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

There is a clue unsolved right now on the Holiday Contest Clues Page!   [Official Contest Rules]
 
WCC: Lasker-Schlechter 1910
Compiled by WCC Editing Project
--*--

ORIGINAL: Lasker - Schlechter World Championship Match (1910)

Carl Schlechter was born in Vienna, Austria in 1874. He became one of the strongest chessplayers in the world in the late 1890s.<1> Schlechter shared 1st with Harry Nelson Pillsbury at Munich (1900), won both Vienna (1904/05) (1904) and the huge Ostend (1906) tournament, and shared 1st at both Vienna (1908) and Prague (1908).

Theodor Gerbec wrote of Schlechter that "Apart from the reputation of being the greatest defensive player of all times, his attacking conduct was famous for an almost undefinable grace and method," <2> and Richard Reti said "His games stand out through their breadth of scheme – just as in the forest the trunks of trees and their branches stretch themselves out on all sides wherever there are open spaces: thus did Schlechter develop his forces; forcibly and, like Nature as it were, objectless. No hidden places and traps were there, but only sound development. With him was no undue haste and no pinning himself down to one idea, but one harmonious evolution" <3> In 1906, world champion Emanuel Lasker acknowledged Schlechter's aptitude to play for the crown, but observed that Schlechter had "so little of the devil about him that he could not be moved to take anything coveted by somebody else."<4>

Following his tournament successes, Schlechter travelled to Berlin in November 1908 and challenged Lasker to a title match. The world champion accepted, and they issued a joint statement on December 3, stating that the match would last 30 games, the winner would need a +2 score and the match would take place at the end of 1909.<5> Further negotiations led to an announcement on September 15, 1909, that the match would be played in December 1909 or January, February or March 1910 and would be public.<6> Schlechter biographer Warren Goldman reports that "...conditions governing the truncated contest in 1910 were never published so far as the author has been able to determine as of 1994," but goes on to note that the "Deutsches Wochenschach put the matter thusly: the victor would be the one who scored the majority of the games, and if necessary the referee would decide the title."<7> According to the "Pester Lloyd,"<8> the conditions were as follows: ten games were to be played, five in Vienna and five in Berlin. Whoever won the most games would be the winner, with draws counting a ½ point. The size of the winner's prize would depend on the number of subscriptions. In addition, the Vienna Chess Club donated 3,000 Austro-Hungarian Kronen to the purse, and the Berlin Chess Society added another 2,000 Marks. Emanuel Lasker held the copyright for the game scores.

On January 7, 1910, the world championship match began in the Vienna Chess Club with many celebrities present. Georg Marco was the match director, and the seconds were Hugo Faehndrich, Siegmund Pollak and Eduard Stiaßny.<9> Usually, the games began at 5 pm and lasted until 8 pm. After a break of 1 ½ hours, play was resumed until 11 pm and then adjourned if necessary.<10> The time control was 15 moves per hour.<11> On January 8, Lasker took a rest day.<10> After the third game, play was relocated to the Café Marienbrücke for games 4 and 5, with Faehndrich becoming the match director and Pollak and Nikolaus Doery von Jobahaza serving as seconds.<12> Game 4 was played in public with a fee of two Kronen for a day ticket and 10 Kronen for booked seats.<13> According to Lasker, this innovative event was a great success and drew many spectators.<13> The 1st leg of the match ended after the 5th game, which the challenger won after four draws.<12>

After four rest days, the 2nd leg began on January 29 in the Hotel de Rome in Berlin.<14> Lasker was held to draws in games 6 and 7. He reported that about 400 spectators were present during the resumption of game 7, crowded around the masters' board or analyzing on their own boards.<15> Additionally, Semion Alapin commented on the game in a separate room.<15> Lasker was also held to draws in games 8 and 9, and had only one chance left to defend his title, having the white pieces in game 10.<14> The game lasted 3 days and more than 11 hours. Although a draw would have sufficed for a match victory,<16><17> Schlechter played actively and got a promising position. But while playing for a win instead of a draw, he drifted into a worse position and Lasker finally converted his advantage after an arduous struggle. Lasker called the win in game 5 fortunate and said that Schlechter had wanted to add a second win in the final games of the match.<11> Schlechter remarked that he hadn't wanted to "play for a draw" in the last game.<18> Tournament director Alfred Ehrhardt Post declared the match drawn (+1 -1 =8), and rapturous applause ensued.<19> Both contestants shook hands.<19> Lasker retained his title, but Schlechter hadn't been beaten.

