrong?>
I don't know, but if you play over the games of this match, you'll find some tough fights. The games average over 50 moves each. No GM draws here. It's a lot like the 1974 Karpov-Korchnoi match. Don't be fooled by the number of draws. It just means that both players were slugging equally hard.
|Dec-31-08|| ||whiteshark: The above picture in a 'better quality'
Persons on the photo:
Standing (left to right): Simon Alapin (half only), Julius Thirring, R. von Koperski, Georg Marco, Adolf Zinkl, Leo Löwy, J. Wachtel, Heinrich Wolf.
Sitting (left to right): Carl Schlechter, S. Pollak, unknown, H. Fähndrich, Siegfried Reginald Wolf, Emanuel Lasker, Adolf Schwarz.
(Source: German chess magazine "Schach-Report/Dt. Schachblätter, issue 9/1995, page 71)
|Dec-31-08|| ||Calli: <Whiteshark> I have a slightly larger version: http://picasaweb.google.com/Caissa1...|
The Picasa versions seem to be retouched photos giving a kind of artificial look to the photo. The CG image looks like the original photo. It would be nice to find the original untouched photo in a larger size.
|Jul-04-09|| ||vonKrolock: Part of the mistery is due to the incredible high level of the games, and Schlechter's - maybe in some way not previously acknowledged by the Chess world as a whole - ability and capability for facing Lasker in perfectly equal terms over the board (something that, for instance, Marshall, Tarrasch or Janovsky were unable to perform, each at his time, against the World champion before!) - Otherwise the sponsors from Riga, Stockholm, New York, St. Petersburg, Munich and London would surelly claim for their five games fraction each one to arrive (with Vienna and Berlin) to a 40 games match!...|
But, in the end of 1908 (therefore roughly one year before the match), an agreement, with a <working proposition> for a match of at least 30 games was signed by both Lasker and Schlechter, in the presence of witnesses, at Lasker's home in Berlin, Lützowstrasse 85B, Friday, December 3th.
A translation of Condition (I) was provided by E.A.Apps in "Chess" magazine, march 1976:
<"The match is to consist of thirty games. The victor is to have a winning majority of at least two games. In the case of a drawn match - whether level on points, or in the case of Herr Schlechter winning by one point only - Dr. Lasker is to retain the championship until decided by a return match to be arranged afterwards.">
So: <two games margin> - not some sic "secret clause" but an open condition, for a <thirty games> match !!
And: <in the case of a drawn match> It would not be also a 'mistery' that Lasker was giving then to Schlechter a, so to say, right to a return match in the case of a drawn match - what in fact never occurred - the return match after their actual <drawn match> !!!
When Lasker returned from London almost a whole Year later, in November 1909, without being able to <"save a 15-games match"> after the withdrawal of the other centers, except Vienna and Berlin, it's not also a mistery that the maecenas (Baron Rotschild etc) from both capitals were not interested in a longer match !!??
Well, the final agreement (whose terms where still unknown (and possibly remained afterwards too) until that article in "Chess") - apparently excluded Schlechter's right to a new match in case of a drawn match, so that <2 games margin> that would be applyied to a <30 games match> - something quite different from a 10 games match - would not be sustained too
|Jul-14-09|| ||visayanbraindoctor: The two-point controversy has so dominated discussions on this match that something is more likely than not overlooked.|
This was the first World Championship match, and perhaps the first match ever, in chess history that can definitively be classified as a super GM match-up. It has all the hallmarks of later World Championship and Candidates matches:
1. The games were of astonishingly high quality; there was a very low error rate. For this match this is especially astounding because there were no short Grandmaster draws at all. All the games, except possibly game 3, were totally played out. Moreover, some of the games were so wildly complicated that only computers would be certain to go through them without any errors. In perhaps about 7 games, there were no outright errors at all. It is incredible how any human being can play such wild complicated positions and lines as to be found in this match with very few mistakes.
|Jul-14-09|| ||visayanbraindoctor: 2. Aside from the low error rate, some of the conceptions by both players were remarkably creative. Often, one side managed to think of a long-range strategy to get the advantage. The other side would nearly always spot it and try to implement counter-measures. These game strategies are difficult to spot even with computers, as some of them involve trying to get certain types of positions at least half a dozen moves later. This is a hallmark of super GM play.|
Game 1: Schlechter's strategy resulted in an outside Kingside passed pawn. Lasker knew exactly what was happening when it started to happen and liquidated most of the Queenside pawns, and even sacked a pawn just to activate his Rook to get to an ending that he astutely evaluated as drawish, even if he were initially a pawn down. Draw.
Game 2: Schlechter's strategy resulted in a Queenside pawn majority and eventually a backward passed pawn for White, plus holes in his Queenside. Lasker allowed it without lashing out in self-destruction, having evaluated the resulting endgame as holdable. Eventually he managed to liquidate his backward pawn. Draw.
Game 3. The only tame draw.
