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

Emanuel Lasker
Number of games in database: 1,173
Years covered: 1889 to 1940

Overall record: +380 -82 =176 (73.4%)*
   * Overall winning percentage = (wins+draws/2) / total games in the database. 535 exhibition games, blitz/rapid, odds games, etc. are excluded from this statistic.

With the White pieces:
 Ruy Lopez (189) 
    C68 C62 C66 C67 C64
 French Defense (84) 
    C11 C12 C13 C01 C10
 French (59) 
    C11 C12 C13 C10 C00
 King's Gambit Accepted (52) 
    C39 C33 C38 C37 C35
 Sicilian (49) 
    B45 B34 B40 B44 B32
 King's Gambit Declined (35) 
    C30 C31 C32
With the Black pieces:
 Ruy Lopez (110) 
    C65 C67 C66 C77 C80
 Orthodox Defense (50) 
    D53 D63 D52 D50 D60
 Giuoco Piano (31) 
    C50 C53 C54
 Queen's Pawn Game (30) 
    D00 D05 D02 D04 A46
 Sicilian (29) 
    B34 B73 B83 B45 B33
 Four Knights (21) 
    C49 C47 C48
Repertoire Explorer

NOTABLE GAMES: [what is this?]
   Lasker vs J Bauer, 1889 1-0
   Lasker vs Capablanca, 1914 1-0
   Pillsbury vs Lasker, 1896 0-1
   Lasker vs W Napier, 1904 1-0
   Marshall vs Lasker, 1907 0-1
   Euwe vs Lasker, 1934 0-1
   Lasker vs Steinitz, 1894 1-0
   Lasker vs Schlechter, 1910 1-0
   Tarrasch vs Lasker, 1908 0-1
   Steinitz vs Lasker, 1896 0-1

WORLD CHAMPIONSHIPS: [what is this?]
   Lasker - Steinitz World Championship (1894)
   Lasker - Steinitz World Championship Rematch (1896)
   Lasker - Marshall World Championship Match (1907)
   Lasker - Tarrasch World Championship Match (1908)
   Lasker - Janowski World Championship Match (1910)
   Lasker - Schlechter World Championship Match (1910)
   Lasker - Capablanca World Championship Match (1921)

NOTABLE TOURNAMENTS: [what is this?]
   Lasker - Bird (1890)
   Nuremberg (1896)
   Paris (1900)
   St. Petersburg 1895/96 (1895)
   London (1899)
   St. Petersburg (1914)
   Lasker - Janowski (1909)
   New York (1924)
   Maehrisch-Ostrau (1923)
   St. Petersburg (1909)
   Moscow (1925)
   Hastings (1895)
   Cambridge Springs (1904)
   Zurich (1934)
   Nottingham (1936)

GAME COLLECTIONS: [what is this?]
   Match Lasker! by amadeus
   -ER Lasker by fredthebear
   The Lion King by chocobonbon
   Why Lasker Matters by Andrew Soltis by keypusher
   Why Lasker Matters (Soltis) by Qindarka
   lasker best games by brager
   Selected Lasker by LaBourdonnaisdeux
   Lasker JNCC by chestofgold
   the informal Lasker by ughaibu
   All Hail Emanuel by iron maiden
   Treasure's Ark by Gottschalk
   World Champion - Lasker (I.Linder/V.Linder) by Qindarka
   World Champions A-Z part 2 Lasker by kevin86
   Lasker vs the World Champions Decisive Games by visayanbraindoctor

   Rubinstein vs Lasker, 1909
   Rubinstein vs Salwe, 1908
   Spielmann vs Rubinstein, 1909
   Tartakower vs Schlechter, 1909
   A Fritz vs J Mason, 1883

Search Sacrifice Explorer for Emanuel Lasker
Search Google for Emanuel Lasker

(born Dec-24-1868, died Jan-11-1941, 72 years old) Germany

[what is this?]

Emanuel Lasker was the second official World Chess Champion, reigning for a record 27 years after he defeated the first World Champion, Wilhelm Steinitz, in 1894.

Statistician Jeff Sonas of Chessmetrics writes, "if you look across players' entire careers, there is a significant amount of statistical evidence to support the claim that Emanuel Lasker was, in fact, the most dominant player of all time." By Sonas' reckoning, Lasker was the No. 1 player in the world for a total of 24.3 years between 1890 and 1926.


