<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'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.>

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?

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?

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?>

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)

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 !!??

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:

Examples:

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.

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.

Lasker vs Schlechter, 1910

<time limit> 15 moves per hour>

Thanks.

I don't think so. They probably had the same time controls in the 1880s and 1890s . But many of the 1880s - 1890s World Championship matches games were terrible by modern standards.

This 1910 Lasker-Schlechter World Championship Match is actually one of the best ever in chess history in terms of quality. I think it's even better than all the WC matches that came later quality-wise except for the 1921 Lasker - Capablanca match.

Compared to the following WC matches for instance

Kasparov-Short (1993)
Kasparov-Anand (1995)
Kasparov-Kramnik (2000)
Kramnik-Leko (2004)
Kramnik-Topalov (2006)
Anand-Kramnik (2008)

this match quality-wise is better. This is just an opinion; the only way to know for sure is to analyze all the games of all these matches with computers and find out their errors rates. I suspect this 1910 match has a lower error rate.

I completely agree regarding <interesting>. What other WC match has less errors and yet has more interesting games? I can't think of any.

These World Championship matches, Lasker-Schlechter (1910) and Lasker-Capablanca (1921), will always be underestimated by many ordinary present-day chess pundits for the simple reason that when they look, the years after these matches read (1910) and (1921). Oh that's so ancient, they must be patzers!

The best way to present these matches to such types of present-day chess pundits seems to be just to present their games without saying what years they were played, nor who specifically played them. The games stand out alone by themselves. They are so obviously good and masterly that if one were to present them as having been played only yesterday by some of the very best of chess masters, a chess pundit ignorant of their ages or players would probably go gaga over such great games and immediately agree they are of World Championship caliber indeed.

thank you very much for your illuminating, stimulating comments, relating to the match as a whole and specifically delineating the proceedings of each individual game. This is a marvelous introduction to a match that I was actually curious about for a long time.

Now I read your comments for a game, then examine it, and so on. Thanks again :-)