This was a match of twelve games, held between Saturday 17th - Saturday 31st January 1931, in the Austrian mountain resort of Semmering, 3,000 feet up in the Alpine Wechsel Pass.
The match was played at the large and internationally renowned Panhaus Hotel. The hours of play were from 10 a.m to 2 p.m and then from 4 p.m to 8 p.m. (1)
This was the match of two great talents, one naive, Mir Sultan Khan having only been recently introduced to European chess and the other, Savielly Tartakower, a seasoned professional and cosmopolitan intellectual.
Using Chessmetric's data, Sultan Khan was the fifteenth rated player in the world whilst Tartakower was the eighth-rated player (2).
<"My match with Mir Sultan Khan - which remained undecided until the last (12th) game which was won by my opponent - was a triumph for my adversary who demonstrated in the contest that he possessed a peerless tenacity and imagination."> (3).
"This tiny slender man with his bronzed complexion and raven-black, shiny hair, the sharp long Indian nose and his serious appearance, which never betrays surprise or unrest. Sultan Khan plays with a great ease. He seems to be able to do so without any effort." (4).
Sultan Khan had burst onto the European chess scene only two years before in 1929. Coming from India as an indentured servant but with a prodigious talent for Indian chess, he had been introduced to its European variant by his employer. After a small amount of coaching, Sultan Khan won a weakened 1929 British championship at Ramsgate. His most powerful rivals George Alan Thomas and Fred Dewhirst Yates were absent playing at Karlsbad (1929).
He played first board for England at Chess Olympiads at Hamburg 1930 and would do so twice more at Prague 1931 and Folkestone 1933.
At Scarborough (1930) (June 23rd to July 5th, 1930), he was fourth losing to Edgar Colle, Geza Maroczy Akiba Rubinstein but scoring very heavily against the minor masters. At Liege (1930) in August, he lost in the last round to Savielly Tartakower -
Tartakower vs Sultan Khan, 1930 - but came second ahead of Edgar Colle, Aron Nimzowitsch, Akiba Rubinstein and Frank James Marshall.
The match took place in January 1931, shortly after Sultan Khan played in Hastings (1930/31). Hastings ended on the 7th January 1931. Although Sultan Khan had lost to Max Euwe, the tournament winner, he defeated Jose Raul Capablanca - Sultan Khan vs Capablanca, 1930 - and came third.
At the end of the game, Jose Raul Capablanca applauded his opponent and highly commended his skill. This endorsement greatly raised both Sultan Khan's profile and standing but as this match took place only ten days after the conclusion of the Hastings tournament, it unlikely that it was a significant factor in this match coming about.
Yates was quoted as saying at the Hamburg Olympiad: "In a few years, Sultan Khan will be World Champion...That man is living chess, no book knowledge, no dogmas or systems, in the endgame his play is stronger than that of Capablanca or Alexander Alekhine . . . " (5).
Some commentators were less impressed, voicing suspicions that Sultan Khan was being pushed forward due to the ambition of others to create a new "British" world-class presence in the chess world. The Dutch had: Max Euwe, the Swedes Gideon Stahlberg, the Salomon Flohr , all home-grown talent but the British had to rely on someone from their colonies. This attitude can be seen in the following Dutch newspaper commentary:
"Mir Malik Sultan Khan.
Europe has a weakness for exotic chess players. In 1910, Capablanca was also celebrated and admired on his first visit to Europe until it became rather ridiculous. No wonder, then, that the British Indian Sultan Khan is now at the centre of a general excitement of the chess audience. Already, Fred Dewhirst Yates his brother from tropical Britain has spoken to everyone at the Hamburg Olympiad as if a second Paul Morphy had appeared in the international arena. Although the results of this young disciple of Caissa were indeed worthy of consideration, we can see here again a serious symptom of the modern disease called "hero-worship".
Sultan Khan defeated Capablanca at Hastings, something Alexander Ilyin-Zhenevsky and Boris Verlinsky both did in Moscow (1925). But whilst they were not labelled as future world champions this is now being attempted with the British Indian. Perhaps this is driven by the longing for another Joseph Henry Blackburne or a Amos Burn? At the end of the last century they elevated England to be a leading chess nation, but after their retirement, they had no worthy successors.