He was born (on the same date as Richard Teichmann) in what was then Berlinchen (literally "little Berlin") in Prussia, and which is now Barlinek in Poland. In 1880, he went to school in Berlin, where he lived with his older brother Berthold Lasker, who was studying medicine, and who taught him how to play chess. By Chessmetrics' analysis, Berthold was one of the world's top ten players in the early 1890s.


Soon after Lasker obtained his abitur in Landsberg an der Warthe, now a Polish town named Gorzow Wielkopolski, the teenager's first tournament success came when he won the Café Kaiserhof's annual Winter tournament 1888/89, winning all 20 games. Soon afterwards, he tied with Emil von Feyerfeil with 12/15 (+11 -2 =2) at the second division tournament of the sixth DSB Congress in Breslau, defeating von Feyerfeil in the one game play-off.* Also in 1889, he came second with 6/8 (+5 -1 =2) behind Amos Burn at the Amsterdam "A" (stronger) tournament, ahead of James Mason and Isidor Gunsberg, two of the strongest players of that time. In 1890 he finished third in Graz behind Gyula Makovetz and Johann Hermann Bauer, then shared first prize with his brother Berthold in a tournament in Berlin. In spring 1892, he won two tournaments in London, the second and stronger of these without losing a game. At New York 1893, he won all thirteen games, one of a small number of significant tournaments in history in which a player achieved a perfect score. Wikipedia article: List of world records in chess#Perfect tournament and match scores

After Lasker won the title, he answered his critics who considered that the title match was by an unproven player against an aging champion by being on the leader board in every tournament before World War I, including wins at St Petersburg in 1895-96, Nurenberg 1896, London 1899, Paris 1900 ahead of Harry Nelson Pillsbury (by two points with a score of +14 −1 =1), Trenton Falls 1906, and St Petersburg in 1914. He also came 3rd at Hastings 1895 (this relatively poor result possibly occurring during convalescence after nearly dying from typhoid fever), 2nd at Cambridge Springs in 1904, and =1st at the Chigorin Memorial tournament in St Petersburg in 1909. In 1918, a few months after the war, Lasker won a quadrangular tournament in Berlin against Akiba Rubinstein, Carl Schlechter and Siegbert Tarrasch.

After he lost the title in 1921, Lasker remained in the top rank of players, winning at Maehrisch-Ostrau (1923) ahead of Richard Reti, Ernst Gruenfeld, Alexey Sergeevich Selezniev, Savielly Tartakower, and Max Euwe. His last tournament win was at New York 1924, where he scored 80% and finished 1.5 points ahead of Jose Raul Capablanca, followed by Alexander Alekhine and Frank James Marshall. In 1925, he came 2nd at Moscow behind Efim Bogoljubov and ahead of Capablanca, Marshall, Tartakower, and Carlos Torre Repetto. There followed a long hiatus from chess caused by his intention to retire from the game, but he re-emerged in top-class chess in 1934, placing 5th in Zurich behind Alekhine, Euwe, Salomon Flohr and Bogoljubow and ahead of Ossip Bernstein, Aron Nimzowitsch, and Gideon Stahlberg. In Moscow in 1935, Lasker finished in an undefeated third place, a half point behind Mikhail Botvinnik and Flohr and ahead of Capablanca, Rudolf Spielmann, Ilia Abramovich Kan, Grigory Levenfish, Andre Lilienthal, and Viacheslav Ragozin. Reuben Fine hailed the 66-year-old Lasker's performance as "a biological miracle". In 1936, Lasker placed 6th in Moscow and finished his career later that year at Nottingham when he came =7th with 8.5/14 (+6 -3 =5), his last-round game being the following stylish win: Lasker vs C H Alexander, 1936.


