Jul-25-25
 | | KEG: A strange game largely dictated by the score in the match. Schlechter had crush Janowski in the first portion of this match, winning all of the first six games except for Game #5 which was a draw. Janowski had finally gotten on the board with a win in Game #7. But, since this was a 14-game match, all Schlechter had to do was draw his final four games as White. Meanwhile, even if Janowski managed to win his final three games as Black, he would still require at least one win as Black. Never an easy task against Schlechter. In this eighth game, Schlechter outplayed Janowski and reached an endgame up the exchange for a pawn. But Schlechter seemed unwilling to pull the trigger. By move 49, Janowski probably had a theoretical draw available to him. But he blundered on his 49th turn giving Schlechter what looked like a routine win. But then, Schlechter let Janowski off the hook and the game quickly thereafter was drawn. What happened?
My best guess is that Schlechter, who had lost Game #7, decided to take no chances and headed for a draw. So why was the game prolonged.
My theory is that Janowski was so desperate for wins that he played on though behind in material, hoping Schlechter would err. If one ignores the score, the game--given Schlechter's skills--is inexplicable. 1. d4
As in his other games as White in this match, Schlechter played the QGD. This appeared to frustrate Janowski, who was unable to generate winning chances against this opening. 1... d5
2. c4 e6
3. Nc3 Nf6
Janowski had played his favorite 3...a6 in Games 2 and 4 of this match. After he got crushed by Schlechter in those two games, Janowski reverted to the classical 3...Nf6 in the last three QGDs of this match. 4. Nf3 Be7
5. Bf4
click for larger viewIn Game #6, Schlechter played and won with 5. e3. In the instant game and in Game #10 (the final game of the match), he played the text (5. Bf4). Interestingly, he did not attempt the Pillsbury move Bg5 on his 4th or 5th moves in this match. 5... 0-0
6. e3 c6
The more usual moves here are 6...c5 or 6...Nbd7. But Janowski had played the text against Schlechter at Vienna 1898 and drew. So this variation was well known by both players and would likely have been anticipated by them in any opening preparations. 7. Bd3
This allows Black to gain a tempo with 7...dxc4 but is nonetheless fine and allows White to retain a small edge. 7... Nbd7
Preferring to follow the course of their earlier (Vienna 1898) game. 8. 0-0 Nh5
click for larger viewStill following the line employed in their Vienna 1898 game. Janowski liked Bishops and was seemingly eager to trade Knight for Bishop. 9. Be5 NxB
10. NxN Nf6
click for larger viewIn their 1898 game, Janowski had played 10...g6 here The text looks sounder and may have been prepared for this game by Janowski. With this move, Janowski now had an entirely playable game with White now enjoying only a small advantage. The problem for Janowski was that he was less comfortable in this sort of position. As will be seen, Janowski soon lost the thread of the game and was in trouble when he decided on move 23 to sacrifice the exchange and Schlechter was never in any danger of losing. Had Schlechter needed a win in this game, I suspect he would have gotten one. |
|
Jul-26-25
| | KEG: Post II
11. Qc2 dxc4
Finally deciding to gain the tempo Schlechter had allowed him to swipe, a typical motif in the QGD. 12. Bxc4 Nd5
13. Rfd1 f6
With the intention of driving the White Knight back before playing f5 14. Nf3 f5
click for larger viewNot a terrible idea if properly followed up. In any case, Schlechter (whether divining how Janowski would miss his chances) bit and played: 15. e4
I would have expected something less committal from Schlechter, especially since the text gave Janowski the opportunity for some dynamic counter-play. 15... fxe4
16. Nxe4
click for larger viewUnlike the exchange sacrifice in which Janowski engaged seven moves hence, here he had a sound and probably equalizing chance to play 16...RxN?! Instead, Janowski went off on another of the sorts of fancies that had plagued him in this match: 16... Nf4?
Now it was Schlechter who was able to seize the initiative which--as it turned out--he was able to retain for the balance of the game. 17. Ne5 Qe8
With unsound notions of a King-side attack. Schlechter quickly put all such whims to rest: 18. g3 Nd5
19. Be2
19. a3 immediately, cutting down on Black's counterplay may have been even stronger. 19... Qd8
Janowski was obviously floundering.
20. a3
Better late than never.
20... Qc7
An indication that Janowski was out of his depth in this position/ 21. Bd3 g6
22. Rac1
click for larger viewSo Janowski still had his two Bishops, but both were weaklings. A frustrated Janowski therefore played the wild: 22... Rf5?!
23. Qe2?
A surprisingly weak move by Schlechter (who would have been close to achieving a strategically won game with 23. Re1 or several other decent possibilities). Or had Schlechter guessed the suicidal concept Janowski had cooked up: 23... RxN??!