1 Rod Edwards, <Carl Schlechter> http://www.edochess.ca/players/p536...

2 "Wiener Schachzeitung", December 1928, p. 370. In <ANNO / Österreichische Nationalbibliothek> http://anno.onb.ac.at/cgi-content/a...

3 Richard Réti, Modern Ideas in Chess, Hardinge Simpole, 2002, pp. 82-83

4 Emanuel Lasker, "Lasker's Chess Magazine", January 1906, p. 126

5 "Wiener Schachzeitung", December 1908, p. 376. In <ANNO / Österreichische Nationalbibliothek> http://anno.onb.ac.at/cgi-content/a...

6 "Wiener Schachzeitung", September 1909, p. 315. In <ANNO / Österreichische Nationalbibliothek> http://anno.onb.ac.at/cgi-content/a...

7 Warren Goldman, "Carl Schlechter! Life and Times of the Austrian Chess Wizard", Caissa Editions, 1994, pp. 400-401

8 "Pester Lloyd", 8 January 1910, p. 6. In <ANNO / Österreichische Nationalbibliothek> http://content.onb.ac.at/cgi-conten...

9 Our sources do not indicate who was whose second, and we assume that the seconds' role was restricted to administrative tasks mainly. Emanuel Lasker mentioned in the "Pester Lloyd" (see source 8) that the seconds drew the lot to decide who got the white pieces in game 1.

10 "Wiener Schachzeitung", January 1910, pp. 1-5. In <ANNO / Österreichische Nationalbibliothek> http://anno.onb.ac.at/cgi-content/a...

11 Emanuel Lasker, "Ost und West", March 1910, pp. 171-176. In <Compact Memory> http://www.compactmemory.de/index_p... - Organ der Deutschen Conferenz-Gemeinschaft der Alliance Israélite Universelle Organ der Alliance Israélite Universelle

12 "Wiener Schachzeitung", February-March 1910, pp. 58-78. In <ANNO / Österreichische Nationalbibliothek> http://anno.onb.ac.at/cgi-content/a...

13 Emanuel Lasker, "Pester Lloyd", 19 January 1910, p. 7. In <ANNO / Österreichische Nationalbibliothek> http://content.onb.ac.at/cgi-conten...

14 "Wiener Schachzeitung", February-March 1910, pp. 78-95. In <ANNO / Österreichische Nationalbibliothek> http://anno.onb.ac.at/cgi-content/a...

15 Emanuel Lasker, "Pester Lloyd", 4 February 1910, p. 6. In <ANNO / Österreichische Nationalbibliothek> http://content.onb.ac.at/cgi-conten...

16 "Wiener Schachzeitung", February-March 1910, pp. 92-94. In <ANNO / Österreichische Nationalbibliothek> http://anno.onb.ac.at/cgi-content/a...

