< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
|Sep-24-07|| ||Karpova: From Carl A Walbrodt|
<Karpova: <Peligroso Patzer: Janowski and Gunsberg, both of whom played in matches for the world championship (in 1909 and 1890-91, respectively)>
Janowski played for the Worldchampionship in 1910. The ten games match in 1909 was not a WC match.>
<laskereshevsky: Nothing personal with nobody, but for the sake of true i must say that the point if the 1909 match was or wasnt a WC match is still in dispute,...in several books and internet chess-site its possible to see both opinions showed....
At least is a not definited matter.....>
Btw, there had already been a discussion on the Lasker page:
Quite a lot on page 25
and two posts on page 21
To quote Edward Winter:
<Dawid Markelowicz Janowsky (born 1868) was the last of the unsuccessful challengers for Lasker’s world championship title (Berlin, November-December 1910, a severe defeat). It is, or should be, well known that the two players’ ten-game match in Paris the previous year had not been for the world title, contrary to the assertions of such historical analphabets as Jonathan Speelman (The Observer of 19 April 1998). In that same article Speelman gave a position from a familiar game in the match, and wrote, ‘I had never seen it before’. The position was incorrect.>
|Sep-30-07|| ||Karpova: As if Edward Winter was reading the site:
<Lasker v Janowsky, Paris, 1909
We summarize the proof that the match in Paris between Lasker and Janowsky in autumn 1909 (won by Lasker +7 –1 =2) was not for the world championship. First, an extract from a letter that we contributed on pages 305-306 of the July 1985 BCM:
‘A check of all major chess periodicals for 1909 at the Royal Library at the Hague reveals that:
a) In many magazines the idea of the match being for the world championship is simply not mentioned (e.g. BCM pages 483 and 543).
b) Others are specific that the title was not at stake (e.g. Deutsches Wochenschach und Berliner Schachzeitung page 382, Tijdschrift van den Nederlandschen Schaakbond page 253). The match was played in Paris, so it is no surprise that French-language magazines are especially precise in refuting any world championship connection (e.g. La Stratégie pages 352 and 407, and Revue d’échecs page 214).
c) Not a single contemporary magazine has been found that suggests the match was for the world crown.’
Further details were given in C.N. 2471 (see page 174 of A Chess Omnibus), as reproduced below.
On 15 September 1909 Lasker and Schlechter issued a joint announcement (from Berlin and Vienna) of their intention to play a world championship match during the coming winter. The text was published in the Wiener Schachzeitung, September 1909 (page 315) and the Deutsche Schachblätter, 3 October 1909 (page 85). Not surprisingly, therefore, contemporary magazines did not suggest that the ten-game Lasker-Janowsky encounter played from 19 October to 9 November 1909 was for the world title, and some (especially the French ones) specifically stipulated that it was not. Page 214 of the 1909 Revue d’échecs said that it was merely ‘un second duel courtois’. Page 352 of the October 1909 La Stratégie observed that because of the Lasker-Schlechter agreement Janowsky would have to wait for a title match until afterwards. In its November 1909 issue (page 407) La Stratégie reported that Janowsky was not discouraged by his heavy loss to Lasker in Paris and added: ‘we understand that fresh discussions are already under way between the same players for another, more important, match, one which will count for the world championship, subject, naturally, to the Champion’s victory in his forthcoming match against Schlechter.’
On pages 60-61 of the February 1910 La Stratégie [reproduced below] it was reiterated that Lasker and Janowsky had not played for the title in Paris, and the magazine published the full text of an agreement signed by the two masters in the French capital on 12 November 1909. This was for a match that would begin in October or November 1910, and clause 15 stated: ‘The match shall be for the championship of the world. If Dr E. Lasker loses his title in his forthcoming match with Schlechter, the entire present arrangement shall, naturally, be void.’
Lasker survived against Schlechter, and in Berlin on 8 November 1910 there duly began the one and only world championship match between Lasker and Janowsky.>
(there's also a picture from a book in french)
|Feb-29-08|| ||Knight13: This is a bloody disaster for Janowski. Heel teleurstellen!|
|May-06-08|| ||Karpova: Edward Winter on the myth that the Lasker-Janowski training match in 1909 was a Worldchampionship match (which it wasn't, the 1919 match is Janowski's only WC match):|
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail... (third and last myth)
<On 15 September 1909 Lasker and Schlechter issued a joint announcement (from Berlin and Vienna) of their intention to play a world championship match during the coming winter. The text was published in the Wiener Schachzeitung, September 1909 (page 315) and the Deutsche Schachblätter, 3 October 1909 (page 85). Not surprisingly, therefore, contemporary magazines did not suggest that the ten-game Lasker-Janowsky encounter played from 19 October to 9 November 1909 was for the world title, and some (especially the French ones) specifically stipulated that it was not. Page 214 of the 1909 Revue d’échecs said that it was merely ‘un second duel courtois’. Page 352 of the October 1909 La Stratégie observed that because of the Lasker-Schlechter agreement Janowsky would have to wait for a title match until afterwards. In its November 1909 issue (page 407) La Stratégie reported that Janowsky was not discouraged by his heavy loss to Lasker in Paris and added: ‘we understand that fresh discussions are already under way between the same players for another, more important, match, one which will count for the world championship, subject, naturally, to the Champion’s victory in his forthcoming match against Schlechter.’
