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

  WCC Overview
Lasker vs Schlechter 1910
Vienna and Berlin

Carl Schlechter was born in Vienna, Austria in 1874. He became one of the strongest chessplayers in the world in the late 1890s.[1] Schlechter shared 1st with Harry Nelson Pillsbury at Munich (1900), won both Vienna (1904) and the huge Ostend (1906) tournament, and shared 1st at both Vienna (1908) and Prague (1908).

 Schlechter vs Lasker, 1910
 Schlechter and Lasker ready for game #1
Theodor Gerbec wrote of Schlechter that "Apart from the reputation of being the greatest defensive player of all times, his attacking conduct was famous for an almost undefinable grace and method," [2] and Richard Reti said "His games stand out through their breadth of scheme — just as in the forest the trunks of trees and their branches stretch themselves out on all sides wherever there are open spaces: thus did Schlechter develop his forces; forcibly and, like Nature as it were, objectless. No hidden places and traps were there, but only sound development. With him was no undue haste and no pinning himself down to one idea, but one harmonious evolution" [3] In 1906, world champion Emanuel Lasker acknowledged Schlechter's aptitude to play for the crown, but observed that Schlechter had "so little of the devil about him that he could not be moved to take anything coveted by somebody else."[4]

Following his tournament successes, Schlechter travelled to Berlin in November 1908 and challenged Lasker to a title match. The world champion accepted, and they issued a joint statement on December 3, stating that the match would last 30 games, the winner would need a +2 score and the match would take place at the end of 1909.[5] Further negotiations led to an announcement on September 15, 1909, that the match would be played in December 1909 or January, February or March 1910 and would be public.[6] Schlechter biographer Warren Goldman reports that "...conditions governing the truncated contest in 1910 were never published so far as the author has been able to determine as of 1994," but goes on to note that the "Deutsches Wochenschach put the matter thusly: the victor would be the one who scored the majority of the games, and if necessary the referee would decide the title."[7] According to the Pester Lloyd,[8] the conditions were as follows: ten games were to be played, five in Vienna and five in Berlin. Whoever won the most games would be the winner, with draws counting a ½ point. The size of the winner's prize would depend on the number of subscriptions. In addition, the Vienna Chess Club donated 3,000 Austro-Hungarian Kronen to the purse, and the Berlin Chess Society added another 2,000 Marks. Emanuel Lasker held the copyright for the game scores.

On January 7, 1910 the world championship match began in the Vienna Chess Club with many celebrities present. Georg Marco was the match director, and the seconds were Hugo Faehndrich, Siegmund Pollak and Eduard Stiaßny.[9] Usually, the games began at 5 pm and lasted until 8 pm. After a break of 1 ½ hours, play was resumed until 11 pm and then adjourned if necessary.[10] The time control was 15 moves per hour.[11] On January 8, Lasker took a rest day.[10] After the third game, play was relocated to the Café Marienbrücke for games 4 and 5, with Faehndrich becoming the match director and Pollak and Nikolaus Doery von Jobahaza serving as seconds.[12] Game 4 was played in public with a fee of two Kronen for a day ticket and 10 Kronen for booked seats.[13] According to Lasker, this innovative event was a great success and drew many spectators.[13] The 1st leg of the match ended after the 5th game, which the challenger won after four draws.[12]

After four rest days, the 2nd leg began on January 29 in the Hotel de Rome in Berlin.[14] Lasker was held to draws in games 6 and 7. He reported that about 400 spectators were present during the resumption of game 7, crowded around the masters' board or analyzing on their own boards.[15] Additionally, Semion Alapin commented on the game in a separate room.[15] Lasker was also held to draws in games 8 and 9, and had only one chance left to defend his title, having the white pieces in game 10.[14] The game lasted 3 days and more than 11 hours. Although a draw would have sufficed for a match victory,[16,17] Schlechter played actively and got a promising position. But while playing for a win instead of a draw, he drifted into a worse position and Lasker finally converted his advantage after an arduous struggle. Lasker called the win in game 5 fortunate and said that Schlechter had wanted to add a second win in the final games of the match.[11] Schlechter remarked that he hadn't wanted to "play for a draw" in the last game.[18] Tournament director Alfred Ehrhardt Post declared the match drawn (+1 -1 =8), and rapturous applause ensued.[19] Both contestants shook hands.[19] Lasker retained his title, but Schlechter hadn't been beaten.