Non-title matches 1889 saw his long career in match play commence, one which only ceased upon relinquishing his title in 1921. He won nearly of his matches, apart from a few drawn mini-matches, including a drawn one-game play-off match against his brother Berthold in Berlin in 1890, losing only exhibition matches with Mikhail Chigorin, Carl Schlechter and Marshall, and a knight-odds match against Nellie Showalter, Jackson Showalter's wife. In 1889, he defeated Curt von Bardeleben (+1 =2) and in 1889-90 he beat Jacques Mieses (+5 =3). In 1890, he defeated Henry Edward Bird (+7 -2 =3) and Nicholas Theodore Miniati (+3 =2 -0), and in 1891 he beat Francis Joseph Lee (+1 =1) and Berthold Englisch (+2 =3). 1892 and 1893 saw Lasker getting into his stride into the lead up to his title match with Steinitz, beating Bird a second time (5-0) Lasker - Bird (1892) , Joseph Henry Blackburne (+6 =4), Jackson Whipps Showalter (+6 -2 =2) and Celso Golmayo Zupide (+2 =1). In 1892, Lasker toured and played a series of mini-matches against leading players in the Manhattan, Brooklyn and Franklin Chess Clubs. At the Manhattan Chess Club, he played a series of three-game matches, defeating James Moore Hanham, Gustave Simonson, David Graham Baird, Charles B Isaacson, Albert Hodges, Eugene Delmar, John S Ryan and John Washington Baird of the 24 games he played against these players he won 21, losing one to Hodges and drawing one each with Simonson and Delmar. At the Brooklyn Chess Club, Lasker played two mini-matches of two games each, winning each game against Abel Edward Blackmar and William M De Visser, and drew the first game of an unfinished match against Philip Richardson. Lasker finished 1892 at the Franklin Chess Club by playing 5 mini-matches of two games each against its leading players, winning every game against Dionisio M Martinez, Alfred K Robinson, Gustavus Charles Reichhelm and Hermann G Voigt and drawing a match (+1 -1) with Walter Penn Shipley. Shipley offered cash bonuses if he could stipulate the openings and taking up the challenge, Lasker played the Two Knight's Defense and won in 38 moves, while in the second game, Shipley won as Black in 24 moves against Lasker playing the White end of a Vienna Gambit, Steinitz variation (Opening Explorer). Shipley, who counted both Lasker and Steinitz as his friends, was instrumental in arranging the Philadelphia leg of the Lasker-Steinitz match, that being games 9, 10 and 11. 29 years later, Shipley was also the referee of Lasker’s title match with Capablanca. In 1892-3, Lasker also played and won some other matches against lesser players including Andres Clemente Vazquez (3-0), A Ponce (first name Albert) (2-0) and Alfred K Ettlinger (5-0). Also in 1893, Mrs. Nellie Showalter, wife of Jackson Showalter and one of the leading women players in the USA, defeated Lasker 5-2 in a match receiving Knight odds.

These matches pushed Lasker to the forefront of chess, and after being refused a match by Tarrasch, he defeated Steinitz for the world title in 1894 after spreadeagling the field at New York 1893. While he was World Champion, Lasker played some non-title matches, the earliest of which was a six-game exhibition match against Chigorin in 1903 which he lost 2.5-3.5 (+1 -2 =3); the match was intended as a rigorous test of the Rice Gambit, which was the stipulated opening in each game. In the midst of his four title defenses that were held between 1907 and 1910, Lasker played and won what appears to have been a short training match against Abraham Speijer (+2 =1) in 1908. Also in 1908, he played another Rice Gambit-testing match, this time against Schlechter, again losing, this time by 1-4 (+0 =2 -3), apparently prompting a rethink of the Rice Gambit as a viable weapon.** In 1909 he drew a short match (2 wins 2 losses) against David Janowski and several months later they played a longer match that Lasker easily won (7 wins, 2 draws, 1 loss). Lasker accepted a return match and they played a title match in 1910 (details below). In 1914, he drew a 2 game exhibition match against Bernstein (+1 -1) and in 1916, he defeated Tarrasch in another, clearly non-title, match by 5.5-0.5. After Lasker lost his title in 1921, he is not known to have played another match until he lost a two-game exhibition match (=1 -1) against Marshall in 1940, a few months before he died. A match between Dr. Lasker and Dr. Vidmar had been planned for 1925, but it did not eventuate.***

World Championship matches The Lasker - Steinitz World Championship (1894) was played in New York, Philadelphia, and Montreal. Lasker won with 10 wins, 5 losses and 4 draws. Lasker also won the Lasker - Steinitz World Championship Rematch (1896), played in Moscow, with 10 wins, 2 losses, and 5 draws. At one stage when Rudolf Rezso Charousek ‘s star was in the ascendant, Lasker was convinced he would eventually play a title match with the Hungarian master; unfortunately, Charousek died from tuberculosis in 1900, aged 26, before this could happen. As it turned out, he did not play another World Championship for 11 years until the Lasker - Marshall World Championship Match (1907), which was played in New York, Philadelphia, Washington, Baltimore, Chicago, Memphis. Lasker won this easily, remaining undefeated with 8 wins and 7 draws.