17 Since the final conditions for the match have never been published, there are rumors that Schlechter had to win the match by a score of +2 to become world champion. A +2 clause existed in the conditions issued by both players on 3 December 1908 (source 5). In addition, when communicating his terms to his challenger Jose Raul Capablanca in The Evening Post of 22 November 1911, the second clause determined that if the match ended with the scores 1:0, 2:1 or 3:2, the match was to be declared drawn (reproduced in Edward G Winter, "Capablanca: a compendium of games, notes, articles, correspondence, illustrations and other rare materials on the Cuban chess genius José Raúl Capablanca, 1888-1942" (McFarland 1989), p.56). After Capablanca's protest, Lasker explained that a difference of one point was very slight and that the rule was directed against the hopes of nursing a one point lead to match victory by drawing the rest of the games. A score of 4:3 with 23 draws would establish "proof of severe fighting" and suffice for a match win (clause 2, reproduced in Winter, Capablanca, p.60). In both cases, with explicit +2 clauses demanded, the matches could last up to 30 games. The present match consisted of 10 games only, which makes a comparison doubtful. We know of no contemporaneous source claiming that there was a +2 clause in effect in the actual world championship match, except for one: Richard Forster quoted a report in the "Basler Nachrichten" of 20 February 1910 in C.N. 4144 by Walter Preiswerk, who was in Leipzig at that time. Preiswerk claims that Schlechter, instead of becoming world champion by drawing the tenth game, would have had to play a rematch regardless of the financing in that case. Both chessplayers, also excellent businessmen, didn't like this prospect. Winter notes that it is "difficult to know quite what to make of this commentary." In C.N.s 7109 and 8222, Winter shows examples of how the alleged +2 clause is usually introduced in books, by referring to the conditions without mentioning the sources and although the final conditions have so far not been found published anywhere (Winter, http://www.chesshistory.com/). An example of this type of claim is given by Garry Kasparov, who simply states that "However, to all appearances, one of the points stated that to win the title the challenger had to gain an advantage of two points, and that if Schlechter were to win by one point (5½-4½) the match would be declared... drawn." (Garry Kasparov, On My Great Predecessors Part I, 2003, Everyman, p.173) and presenting the speculation as an established fact later (Kasparov, p.177). Winter presents a list of items on this controversial question in C.N. 7109 for everyone who is further interested in the topic. When researching the matter, we found no indication that such a clause existed. Neither Schlechter, nor Lasker explain the challenger's enterprising play in game 10 by a +2 clause (sources 11 and 18). The annotators of game 10 also don't mention it (source 16), and source 8 noted that the winner would be he who scored the most points. Still, as long as the final conditions are not known, this matter remains open for debate.

18 Carl Schlechter, "Allgemeine Sport-Zeitung", 27 February 1910, p. 219. In <ANNO / Österreichische Nationalbibliothek> http://anno.onb.ac.at/cgi-content/a...

19 Emanuel Lasker, "Pester Lloyd", 12 February 1910, p. 20. In <ANNO / Österreichische Nationalbibliothek> http://content.onb.ac.at/cgi-conten...

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

Note <4> full text and reference.

The passage about Schlechter is part of a discussion about who would be among the most likely candidates to become the next world chess champion.

"Chess Masters- Past and Present" by Dr. Emanuel Lasker

<"It is true that the Austrian, Schlechter, also has the ability that would enable him to compete with a good chance for success, but Schlechter has only the ability- nothing more. He his a man who loves Nature and the simple life and who has so little of the <<<devil>>> about him that he could not be moved to take anything coveted by somebody else. Perhaps if Mark Twain would give him a lecture he might reform; but, as it is, he must be left out of consideration.">

"Lasker's Chess Magazine" (Jan 1906), p.126

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

EDIT SUGGESTION <Ohio>

<<detected in his personality a lack of anything demoniacal which could induce him to seize someone else's possessions. (4)>

If any of that is a quote, it needs to be in quotation marks. If it isn't, it's pretty outdated rhetoric.>

I think <Karpova> is paraphrasing, which doesn't need quotations, and also translating from German. I think if that's the way <Lasker> actually wrote, we should have as close to literal translation as possible.

Logged.

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

EDIT <Karpova>

<On page 315 of the 1909 'Wiener Schachzeitung' is the anouncement that the WC match would take place (signed by Dr. Lasker and Schlechter, Berlin and Vienna, 1909.09.15), as the financing seemed to be secure (it's mentioned that the chess friends from St. Petersburg (<die St. Petersburger Schachfreunde>) are willing to pay 3000 roubles honorarium for the last 6 games to take place in St. Petersburg, as an example).

Both players are willing to play either in December, January, February or March of the coming winter (i. e. the winter 1909/1910) and fees were to be given to <Regierungsrat> J. Berger from Graz, Austria (so probably Johann Nepomuk Berger ) and it would be a public match (so the games could be reprinted and so on).>