click on a game number to replay game 12345678910

FINAL SCORE:  Lasker 5;  Schlechter 5
Reference: game collection WCC Index [Lasker-Schlechter 1910]

NOTABLE GAMES   [what is this?]
    · Game #10     Lasker vs Schlechter, 1910     1-0
    · Game #5     Schlechter vs Lasker, 1910     1-0
    · Game #7     Schlechter vs Lasker, 1910     1/2-1/2


  1. Rod Edwards, Carl Schlechter
  2. Wiener Schachzeitung, December 1928, p. 370. In ANNO / Österreichische Nationalbibliothek
  3. Richard Réti, Modern Ideas in Chess, Hardinge Simpole, 2002, pp. 82-83
  4. Emanuel Lasker, Lasker's Chess Magazine, January 1906, p. 126
  5. Wiener Schachzeitung, December 1908, p. 376. In ANNO / Österreichische Nationalbibliothek
  6. Wiener Schachzeitung, September 1909, p. 315. In ANNO / Österreichische Nationalbibliothek
  7. Warren Goldman, Carl Schlechter! Life and Times of the Austrian Chess Wizard, Caissa Editions, 1994, pp. 400-401
  8. Pester Lloyd, 8 January 1910, p. 6. In ANNO / Österreichische Nationalbibliothek
  9. Our sources do not indicate who was whose second, and we assume that the seconds' role was restricted to administrative tasks mainly. Emanuel Lasker mentioned in the Pester Lloyd (see source 8) that the seconds drew the lot to decide who got the white pieces in game 1.
  10. Wiener Schachzeitung, January 1910, pp. 1-5. In ANNO / Österreichische Nationalbibliothek
  11. Emanuel Lasker, Ost und West, March 1910, pp. 171-176. In Compact Memory - Organ der Deutschen Conferenz-Gemeinschaft der Alliance Israélite Universelle Organ der Alliance Israélite Universelle
  12. Wiener Schachzeitung, February-March 1910, pp. 58-78. In ANNO / Österreichische Nationalbibliothek
  13. Emanuel Lasker, Pester Lloyd, 19 January 1910, p. 7. In ANNO / Österreichische Nationalbibliothek
  14. Wiener Schachzeitung, February-March 1910, pp. 78-95. In ANNO / Österreichische Nationalbibliothek
  15. Emanuel Lasker, Pester Lloyd, 4 February 1910, p. 6. In ANNO / Österreichische Nationalbibliothek
  16. Wiener Schachzeitung, February-March 1910, pp. 92-94. In ANNO / Österreichische Nationalbibliothek
  17. Since the final conditions for the match have never been published, there are rumors that Schlechter had to win the match by a score of +2 to become world champion. A +2 clause existed in the conditions issued by both players on 3 December 1908 (source 5). In addition, when communicating his terms to his challenger Jose Raul Capablanca in The Evening Post of 22 November 1911, the second clause determined that if the match ended with the scores 1:0, 2:1 or 3:2, the match was to be declared drawn (reproduced in Edward G Winter, Capablanca: a compendium of games, notes, articles, correspondence, illustrations and other rare materials on the Cuban chess genius José Raúl Capablanca, 1888-1942 (McFarland 1989), p.56). After Capablanca's protest, Lasker explained that a difference of one point was very slight and that the rule was directed against the hopes of nursing a one point lead to match victory by drawing the rest of the games. A score of 4:3 with 23 draws would establish proof of severe fighting and suffice for a match win (clause 2, reproduced in Winter, Capablanca, p.60). In both cases, with explicit +2 clauses demanded, the matches could last up to 30 games. The present match consisted of 10 games only, which makes a comparison doubtful. We know of no contemporaneous source claiming that there was a +2 clause in effect in the actual world championship match, except for one: Richard Forster quoted a report in the Basler Nachrichten of 20 February 1910 in C.N. 4144 by Walter Preiswerk, who was in Leipzig at that time. Preiswerk claims that Schlechter, instead of becoming world champion by drawing the tenth game, would have had to play a rematch regardless of the financing in that case. Both chessplayers, also excellent businessmen, didn't like this prospect. Winter notes that it is difficult to know quite what to make of this commentary. In C.N.s 7109 and 8222, Winter shows examples of how the alleged +2 clause is usually introduced in books, by referring to the conditions without mentioning the sources and although the final conditions have so far not been found published anywhere (Winter). An example of this type of claim is given by Garry Kasparov, who simply states that However, to all appearances, one of the points stated that to win the title the challenger had to gain an advantage of two points, and that if Schlechter were to win by one point (5½-4½) the match would be declared... drawn. (Garry Kasparov, On My Great Predecessors Part I, 2003, Everyman, p.173) and presenting the speculation as an established fact later (Kasparov, p.177). Winter presents a list of items on this controversial question in C.N. 7109 for everyone who is further interested in the topic. When researching the matter, we found no indication that such a clause existed. Neither Schlechter, nor Lasker explain the challenger's enterprising play in game 10 by a +2 clause (sources 11 and 18). The annotators of game 10 also don't mention it (source 16), and source 8 noted that the winner would be he who scored the most points. Still, as long as the final conditions are not known, this matter remains open for debate.
  18. Carl Schlechter, Allgemeine Sport-Zeitung, 27 February 1910, p. 219. In ANNO / Österreichische Nationalbibliothek
  19. Emanuel Lasker, Pester Lloyd, 12 February 1910, p. 20. In ANNO / Österreichische Nationalbibliothek