After a prolonged period of somewhat strained relations due to Tarrasch’s refusal of Lasker’s offer for a match, Lasker accepted Tarrasch’s challenge for the title, and the Lasker - Tarrasch World Championship Match (1908) was played in Düsseldorf and Munich, with Lasker winning with 8 wins 3 losses and five draws. In 1910, Lasker came close to losing his title when he was trailing by a full point at the tenth and last game of the Lasker - Schlechter World Championship Match (1910) (the match being played in Vienna and Berlin); Schlechter held the advantage and could have drawn the game with ease on several occasions, however, he pursued a win, ultimately blundering a Queen endgame to relinquish his match lead and allow Lasker to retain the title. Some months later, the Lasker - Janowski World Championship Match (1910) - played in Berlin - was Lasker’s final successful defense of his title, winning with 8 wins and 3 draws.

In 1912 Lasker and Rubinstein, agreed to play a World Championship match in the fall of 1914 but the match was cancelled when World War I broke out. The war delayed all further title match negotiations until Lasker finally relinquished his title upon resigning from the Lasker - Capablanca World Championship Match (1921) in Havana while trailing by four games.

Life, legacy and testimonials

Lasker’s extended absences from chess were due to his pursuit of other activities, including mathematics and philosophy. He spent the last years of the 19th century writing his doctorate. Between 1902 and 1907, he played only at Cambridge Springs, using his time in the US. It was during this period that he introduced the notion of a primary ideal, which corresponds to an irreducible variety and plays a role similar to prime powers in the prime decomposition of an integer. He proved the primary decomposition theorem for an ideal of a polynomial ring in terms of primary ideals in a paper Zur Theorie der Moduln und Ideale published in volume 60 of Mathematische Annalen in 1905. A commutative ring R is now called a 'Lasker ring' if every ideal of R can be represented as an intersection of a finite number of primary ideals. Lasker's results on the decomposition of ideals into primary ideals was the foundation on which Emmy Noether built an abstract theory which developed ring theory into a major mathematical topic and provided the foundations of modern algebraic geometry. Noether's Idealtheorie in Ringbereichen (1921) was of fundamental importance in the development of modern algebra, generalising Lasker's results by giving the decomposition of ideals into intersections of primary ideals in any commutative ring with ascending chain condition.****

After Lasker lost his title, he spent a considerable amount of time playing bridge and intended to retire. However, he returned to chess in the mid-thirties as he needed to raise money after the Nazis had confiscated his properties and life savings. After the tournament in Moscow in 1936, the Laskers were encouraged to stay on and Emanuel accepted an invitation to become a member of the Moscow Academy of Science to pursue his mathematical studies, with both he and his wife, Martha, taking up permanent residence in Moscow. At this time, he also renounced his German citizenship and took on Soviet citizenship. Although Stalin's purges prompted the Laskers to migrate to the USA in 1937, it is unclear whether they ever renounced their Soviet citizenship.

Lasker was friends with Albert Einstein who wrote the introduction to the posthumous biography Emanuel Lasker, The Life of a Chess Master by Dr. Jacques Hannak (1952), writing: Emanuel Lasker was undoubtedly one of the most interesting people I came to know in my later years. We must be thankful to those who have penned the story of his life for this and succeeding generations. For there are few men who have had a warm interest in all the great human problems and at the same time kept their personality so uniquely independent.

Lasker published several chess books but as he was also a mathematician, games theorist, philosopher and even playwright, he published books in all these fields, except for the play which was performed on only one occasion. As a youth, his parents had recognised his potential and sent him to study in Berlin where he first learned to play serious chess. After he graduated from high school, he studied mathematics and philosophy at the universities in Berlin, Göttingen and Heidelberg. Lasker died in the Mount Sinai Hospital, New York in 1941, aged 72, and was buried in the Beth Olom Cemetery in Queens. He was survived by his wife and his sister, Lotta. On May 6, 2008, Dr. Lasker was among the first 40 German sportsmen to be elected into the "Hall of Fame des Deutschen Sports".


"It is not possible to learn much from him. One can only stand and wonder." - <Max Euwe> Euwe lost all three of his games against Lasker, the most lopsided result between any two world champions.