<<Wettkampf Lasker-Schlechter Ende November hatte sich der österreichische Vorkämpfer Karl Schlechter nach Berlin begeben, um den Weltmeister Dr. Emanuel Lasker zum Wettkampf herauszufordern. In einer vom 3. Dezember datirten Zuschrift an Schlechter nahm Dr. Lasker die Herausforderung an und setzte folgende Bedingungen fest: 1. Der Wettkampf geht auf 30 Partien; Sieger ist, wer zum mindesten zwei Partien mehr als der andere gewonnen hat. Im Remisfalle behalte ich den Titel der Weltmeisterschaft bis zum Entscheid eines noch zu arrangierenden Stichkampfes. 2. Die Bedingungen in bezug auf den Siegespreis sind die nämlichen wie im Wettkampf mit Marshall. 3. Die Bestimmung des Ortes und der Zeit liegt mir ob, doch will ich Ihnen zum mindesten einen Monat vor dem festzusetzenden Termin das vollständige Programm mitteilen. 4. Es wird mit einer Zeitbeschränkung von 15 Zügen die Stunde und sechs Stunden am Tage gespielt. Schlechter hat diese Punkte ohne jeden Vorbehalt angenommen. Der Wettkampf soll Ende 1909 stattfinden.>

From page 376 of the 1908 'Wiener Schachzeitung'

In short:

- Berlin, end of November 1908: Schlechter challenges Dr. Lasker for the WC title and the latter accepts on Dec-3 with following conditions:

1. 30 games match. Winner is who wins 2 more games than the other one. In case of a draw, Dr. Lasker remains WC until decision of the tie-break to be arranged

2. Conditions for prize the same as in WC match with Marshall

3. Dr. Lasker decides about time and place but he will communicate program to Schlechter at least one month before the match begins

4. Time control: 15 moves per hour, 6 hours per day

- Schlechter accepted without reservation.

- Match to be played at the end of 1909>

<Now from the 1910 'Wiener Schachzeitung'

Page 1: Vienna, January 7, the match begins and many guests were at the opening ceremony like Albert Freiherr von Rothschild (honorary president of the Wiener Schach-Klub), Arnold Mandel (president of the Wiener Schach-Klub) and the vice-presidents Dr. Franz Liharzik and Heinrich Groß. There were people from the press like Semion Alapin and Jacques Mieses. The seconds were Hugo Fähndrich, Dr. Siegmund Pollak and Dr. Edouard Stiaßny (though it's not clear whose seconds they were exactly). <Kampfleiter> Georg Marco started the game at <5 Uhr> (5 pm as it says on p. 3 that the game was paused after 3 hours play at 8 o'clock in he evening).

Page 2: Among the spectators were Dr. Tartakower, Dr. Perlis, Weiß, Zinkl, Horwitz, Krejcik and Dr. Ph. Meitner among others. It is mentioned (see post above) that the reprint of game scores is only allowed if permitted by Dr. Lasker). First game was played on January 7 and 10.

Page 3: Dr. Lasker chose to take his rest day on January 8. Game resumed on January 10. Again, many guests like Adolf Albin and Heinrich Wolf to name just two, but not only chessplayers.

Page 5: Game 2 played on January 13 and 14, ending in a draw. Also drawn was game 3, played on January 15.

Page 25: Just a short report on the results of the games 4 to 9 (Schlechter now leading 5-4) and that the <Wiener Schule> is the basis of his success.

Page 58: Report from Georg Marco (originally 'Interessantes Blatt', Nr. 3, 1910), about the match (January 7 to February 10). First 3 games played in the <Wiener Schach-Klub>, the next 2 games shall be played at a public Viennese pub/saloon (<Lokal>) and then they move on to Berlin.

Page 59: Picture and the caption could imply that Fähndrich and Pollak were Schlechter's seconds (<Sitzend: Carl Schlechter, (Dr. Sigm. Pollak, Hugo Fähndrich als Sekundanten), Siegfr. Reg. Wolf, Dr. E. Lasker, Adolf Scharz>) but the comma behind Schlechter makes this appear a bit questionable to me.

Page 68: 4th game played on January 18, 19 and 20. Now the match took place at Cafe "zur Marienbrücke" (Rotenturmstraße 31), the tournamnet director (<Turnierleiter>) was now Hugo Fähndrich, and the seconds were Baron Döry von Jobohaza and Dr. Siegmund Pollak. Page 72: 4th game resumed on Januray 20 at the Cafe Herz (Rotenturmstraße 31) and Dr. Lasker offered a draw immediately and Schlechter accepted after having a look at the sealed move.

Page 73: Game 5 played on January 21 and 24 (Monday) at the Cafe "zur Marienbrücke".

Page 78: After 4 rest days, 2nd leg of the match at Berlin.

Page 81: 6th game played on January 29 and 30.

Page 84: 7th game played on January 30 (directly after the 6th game) and February 1.