 page 1 of 1; 10 games  PGN Download 
Game  ResultMoves YearEvent/LocaleOpening
1. Schlechter vs Lasker ½-½691910Lasker - Schlechter World Championship MatchC66 Ruy Lopez
2. Lasker vs Schlechter ½-½351910Lasker - Schlechter World Championship MatchC80 Ruy Lopez, Open
3. Schlechter vs Lasker ½-½311910Lasker - Schlechter World Championship MatchC66 Ruy Lopez
4. Lasker vs Schlechter ½-½561910Lasker - Schlechter World Championship MatchC80 Ruy Lopez, Open
5. Schlechter vs Lasker 1-0581910Lasker - Schlechter World Championship MatchC66 Ruy Lopez
6. Lasker vs Schlechter ½-½471910Lasker - Schlechter World Championship MatchC80 Ruy Lopez, Open
7. Schlechter vs Lasker ½-½481910Lasker - Schlechter World Championship MatchB32 Sicilian
8. Lasker vs Schlechter ½-½431910Lasker - Schlechter World Championship MatchC80 Ruy Lopez, Open
9. Schlechter vs Lasker ½-½651910Lasker - Schlechter World Championship MatchB33 Sicilian
10. Lasker vs Schlechter 1-0711910Lasker - Schlechter World Championship MatchD11 Queen's Gambit Declined Slav
  REFINE SEARCH:   White wins (1-0) | Black wins (0-1) | Draws (1/2-1/2)  

Kibitzer's Corner
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 5 OF 5 ·  Later Kibitzing>
Jul-15-10  TheFocus: Actually, Schlechter died of pneumonia brought on by his weakened condition from an lack of food. I am not trying to cut straws here. If there had been enough food in Europe, he might have lived. Schlechter also supported his Mother. I wonder how she fared?
Premium Chessgames Member
  keypusher: <dmillergp: I think part of the reason Schleter played for the win in game 10, and something people forget about, this match was played for a high amount of money, and for a man like Schleter, who ended up dying of starvation, money was short so this was a big deal>

Things were a lot better in 1910 for Schlechter (and millions of other people in Central Europe) than they were at the end of the Great War.

In his Lasker book Soltis dubbed Schlechter the hardest-working man in chess, editing magazines, writing openings books, and maintaining a killer tournament and match schedule.