"My chess hero" - <Viktor Korchnoi>

"The greatest of the champions was, of course, Emanuel Lasker" - <Mikhail Tal>

"Lies and hypocrisy do not survive for long on the chessboard. The creative combination lies bare the presumption of a lie, while the merciless fact, culminating in a checkmate, contradicts the hypocrite." – <Emanuel Lasker>


* E von Feyerfeil vs Lasker, 1889** *** User: Karpova: Emanuel Lasker (kibitz #1449) ****

Sources: Article about Lasker by J J O'Connor and E F Robertson; Obituary from the Times of London:

Notes Lasker played on the following consultation chess teams Em. Lasker / MacDonnell, Lasker / Taubenhaus, Em. Lasker / Maroczy, Em. Lasker / I Rice, Em. Lasker / Barasz / Breyer, Lasker / Pillsbury, Lasker / Chigorin / Marshall / Teichmann, Emanuel Lasker / William Ward-Higgs, Emanuel Lasker / Heinrich Wolf, Emanuel Lasker / Hermann Keidanski & L Lasker Em / Lasek.

Wikipedia article: Emanuel Lasker

Last updated: 2017-05-31 19:52:26

 page 1 of 48; games 1-25 of 1,185  PGN Download
Game  ResultMoves YearEvent/LocaleOpening
1. J Mieses vs Lasker 0-1281889Berlin (Germany)A07 King's Indian Attack
2. Lasker vs Von Popiel 0-1211889Berlin gameC26 Vienna
3. A Reif vs Lasker 0-1131889Breslau Hauptturnier AA02 Bird's Opening
4. V Tietz vs Lasker 0-1401889Breslau Hauptturnier AC79 Ruy Lopez, Steinitz Defense Deferred
5. L Mabillis vs Lasker 0-1241889Hauptturnier Winners' GroupC60 Ruy Lopez
6. Lasker vs Lipke 1-0471889Hauptturnier Winners' GroupA07 King's Indian Attack
7. E von Feyerfeil vs Lasker 1-0421889Hauptturnier Winners' GroupC30 King's Gambit Declined
8. E von Feyerfeil vs Lasker 0-1471889Hauptturnier play-offD00 Queen's Pawn Game
9. Lasker vs A van Foreest 1-0501889AmsterdamA04 Reti Opening
10. Lasker vs J Bauer 1-0381889AmsterdamA03 Bird's Opening
11. Loman vs Lasker 0-1221889AmsterdamC79 Ruy Lopez, Steinitz Defense Deferred
12. R Leather vs Lasker 0-1561889AmsterdamA07 King's Indian Attack
13. L Van Vliet vs Lasker 1-0241889AmsterdamC41 Philidor Defense
14. Gunsberg vs Lasker 0-1351889AmsterdamC65 Ruy Lopez, Berlin Defense
15. Lasker vs J Mason ½-½381889AmsterdamC46 Three Knights
16. Lasker vs Burn ½-½151889AmsterdamC01 French, Exchange
17. Von Bardeleben vs Lasker ½-½271889Lasker - Bardeleben mD50 Queen's Gambit Declined
18. Lasker vs Von Bardeleben 1-0471889Lasker - Bardeleben mB06 Robatsch
19. Von Bardeleben vs Lasker 1-0501889Lasker - Bardeleben mA07 King's Indian Attack
20. Lasker vs J Mieses 1-0371889Lasker - Mieses 1889/90A80 Dutch
21. J Mieses vs Lasker ½-½601889Lasker - Mieses 1889/90A07 King's Indian Attack
22. Lasker vs J Mieses ½-½701890Lasker - Mieses 1889/90D21 Queen's Gambit Accepted
23. J Mieses vs Lasker 0-1431890Lasker - Mieses 1889/90A07 King's Indian Attack
24. J Mieses vs Lasker ½-½331890Lasker - Mieses 1889/90A07 King's Indian Attack
25. Lasker vs J Mieses 1-0301890Lasker - Mieses 1889/90D02 Queen's Pawn Game
 page 1 of 48; games 1-25 of 1,185  PGN Download
  REFINE SEARCH:   White wins (1-0) | Black wins (0-1) | Draws (1/2-1/2) | Lasker wins | Lasker loses  

Kibitzer's Corner
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 50 OF 88 ·  Later Kibitzing>
Premium Chessgames Member
  chancho: If there was a 2 game margin stipulated in the contract (to win the title) why didn't Schlechter say anything about it years after the fact?