Game 4. This was a good old Kingside attack by Lasker in which he did the good old pawn sac in order to gain the initiative. We see this all the time in super GM play. Schlechter like the super GM he himself was knew exactly when to return the pawn in order to diffuse the attack. In another hallmark of the super GM play, Lasker utilizes the whole board. When his Kingside attack faltered, he quickly and smoothly shifted to the Queenside. Schlechter was not to be outdone yet. He correctly evaluated that his Queenside was about to get skinned and sacked another pawn thus getting into a Queen and Bishop ending wherein he properly assessed that Lasker's exposed King would give him good chances for a perpetual. Draw.
Game 5. Lasker's strategy was pure positional genius. He marched his King to the Queenside so that he could operate freely on the center and Kingside. Not many would willingly do that or even think of that. Schlechter knew exactly what was happening and correctly assessed his best chances to survive was to open up the Queenside at the price of the good old pawn sac. (Contrary to the apparently common present-day narcissistic concept among many chess fans that the masters of this time did not know a thing about pawn sacs, Lasker and Schlechter obviously knew exactly when to sac and refuse to sac pawns for the initiative, for piece activity, and for positional compensation.) He was rewarded. Poor Lasker erred in the ensuing complications in the face of the suddenly increased Queen and Rook activity of White, and his exposed King fell into a mating net. Understandably, it would probably take a computer to wade through all the complications that Schlechter threw at Lasker without committing a single error. Open positions with both Queens aboard are possibly the most difficult positions for humans to play, and Schlechter obviously also knew this. Schlechter wins.
Game 6. Lasker again goes for an old fashioned Kingside attack. Schlechter diffuses it by again sacking a pawn to reach a Rook and Bishop ending with few pawns, assessing that he had good chances to draw. And as Schlechter did, we see today's super GMs do this too. Draw.
Game 7. This is the most famous draw of the match. Suffice to say, one has to replay it to even get an idea of how stupendously great Lasker and Schlechter were. Frankly, no game of such complexity and quality has been played in World Championship matches in the past two decades. How non-computers such as humans can play such a game unscathed is astounding. It is one of the candidates for the most outstanding game ever played in a World Championship match in chess history. Draw.
Game 8. After another tense opening debate on the open Ruy, Schlechter embarked on a strategy of obtaining a central passed pawn. He succeeded. Lasker did not panic. He had correctly assessed that the resulting Queen and minor pieces ending would be drawish. Draw.
Game 9. Lasker's opening strategy was to surprise Schlechter with the Pelikan. He apparently succeeded as White got weak doubled pawns out of the opening. Again the imaginative Lasker marches his King to the Queenside. Instead of collapsing as we sometimes see super GMs do in the face of an opening novelty, Schlechter tenaciously hung on for life all the way to a bad ending; and was rewarded when Lasker made a not-obvious error. Draw.
Game 10. The strategy of both players apparently consisted of attacking each other's King. This was a wild and woolly game of attack and defense in which Schlechter disdained drawing lines, and got himself into a disadvantageous endgame. The way Lasker exploited his endgame advantage in order to win is probably better than even what most super GMs today can manage (although I can imagine a Kramnik or Anand successfully winning such an endgame).
|Jul-14-09|| ||visayanbraindoctor: 3. The players were totally updated in the opening theory of that time; and constantly tried to find improvements during the progression of the match itself. We see this phenomenon also happening in later super GM Candidates and WC matches. There were explosive opening theory debates, especially in the Open Ruy Lopez and Berlin. |
When already losing, Lasker immediately knew he had not gotten any advantage in the Black side of the Ruy Lopez debate, and quickly shifted to highly complex Sicilian variations, one of which later became more famous (the Pelikan). This is the exact equivalent of super GMs springing major opening novelties on unsuspecting opponents.
In addition, Lasker also was not able to get much advantage even from the White side of the Ruy Lopez, and so shifted to d4 in the last game, which became a hair-rising Slav that imaginatively developed into a position that resembles later-to-be discovered Gruenfeld lines wherein White pawn storms the fianchettoed Black bishop. (This was the last game that Schlechter lost after an epic battle where he disdained drawing lines.)
|Jul-14-09|| ||visayanbraindoctor: All the previous World Championship matches before this had pretty high error rates, and most were mismatches. The next ones, with the exception of the the Lasker-Janowski (1910) mismatch, were generally of higher quality. This was the first. |
The 1910 Lasker-Schlechter World Championship Match was the first super-GM match-up in chess history.
|Jul-14-09|| ||returnoftheking: Interesting posts! Do you know what time control was enforced?|
|Jul-14-09|| ||visayanbraindoctor: <returnoftheking: Interesting posts! Do you know what time control was enforced?> |
Lasker vs Schlechter, 1910
Here Capablanca in his annotations says that the game was adjourned on the 36th move. Maybe it was two hours to make 36 moves, with additional time of one hour per 18 moves. This is just speculation.
|Jul-14-09|| ||vonKrolock: <better reading <incredibl<y> high> in my post from 4th July above>|
<time limit> 15 moves per hour
|Jul-14-09|| ||visayanbraindoctor: <vonKrolock: <better reading <incredibl<y> high> in my post from 4th July above>|
<time limit> 15 moves per hour>
I think this is much more preferable than the Sofia 1.5 hours for 40 moves, and then play to the finish comedy. Even a Lasker would not be able to produce such great endings under such time controls.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 4 ·