Jul-16-10  ughaibu: 1) it's pretty much a cliche that the easiest way to lose, is to play for a draw. Schlechter, I expect, was aware of this.

2) I think the simplest explanation for Schlechter's play is that he thought he was making the best moves.

Jul-16-10  Petrosianic: <something people forget about, this match was played for a high amount of money,>

We forget about it because it's irrelevant. The prize fund wasn't pro-rated by score. A 6-4 victory wouldn't have paid any better than a 5½-4½ victory would have. UNLESS that elusive 2-point clause existed. but if it did, there's no mystery about why he played so hard.

May-22-11  Adriano Saldanha: Games 1-5 took place in Vienna.
Games 6-10 took place in Berlin.

Here an extract from both games 5 and 6:

FIFTH GAME - Ruy Lopez - Here Schlechter chose a better continuation against the same defence, as in the first and third games. Lasker courted the exchange of pieces, relying on his superlative skill in the end-game. But Schlechter met the champion on his own ground, and playing in masterly style, scored the first victory in the match. This game closed the Vienna series, the net result of which showed Shlecter in a highly favourable light. Not only had he registered the only won game, but he had troubled Lasker in the majority of the drawn games, and the honours of the series were largely in his favour.

SIXTH GAME - Ruy Lopez - The first game of the Berlin series, interest in the news from Vienna, that Schlechter held the big advantage of 1 to 0 and 4 draws. Hence the latter half of the match worthily upheld the interest of the former. In this game Schlechter again utilised the recognised defence to the variation hitherto played by Lasker. Exchanges in passing from the opening to the close of the middle game left Lasker with a Pawn ahead for the ending. Here again he was unable to utilise his skill in the end-game to appreciable advantage, and Schlechter was able to draw an instructive ending.


Oct-23-11  visayanbraindoctor: For an analysis of all the games of this match, please go to User: bridgeburner and User: game mapping project,

part of a project to determine and compare the error rates of key World Championship matches.

Oct-23-11  visayanbraindoctor: The analysis in the project referred to above indicate that Lasker and Schlechter were playing about the same quality (in terms of the ability to avoid errors) of chess as Kramnik in the Anand-Kramnik World Championship Match (2008); and that Anand was playing just a tad better than Kramnik, Lasker and Schlechter.
Premium Chessgames Member
  blazerdoodle: I'd like to see the original in German, of course. I can have it read to me by friends.
Jan-29-13  LastDaysofSaloFlohr: Maybe if his mother had named him Hannibal he would have had the requisite killer instinct to finish Lasker off. (Geddit?)

Anyway, back to sobriety - I read Thomas Glavinic's novel based on Schlechter - <Carl Haffner's Love of the Draw.> An interesting and entertaining read but that's all.

One of the previous kibitzers noted that Lasker and Schlechter had both written annotations to (most of) the match games - where could I find these? Have they been translated into English?

The controversy about the conditions for the match - did Schlechter need to win by two points? - is perhaps something that could be settled by a thorough scholar looking through the archives (assuming they weren't destroyed during WWII.) What about contemporary reports in the newspapers or chess magazines? I'm sure they've been researched but you never know.

I don't believe e.g. that Schlechter felt bad about winning game #5 - Capablanca had some nerve to call it a "fluke" (if he did write that.) It was a tremendous struggle and yes, Lasker should have won but it was extremely complicated. Dvoretsky (and other annotators) looks at the game in great detail in his Analytical Manual. In Lasker the human element was very important; certain players (Schlechter and Rubinstein) perhaps neglected this aspect in favour of strict objectivity and their games are all the better for it. But Lasker wasn't World Champion for over twenty five years for nothing.