Page 88: 8th game played on February 2, 4 and 5.

Page 89: 9th game played on February 5 (directly after game 8), 6 and 7.

Page 91: 10th game played on February 8, 9 and 10.

Page 92: Conjectures on why Schlechter played the 10th game the way he did: 1) Fearing a malicious ambush 2) Increasing his lead in case the <Zufallssieg> (Zufall = accident/chance) in game 5 appeared to him too insignificant 3) Hoping to win the match easier this way as he probably had researched the variation deeply - but no match conditions of +2 mentioned. In the annotations to the game (on move 10...b4) it is specifically mentioned that a draw would have been enough for a match win (stated again on pages 93-94 on 34...Nc5).

Page 95: Schlechter is cited ('Allgemeine Sportzeitung', 1910.02.27) that he didn't want to "play for a draw" (<Ich wollte die letzte Partie nicht "auf Remis spielen" ...>, i. e. a colloquialism to express that you try to force a draw from the beginning). After the match was finished, Dr. Lasker mentioned the possibility of another match (<und stellte einen neuerlichen Wettkampf in Aussicht> (<in Aussicht stellen> is less binding than to announce)).>

EDIT <Karpova>:

<First of all, I don't think that the new history page should be centered around it exclusively as it was before, but maybe just a short mention.

While the 1908 conditions clearly support the +2 conjecture, I think that it can hardly be upheld though. After all, they possibly came to a new agreement (but I didn't see the exact conditions for 1910 published anywhere).

But we can conclude from the lack of evidence that a +2 rule was unlikely - why should there be hypotheses about Schlechter's aggressive (opening) play if it was clear that he needed another win (and this not being one of the hypotheses)? Then it's mentioned 2 times in the annotations that a draw would have been enough. Furthermore, Schlechter mentions that he didn't want to "play for a draw" - why should he have felt compelled to say that, if it was clear to everyone that he needed +2?

I doubt there was such a clause in 1910 as it is mentioned nowhere and everyone acts as if it didn't exist (so maybe it did).

But his relatively reckless play puzzled them already back then. I'm sure that the 1908 conditions helped to create the myth in later times. For certain, Dr. Lasker seemed to have liked the clause but if we look closer at the 1908 match conditions and the 1910 match, there is one huge difference: The 1908 rules were for a 30 games match, in 1910 there were only 10 games. If Dr. Lasker had had a +2 clause in the latter match, it would have been absurd not only in the eyes of the public.

Possibly, Schlechter was simply in a fighting mood and trusted his preparation (he also got a nice position, so this was justified) and furthermore he may not have considered his win in game 5 to be convincing enough.>

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

EDIT <Edward Winter CN4144> courtesy of <Karpova

<4144. Lasker v Schlechter

The 1910 Lasker v Schlechter controversy (was it a world championship match and, if so, did Schlechter have to win by two points to gain the title?) has been referred to, inconclusively, in several C.N. items. Now Richard Forster (Winterthur, Switzerland) submits the following report by Walter Preiswerk (who was then in Leipzig) in the Basler Nachrichten of 20 February 1910, i.e. ten days after the Lasker v Schlechter match ended (+1 –1 =8):

‘... Man nahm nun allgemein an, die letzte Partie werde mit remis enden, und Schlechter werde sich dadurch den Sieg sichern. Aber merkwürdigerweise gewann Lasker und machte so den Wettkampf unentschieden. Es ist wirklich seltsam, dass Schlechter, der von 9 Partien keine verlor, nun gerade in der letzten unterlag, und die Annahme, dieser Ausgang sei beabsichtigt gewesen, liegt nahe. Ein knapper Sieg Schlechters hätte diesem nämlich keineswegs die Weltmeisterschaft eingebracht, sondern einen ernsten Revanchekampf zu Folge gehabt, der ohne Rücksicht auf seine Finanzierung hätte ausgetragen werden müssen. Dies mag beiden Meistern, die ja auch ausgezeichnete Geschäftsleute sind, nicht gepasst haben. - Das Resultat des Matchs ist übrigens die konsequente Folge seiner Bedingungen, und man könnte ihm den Wahlspruch geben: “Tu mir nichts, ich tu dir auch nichts!”’

