I have a page devoted to "The Best, Short Games of Chess." (miniatures) See this page (http://www.geocities.com/lifemaster...) for the links.

A 1950's Colliers encyclopedia article on chess that I have read years ago featured this game as an example. Black is named "Tanerow" in the game, and the opening sequence of the game reads differently. The first seven moves went (in descriptive notation) 1. P-K4 P-K4 2. N-KB3 N-QB3 3. B-N5 N-B3 4. 0-0 P-Q3 5. P-Q4 B-Q2 6. N-B3 B-K2 7. R-K1 PxP, etc. The article even made a mistake in the notation, stating 3. B-QN5 instead of the proper B-N5.

A 1950's Colliers encyclopedia article on chess that I have read years ago featured this game as an example. Black is named "Tanerow" in the game>

Yes, no evidence to support this hypothesis at all.
Actually, the unreliable <Encyclopaedia of Chess Middlegames (Chess Informant, Belgrade, 1980)> gave the date as 1904 and Eric Schiller copied it for his <The Big Book of Combinations (Hypermodern Press, San Francisco, 1994)>. http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/... The wrong date can be found in <World Champion Combinations> by none other than Eric Schiller and Ray Keene also. http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/...

"The one thing I dislike here are people who call theirselves "logical", "sensible" or "intellectual", yet never base what they say or think on logic or facts"

I think there is room for a conspiracy theory for this game. Hermann Helms' original publication of the game says "Mrs Leon Rosen, who, fortunately, took and preserved the score for the benefit of posterity". This is bit silly since Capablanca or Fonaroff could have easily supplied the score from memory. Helms could just have used this as a device to get Mrs. Rosen's name in the paper. And it makes a good story. Or, perhaps, Mrs Rosen could provide "cover" for Helms if the score was, shall we say, not quite accurate. What if Fonaroff actually played 18...Qa5 and the glorious combination was only revealed by Capa in the post-mortem? Helms could claim that Mrs. Rosen had erred while taking down the score.

Quoting Alekhine: "I would like to be able to create alone, without the necessity, as in games, of adjusting my plans to those of the opponent, in order to create something that will remain. Oh! this opponent, this collaborator against his will, whose notion of Beauty always differs from yours and whose means (strength, imagination, technique) are often too limited to help you effectively! What torment, to have your thinking and your phantasy tied down by another person!" A proper opponent plays 18...Rd1 and and doesn't tie down Capa's brilliant mind. Great artists, Alekhine in particular, occasionally fixed the errors of those unthinking, selfish opponents who failed to co-operate. Then again, is there anything wrong with it? Great art is created and the chess world is richer for it. Think of this one, for example.

click for larger view

Capablanca-Lasker, Berlin 1914. White wins with the ingenious 1.Ra8+!! It's a beautiful idea, who cares it's just post-mortem?

Collier's Encyclopedia, Volume 5 (Cha-Cop) with E.O.Fontaine as director of publications and W.T.Couch as editor-in-chief. (P.F. Collier and Son Corporation, New York 1956) The sample game can be found in pages 97-99.

But here the combination doesn't look too strange considering a (then) future Worldchampion played it.

This happens to be the talking place of this single game. And as <Calli> pointed out, the details easily give room for this to be post-mortem. Any game could be prearranged; such games are almost impossible to point out. As for the Steiner game, Black's play was nothing like excellent; prearrangement would explain that nicely but on the other hand, it's also a good excuse for having played poorly. If I got blown off the board like that I'd sure try to come up with an excuse. Always doubt everything, and never let yourself become paranoid.