Apr-30-14  Karpova: Dr. Emanuel Lasker (Berlin, January 29, 1910):

<Ich habe in Schlechter eine neue Spielweise zu bekämpfen; mit Schwierigkeit habe ich die richtige Strategie entdeckt, bin aber gerade dann unglücklich gewesen. In der fünften Partie schien mir der Sieg bereits sicher, als ich den entscheidenden Fehler beging. Es wäre nicht so gekommen, hätte Schlechter mich nicht durch Ausnützung jeder gebotenen Gelegenheit ermüdet, und es hätte auch so leicht anders kommen können. In der Theorie bin ich im Vorteil geblieben, wenn mir auch die Praxis unrecht gegeben hat.>

In Schlechter, I have to fight a new way of playing; with difficulty I discovered the correct strategy, but was unfortunate right then. In the fifth game, my victory appeared already safe, when I committed the decisive mistake. This wouldn't have occurred, hadn't Schlechter tired me through capitalising on every given opportunity, and that way it could also have easily been otherwise*. In theory I kept my advantage, but practice proved me wrong.)

Source: 'Pester Lloyd', 1910.01.31, p. 5

* I hope this is clear. I guess that with this last part of the sentence, Lasker wants to say that even with schlechter tiring him, he may not have committed the mistake, i. e. that the blunder was not an inevitable.

Premium Chessgames Member
  Richard Taylor: < ughaibu: 1) it's pretty much a cliche that the easiest way to lose, is to play for a draw. Schlechter, I expect, was aware of this. 2) I think the simplest explanation for Schlechter's play is that he thought he was making the best moves. >

Yes and no. Schlecter didn't really want to be seen as playing weak chess but also both of them wanted to "mix it up" hence this particular game has errors, but the errors are all understandable and happen even today in real chess conditions. This game I think Schlecter had to draw although it is unclear what the exact match conditions were. I played all the games and they are excellent. Schlecter and Lasker played interesting and spirited chess. No question of dull draws at all. Schlecter played possibly his best chess. Sad his end, but Lasker also didn't fare as well as he might have.

They were both two of the greatest players.



Apr-12-16  The Kings Domain: Impressive performance by Schlechter. It's too bad practicality wasn't foremost in his mind as he could have had the proud distinction of ending Lasker's long reign by then and winning the championship at his peak.
Apr-12-16  Howard: But, Petrosianic, if Schlecter had become world champion in 1910, do you think he would have died of starvation, in 1918 ?

Possible, but not likely.

Apr-12-16  Lambda: If Schlechter had won, I expect he'd have felt obliged to offer Lasker a rematch, and Lasker would probably win that.
Premium Chessgames Member
  MissScarlett: Linlithgowshire Gazette, August 26th 1910, p.3:

<Mr. A. L. Stevenson send to "Cheltenham Examiner" the following readable extracts:-


[From an article by Lasker in the "Neue Freie Presse" for January 16th, 1910.]

"Schlechter has set us this new and quite up-to-date problem: - How is it possible to defeat the player who regards the promises of success and the threats of a dangerous-looking attack with equal coolness, thinks first and foremost of his own safety, and pursues this end with consumate science, and, if necessary, with the quickest wit and keenest scent? The answer to this question is at present unknown, but, theoretically, one may say with certainty that if the Schlechter tactics were combined with an opportune taking of the initiative, perfection of style would be attained, and Schlechter would be invincible.">

Premium Chessgames Member
  Telemus: There is a recent feature article by E.Winter, called "The Lasker v Schlechter Controversy (1910)" (see dealing with

<What were the conditions for the ten-game match in 1910 between Emanuel Lasker and Carl Schlechter? In particular, did Schlechter have to win by a two-point margin to gain the world title? Since 1982, a series of C.N. items has considered these matters and has examined the concluding game, which Lasker won.>

For some years now, I had the impression that Winter regarded the problem as unsolved and I think this is confimed by the article. Quite surprising!

Neither Winter nor his legion of expert contributors seem to have consulted the relevant primary sources. Instead a lot of secondary material is presented.

And it is even worse: it has been all been published already some years ago by one of Germany's best chess historians!

The English speaking audience may hope that the new Lasker volumes by Forster and Negele will eventually close the gap.

May-04-19  Boomie: <Telemus: Neither Winter nor his legion of expert contributors seem to have consulted the relevant primary sources.>

Which begs the question "What sources?" Please give links to these sources. CGers have searched in vain for a definitive answer.