It is difficult to know quite what to make of this commentary. Below, in any case, is our English translation:

‘It was generally assumed that the last game would end in a draw and that Schlechter would thereby ensure victory for himself. Curiously enough, however, Lasker won, which meant that the match ended indecisively. It is very strange that Schlechter, who lost none of the first nine games, succumbed in the final one, and the assumption suggests itself that this outcome was intentional. A narrow victory by Schlechter would by no means have given him the world championship but, instead, it would have brought him a serious return match to be carried out irrespective of its financing. This may not have suited the two masters, who, after all, are also excellent businessmen. The result of the match is, incidentally, the logical consequence of its conditions, and it could be accorded the motto, “Do not kill me, and I shall not kill you”.’>

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

EDIT <Karpova>

Edward Winter <From the Factfinder: <Lasker v Schlechter (controversy over 1910 match) CE 177; CFF 280 + C.N.s 4144, 5855, 7109, 8222> http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/... Though only 7109 (newer sources listed) and 4144 could be interesting.>

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

EDIT <Karpova>

<Tim Harding's <One Hundred Years Ago: Chess in 1910>: http://chesscafe.com/text/kibitz164... He quotes Fraenkel (letter from 1974): <<<As for the Lasker-Schlechter match 1910 there is no mystery about it at all (although a lot of nonsense has been written about it). After all, I attended the tenth game myself as a schoolboy, and many years later when I got to know the Doctor we discussed it more than once. He admitted that it was rash to agree on a mere ten games, but there just weren't enough funds for a longer match... Lasker had to win the tenth game in order to draw the match and thereby keep his title.>>>>

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

EDIT <JFQ>

<Match conditions

From <Schlechter> biographer Warren Goldman:

<"...conditions governing the truncated contest 1910 were never published as so far as the author has been able to determine as of 1994"

"The <<<Deutsche Schachzeitung>>> declared that 'it was left to a netrual decision as to whether one or two games should constitute winning majority.' The magazine later confirmed that a simple majority was required but stated that the referee would decide the title in the event of a draw."

"<<<Deutsches Wochenschach>>> put the matter thusly: the victor would be the one who scored the majority of the games, and if necessary the referee would decide the title.">

Warren Goldman "Carl Schlechter! Life and Times of the Austrian Chess Wizard" Caissa Editions 1994, pp. 400-401>

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

EDIT <Karpova>

<Page 95 of the 1910 'Wiener Schachzeitung': <Der deutsche Vorkämpfer hat seinen Weltmeisterschaftstitel gerettet. Jeder gewann eine Partie, acht Partien wurden Remis und so endete der Kampf unentschieden. Schlechter hat in dem Kampf bestätigt, daß er zu den ersten Meistern der Welt gehört. Lauter Beifall erscholl, als das Resultat verkündet wurde.>

(The German champion/spearhead saved his title of World Champion. Both won a game, eight games were drawn and so the fight ended drawn. Schlechter proved in the fight/struggle that he belongs to the first masters in the world. Acclamation rang out as the result was announced.)>

##################
Carl Schlechter was born in Vienna, Austria in 1874. He became one of the strongest chessplayers in the world in the late 1890s. (1) Schlechter shared 1st place with Harry Nelson Pillsbury at Munich (1900), following up with 1st places at Vienna (1904/05) (1904) and the huge Ostend (1906) tournament, and a shared 1st at Vienna (1908) and Prague (1908).

Theodor Gerbec wrote that "Apart from the reputation of being the greatest defensive player of all times, his attacking conduct was famous for an almost undefinable grace and method," (2) and Richard Reti said "His games stand out through their breadth of scheme – just as in the forest the trunks of trees and their branches stretch themselves out on all sides wherever there are open spaces: thus did Schlechter develop his forces; forcibly and, like Nature as it were, objectless. No hidden places and traps were there, but only sound development. With him was no undue haste and no pinning himself down to one idea, but one harmonious evolution" (3) But in 1906, world champion Emanuel Lasker, while acknowledging Schlechter's aptitude to play for the crown, detected in his personality a lack of anything "demoniacal" which could induce him to seize someone else's possessions. (4)

