|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Jan-08-07 | | FHBradley: <The matches were sponsored by a wealthy painter and chess patron, Léonardus Nardus, who paid Lasker 7,000 francs for the exhibition.>
How much would that be in contemporary currency?
|
 |
Jan-08-07
 | | Chessical: <FHBradley> It is very difficult to obtain accurate translations of purchasing power, but I suggest that it was approximately $29000 dollars in 2005 US dollars The National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) archive provides an exchange rate of around 5.17 francs per dollar in 1910, therefore 7000 francs = $1354 dollars. $1354 dollars in the year 1907 has the same "purchase power" as $29000 dollars in the year 2005 (www.measuringworth.com) |
|
| Jan-08-07 | | RookFile: <Archives: Haha, Janowski actually considered one of the top three players in the world.> Yeah, Janovsky had an inflated opinion of his abilities. He was roughly the same strength as Marshall, who also got slapped around by Lasker. Any one of the following would have beaten him in a match, around this time period: Tarrasch
Rubinstein
Maroczy
Schlechter
Capablanca
Nimzovich
Apparently, the more people that could beat him, the more Janowski thought of his own abilities. |
|
| Jan-09-07 | | FHBradley: <Chessical:> Thanks for the info. |
|
| Jan-09-07 | | FHBradley: <There are only three. Capablanca, Lasker, and the third I'm too modest to mention.> Similar sayings are attributed to most past masters, and evidently they were intended as fun or at least 'fun', although I don't know whether Janowski possessed a sense of humour, and if he did, to what extent. Perhaps it's even irony. What I would like to know is how Janowski got Monsieur Nardus pay him a monthly allowance that kept the insatiable gambler going. |
|
| Jan-09-07 | | Archives: <Rookfile> Indeed, Janowski was a tier below the great masters of that era (same with Marshall), and he would get slapped around by the people on that list you gave. |
|
Jan-09-07
 | | notyetagm: Damn, Dr. Lasker won the last 5(!) games of the match in a row! Yikes! |
|
Jan-09-07
 | | keypusher: Not sure whether Nimzowitsch could have beaten Janowsky in 1910, but I agree re the other players on <Rookfile>'s list. According to Chessmetrics Janowsky wasn't even in the top 10 at the beginning of 1910. Especially since Lasker had crushed him in a non-title match in 1909, Lasker-Janowsky 1910 has to be the biggest travesty in the history of world title matches. http://db.chessmetrics.com/CM2/Sing... |
|
Jan-09-07
 | | Gypsy: Janowski was one of the great commets of chess. At his brightest he amased a stellar reccord against the players of the previous generation : J-Steinitz 5:3 =0
J-Chigorin 13:5 =6
J-Gunsberg 3:1 =1
J-Winawer 5:0 =0
J-Burn 10:3 =2
J-Blackburne 6:2 =4
J-Marco 12:4 =6
And he also faded rather fast
J-Tarrasch 6:9 =3
J-Lasker 4:24 =7
J-Pillsbury 4:6 =2
J-Maroczy 5:10 =5
J-Schlechter 12:20 =9
J-Marshall 24:34 =16
J-Duras 1:3 =0
J-Bernstein 0:2 =2
J-Rubinstein 3:5 =0
J-Spielmann 2:4 =1
J-Nimzowich 0:3 =2
J-Capablanca 1:9 =1
J-Alekhine 2:4 =2
J-Reti 0:4 =1
Of course, it was the Janowski-Lasker matches that turned Janowski into a Rodney Dangerfield of chess. It's now easy not to notice that Janowski had several 2700+ and a few 2800+ performances in late 1800s and early 1900s and was possibly a World #2 here and there. |
|
| 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
Emanuel Lasker and two posts on page 21
Emanuel Lasker 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.>
http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/... |
|
| Sep-30-07 | | Karpova: As if Edward Winter was reading the site:
<Lasker v Janowsky, Paris, 1909We 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.>
http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/...
(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.’> http://www.chessbase.com/news/2008/...
http://www.chessbase.com/news/2008/... |
|
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! |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
