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

(If you register a free account you won't see all these ads!)
Carl Schlechter vs Emanuel Lasker
Lasker - Schlechter World Championship Match (1910), Vienna, rd 5, Jan-22
Spanish Game: Berlin Defense. Closed Bernstein Variation (C66)  ·  1-0
ANALYSIS [x]

FEN COPIED

Click Here to play Guess-the-Move
Given 26 times; par: 97 [what's this?]

Annotations by Jose Raul Capablanca.      [26 more games annotated by Capablanca]

NOTE: You are using our new chess viewer, "Olga." For more info see the Olga Quickstart Guide. You can switch back to the old viewer (pgn4web) from the pulldown menu below. If you have questions or suggestions see our Olga chessforum.

explore this opening
find similar games 18 more Schlechter/Lasker games
PGN: download | view | print Help: general | java-troubleshooting

TIP: The Olga viewer allows you to get computer analysis by clicking the "ENGINE" link on the lower right.

PGN Viewer:  What is this?
For help with this chess viewer, please see the Olga Chess Viewer Quickstart Guide.
PREMIUM MEMBERS CAN REQUEST COMPUTER ANALYSIS [more info]

A COMPUTER ANNOTATED SCORE OF THIS GAME IS AVAILABLE.  [CLICK HERE]

Kibitzer's Corner
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·  Later Kibitzing>
Jan-03-09
Premium Chessgames Member
  Phony Benoni: Thanks to the efforts of <Karpova> and chessgames.com, the annotations have been cleaned up.

<Tamar> Good one. You're a real maverick.

Aug-31-09  birthtimes: 39...Rb8 40. axb5 Rxb5 41. Qa4 Kb7 42. Qd1 Qxb4 and Black wins a pawn.
Sep-10-09
Premium Chessgames Member
  visayanbraindoctor: Bridgeburner: PART 1

<INTRODUCTION>

Schlechter vs Lasker, 1910 is the <fifth game of the 1910 title match>.

Quantitative mapping of this game between these players is below. Figures in brackets immediately after each move are the corrected engine evaluations generated on the return slide, which smoothed out many, but not all fluctuation in the engines evaluations. The complexity of some variations was very likely too great to enable a fuller reconciliation from the initial reverse slide. <General methods used are described in the bio at User: Bridgeburner

The evaluation values in the opening come at the end of a full return slide back to the starting position from the last move of the game. Engine preferences are included throughout the game where they differ from players preferences.

<Summary>

The first four games of this match were drawn, and it looked initially as if this was to be like game 2, an uneventful draw, (unlike games 1, 3 and 4 which were hard fought).

This is a game of two parts. The first part sees White, instead of attempting to press for a further advantage to that provided by Blacks conservative opening strategy (Ruy Lopez Berlin Defense. Closed Bernstein Variation (C66)), simplifying quickly into a Q+R+7p ending/middlegame, in which both sides maneuver with equality, barely disturbing the seismometer, until about move 35, at which stage one would have expected the game to be called off as another draw.

In the second part of the game, maybe one of the players refused a draw offer at some stage, or perhaps fatigue from maneuvering in a difficult heavy piece ending kicked in (historians may know the answer), but at move 36, Whites play starts to become erratic, conceding ground and advantage. Then White blunders with <44. Qb4>, leaving Black with a winning advantage. However, Black is unable to force the difficult win in a heavy piece ending, making plausible but not decisive moves, firstly by allowing the win to slip from his fingers (by not fully securing the safety of his King with <47Kd7> instead of the highly plausible <47c4>), before inexplicably blundering with <54Qc5> to allow White a mating attack.

This is Schlechters first and only win in this match and the second and last time he ever defeated Lasker. But Lasker didnt equalize until the final game (game 10), thereby retaining the world title, probably to his surprise if his public comments the day before are any guide.