May-05-19  Retireborn: <Boomie> Wolfgang Heidenfeld (who probably knew the sources that <Telemus> refers to) says that Schlechter played the last game in the same style as he played throughout the match.

The idea that he needed to win by two is a myth as far as I know.

May-05-19  Boomie: Larry Evans, who was not known for his historical accuracy, said that two days before the final game, Lasker clearly indicated that there was no 2 point clause. Unfortunately, none of the Sunday papers have been digitized and Feb. 6 was a Sunday. So if anyone can find the Feb. 6, 1910 copy of The Evening Post (NY), we could at least put Evans claim to rest.
Aug-14-20  Wanda Nida: [Event "WCC 1910, match drawn 5:5, Lasker was lucky & had white last game, defanding champion that keeps the title if match is drawn should not have white the last game. Was Schlechter screwed, did Lasker demanded 2 points win to relinquish crown? Schlechter should be rightly named co-champion until 1921. Lasker didnt defand his title for 11 years, that's totally unacceptable!!!"]

[Event "wcc"]
[Site "Berlin"]
[Date "1910.??.??"]
[Round "10"]
[Comments "Strange loss, Schlechter had easy draw, nerves?"] [White "Lasker Em"]
[Black "Schlechter C"]
[Result "1-0"]

1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. e3 g6 5. Nc3 Bg7 6. Bd3 O-O 7. Qc2 Na6 8. a3 dxc4 9. Bxc4 b5 10. Bd3 b4 11. Na4 bxa3 12. bxa3 Bb7 13. Rb1 Qc7 14. Ne5 Nh5 15. g4 Bxe5 16. gxh5 Bg7 17. hxg6 hxg6 18. Qc4 Bc8 19. Rg1 Qa5+ 20. Bd2 Qd5 21. Rc1 Bb7 22. Qc2 Qh5 23. Bxg6 Qxh2 24. Rf1 fxg6 25. Qb3+ Rf7 26. Qxb7 Raf8 27. Qb3 Kh8 28. f4 g5 29. Qd3 gxf4 30. exf4 Qh4+ 31. Ke2 Qh2+ 32. Rf2 Qh5+ 33. Rf3 Nc7 34. Rxc6 Nb5 35. Rc4 Rxf4 36. Bxf4 Rxf4 37. Rc8+ Bf8 38. Kf2 Qh2+ 39. Ke1 Qh1+ 40. Rf1 Qh4+ 41. Kd2 Rxf1 42. Qxf1 Qxd4+ 43. Qd3 Qf2+ 44. Kd1 Nd6 45. Rc5 Bh6 46. Rd5 Kg8 47. Nc5 Qg1+ 48. Kc2 Qf2+ 49. Kb3 Bg7 50. Ne6 Qb2+ 51. Ka4 Kf7 52. Nxg7 Qxg7 53. Qb3 Ke8 54. Qb8+ Kf7 55. Qxa7 Qg4+ 56. Qd4 Qd7+ 57. Kb3 Qb7+ 58. Ka2 Qc6 59. Qd3 Ke6 60. Rg5 Kd7 61. Re5 Qg2+ 62. Re2 Qg4 63. Rd2 Qa4 64. Qf5+ Kc7 65. Qc2+ Qxc2+ 66. Rxc2+ Kb7 67. Re2 Nc8 68. Kb3 Kc6 69. Rc2+ Kb7 70. Kb4 Na7 71. Kc5 Kc8 72. Kb6+ Kb8 73. Rc7 Nc8+ 74. Kc6 Na7+ 75. Kd7 Nb5 76. Rc8+ Kb7 77. a4 Na7 Schlechter could have won it all, he should have been proclaimed co-champion of the world, this was drawn, it was his match. There is enough proof Lasker demanded +2 winning score if Schlechter was to become champion, if it's true, how insane; duh, imagine if Schlechter won this game & thus the match, then questions will arise, how come he did not win it? 10 games match in 1910 1-0