On pages 60-61 of the February 1910 La Stratégie [reproduced below] it was reiterated that Lasker and Janowsky had not played for the title in Paris, and the magazine published the full text of an agreement signed by the two masters in the French capital on 12 November 1909. This was for a match that would begin in October or November 1910, and clause 15 stated: ‘The match shall be for the championship of the world. If Dr E. Lasker loses his title in his forthcoming match with Schlechter, the entire present arrangement shall, naturally, be void.’>
|Sep-25-08|| ||talisman: Lasker dons an eye-patch and agrees to play Janowski with only "one eye open.".|
|Sep-25-08|| ||FHBradley: Why was Lasker wearing an eye-patch at that time? Did he have a lazy eye? Did he think he was Teichmann? Did he want to scare the *something* out of Janowski?|
|Sep-25-08|| ||James Demery: Lasker could beat Janowski with one eye tied behind his back.|
|Sep-25-08|| ||Marmot PFL: It's hard to believe that anyone stupid enough to think that roulette could be beaten could ever rise to world championship level (maybe Lasker had the story wrong).Roulette has been beaten by people with fast concealed computers but I'm sue that's illegal.|
|Sep-25-08|| ||RookFile: I'm sure that Robert Huebner wishes roulette could be beaten. He tied his match with Smyslov in the early 1980's - the winner to play Kasparov. Under the terms of the agreement, the match was decided by a spin of the roulette wheel. |
The lucky ball bounced Smyslov's way.
|Sep-25-08|| ||zoren: Wow rook file is that true? LOL, that is very unfortunate.|
|Sep-25-08|| ||cannibal: <zoren>
Almost true, except the winner didn't get to play Kasparov, but Ribli, and only then Kasparov (in the candidate final).
Btw, they even had to repeat the roulette spin, because on first try they got a zero.
|Sep-25-08|| ||RookFile: cannibal is right. Of course, what everybody remembers is that Kasparov beat everybody on the way to facing Karpov.|
|Jan-06-09|| ||kevin86: In all of his title defenses,Lasker lost only SIX games. In this match and the Marshall match,Lasker didn't lose a single game.|
|Mar-10-09|| ||thegoodanarchist: Lasker had two - TWO - total whitewashings in WCC matches. Kudos to him for his convincing wins.|
|Jun-01-12|| ||Gypsy: Georg Marco: <The match was full of reversals, one day White won, next day Black.>|
|Jun-01-12|| ||RookFile: Pretty humorous comment!|
|Apr-15-14|| ||zanzibar: I know not everybody recognizes the utility, but here is a fun graph of relative strengths of players circa 1910:|
(Ignore the absolute rating, and compare relative positions).
Janowski doesn't even qualify as a top player over that period.
Although lossing his position to the fast rising Alekhine is nothing to be ashamed of!
Why the decline of play in 1905 for Janowski? Or equivalently, why the abrupt jump in 1895?
|Apr-16-14|| ||zanzibar: Thanks to <Karpova> for the link to Winter's article on the 1909 match. The picture in French has the terms and conditions of the 1910 match in it. I've translated it into English, viewable here:|
|Apr-16-14|| ||Karpova: <zanzibar>
Interesting post, but regarding the 1909 status - something like this needs positive confirmation. In this case, the authors claiming that the 1909 match was for the WC match couldn't provide evidence. The lack of evidence itself is important here though, as the contemporaneous sources report the match, but do not call it a WC match. To prove that it was not a WC match is still much harder, but what you seem to have expected from Winter. If it is not for the WC, then the most usual way to go is to simply not claim it was, which in turn leads to evidence for a lack of a WC status being scarce (you would hardly expect Lasker and Janowski to take out ads declaring that the 1909 match was not for the title). It's the positive assertion that the title was at stake, which needs to be proven with evidence. So it appears naturally that Winter would first point out the lack of such evidence for the 1909 match, and only later he would find what is hard to find - evidence clearly stating that the title was not at stake.
|Apr-16-14|| ||zanzibar: <Karpova> yes, proving a negative is difficult. |
But normally, Winter would handle it as follows:
"Writer <X> claims that the 1909 Janowski-Lasker Match was for the WCC, but on what evidence?"