Sep-10-09
Premium Chessgames Member
  visayanbraindoctor: Bridgeburner: PART 2

<THE GAME>

<1. e4> ( 0.31) <1e5> ( 0.31)

<2. Nf3> ( 0.31) <2Nc6> ( 0.31)

<3. Bb5> ( 0.32) <3Nf6> ( 0.31)

<Engine preference>: <3a6> ( 0.32)

<4. 0-0> ( 0.31) <4d6> ( 0.44)

<Engine preference>: <4Nxe4> ( 0.31)

<5. d4> ( 0.44) <5Bd7> ( 0.44)

<6. Nc3> ( 0.44) <6Be7> ( 0.57)

<7. Bg5> (=0.25)

<First three engine preferences>: <7. d5> ( 0.57); <7. Be3> (( 0.43); <7. Be2> ( 0.43)

<70-0> ( 0.52)

<Engine preference>: <7exd4> (=0.25); <7h6> ( 0.36); <70-0> ( 0.42)

<8. dxe5> ( 0.24)

<Engine preferences>: <8. d5> ( 0.52); <8. Bxc6> ( 0.42)

<8Nxe5> ( 0.24)

Capablanca commented that <Of course, if 8dxe5 9.Bxc6 would win a pawn.>

<9. Bxd7> ( 0.11)

<Engine preference>: <9. Nxe5> ( 0.24)

This marks the end of theory in respect of this opening as shown in the chessgames.com database. The only other game in the database to reach this point was R Goletiani vs M Esserman, 2000 which continued with <9Nexd7>, with White winning in 42 moves.

Sep-10-09
Premium Chessgames Member
  visayanbraindoctor: Bridgeburner: PART 3

<9Nfxd7> (=0.11)

<10. Bxe7> (=0.11) <10Nxf3+> (=0.11)

Capablanca: <If 10Qe7 probably 11. Nxd4>

<11. Qxf3> (=0.11) <11Qxe7> (=0.14)

<12. Nd5> (=-0.03)

<Engine preferences>: <12. Rad1> (=0.14); <12. Rfe1> (=0.14); <12. Qe3> (=0.06)

<12Qd8> (=0.19)

<Engine preference>: <12Qe5> (=-0.03)

<13. Rad1> (=0.19) <13Re8> (=0.19)

<14. Rfe1> (=0.21) <14Nb6> (=0.18)

<15. Qc3> (=0.18) <15Nxd5> (=0.18)

<16. Rxd5> (=0.18) <16Re6> (=0.09)

<17. Rd3> (=0.05)

<Engine preference>: <17. Rb5> (=0.09)

<17Qe7> (=0.05)

<18. Rg3> (=0.00)

<Engine preference>: <18. f3> (=0.05)

<18Rg6> (=0.14)

<Engine preferences>: <18f6> (=0.00); <18. g6> (=0.00)

<19. Ree3> (=0.00) <19Re8> (=0.00)

<20. h3> (-=0.01) <20Kf8> (=0.21)

<First three engine preferences>: <20Rxg3> (=-0.01); <20c6> (=0.07); <20Qd7> (=0.11)

<21. Rxg6> (=0.21) <21hxg6> (=0.15)

Capablanca: <With every exchange Blacks position becomes better. Whatever position advantage White had is fast disappearing.>

Sep-10-09
Premium Chessgames Member
  visayanbraindoctor: Bridgeburner: PART 4

<22. Qb4> (=0.11)

<First three engine preferences>: <22. Qa5> (=0.15); <22. b3> (=0.13); <22. Qb3> (=0.12)

<22c6> (=0.11)

<23. Qa3> (=0.00)

<First three engine preferences>: <23. a3> (=0.11); <23. Kf1> (=0.06); <23. Qb3> (=0.02)

<23a6> (=0.05)

<Engine preference>: <23Qe5> (=0.00)

<24. Qb3> (=0.05) <24Rd8> (=0.05)

<25. c4> (=0.03) <25Rd7> (=0.02)

