WCC: Steinitz-Lasker 1894

Members · Prefs · Laboratory · Collections · Openings · Endgames · Sacrifices · History · Search Kibitzing · Kibitzer's Café · Chessforums · Tournament Index · Players ·

Kibitzing

WCC: Steinitz-Lasker 1894
Compiled by WCC Editing Project

ORIGINAL: Steinitz - Lasker World Championship Match (1894)

Note The photograph is mislabeled- see kibbutzing on the match page.

FINISHED DRAFT

Emanuel Lasker had a promising start to his career. He placed at or near the top in a half-dozen tournaments, including an impressive 13-0 result in <New York 1893>. He had also won matches against <Curt von Bardeleben>, <Jacques Mieses>, <Henry Edward Bird>, <Joseph Henry Blackburne> and <Jackson Whipps Showalter>. He was considered a future contender for the world championship, despite not having played matches against top masters such as <Siegbert Tarrasch>, <Mikhail Chigorin> or <Isidor Gunsberg>. In 1892, Havana offered $500 plus free passage to and from Cuba to sponsor a championship match. <Wilhelm Steinitz> replied he was too busy, and Lasker replied he was not yet ready to play for the title. 1

By 1893, Lasker felt sufficiently prepared to issue a challenge to Steinitz. The original stakes of $3,000 a side were reduced due to Lasker's inability to collect from all of his pledged backers in financially difficult times. 2 This was also due to some extent to hostile pre-match commentary by Gunsberg and <Leopold Hoffer>. 3 Steinitz "reluctantly" agreed to reduced stakes of $2,250 per side. 4 By the time the agreement was finally signed, the stakes were reduced yet again to $2,000 per side. 5 Ten wins were required to win with a maximum of three games per week. Games were scheduled in New York until one player had four wins, in Philadelphia until one player won an additional three games, and in Montreal to complete the match. 6

Contemporary masters were unsure of the outcome. Lasker was talented, but not yet a fully proven quantity. Steinitz had a proven track record in world championship matches, but he was over twice as old as Lasker and also had health problems. On the eve of the match, The New York Times polled several prominent masters. <Eugene Delmar> said, "Lasker's youth might help him along, but Steinitz is Steinitz after all." <Adolf Albin> said, "there is no telling whether Steinitz will be able to account for his youthful opponent." Showalter said, "Ask me something easier. I know only one thing, that Steinitz never in his life met a man of Lasker's strength." 3

The New York leg ended after eight games with Lasker holding a lead of 4 wins to 2. Lasker then won all three games in Philadelphia, giving him a commanding lead of 7 wins to 2. Steinitz rallied in Montreal by winning three games, but was unable to make up the deficit, as Lasker also won three games and with them, the match. Opinions at the time were that, while Lasker played well, Steinitz's play was uneven, with both good and poor games. The worst games for Steinitz were the three in Philadelphia (Games <9>, <10>, and <11>) and the <final game> of the match in Montreal.

Modern masters have placed more emphasis on endgame play. IM Jack Peters claims that "Lasker had noticed signs of uncertainty in Steinitz' handling of 'simplified' middlegames" and so looked for early queen exchanges. 6 GM Andrew Soltis claims Lasker planned to make it the "Great Endgame Match," reaching endings in 16 of 19 games with an average game length of 52 moves. 7 Steinitz himself called Lasker "the best living endgame player," 8 but was unable to prevent critical games of the match from being decided in the ending.

Steinitz and Lasker would play another match in 1896 under similar terms, but there was no clause in the original agreement giving Steinitz the right of a rematch should he lose.

1 New York Sun, 14 Nov 1892 p 5

2 New York Sun, 13 Jan 1894 p 8

3 New York Times, 11 Mar 1894 p 24

4 New York Sun, 17 Jan. 1894 p 8

5 New York Times 5 Mar 1894 p 8

6 Washington Evening Star, 13 Mar 1894 p 3

6 Peters, J. Chess Life, Dec. 1994, p 40

7 Soltis, A. "Why Lasker Matters" (Batsford, 2005) p 34

8 Cunningham, JG "The games in the Steinitz-Lasker championship match" (Whitehead and Miller, 1894), p 79

##############################

EDIT <Karpova>

This is a good resource page for this match with links to many newspapers: http://www.chessarch.com/archive/00...

Just two small suggestions: I do not think that so many players Lasker beat in matches need to be mentioned, maybe only Blackburne as he was strong enough a player.

And this sentence

Steinitz and Lasker would play another match in 1896 under similar terms, but there was no clause in the original agreement giving Steinitz the right of a rematch should he lose.

can be left out. As there was no rematch clause, the 1896 match is too independent from the 1894 match, as if it needed to be mentioned.

##############################
EDIT <Karpova>

Steinitz interview

<C.N. 8290 has a summary of a Steinitz interview from 1899 which may be of interest for the Steinitz - Lasker matches>

###################################

Lasker vs Steinitz 1894

New York / Philadelphia / Montreal

In 1894, defending champion Wilhelm Steinitz was challenged by an exciting 25 year old Prussian named Emanuel Lasker.