(he died in 1918 as most people know)

Given such an unfair condition in a championship match, would Schlechter make himself complicit to something so detrimental to him?

Wasn't Schlechter known as a gentleman?

Surely Schlechter would have wanted people to know the details in all their entirety.

Jun-06-11  bronkenstein: <Wasn't Schlechter known as a gentleman?>

He was , and that gives you the answer to all of your questions .

And BTW he hinted about the clause few times AFAIK , there are details on that in his russian biography , unfortunatelly I dont have the book here to quote names , years and sources precisely .

Premium Chessgames Member
  Phony Benoni: There seems to be no doubt that both players were going for a win in the last game. However, one of them must have been acting "irrationally", since depending on the match clauses he would need only a draw to win or retain the title.

In light of that, it seems odd to base the idea of a two-point clause on Schlechter's puzzling action when such a clause meant that Lasker was behaving just as irrationallly.

Jun-06-11  bronkenstein: <such a clause meant that Lasker was behaving just as irrationallly>

Lasker would have to reveal the details of the contract in case of the draw , assuming the clause ... something he kept secret until his death , for some reason... And he was not even remotedly close to being lost @ any point during the game , as later analysis have confirmed , while Schlechter was =)

To be more specific:

<All the moves of the game were inserted into the engine before evaluation was commenced. Once the moves were inputted, each move was subject to a minimum of 16 ply (usually more, often much more)...>

<...One thing is crystal clear, however, and that is that Schlechter <did not succeed in gaining the advantage in any material or dynamic sense> - he did not miss any winning moves <as there were none>...>

And especially <Objectively speaking, Schlechter’s largest advantage, if it could be called that, was at <35. Rc4> when he held an engine evaluated advantage of =-0.22.

Lasker, however, missed several wins and only actually won the game when Schlechter threw himself on his sword with <64…Qc7>, allowing an easily foreseeable exchange of queens and an easily won ending.>

Just few details from page 6 of Lasker vs Schlechter, 1910 .

Premium Chessgames Member
  chancho: Schlechter wins game five and goes into draw mode for 4 straight games. If he needed a two game margin in order to win the title, then 4 draws in a row was not the way towards achieving his objective. In one of the NY Times link it mentions that Schlechter "bent his energies" towards getting a draw in the eighth game. In the other link, it says of the the ninth game: he (Schlechter) played with such care and precision that Lasker could not catch him unawares. Why play all out only in the tenth game, when he could have tried for the second win in games 6, 7, 8, or 9 (?)
Jun-06-11  bronkenstein: It wasn´t Schlechter´s perception of the game , chancho , but some random paperman´s . And playing sharp for the win was not his forte anyway ... game 10 illustrated it excellently.

Additionally , game 10 was percieved (and commented ) as Schlechter´s missed chance for a full point , reality was nowhere close to that.

Premium Chessgames Member
  chancho: <bronkenstein> I'm not convinced there was a two game clause.

Why would Schlechter sign a contract for something like that?

And why would Lasker write he might lose his championship if all he needed to do was hold Schlechter to draws the rest of the way?

The tenth game lasted 71 moves and three days...if Lasker needed a draw to retain his title, why push for the win?

You say Schlechter mentioned the clause in some Russian book, maybe someone can provide the quotes in question.

Jun-06-11  bronkenstein: <I'm not convinced there was a two game clause.> Neither am I , no smoking gun , we are left to speculations and opinions.

<Why would Schlechter sign a contract for something like that?> He wasn´t the one to dictate :) WC shot , or go home. Remember that they started to negotiate 30 game match , then it went to 15 , then to 10 BTW.And I agree that 2games clause , against the strongest player in the world , during only 10 games , was suicide . It prolly left from 30-15-10 process , and is simple and very strong argument against ˝+2 hypothesis˝.

<And why would Lasker write he might lose his championship if all he needed to do was hold Schlechter to draws the rest of the way?> He still didn´t have his title secured @ that moment , in both cases , w or w/o the clause.

<if Lasker needed a draw to retain his title, why push for the win? > I covered it already , remember : <Lasker would have to reveal the details of the contract in case of the draw , assuming the clause>. It would be very unpleasant situation for ˝The champion˝.

And on Schlechter´s hint(s) , it was not more than that .

Nor it could be because , IMO , he was torn apart between his given word and dignity , and natural , burning desire to explain himself to his friends .