<26. Qd1> (=0.02) <26Qe5> (=0.02)

<27. Qg4> (=-0.08)

<Engine preferences>: <27. Qd2> (=0.02; <27. b3> (=0.00)

<27Ke8> (=0.00)

<28. Qe2> (=0.00) <28Kd8> (=0.00)

<29. Qd2> (=0.00) <29Kc7> (=0.01)

Capablanca: <White, apparently satisfied with his position has allowed the black king to move over to the queenside, without making any attempt to stop him. White now starts and advance of the queen side pawns, which is checked by black at once.>

<30. a3> (=0.00) <30Re7> (=0.00)

<31. b4> (=0.01) <31b5> (=0.00)

<32. cxb5> (=0.02) <32axb5> (=0.03)

<Blacks strategy has been of a very high order. He has now a very fine game.> - Capablanca

<33. g3> (=0.00) <33g5> (=0.01)

<34. Kg2> (=0.00) <34Re8> ( 0.37)

<35. Qd1> (=0.00) <35f6> ( 0.37)

<36. Qb3> ( 0.32)

<First three engine preferences>: <36. a4> ( 0.37); <36. Qd2> (=0.00); <36. Qd3> (=-0.03)

This is an evaluation shift of 0.69, representing a <dubious move> by Schlechter and therefore attracts <a weighting of <<0.5>>. Cumulative weighting for the game is therefore <<0.5>>>

Sep-10-09
Premium Chessgames Member
  visayanbraindoctor: Bridgeburner: PART 5

<35Qe6> ( 0.32)

<37. Qd1> ( 0.32 ) <37Rh8> (=-0.03 )

<Engine preference>: <37Qc4> ( 0.32)

<38. g4> (=-0.03 ) <38Qc4> (=-0.03)

<39. a4> ( 0.48)

<First three engine preferences>: <39. Qd2> (=-0.03); <39. f3> (=-0.03); <39. Kg3> (=-0.21)

<Blacks position was becoming too alarmingly strong. White prefers to give up a pawn and go for the Black king, rather than be boxed in without a chance to move anything.> - Capablanca

<39Qxb4> (=-0.04)

<Engine preference> <39Rb8> ( 0.48)

<39bxa4, and if 40. Qxa4 Rb8, should be considered. It looks very much as though Black would win. The position is worth studying. By playing 40Rb8, Black threatens to play 41Rxb4 and then 42Rb1, with a murderous check in sight at f1.> - Capablanca

<Note>: According to the engine, after <39...bxa4 40.Qxa4 Rb8 41.Qa5+ =0.00>

<40. axb5> (=-0.04) <40Qb5> (=-0.04)

<41. Rb3> (=-0.18)

<Engine preference> <41. Qa1> (=-0.04)

<41Qa6> (=-0.16)

<42. Qd4> (=-0.24)

<First three engine preferences>: <42. Qb1> (-=0.16); <42. Rb4> (=-0.18); <42. Rb2> (=-0.18)

<42Re8> (=-0.24)

<If Black were satisfied with a draw, 42Rb8 would have accomplished it. The champions play is better, as he could have drawn if he wished up to up to the fifty-fourth move.> - Capablanca

<43. Rb1> ( 0.79) <43Re5> ( 0.79)

<44. Qb4> ( 1.68)

<First three engine preferences>: <44. Qc3> ( 0.78); <44. Rb2> ( 0.79); <44. Rc1> ( 0.89)

Whites move crosses the 1.40 threshold into a lost game for White and is therefore classified as a blunder. <Weighting for the move is therefore <<2>>, accumulating to <<2.5>> for the game.>

Sep-10-09
Premium Chessgames Member
  visayanbraindoctor: Bridgeburner: PART 6

<44Qb5> ( 1.68)

<45. Qe1> ( 1.68) <45Qd3> ( 1.67)

<Engine preference>: <45Qa4> ( 1.68)

<46. Rb4> ( 1.89)

<Engine preference>: <46. f3> ( 1.67)

<46c5> ( 1.89)

<46Rb5 gave Black some chance of winning.> - Capablanca

<47. Ra4> ( 1.89) <47c4> ( 1.22)

<Engine preference>: <47Kd7> ( 1.89) <<<47c4>> is a blunder for the purposes of this analysis as it destroys Blacks winning advantage by causing the evaluation to shift across the 1.40 threshold. Accordingly, it is weighted at <<2.0>>, for an accumulated game weighting of <<4.5>>>.

