zanzibar: I have a very limited library of chess books, one of which is <"Emanuel Lasker: The Life of a Chess Master"> by Dr. J. Hannak (Dover 1991 0486267067).
I assume it is familiar to the Lasker experts, as it seems to hold an unique position as biography of the master.
The origins of the Dover edition:
unabridged reproduction of 1959 English language edition first published by Andre Deutsch Ltd., London and Simon & Schuster, NY.
(tr. Heinrich Fraenkel)
That in turn comes from the German language edition published by Siegfried Engelhardt Verlag, Berlin-Frohnau, in 1952 under the title of <"Emanuel Lasker, Biographie eines Schachweltmeisters".>
Included in my edition is a reproduction of Lasker's tournament record which was printed in the back of the dust jacket in the Simon & Schuster edition.
This lists the following Janowski matches:
1909 Janowski-Lasker (+2 -2 =0)
1909 Janowski-Lasker (+7 -1 =2)
1910 Janowski-Lasker (+8 -0 =3)
<Chapter 19 "Narrow Escape in the Schlechter Match"> begins with Lasker in Paris. It mentions a wealthy French 'patron' of chess, Pierre Nardus as a backer of Janowski who was willing to finance a four game mini-match which, if all went well, would be a preliminary to <"a proper match for the title">.
The Dover edition of the book explicitly refers to the match as a <"title"> match, and later uses this phrase:
"Now the <'big'> match was organized; [...] The result: 7:1, and two draws."
Then, in reference to the next encounter this phrase is used:
"A couple of years later Janowski was to get another chance against Lasker, and this time he was defeated even more convincingly by 8:0 and three draws."
What is notable is the absence of this other "chance" being for the title.
Reading the above excerpts (or the actual beginning paragraphs of the chapter) would led one to think that the 1909 Janowski-Lasker match was for the title. Agreed?
Now, it is a little difficult to find out much online about who Dr. J. Hannak is, but I believe the book is a well-respected biography of Lasker. It certain gets good reviews on Amazon.
And Winter himself refers to it, mostly in connection with the preface Einstein wrote:
Winter makes this further comment about the book:
"Since many parts of Hannak’s book read like a novelette, it may reasonably be felt that something more substantial is required before Lasker is mocked."
http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/... (CN 3662)
When it suits Winter, however, he quotes from the book. Sometimes as in CN 5076:
asking what is the source of Lasker's purported last words.
I would assume Hannak was quoting from Lasker's wife Martha, for who else could be the source? And as Hannak quotes extensively from her private diary (e.g. about her first impressions upon meeting Emanuel) - it's a safe assumption that Hannak has such access (note I admit to making an assumption here - but Winter should point out this too, even if not making such an assumption).
Other times, Winter quotes from Hannak as here, in CN 4451:
where Winter is trusting the information as being true, and asking for elaboration.
(There is yet another CN referring to a Lasker quote about the game "go", which apparently is in the German edition but not the English).
* * * * *
The point though, is that after all these references, Winter never refers Jannak's treatment of the 1909 Janowski-Lasker Match. This, despite noting so many other sources claiming a similar significance to the 1909 (i.e. for championship) in Winter's treatment of the match:
P. Morán (Barcelona, 1974 and London, 1986), J.H. Gelo (Jefferson, 1988 and 1999)
C. Ştefaniu (Bucharest, 1989) and D. Odom (Johanneshov, 1993)
World Chess Championship Matches edited by I. Berdichevsky (Moscow, 2002).
Which I find curious - given that Hannak book may be the very source of some of the confusion about the significance of the 1909 'big' match.
(Hannak's book clearly predates the July '85 BCM treatment Winter refers to as "proof of the negative".