Just few more words to illustrate his character , and the time he lived in.

<Schlechter died of pneumonia and starvation on 27 December 1918> (wiki) because he was too dignified to beg or even ask for food in war Wienna . He was living in poverty only with his old mother , and one of reasons for his death was uncured TBC . Once he was visited by his friends , and after few minutes they concluded that he hasn´t been eating for days , while he pretended that everything is ok , trying to act normally . They grabbed him by the hand and brought somewhere he could have few bites .

Just for further illustration of the economical situation @ the monarchy , somewhere around that time , the tournament was held ( was it Wienna ? ) which had few pounds of butter as first prize (!).

And again on Schlechter´s personality ,<He was a typical example of a gentleman chess player of old, offering courteous draws to opponents who felt unwell. If his opponent arrived late for a game, Schlechter would inconspicuously subtract an equal amount of time from his own clock. He also mentored many of his rivals, including Oldřich Duras.> (wiki). He was too sensitive and too kind for the cruel times he found himself in.

Jun-06-11  bronkenstein: And , since I don´t like sourcelessness , few words on the mysterious Russian book on Schlechter , and how I got to read it.

Last year , while playing a league, my opponent didn´t appear . We were guests @ that club , and I had few hours to waste , so I checked their library , finding , to my pleasant surprise , the mentioned biography there.

All the info in my previous post is mixture of wiki and things that I have read in that book , the way I remember them .

Jun-06-11  drik: <bronkenstein: <I'm not convinced there was a two game clause.> Neither am I , no smoking gun , we are left to speculations and opinions.> That's exactly how I feel.

<chancho: If there was a 2 game...Wasn't Schlechter known as a gentleman?>

At that time; when a gentlemen gave his word on confidentiality, he had to keep it regardless. <Bronkstein> has already answered you; better than I could; on most of your points - but three facts:

(i) We know that the 2 game margin stipulation was there for the original 30 game match against Schlechter (& also for the proposed challenge by Capablanca!).

(ii) We have no proof it was ever removed for the shortened match against Schlechter.

(iii) The conditions of the shortened match were kept secret at Lasker's insistence - unlike those of the longer match.

Infer what you may.

BTW Schlechter died in 1918, so discounting the war years he had barely 4 years to set the records straight. Lasker died in 1941, giving him 2 extra decades to clear himself of these published accusations. He did not. Again, infer what you may.

Premium Chessgames Member
  keypusher: <drik>

<We know that the 2 game margin stipulation was there for the original 30 game match against Schlechter>


<BTW Schlechter died in 1918, so discounting the war years he had barely 4 years to set the records straight.>

Is that supposed to be a joke?

Premium Chessgames Member
  keypusher: <(iii) The conditions of the shortened match were kept secret at Lasker's insistence - unlike those of the longer match.>

What are you talking about?

Premium Chessgames Member
  keypusher: <Lasker died in 1941, giving him 2 extra decades to clear himself of these published accusations. He did not. Again, infer what you may.>

He said on several occasions the match was for the title and that Schlechter would have won the match had he not lost the last game.

Premium Chessgames Member
  chancho: <He wasn´t the one to dictate :)>

Negotitations have fallen in matches because of disagreements by one or both parties. Why would an intelligent man like Schlechter allow himself to be snared into a disadvantage like a two game margin?

<At that time; when a gentlemen gave his word on confidentiality, he had to keep it regardless.>

It seems to me a gentleman like Schlechter would try to do what was right for himself. Getting involved in something that was unfavorable for him and adding the extra step of keeping it secret for 8 years is bizarre. There was no honor in hiding a deception of that sort.

<Lasker would have to reveal the details of the contract in case of the draw, assuming the clause. It would be very unpleasant situation for ˝The champion˝.>

Lasker going to the trouble to write that he might lose the title in order to hide the match conditions of the contract sounds way too fantastic to be true. He did not have to write it. And consider this: In the tenth game if Lasker had not won, and Schlechter held it to a draw. The spectacle of Lasker losing a match and still being the Champion would have wrought forth questions from the public as to why this was so. Imagine the public reaction! I imagine it would have been so unpleasant as to cost Lasker his reputiation.

<Remember that they started to negotiate 30 game match , then it went to 15 , then to 10 BTW.>

I thought the reason the match dropped to ten games was due to lack of funds.