<48. Qa1> ( 1.22) <48Qe4+> ( 1.22)

<49. Kh2> ( 1.22) <49Rb5> ( 1.09)

<Engine preferences>: <49Qf4 and 49Kd7> ( 1.22)

<50. Qa2> ( 1.09) <50Qe5+> ( 1.04)

<Engine preference>: <50Kd7>: ( 1.09)

<51. Kg1> ( 1.04) <51Qe1+> ( 0.95)

<Engine preference>: <51Qd5> ( 1.04)

<52. Kh2> ( 1..04) <52d5> ( 0.95 )

<Engine preference>: <52Qe5> ( 1.04)

Sep-10-09
Premium Chessgames Member
  visayanbraindoctor: Bridgeburner: PART 7

<53. Ra8> ( 0.95) <53Qb4> ( 0.71)

<Engine preference> <53Qe5+> ( 0.95)

<He could easily have drawn the game by perpetual check, as White could not afford to play 54. Kg2 and 55. f3 because of 55Qd4.> - Capablanca

<54. Kg2> ( 0.71) <54Qc5> ( 2.81)

<First three engine preferences>: <54c3> ( 0.71); <54Rb8> and <54Rb6> (=-0.02)

<The evaluation shift of 3.94 represents a blunder and a weighting of <<2.0>> for an accumulated game weighting of <<6.5>>>.

<A most rare case of chess blindness by Dr Lasker. 54Rb8 would at least draw.> - Capablanca

<55. Qa6> ( 2.75) <55Rb8> ( 4.11)

<First three engine preferences>: <55c3> ( 2.75); <55d4> ( 3.10); <55Qb6> ( 3.24)

<It was bad now, but he might have tried 55Qb6 56. Qc8+ Kd6 57. Ra6 Qa6 58. Qa6+ Kc5 and fight it out with the two passed pawns and his rook against the queen.> - Capablanca

<56. Ra7+> ( 4.11) <56Kd8> ( 14.46)

<Engine preference>: <56Qxa7> ( 4.11)

Evaluation values from this point on are transitional, constantly increasing with ply

<57. Rxg7> ( 14.46) <57Qb6> ( 18.15)

<Engine preferences (20 ply)>: <57Qe7> ( 14.46); <57Qc7> ( 15.27)

<58. Qa3>( 18.15 ) <58Kc8> (#3)

Black resigns: <59. Qf8+ Qd8 60.Qc5+ Qc7 61.Qxc7#>

Sep-10-09
Premium Chessgames Member
  visayanbraindoctor: Bridgeburner: PART 8

<ANALYSIS>

<Note> The fluctuations generated in the relatively low (16 minimum) ply initial reverse slide were smoothed out as far as possible in the return forward slide. The corrected evaluations extracted from the return forward slide are used in this analysis, as they are considered more reliable than the raw evaluations generated on the initial reverse slide. All moves have been evaluated on forward and return slide for completeness.

<Evaluation range>:

Between <#3> (equal to infinity) applying to <58Kc8> - representing a forced mate in 3 by White - and < 1.88> in respect of move <46.Rb4> representing a winning advantage for Black.

<The largest evaluation shifts>:

- for White was excluding the forced winning sequence after Blacks move 54 was 3.52 between <54. Kg2> (( 0.71), a moderate advantage for Black) and <54Qc5> (( 2.81), a forced win for White.