[Event "World Championship 19th"]
[Site "Moscow R6"]
[Date "1951.03.26"]
[Round "24"]
[Comments "Weird game, Bronstein had easy draw, was it bad nerves cuz it was final game?"] [White "Bronstein, David I"]
[Black "Botvinnik, Mikhail"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "B63"]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 d6 6. Bg5 e6 7. Qd2 h6 8. Bxf6 gxf6 9. O-O-O a6 10. f4 Bd7 11. Kb1 Be7 12. Be2 Nxd4 13. Qxd4 Qa5 14. Rhf1 h5 15. Rf3 Qc5 16. Qd2 Bc6 17. Re3 Qa5 18. Bf3 O-O-O 19. Qd3 Rd7 20. h4 Kb8 21. a3 Bd8 22. Ka2 Qc5 23. Re2 a5 24. a4 Bb6 25. b3 Rc8 26. Qc4 Qxc4 27. bxc4 Rh8 28. Kb3 Rdd8 29. Rd3 Bg1 30. Red2 Kc7 31. Ne2 Bf2 32. Rd1 Bc5 33. Ng3 Rdg8 34. Ne2 Rh7 35. f5 e5 36. Nc3 Bd4 37. Rxd4 exd4 38. Rxd4 Rhg7 39. Ne2 Rxg2 40. Bxg2 Rxg2 41. Nf4 Rg3+ 42. Kb2 Rg4 43. Nxh5 Rxh4 44. Nxf6 Kb6 45. Rxd6 Kc5 46. e5 Rd4 47. Rxd4 Kxd4 48. Ng4 Bxa4 49. e6 fxe6 50. f6 Be8 51. Kb3 e5 52. c3+ Ke4 53. Nh6 Kf4 54. f7 Bxf7 55. Nxf7 e4 56. Nd8 e3 57. Kc2 Kg3 58. Kd1 Kf2 Again, almost a champ. ♗otvinik kept the title he didn't deserve, this was luck and (communist) pressure on ♗ronstein was not small, ♗ronstein should have been named co-champ of the world because he drew the match. He was white in the final game, if the champ retains title if match is drawn, opponent should be allowed last game's color, at least here ♗otvinik was blak! 0-1

Oct-31-20  Wanda Nida: It seems something was bothering Schlecther, the gentleman of chess, like Floyd Patterson, the gentleman of boxing: he simply wanted to win the last drawn game to prove he is really da man!
Oct-31-20  Wanda Nida: < elvis is jealous>
Premium Chessgames Member
  keypusher: <wanda nida>

<[Comments "Weird game, Bronstein had easy draw, was it bad nerves cuz it was final game?"] [White "Bronstein, David I"]>

It was the sixth game. Idiocies like this are not excusable in the age of the internet.

Bronstein vs Botvinnik, 1951

Jan-07-22  RookFile: Let's understand something: Schlechter was a great chess player and any of us who invest in studying his games will learn a lot.
Jump to page #    (enter # from 1 to 5)
search thread:   
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 5 OF 5 ·  Later Kibitzing>

NOTE: Create an account today to post replies and access other powerful features which are available only to registered users. Becoming a member is free, anonymous, and takes less than 1 minute! If you already have a username, then simply login login under your username now to join the discussion.

Please observe our posting guidelines:

  1. No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.
  2. No spamming, advertising, duplicate, or gibberish posts.
  3. No vitriolic or systematic personal attacks against other members.
  4. Nothing in violation of United States law.
  5. No cyberstalking or malicious posting of negative or private information (doxing/doxxing) of members.
  6. No trolling.
  7. The use of "sock puppet" accounts to circumvent disciplinary action taken by moderators, create a false impression of consensus or support, or stage conversations, is prohibited.
  8. Do not degrade Chessgames or any of it's staff/volunteers.

Please try to maintain a semblance of civility at all times.

Blow the Whistle

See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform a moderator.

NOTE: Please keep all discussion on-topic. This forum is for this specific tournament only. To discuss chess or this site in general, visit the Kibitzer's Café.

Messages posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of, its employees, or sponsors.
All moderator actions taken are ultimately at the sole discretion of the administration.

Spot an error? Please suggest your correction and help us eliminate database mistakes!
Home | About | Login | Logout | F.A.Q. | 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 2001-2023, Chessgames Services LLC