Somewhat breaking the binds in which Schlechter had him wrapped up, but at a cost that left him on the verge of defeat for most of the rest of the game. I tend to like positional exchange sacrifices, but this one... 24. dxR Qxe5
click for larger viewJanowski still had his two beloved Bishops, but he was down the exchange for a feeble isolated pawn while his c8 Bishop was still horrifically weak. Had Schlechter not been willing to take a draw because of the state of the match, Janowski had no business expecting to survive. A bizarre scenario was about to play out. |
|
Jul-26-25
| | KEG: Post III
25. Re1 Bf8
Hardly the way Janowski liked to use his Bishops! 26. Nc5
Had Schlechter been in a different frame of mind, he might have considered 26. h4 and tried to launch a King's side attack rather than offering the trade of Queens. Schlechter perhaps reasoned that he retained decent winning chances in the endgame with minimal risk of defeat. With Queens off the board, Janowski's tactical prowess would have posed less danger. 26... QxQ
No doubt a bitter pill for Janowski to swallow, but everything else was much worse for Black. 27. RxQ
Another indication of Schlechter's mindset in this game. 27. BxQ followed by 28. Bg4 is a better way to play for a win. The text, by contrast, is consistent with Schlechter's "take no risks" agenda, and still allowed him to play for a win with his material edge: 
click for larger view27... Kf7
28. Be4
Still following his "safety first" policy rather than trying to mix things up with 28. f4 or 28. h4 or even 28. Ne4. 28... Bg7
Perhaps time pressure played a role here with the move-30 time control approaching. Otherwise Janowski might have tried more active play with 28...Bh6 or 28...a5. 29. Bg2
click for larger view29... Bd4?!
This desperate effort to generate counter-play might have been punished by Schlechter under other circumstances. 29...Bf8 was theoretically Janowski's best try here. 30. Nd3
Safe, sound, and boring. Absent time pressure and the state of the match, Schlechter would almost certainly have proceeded with 30. Ne4! and then maybe 31. Ng5. Schlechter's dithering gave Janowski real drawing chances: 30... Kf6
31. Rfc1 h5?!
click for larger viewCreating new weaknesses that should have allowed Schlechter to mop up beginning with 32. BxN and then 33. Nf4. But Schlechter looks like a man trying to live up to his reputation as the "drawing master." 32. h4?
Inexplicable from Schlechter. Now Janowski again had chances to save the game, this time with 32...Ne7? But instead: 32... Bd7?
33. Ne5?
Still fixed on his "safety first" policy and ignoring the far stronger (if you're playing to win) 33. Re4. 33... BxN!
Giving up one of his beloved Bishops but taking his best shot at avoiding defeat. 34. RxB
click for larger viewThe position was still probably a theoretical win for Schlechter, But neither player seemed to care, Schlechter still playing for a draw and Janowski seemingly still looking for action and some way to try for a win. 34... Rd8
35. f4
Locking up the King's side.
35... Bc8
36. Rd1 Rd6
37. Kf2 Bd7
38. b4 Be8
click for larger viewThe question now was, when if at all would Schlechter play b5. |
|
Jul-27-25
| | KEG: Post IV
39. Re2
Not yet! Though 39. b5 looks clearly indicated, Schlechter was in no rush, and seemingly happy to let this game drift off to a draw. But was Janowski--though probably lost--willing to go along with all this? 39... Bf7
40. Rc2 Ke7
Did Janowski read Schlechter's mind here? The text looks crazy if Schlechter was indeed primed to play b5. Among other things, Janowski could have just played 40...a6 here. The position was now:
click for larger view41. BxN?
Talk about excessive caution! Suddenly a draw is very much in sight. 41... exB
click for larger viewNeedless to say, White still has more than a small chance to play for a win. He WAS still up the exchange for a pawn. 42. b5 still looks very strong. But: 42. Re2+ Kf6
43. Ke3 Be6
44. Ree1 Bg4
45. Rc1 Bf5
click for larger viewFor what it's worth, the move-45 time control had now been reached. Schlechter could no longer have been in time pressure even on the doubtful assumption that the clock had been a factor before. 46. Kd4 Be4
Forced.
47. Re3 Kf5
48. a4
Was Schlechter now preparing--at long last--to play b5? 48... Ke6
Janowski seemed unconcerned. Was he trying to tempt Schlechter to over-play his hand? 49. Rb3
click for larger view49... Rd7?!
With 49...a6 or 49...b6 or even 49...Kf5, Black would be prepared to face 50. b5. So one still gets the sense that Janowski was trying to egg Schlechter on. In the short term, if this was Janowski's plan, he definitely succeeded: 50. b5!
click for larger viewSo at long last b5 was on the board. It does now appear that Schlechter was poised to win. I will discuss the shockingly anti-climactic finale in my next post on this game. |
|
Jul-29-25
| | KEG: Post V
50... Kd6
Pretty much forced.
51. bxc5 bxc6
52. Rb8!
This penetration should have been decisive:
click for larger view52... Rc7
Once again, Janowski had little choice, and now looked to be on the verge of defeat: 
click for larger viewNow 53. Rc5 ties up the Black forces and should have led to a win for Schlechter (e.g., 53...Bf5 54. Rd8+ Bd7 55. Rf8 Ke7 56. Rg8 Kf7 57. Rb8 Ke6 58. f5+! Kxf5 59. Rc3 Kg4 (or 59...Kf6 60 a5 Bc8 61. Kc5 Bf5 62. Rd8 Rb7 63. Rd6+ Ke5 64. Kxc6 etc.) 60. Kc5 and wins But instead of that, Schlechter decided to draw: 53. Rd8+
This should also win, unless White is ready to take a draw... 53... Ke7
54. Rh8 Kd6
55. Rd8+ Ke7
1/2 -- 1/2
I don't understand it either, except that now all Schlechter required in the remaining six games was three draws or a win and a draw. Maybe he didn't want to expend any more energy in this game, reckoning that the match with this draw would nearly be in the bag. But, of course, winning this ending would have made his remaining task even easier. |
|
|
|
|
Kibitzing