- for Black was 0.89 from <43Re5> ( 0.79), a moderate advantage for Black, to <44. Qb4> ( 1.68), a winning advantage for Black.

<Computer statistics>:

87.1% of the ply in this game (101/116) coincided with engine preferences 1, 2 or 3

77.6% of the ply in the game (90/116) coincided with engine preferences 1 or 2

55.2% of the ply in the game (64/116) coincided with the engines first preference

82.8% of Schlechters moves (48/58) coincided with the engine preferences 1, 2 and 3

91.4% of Laskers moves (53/58) coincided engine preferences 1, 2 and 3

75.9% of Schlechters moves (44/58) coincided with engine preferences 1 and 2

79.3% of Laskers moves (46/58) coincided with engine preferences 1 and 2

62.1% of Schlechters moves (36/58) coincided with the engines first preference

48.3% (28/58) of Laskers moves coincided with the engines first preference.

<Note>: There is no particular significance attached to these statistics except as a separate and general litmus of player accuracy. Clearly a second preference that leads to a forced mate as distinct from a first preference that is defensible or wins is a different creature from a fifth preference that can win, even if there are four more efficient alternatives. A player may make many moves that are not engine preferences and still win, even against a player whose every move bar one is an engine preference, if that exception is a gross blunder. The only way that engine preferences can be statistically relevant is with aggregated data accumulated from many games, however, even these must be secondary to analysis of evaluation shifts between moves.

<The engine evaluation of the final position>:

is <#3>.

<CONCLUSION>

<The game is weighted at <<6.5>>representing <<1 blunder (2.0) plus 1 dubious move (0.5)>> by Schlechter plus <<2 blunders (2 x 2.0 = 4.0)>> by Lasker.>

<Schlechters dubious move was <<36.Qb3>> conceding his slight advantage to Lasker. His blunder was <<44. Qb4>> and should have lost the game.

Laskers blunders were <<47c4>> (conceding the win) and <<54Qc5>> (conceding the game).>

It should be noted that Laskers winning advantage only lasted from move 44 to move 46, a total of three moves, before he conceded the win with <47c4>.

Sep-10-09
Premium Chessgames Member
  visayanbraindoctor: <Bridgeburner>

Regarding <The first part sees White, instead of attempting to press for a further advantage to that provided by Blacks conservative opening strategy (Ruy Lopez Berlin Defense. Closed Bernstein Variation (C66)), simplifying quickly into a Q+R+7p ending/middlegame, in which both sides maneuver with equality, barely disturbing the seismometer, until about move 35> From my human chess eyes point of view, Laskers decision to eventually transfer his King to the Queenside probably commencing on 20..Kf8 anticipating 21. Rxg6 hxg6 looks like a sign of his willingness to go for a win. He did not hunker down on the Kingside. He brilliantly conjured a plan of voluntarily marching his King to the opposite side of the board, increasing his winning chances.

So we now have this position <20Kf8> (=0.21)


click for larger view

In spite of the fact that evals dont seem to differ by much, with move <23a6> (=0.05) Blacks pawn structure has changed.


click for larger view

Lasker has made his Queenside pawns immune to direct attacks by the White Queen by transferring them to light-colored squares in a pawn chain based on b7. He accepts the insignificant weakening of his d-pawn, which isnt really weak because its very easily well-defended, especially as he seems to have already planned on bringing his King to c7 anyway. Once his King gets on c7, he can now start operating on the center and Kingside freely. Looking at the evals alone, nothing of significance seems to be happening, yet with the changing Black pawn structure that allows for further serious action in the center, something clearly is.

By 29..Kc7, Black has already achieved one of the stop-gap positions he was aiming for, probably all the way when he first played 20..Kf8.


click for larger view

<29Kc7> (=0.01) The eval calls it practically even. However, from a purely human point of view, alarms would now be ringing in my head. Why? White does not have any clear plan of action at all! On the other hand, Black has somehow arranged his pieces that he has all the easy options to take in the center and Kingside, such as further maneuvering his queen and rook, and advancing his pawns at the opportune times.