They agreed to the following conditions: The winner of the match was to be the first to win 10 games, draws not counting. The time control was 15 moves per hour. The stakes were $2,000 per side. The match was to be played in New York, Philadelphia and Montreal, in that order.1

The match began in New York on March 15, 1894, and was tied 2-2 after the first six games. But then Lasker won the last two in New York, and added three more consecutive victories in the second leg in Philadelphia.

############################

CRAWFB5 POTENTIAL SUBSTITUTE FOR PETERS QUOTE:

<Here's a slightly different take than Peters. It's from Soltis' <Why Lasker Matters> 2005, p. 34 In discussing Lasker vs Steinitz, 1894 (Game 9, the first game in Philadelphia), this position just before White plays 11. Bxd8!?

Soltis writes:

<"Most modern GMs would retreat the queen automatically, White enjoys a slight edge after, say 11. Qd2 Be7 12. Be3! and 13. O-O-O. But Lasker had discovered Steinitz's weakness: he could be beaten in endgames. Queens went off the board as early as move six and eight (twice) in other games of this match. Altogether, endings were reached in 16 of the 19 games. The average length of a game was 52 moves.

Compare that with the Kasparov-Karpov match of 1984-1985, when queens were traded only 17 times in 48 games. Or with the hard-fought Fischer-Spassky match of 1972, which averaged 45 moves.

It wasn't Steinitz's inclination to play endgames: He did it only six times in 23 games of his previous match, with Tchigorin. It was Lasker's plan to make it The Great Endgame Match.">

More or less the same conclusion, but at least concretely sourced.>

############################

IM Jack Peters attributed this success to Lasker's ability to convert queenless middlegames into advantageous endings:

"Lasker had noticed signs of uncertainty in Steinitz' handling of 'simplified' middlegames, without Queens. Recognizing the champion's superiority in managing a full army of pieces, Lasker deliberately sought early Queen exchanges. This strategy certainly worked in Philadelphia."2

Steinitz was tenacious and managed to respond with back-to-back victories in the 13th and 14th games in Montreal, but the score was still heavily in Lasker's favor, 7 to 4. In the 19th game, Lasker achieved his 10th win, thereby becoming the 2nd World Chess Champion. It was no great surprise that Steinitz, then 58 years old, was unable to defend against the rising tide of players who had spent years studying his ideas. As Siegbert Tarrasch said,

"In my opinion the match with Steinitz does not have the great importance that they themselves attribute to it. For Steinitz has grown old, and the old Steinitz is no longer the Steinitz of old."

############################

EDIT <Keypusher>

<"In my opinion the match with Steinitz does not have the great importance that they themselves attribute to it. For Steinitz has grown old, and the old Steinitz is no longer the Steinitz of old."

<<<I got the quote from an 1894 book on the match, made by cobbling together annotations from various places. But it didn't give an original source for the Tarrasch quote. I'm sure the quote is genuine, but I can't tell you where it is from originally>>>

http://books.google.co.kr/books?id=...>

SEE- A VAGUELY SIMILAR QUOTE from <Hoffer's> Match book:

"Now we arrive at the present challenge, which originated in a speech by Dr. Tarrasch at the banquet given after his decisive victory over Marshall, 1905. Dr. Tarrasch said : "After my newest and greatest achievement, I have no reason to consider that anybody stands above me in the chess world. It was certainly more difficult to beat the youthful Marshall than old Steinitz. "

#################################

EDIT <whiteshark> TARRASCH REACTION TO LASKER VICTORY-

<In 1999 <Robert Huebner> wrote in <"SCHACH">, a German chess magazine, a series of 5 articles on the 1910 Lasker-Schlechter match. It includes a 10 page biographical intro to Lasker.

There HueBner wrote that

after Laskers victory (in the 1894 match) Curt v Bardeleben commented in Deutsche Schachzeitung (1894, p183-185) the match, pointing more on Steinitz's weaknesses than on Lasker's strength, but all in a moderate tone, <but Tarrasch was seething. <Tarrasch aber schäumte>>*.

*footnote of sources for these 3 words

Deutsches Wochenschach 1894, p.200
Deutsche Schachzeitung 1984, p.286
La Strategie 1894, p.265
<British Chess Magazine 1984, p.295-296> sic!>

###############################

Although Lasker was widely respected, few people at the time suspected the impact that he would have on chess during the decades to come, for he was no ordinary challenger--this victory marked the beginning of a reign which was to last 27 years.

########################

1 New York Recorder, March 11, 1894 <CONFIRMED> http://www.chessarch.com/excavation...

2 Chess Life, December 1994 (p40) <CONFIRMED> BY <wordfunph>

<<" Lasker had noticed signs of uncertainty in Steinitz' handling of "simplified" middlegames, without <<<Queens.>>> Recognizing the champion's superiority in managing a full army of pieces, Lasker deliberately sought early Queen exchanges. This strategy certainly worked in Philadelphia.">

positive on page 41 of Chess Life December 1994.>

########################

Regarding dates, rounds, and venue fields on the actual games:

crawfb5 has already edited the dates and rounds. For the venue fields, he favors a correction slip that includes all three legs, which would read <New York/Philadelphia/Montreal>.

Round by Round with <crawfb5>:

NEW YORK LEG -- UNION SQUARE HOTEL

Game 1

15 Mar 1894 adjourned