Thanks, chessgames dudes.

This is a great scrap, and Capablanca's lucid notes are both enlightening and puzzling.

I would never think of playing 14.h4, for instance, which Capablanca suggests for a kingside attack. I would simply castle.

<Who else was he supposed to play? Chigorin?>

Maroczy. Also, Rubinstein was a legit challenger by 1909 at the latest, five years before World War I; I suspect if Lasker had really wanted a match, he could have gotten one.

I don't think Lasker dodged people; I think he just (as you say) wanted to get paid. If that meant passing up qualified challengers in favor of unqualified ones who could command a purse, that was a sacrifice Lasker was willing to make. His attitude was quite different from Steinitz's, who sometimes wouldn't even wait to be challenged -- he would challenge you.

Very good point. Keep making it.

According to wiki, Lasker and Maroczy agreed to a match and then the match fell thru due to politcal complications at the match site (havana)... and then Maroczy retired from international chess. Maroczy had a losing record against Lasker +1-4=2.

According to wiki Lasker and Rubenstein scheduled a match but the outbreak of WWI prevented it from occuring. Keep in mind during these same years Lasker defended his title or was negotiating other title defenses (he had a match with Janowski and was negotiating with Capablanca).

What world champion defended his title against as many different opponents, or in as many matches? (Not a rhetorical question... I'm genuinely curious... Botvinnik? Kasparov?)

To this duffer's untrained eyes, it seems quite favourable for Herr Schlecter, but undoubtedly since it was not played there must be some flaw in it.^^ What is that flaw, though? Assuming B does indeed play the suggested 19th move, would Lasker have a better reply on move 20? What would that be, pray-tell? Or is PP not thinking deeply enough and some misery for B occurs after the exchange of Rook and Knight? Please elucidate, oh helpful scribes... (^-_-^)

Whoever wrote the wiki is probably no better informed than any number of people here. Maybe one of the people he wrote it.

Anyway: there are three matches I wish Lasker had played for the world title: Pillsbury, Maroczy and Rubinstein. My personal belief is that Lasker would have won all three matches (he has a strong claim to be considered the greatest of all time IMO). But chess history would be a little richer if they had been played.

I don't know of any negotiations for a Pillsbury-Lasker match. My personal opinion is that, if Steinitz had held the title, he would have challenged Pillsbury himself.

You're right about Maroczy -- the match fell through because of disputes between Havana and Prague(?) over where the games would be, then a revolution broke out in Cuba. <Chancho> has details on, I think, the Lasker-Tarrasch match page. Maroczy retired two years later. Again, not saying Lasker is at fault, but Steinitz would have made that match happen somehow.

Rubinstein and Lasker were going to play a match in 1914. First it was delayed, then World War I happened. Why didn't the match happen sometime during the previous five years? I don't know. I am not inclined to cut Lasker any slack on account of his negotiations with Capablanca, since that match didn't come off either (until 1921).

You are correct re the number of Lasker's challengers. No other champion played so many different opponents, though if you dated Steinitz' reign from 1866 instead of 1886 he would have more.

I have a more jaundiced view than you of Lasker's reign. He went 11 years (1896-1907) and then another 11 years (1910-1921) without playing anyone (though of course he had a good excuse for 1914-1918). No other world champion failed to play a title match for that long.

Of the people he did play, Marshall (1907) and Janowski (1910) were utterly undeserving, and this was obvious in advance: Marshall, because he had been crushed 8-1 by Tarrasch in 1905, and Janowski because he had been crushed by Lasker himself in a non-title match in 1909. It would have been nice if Lasker had tried to salvage the Maroczy match rather than set up a match with Marshall. It would have been nice to see a Rubinstein-Lasker match in 1910 rather than the useless Janowski match. (It also would have been nice if the Schlechter match had been 30 games instead of 10, but I don't think Lasker can be blamed for that.)

Some remarks from Dr.Lasker reproduced by me (so they are not verbatim!) :

7.Qc2
White wants to play Bd2 followed by 0-0-0 and then either the break-through in the centre with e4 or attack on the wing with h4.

9...b5
The counter attack is premature and c6 becomes a weakness.

11.Na4
prevents the c6-pawn from moving and also threatens to move to c5 once the Na6 moves away.

14...Nh5
Not Nd7 because of Rxb7. Moving the knight was necessary because of threat Bxa6 and Qxc6. In case of 14...Rac8 White wins with 15.Bxa6 Bxa6 16.Nc5 .

15.g4
White's king would be as much exposed as his Black counterpart in case of 15.Bxa6 Bxa6 16.Qxc6 Bxe5 17.Qxa6 Bxh2

18.Qc4
Threatening Rxb7

18...Bc8
Not 18...c5 19.Rg1 Qxh2? 20.Rxg6 Qh1+ 21.Kd2 and White doubles his rooks on the g-file with devastating effect.

22.Qc2
Dr. Lasker suggests h4 to open the g-file by h5.

23.Bxg6
Neither 23.Rb1 Qxh2 and Qc7 nor 23.Qb3 Rab8 and c5 to follow soon would have overcome Black's resistance. Dr. Lasker suggests Be4 and then Qd1.

23...Qxh2
Refuting White's last move.

25...Rf7!

26...Raf8
White can't take the Na6 because of Rxf2 winning at once for Black. 27.f4 would also be a mistake because of 27...e5 28.Qxa6 exf4 29.Qe2 Qh4+ 30.Qf2? Qe7 - even in case of 30.Kd1 Black has sufficient compensation for the piece.

28...g5
Much better than 28...Qg3+ 29.Kd1 Rxf4 30.Rxf4 Rxf4 31.Kc2.

33.Rf3
Threatening Rh1.

33...Nc7
White would win after 33...Nb8? 34.Rh1 Qxh1 35.Rh3+ Qxh3 36.Qxh3+ Kg8 37.Nc5 and soon Ne6.

35...Rxf4
Tempting but incorrect. Black should have played Nd6, Rc5, Nf5 with Rd8 to put pressure against the weak d4.

38....Qh2+
In case of 38...Qh4+ 39.Kg2 Qg4+ Black wins the rook but loses the game after 40.Rg3 Qxc8 41.Qg6

41...Rxf1
For sure, not 41...Rxd4 42.Rxf8+ Kg7 43.Rf7+ etc.

Re your comments on Lasker's opponents for the title in your previous post on this page. You've expressed exactly my thoughts on the subject although I think that Rubinstein at his peak could have matched Lasker.

22 years without a challenge match, and only one top level opponent, Schlechter. The rest were either second tier or past their primes.

I shall post in the

Luis Ramirez de Lucena

Lasker-Schlechter World Championship Match (1910)

and the

Lasker-Capablanca World Championship Match (1921)