Sep-10-09
Premium Chessgames Member
  visayanbraindoctor: I think that Schlechter at this point decided that going through a long maneuvering defense against an eternally-probing Lasker would probably result in eventually errors on his part, that would lose him the game. So first he tries probing Laskers Queenside himself.

<30. a3> (=0.00) <30Re7> (=0.00) <31. b4> (=0.01) <31b5> (=0.00) <32. cxb5> (=0.02) <32axb5> (=0.03)

So far nothing. Laskers position remains as solid as it can be. Further maneuvering did cost Schlechter a dubious move.

<33. g3> (=0.00) <33g5> (=0.01) <34. Kg2> (=0.00) <34Re8> ( 0.37) <35. Qd1> (=0.00) <35f6> ( 0.37) <36. Qb3> ( 0.32)

<First three engine preferences>: <36. a4> ( 0.37); <36. Qd2> (=0.00); <36. Qd3> (=-0.03)

Note that the engines first preference <36. a4> ( 0.37) already consists of a pawn advance attempt to break through Blacks Queenside, something that Schlechter did three moves later.

IMO all these say that Laskers strategy was succeeding. Schlechter was being skillfully boxed in, until he HAD to attempt a break-out if he hoped to survive. By <38Qc4> (=-0.03), eval is again practically even but I doubt if there is any chess player who would play White here. Black has the more active queen and rook, controls vital files at will, controls most of the center. If any uncontrolled explosive action were to get initiated, it would be Whites position that would get exploded first.

Sep-10-09
Premium Chessgames Member
  visayanbraindoctor: So I think Schlechter finally did make his decision. Sac a pawn in an attempt to break out. His compensation is that Laskers King gets to be exposed in a semi open Q + R vs. Q + R game, surely one of the most difficult to play in the world, especially for the side with the more exposed King. Even if the latter is objectively ahead, chances for miscalculations to occur are so great that the side with the safer King may humanly be said to have compensation. These open Queen positions often look like stuff from a computers dreamscape.

<44. Qb4> ( 1.68)

<First three engine preferences>: <44. Qc3> ( 0.78); <44. Rb2> ( 0.79); <44. Rc1> ( 0.89) Whites move crosses the 1.40 threshold into a lost game for White and is therefore classified as a blunder.

<Weighting for the move is therefore <<2>>, accumulating to <<2.5>> for the game.>

As it turns out it is Schlechter who blunders first.

Yet, to be honest, its hard to determine if this move was a blunder without a computer! Its pretty safe to say that in such open Queen positions, humans will almost always begin blundering sooner or later, and its the side with the more exposed King that would stand more chances of losing.

<47. Ra4> ( 1.89) <47c4> ( 1.22)

<Engine preference>: <47Kd7>

( 1.89) <<<47c4>> is a blunder for the purposes of this analysis as it destroys Blacks winning advantage by causing the evaluation to shift across the 1.40 threshold. Accordingly, it is weighted at <<2.0>>, for an accumulated game weighting of <<4.5>>>.

Now it is Lasker who blunders, throwing away the win. The curse of open Queen positions.

<54. Kg2> ( 0.71) <54Qc5> ( 2.81)

<First three engine preferences>: <54c3> ( 0.71); <54Rb8> and <54Rb6> (=-0.02)

<The evaluation shift of 3.94 represents a blunder and a weighting of <<2.0>> for an accumulated game weighting of <<6.5>>>.

<A most rare case of chess blindness by Dr Lasker. 54Rb8 would at least draw.> - Capablanca

And a final blunder by Lasker, throwing away the draw.