Certainly, it's a little curious to devote an entire page to discussing the matter and not reference in the Janowski biography.
As for Writer <X>, does anybody know where I can find The Observer Review section of 19 April 1998, page 13 online?
|Apr-16-14|| ||Petrosianic: <Karpova>: <Interesting post, but regarding the 1909 status - something like this needs positive confirmation.>|
Older books tend to regard the second Lasker-Janowski match as a world championship. (I've never seen anyone consider that the first one, a 4 game match that ended in a +2-2=0 tie was for the title).
Newer books tend to regard the first two matches as exhibition matches (the second match got "Plutoed" out of being a title match). I'm not sure why.
In Fred Wilson's book, "Classical Chess Matches", which reprints contemporary reports, the third match is specially identified as being "For the Championship of the World", while the first two aren't. That doesn't prove it, though.
The matter certainly needs more explanation that it's gotten. I'm not sure why M. Nardus would finance a second match with it NOT being for the title, when the results of the first short match were so satisfactory.
|Apr-17-14|| ||zanzibar: After that long introduction(*), a couple of questions.|
Who was Dr. J. Hannak, and what is the general opinion about his Lasker biography?
Does the German edition have the same ambiguity about the significance of the Janowski-Lasker matches?
Note that Hannak only includes games from 1909, and none from the "real" 1910 WCC Match. Which is curious.
(*) I deemed the introduction too long for a forum post. It can be found here:
|Apr-18-14|| ||zanzibar: Following up my own post - finding information about Dr. J. Hannak seems to be rather harder than one might expect given how often his biography of Lasker is cited.|
The most extensive information I found was on a webpage devoted to the spelling of Nimzowitsch's name(!):
It contains the following biographical information on Hannak in a footnote (a footnote to a footnote!):
< Hannak, Jacques,
b. Vienna, March 12, 1892,
d. Vienna, Nov. 14, 1973,
socialist author, journalist ("Arbeit und Wirtschaft", after 1946 "Arbeiterzeitung"), in 1938/39 interned in Dachau and Buchenwald concentration camps, 1939 emigrated to Belgium and France, 1941 to the USA where he was employed by the Office of War Information (radio broadcasting department). In 1946 return to Vienna.
(Encyclopaedia of Austria).
Dr. Hannak is above all known for his comprehensive biography Emanuel Lasker - Biographie eines Schachweltmeisters (Berlin 1952), which also contains interesting information of other players of the time, among other things an account of the tragic relationship between Lasker and Aljechin during the Nazi period, which led up to a series of articles in 1941 in "Deutsche Schachzeitung", in which Aljechin described Lasker's game as a typical example of "Jewish decadence".>
I was also able to find a tournament book he did:
Semmering-Baden 1937. Sammlung sämtlicher Partien des Turniers mit einem einleitenden Aufsatz
(Semmering-Baden 1937. Collection of all games of the tournament with an introductory essay)
|May-05-14|| ||zanzibar: RE: Eye-patch
I found this from a 1909 NZ newspaper, care of the New Zealand Chess Assoc.:
<The match between Lasker and Janowski is in progress at the Grand Cercle, Paris, and so far is a long way in favour of Lasker, in spite of a painful eye trouble, which necessitated an operation during the early stages of the match. Lasker drew the first game and then won four in succession. He has pinned his faith to the Roy Lopez attack, with which he won the third and fifth games, while Janowski favours the "Four Knights" game. [...]>
New Zealand Herald, Volume XLVI, Issue 14247, 18 December 1909, Page 4
|Jul-02-14|| ||jessicafischerqueen: |
<Who was Dr. J. Hannak, and what is the general opinion about his Lasker biography?>
I can't speak for the "general opinion" but I have this book and in my opinion it is close to worthless.
<Karpova> can tell you more about <Jacques Hannak's> chess reporting in journals and such, which appears to be quite valuable, since I believe he was at these events he reports on- but again, I don't know much about it.
I do know that his book on <Lasker> has no references, and it appears to be the source for the "check and mate" whopper that everybody "knows Tarrasch said" but did he, did he really.
I don't believe anything in that book on face value- all of it needs to be corroborated.
I suppose he's no worse than <Andy Soltis> in that respect- no wait he is significantly worse.
At least in his books on Soviet Chess History and Botvinnik, Andy does list the names of some actual original sources we can assume he actually looked at.
Too bad he's too lazy to use footnotes. It means everything he says has to be corroborated as well.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·