1904 Munich - Nimzovich +4 -4 =5
1905 Munich - Leonhardt +6 -4 =5
1906 Munich - E. Cohn +2 -1 =0
1907 Berlin - v. Bardeleben +1 -2 =1
1907 Munich - Fahrni +5 -3 =2
1908 Munich - Nimzovich +4 -1 =1
1908 Munich - Przepiorka +4 -1 =0
1908 Munich - W. John +3 -5 =0
1909 Kissingen - P. Johner +6 -0 =3
1910 Regensburg - Mieses +5 -1 =2
1910 Munich - Fahrni +4 -3 =4
1910 Vienna - Tartakower +3 -2 =1
1910 Vienna - Perlis +2 -1 =2
1910 Vienna - Reti +4 -0 =1
1911 Munich - Alapin +6 -3 =1
1913 Vienna - Tartakower +2 -5 =5
1914 Leipzig - Teichmann +1 -5 =0
1921 Vienna - Tartakower +3 -2 =1
1921 Vienna - Reti +3 -0 =3
1922 Munich - G. Maier +2 -0 =2
1925 Goteborg - A. Nilsson +3 -1 =1
1929 Vienna - Honlinger +5 -2 =3
1930 Stockholm - Stahlberg +4 -1 =1
1930 Stockholm - Stoltz +1 -2 =3
1930 Stockholm - Lundin +4 -0 =2
1931 Maribor - Pirc +3 -1 =6
1932 Semmering - Bogoljubow +4 -3 =3
1932 Amsterdam - Davidson +4 -0 =0
1932 Amsterdam - Euwe +0 -2 =2
1932 Amsterdam - Davidson +3 -0 =1
1932 Amsterdam - Moldauer +4 -0 =0
1932 Linz - Eliskases +2 -3 =5
1932 Stockholm - Stoltz +4 -1 =1
1933 Stockholm - Lundin +0 -1 =5
1933 Stockholm - Stahlberg +1 -3 =4
1933 Goteborg - Berndtsson +2 -1 =2
1933 Amsterdam - Landau +2 -1 =3
1933 Amsterdam - Davidson +2 -0 =2
1934 Riga - Apscheneek +3 -0 =1
1934 Riga - Petrov +2 -1 =5
1934 Riga - Feigin +1 -0 =3
1934 Kaunas - Mikenas +3 -1 =2
1934 Amsterdam -v.den Bosch +1 -1 =2
1935 Warsaw - P. Frydman +0 -0 =5
1936 Amsterdam - Landau +4 -0 =4
1936 Amsterdam - v. Steenis +3 -0 =1
1936 Amsterdam -v.den Bosch +2 -1 =2
1936 Rotterdam - Landau +3 -1 =1
1936 Amsterdam -v.den Bosch +3 -3 =4
1936 Semmering - Eliskases +1 -2 =7
1937 Semmering - Eliskases +0 -2 =8
1938 Amsterdam - Landau +4 -1 =3
1940 Stockholm - Lundholm +5 -0 =1

Of the 53 total matches, Spielmann won 38, lost 11 and drew 4.

In his biography of Euwe, Alexander Munninghoff reports that in preparation for his championship match of 1935 with Alekhine, Euwe played a secret 10 game training match with Spielmann. The match did not go well for Euwe, who lost by a score of +2-4=4.

Spielmann claims that he always felt ashamed of himself when analysing with Lasker. If you thought you had found an interesting move Lasker had already seen the refutation and was far ahead in some more complicated line. Spielmann declares that he had analysed many games together with Capablanca and Alekhine but it was only with Lasker he felt so inferior.

It could be added that Spielmann only lost one of his five games against Lasker, so the results between them were less to be ashamed of for Spielmann.

Spielmann also had decent scores against Capablanca and Alekhine, and means that Alekhine could look as if he was forcing out his moves through sheer willpower, working very hard during the games.

Playing Capablanca was more exhausting, as in Spielmann vs Capablanca, 1925 where Spielmann says that he was thinking hard all the time while Capablanca strolled around looking at the other games and discussing with people. As soon as Spielmann made his move Capablanca usually just strolled past the table and answered immediately, to return to other matters.

The very same could be fairly said of Capablanca if he had tried to "imitate" Alekhine.

That's why they all adopt styles they find suitable to their view of/approach to the game, temperament, character, strengths/weaknesses.

<The beauty of a game of chess is usually assessed according to the sacrifices it contains.>

-- Rudolf Spielmann

- <usually assessed> = NN ?

Still, I think Spielmann using "machine" in that quote is remarkable...>

The examples that you gave (all involve magic) are not quite correct.

The concept of a machine has been the complete opposite - something that works without any metaphysical powers. For a long time, the clock has been the paradigm of a machine (17th century) when they became quite complex and precise. There have also been other (though primitive) machines based on hydraulics (e. g. in Versailles) and so concepts evolved that tried to explain phenomena by merely regarding them as machines - nothing but matter (like a clock just without all those cogwheels). A famous example is Rene Descartes (that animals were nothing but machines). A machine, pure matter, capable of everything except for the intellectual qualities of human beings and no metaphysical powers.

That's also the reason for The Turk to fool people - they had a look into it and saw all those cogwheels and thought that if you managed to add enough parts to make the mechanism complex enough you could even build a machine that played chess. Most people surely didn't believe that there was a ghost inside the Turk (or a human being...).

That's what Spielmann is referring to (not exactly a 17th century clock but the concept behind it and later bigger machines (steam engines, etc.).

On the one hand, considering the relatively primitive machines at that time it may seem strange or even funny that people belived that but considering today's computers, etc. they were not completely mistaken to believe that you could improve upon a pure mechanism that much (some of them overshot the mark though).

<I can see the combinations as well as Alekhine, but I cannot get into the same positions. >

--- Spielmann

Can be said about KARPOV is his best days:

"En genial mästare och en ädel människa" låter som en beskrivning han förtjänar.

Spielmann is probably the strongest player buried in Sweden, there's also Ståhlberg who gets a higher ranking on all Chessmetrics lists but I'd place Spielmann ahead of him. The latter scored rather good results against Capablanca, Lasker, Alekhine and Rubinstein (+16 -22 =29 in career total against these four), and had several successful top tournaments.

Ståhlberg has a total of +3 -23 =22 against Alekhine, Euwe, Botvinnik, Smyslov, Tal, Petrosian and Spassky, and his tournament achievements with the top players present seem slightly weaker than Spielmann's.