Sep-10-09
Premium Chessgames Member
  visayanbraindoctor: <Bridgeburner: both sides maneuver with equality, barely disturbing the seismometer, until about move 35>

I guess this means that evals began swinging more widely at around move 35. Although the computer sees it as approximately equal, I believe that most humans would very much prefer Black at this point. This includes Schlechter himself as he clearly began vigorous attempts to open up the game, even at the cost of a pawn sac. Ironically, he starts late. Instead of pushing it on the 36th move when it is not a pawn sac, he pushes it on the 39th, when it is now a pawn sac. He probably noticed his <dubious move 36. Qb3> and tried the a4 push in worse circumstances.

Yet, IMO it was courageous 39. a4 (although three moves late) that saved Schlechter. Perhaps a computer would be able to hold White's position passively, but no human could probably do the same for long. Schlechter in effect sacked a pawn in order to change the entire game structure from a closed to an open one, with his own King in a safer emplacement. Schlechter, being the talented and experienced master that he was knew of course that pawn advantages tend to become insignificant compared to the King's safety in open queen positions; and he played for it.

I don't know, but this could be one game where it was Lasker who got outfoxed in the psychological game. He should immediately have taken the draw, but got so used to playing for a win that he blundered and lost.

Frankly, I have great difficulties in understanding what goes on in open queen positions. I suspect that 44. Qb4 is a blunder because it loses tempo and ground to the opposing queen.

After this apparently Lasker, properly evaluating his position as winning, must have thought that the right plan was to quickly advance his pawns, So his first blunder was a direct result of this strategy. 47..c4. As you said he should have ensured his Kings's safety first. Instead he exposed it more.

Lasker's second blunder was compounded on the first. Having exposed his king a bit more by advancing his c-pawn, he allows the white queen to penetrate.

Sep-10-09
Premium Chessgames Member
  visayanbraindoctor: Bridgeburner: <visayanbraindoctor>

These endings are very complicated. You'll notice that Schlechter's strategy for opening up the game was quite successful, not so much because Lasker blundered the game, but because Lasker consistently failed to find the best move during that period, and I think he sensed that the win was somehow falling away. Check out how he finds the second best moves at moves 47, 49, 50, 51, 52 and 53, progressively eroding his advantage, before he finally blunders the game with move 54. During the same sequence, Schlechter's play is impeccable.

Schlechter played quietly to start with and to give him his credit, his defense of his position after he opened up the queen side was exemplary.

He out-psyched Lasker, which was no mean feat!

<Check out how he finds the second best moves at moves 47, 49, 50, 51, 52 and 53, progressively eroding his advantage, before he finally blunders the game with move 54. During the same sequence, Schlechter's play is impeccable.>

---

I did. Incredible. In the end stage of the game, Schlechter played like a machine.

Oct-19-09  WhiteRook48: both wins of this match were swindles
Jan-28-11  Llawdogg: Carl "Hannibal" Schlechter showed that he had the skills and the killer instincts to defeat Lasker and become the World Chess Champion. Go Hannibal Schlechter!
Jan-29-11  AnalyzeThis: He starved to death. I remember reading one book that said "poor, half-famished Schlechter - what a great fighter he was!"
Jan-29-11  BobCrisp: Ilmar Raud is also said to have died alone, cold, hungry, scared, forgotten....
Dec-10-11  TheMacMan: black had great position until time blunder
Mar-19-13  jszigeti: Referring to the above:
"This is Schlechters first and only win in this match and the second and last time he ever defeated Lasker. But Lasker didnt equalize until the final game (game 10), thereby retaining the world title, probably to his surprise if his public comments the day before are any guide."

The part about "thereby retaining the world title," is missing some critical detail. (Reference: Evans on Chess 1974 pg. 42) Lasker had match conditions that specified that he would retain the title unless Schlechter won by two points until a return match. (Compare that to Botvinnik, and Fischer conditions later on !) Thus Schlechter uncharacteristically went all out to get the extra point but lost instead. Lasker would have retained the title with a draw as well albeit with a slight string attached, a return match that most likely never would have happened between Lasker's artful avoidance of the most dangerous challenges (e.g. Akiba Rubenstein at his peak, and Capablanca for as long as possible by means of diffcult match conditions) and the interference of WWI when Schlechter would die before it ended.