Following his tournament successes, Schlechter travelled to Berlin in November 1908 and challenged Lasker to a title match. The world champion accepted the challenge and they both published a statement on December 3, wherein the match was to last 30 games, the winner to need a +2 score and the match to take place at the end of 1909. (5) Further negotiations led to an announcement on September 15, 1909, that the match was to be played in December 1909 or January, February or March 1910 and would be public. (6) Schlechter biographer Warren Goldman reports that "...conditions governing the truncated contest in 1910 were never published so far as the author has been able to determine as of 1994," but goes on to note that the "Deutsches Wochenschach put the matter thusly: the victor would be the one who scored the majority of the games, and if necessary the referee would decide the title." (7)

On January 7, 1910, the 10-game world championship match began in the Vienna Chess Club and many celebrities were present. Georg Marco was the match director, the seconds were Hugo Faehndrich, Siegmund Pollak and Eduard Stiaßny. (8) Usually, the games began at 5 pm and lasted until 8 pm. After a break of 1 ½ hours, play was resumed until 11 pm and then adjourned if necessary. (9) The time control was 15 moves per hour. (10) On January 8, Lasker took a rest day. (9) After the third game, play was relocated to two Vienna saloons for games 4 and 5 with Faehndrich becoming the match director and Pollak and Nikolaus Doery von Jobahaza serving as seconds. The 1st leg of the match ended after game 5, which the challenger had managed to win after four draws. (11)

The 2nd leg began on January 29 in the Hotel de Rome in Berlin, after 4 rest days. Lasker was held to draws in games 6, 7, 8 and 9 and had only one chance left to defend his title, having the white pieces in game 10. (12) The game lasted 3 days and more than 11 hours. Although a draw would have sufficed for a match victory (13), Schlechter played actively and got a promising position. But while playing for a win instead of a draw, he drifted into a worse position and Lasker finally converted his advantage after an arduous struggle. Lasker called the win in game 5 fortunate and that Schlechter had really wanted to add a 2nd win (10). Schlechter remarked that he hadn't wanted to "play for a draw" in the last game (14). The match ended drawn (+1 -1 =8). Lasker retained his title but Schlechter hadn't been beaten.

(1) http://www.edochess.ca/players/p536...

(2) Wiener Schachzeitung, December 1928, page 370

(3) Richard Reti, Modern Ideas in Chess, Hardinge Simpole, 2002, pages 82-83

(4) Wiener Schachzeitung, March-April 1907, page 95 (originally from Lasker's Chess Magazine 1906)

(5) Wiener Schachzeitung, December 1908, page 376

(6) Wiener Schachzeitung, September 1909, page 315

(7) Warren Goldman, Carl Schlechter! Life and Times of the Austrian Chess Wizard, Caissa Editions, 1994, pages 400-401

(8) Our sources do not indicate who was whose second, and we assume that the seconds' role was restricted to administrative tasks mainly.

(9) Wiener Schachzeitung, January 1910, pages 1-5

(10) Ost und West, March 1910, pages 171-176. In http://www.compactmemory.de/index_p...

Organ der Deutschen Conferenz-Gemeinschaft der Alliance Israélite Universelle Organ der Alliance Israélite Universelle

(11) Wiener Schachzeitung, February-March 1910, pages 58-78

(12) Wiener Schachzeitung, February-March 1910, pages 78-95

(13) Wiener Schachzeitung, February-March 1910, pages 92 and 93-94

(14) Wiener Schachzeitung, February-March 1910, page 95 (originally from Allgemeine Sportzeitung February 27, 1910)

Schlechter vs Lasker, 1910  
(C66) Ruy Lopez, 69 moves, 1/2-1/2

Lasker vs Schlechter, 1910  
(C80) Ruy Lopez, Open, 35 moves, 1/2-1/2

Schlechter vs Lasker, 1910  
(C66) Ruy Lopez, 31 moves, 1/2-1/2

3 games

 » View all game collections by WCC Editing Project PGN Download
 » Search entire game collection library
 » Clone this game collection (copy it to your account)
 » FAQ: Help with Game Collections


home | about | login | logout | F.A.Q. | your profile | preferences | Premium Membership | Kibitzer's Café | Biographer's Bistro | new kibitzing | chessforums | Tournament Index | Player Directory | Notable Games | World Chess Championships | Opening Explorer | Guess the Move | Game Collections | ChessBookie Game | Chessgames Challenge | Store | privacy notice | contact us
Copyright 2001-2018, Chessgames Services LLC