<BTW Schlechter died in 1918, so discounting the war years he had barely 4 years to set the records straight.>

Lasker and Schlechter met and played twice in Berlin 1918: search "emanuel lasker v Schlechter 1918"

Probably as good a time as any to make known what happened in their match of 1910. Schlechter was a good man, but he was no Saint.
If he had been wronged, I imagine he would have made it known to someone at some point in the 8 years after the match.

Jun-06-11  ughaibu: Is there any, I mean ANY, serious reason to think that there was a two point condition?
Jun-06-11  BobCrisp: Not really not but these things take on a life of their own.
Jun-06-11  bronkenstein: Is there any , I mean ANY , serious reason to think that there was not a two point condition?

Meantime , when I put my hands on that bio in few days , we will have more stuff to troll on =)

Jun-06-11  bronkenstein: <It is now generally accepted that Schlechter needed to score +2 win the match and thus he needed to win the tenth game> wikipedia.
Premium Chessgames Member
  chancho: <That last and truly sensational game certainly was uncommonly "wild" in many ways and on both sides. It is all very well to say that Lasker, by dint of his dominating personality and shrewd psychology, forced his opponent to step out of character, as it were, and for once to throw caution to the winds and to wrestle with him on that narrow edge of the precipice where ultimately the stronger character, the harder will power, the steadier nerves would prevail. To some extent, all this is quite true: but in fairness to Schlechter's noble character it should be added that in that one game that he was not unwilling to be dragged into adventures uncongenial to his character and style. He too wanted to avoid a draw. He did not want to win the match on the strength of Lasker's unlucky slip in the fifth game. He was loath to win the World Championship 'by a fluke'. He wished to earn the title the hard way, and in trying his hardest to do so, this frail amiable Viennese put up a truly heroic fight.> Dr Jacques Hannak, Emanuel Lasker The Life Of A Chess Master pg 152.
Premium Chessgames Member
  keypusher: <bronkenstein: <It is now generally accepted that Schlechter needed to score +2 win the match and thus he needed to win the tenth game> wikipedia.>

As can be seen on this page, it is <not> now generally accepted.

Also, wikipedia is not a source, though sometimes it cites sources. Is it citing a source here?

Jun-06-11  ughaibu: outranks Wikipedia on chess questions. Quoting it is pointless.
Jun-06-11  bronkenstein: Wiki is just plain wrong on few points about Schlechter (for example , his 'missed victory' in 10th game , as prooven here ie on the very gamepage) , I didn't use the quote to definitely proove anything , since it is , as we already know , impossible .

I just wanted to make the counterpunkt to Hannak's romantic and passionate trip from Chanch's post (which moved downwards mysteriously while I was typing ... CG trips or Ch deleted/reposted it for some reason) and remind ughaiby that things are not so obvious as they might look @ first glance.

Premium Chessgames Member
  chancho: <brokenstein> My apologies for that. I have this habit of trying to correct misspellings whenever I see them. I missed correcting <reputiation> in one of the posts. Spelled: <reputation> of course. :-/
Jun-06-11  bronkenstein: Np <chancho>, I am the last one to act as a grammar police here (argumentless people tend to behave that way ;) ... Anyway , I would have to arrest myself first =)
Jun-06-11  drik: <keypusher: <drik> <We know that the 2 game margin stipulation was there for the original 30 game match against Schlechter>


"the champion had committed himself in 1909 to defending his title against Schlechter, but that the original plan had been for thirty games in half a dozen cities, in which the Austrian would have been required to score two more wins than Lasker to become champion. Due to the lack of outside interest in such a match, finance was not forthcoming for such a marathon and it was scaled back first to fifteen games and then to ten."

Ken Whyld explained in World Chess Champions (Pergamon Press 1981).

<<BTW Schlechter died in 1918, so discounting the war years he had barely 4 years to set the records straight.>

Is that supposed to be a joke?>

People sometimes break confidence if they outlive the other party ... or if sufficient time has passed. Eight years is probably not long enough for a gentlemen to justify breaking his word.

I'm just saying that they was a lot of suspicion & controversy regarding this match ... you are not even willing to cede that much.

Jump to page #   (enter # from 1 to 88)
search thread:   
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 50 OF 88 ·  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 player 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, its employees, or sponsors.
Spot an error? Please suggest your correction and help us eliminate database mistakes!

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 2001-2018, Chessgames Services LLC