Nov-25-15
Premium Chessgames Member
  offramp: <thebribri8: I hate Capablanca's annotations.>

Some players aren't designed for annotations. They look at a position and they think, "It's pretty obvious what's going on here... There's no need to mention the alternatives here, it's obvious..." and they end up writing very little. I think that was Capablanca's problem. Things were so clear to him, he thought they were obvious to everyone and that there was no need to explain anything.

But he did do at least one very good set of notes, see F Alexander vs G A Thomas, 1919.

Mar-06-16  amaurobius: <AnalyzeThis> Reference your post of Jan-29-11, the book you are thinking of is Hans Kmoch's Rubinstein's Chess Masterpieces (Game 46).
Apr-13-17  Howard: Is anyone here aware that the ending to this remarkable game is very thoroughly analyzed in Nunn's book on Lasker's games?

You might want to take a look at it---personally, I've not had much time to do so, but I intend to!

Apr-13-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  morfishine: <Howard> The road to pure Nirvana and happy Karma is paved with solid bricks of well thought-out intentions

*****

Jump to page #    (enter # from 1 to 3)
search thread:   
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·  Later Kibitzing>
NOTE: You need to pick a username and password to post a reply. Getting your account takes less than a minute, totally anonymous, and 100% free--plus, it entitles you to features otherwise unavailable. Pick your username now and join the chessgames community!
If you already have an account, you should login now.
Please observe our posting guidelines:
  1. No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.
  2. No spamming, advertising, or duplicating posts.
  3. No personal attacks against other members.
  4. Nothing in violation of United States law.
  5. No posting personal information of members.
Blow the Whistle See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform an administrator.


NOTE: Keep all discussion on the topic of this page. This forum is for this specific game and nothing else. If you want to discuss chess in general, or this site, you might try the Kibitzer's Café.
Messages posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors.
Spot an error? Please submit a correction slip and help us eliminate database mistakes!
<This page contains Editor Notes. Click here to read them.>
This game is type: CLASSICAL (Disagree? Please submit a correction slip.)

Featured in the Following Game Collections [what is this?]
Carl Schlechter !!!!
from One has to have at least two plans .... by arielbekarov
The Greatest Ever Chess Endgames
by K9Empress
Notes by Jose Raul Capablanca
from Spaniards Settin' Sail by fredthebear
Game 57
from Garry Kasparov's On My Great Predecessors (1A) by nakul1964
Pachman's Modern Chess Strategy
by brucemubayiwa
Mikhail Shereshevsky's Endgame Strategy
by Atsa
Game 26
from Modern Chess Strategy (Pachman) by Qindarka
(Berlin-4.0-0 d6)
from lazintata's_spanish_2 by lazintata
schlechter
by MandersSonOfCranders
Notes by Jose Raul Capablanca
from Annotations by Various Authorities & Fredthebear by fredthebear
Game 37
from Greatest Endgames (Giddins) by Qindarka
54...c3 55.Qa7+ Rb7 56.Qe3 Rb6!to pawn c2.Black wins
from Challenger Schlechter by Gottschalk
joniefidelino's favorite games
by joniefidelino
The Queen: Play, with the heavy pieces
from Modern Chess Strategy by BlueMooner
Game 5, Schlechter leads 3-2
from 1910 World Chess Championship (first one) by Penguincw
schlechter 1
from great endings by emilio martinez
4-Ruy Lopez Compiled by classicalwin2
by fredthebear
Notes by Jose Raul Capablanca
from Carl Schlechter and Akiba Rubinstein Games by fredthebear
Match Schlechter!
by amadeus
Battles of the 'Heavy' Pieces
by Thunderclaw
plus 48 more collections (not shown)


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 2001-2017, Chessgames Services LLC