After the tournament at Hastings, Sultan Khan left for Semmering to play a match of 12 games with Dr Tartakower. As far as we know, the score after the third game of the match was +1 =1 -1.
In Düsseldorf, on his way to the match, Sultan Khan met with a German journalist. The interview did not go smoothly. Sultan Khan does not know a word of German and only speaks poor English. Here is what was published in the interview. Sultan Khan was born in 1905 but he does not know either the month or the day. His birthplace was Mita Tiwana (now Mitha Tiwāna, Pakistan - e.d.), in the Punjab in India. His father is Mr Nizzamuddin.
"Do you have any brothers or sisters?"
"I have a family of a thousand people", came the answer.
The interviewer was stunned. Many questions later, it turns out that he meant the tribe to which he belongs; its name being Awan. (6). His father and mother are still alive.
His whole family (this time in a narrow sense) plays chess. He himself began to play chess at the age of ten. In 1923 he won his first tournament, in 1928 he was champion of India. He has been married for many years but since when he does not know. As Mohammedan, he is allowed to marry three more women, but for the time being, he does not want to.
A blood relative Sir Umar Hayat Khan, who has lived in England for a long time, got him to that country in April 1929. At this point, the beautiful chess career of the Indian began. After a short time, he became the English champion. In the world chess federation Olympiad in Hamburg last year he played on first board for England winning nine out of seventeen games, losing four and drawing four.
He plays to win and fights hard. For him, playing chess is a struggle to the very end. In Hastings in his game against Euwe, the Dutchman offered him a draw, but the Indian did not accept it. He played on, made a wrong move and lost.” (7) - see Sultan Khan vs Euwe, 1931.
"Match Tartakower - Sultan Khan.
After the success of Sultan Khan in Hastings comes a very well-arranged and interesting match between the "routine" Tartakower and the still somewhat nebulous Sultan Khan, by the Panhans hotel in Semmering (already known for the famous Panhans grandmaster tournament in 1926). The match will be played from 17th to 31st January and consist of twelve games." (8).
Although a law graduate, Tartakower chose to be a chess professional and also became a prolific chess journalist and author. Tartakower's peak period had been in the early 1920's, but since then he had maintained himself in the top ten of the world rankings. His best performances included: second at The Hague (1921), third at Teplitz-Schönau (1922), fifth at Moscow (1925), second at Debrecen (1925), fourth at Semmering (1926), first at Hastings (1927/28) and first at Liege (1930)
The background to the match
"The management of the Hotel Panhans, Semmering, near Vienna, have arranged a match between Mir Sultan Khan and Tartakower. The intention is that a series of twelve games shall be completed whatever the condition of the score. The match will begin at once. The beginning of February sees Dr Tartakower departing for the Argentine to fulfil a series of engagements extending over three months." (9)
This would suggest that the initiative behind the match came from the Estonian entrepreneur William D. Zimdin (10).He had purchased the Panhans Hotel in 1930, this once grand international hotel had been in decline since the end of the First World War. Zimdin revived it and with it Semmering's economy despite the effects of the Great Depression and Creditanstalt bank collapse three months after the match in May 1931. (11)
. . .
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2
Sultan Khan 0 1 ½ 0 1 ½ ½ 1 ½ ½ 0 1 - 6½
Tartakower 1 0 ½ 1 0 ½ ½ 0 ½ ½ 1 0 - 5½
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2
Sultan Khan 0 1 1½ 1½ 2½ 3 3½ 4½ 5 5½ 5½ 6½
Tartakower 1 1 1½ 2½ 2½ 3 3½ 3½ 4 4½ 5½ 5½
This was a hard-fought match with half the games over 60 moves long. The four of the first five games were decisive and the majority of the draws were hard-fought.
There was never more than a point between the players during this match. Tartakower led twice in Game 1 and Game 4; after that Sultan Khan took the lead in Games 8,10 and took the final game (12) to win the match.
Both players did poorly with the White pieces, Sultan Khan winning only one game and Tartakower two. Three out of four of Sultan Khan's wins were with Black and two out of three for Tartakower.
Game 1 - Saturday 17th January 1931.
"The match, twelve games, between Dr Tartakower and Sultan Khan, commenced the Hotel Panhans, Semmering, near Vienna, on 17th inst. Dr Tartakower won the first game, and the second was adjourned at the time of writing. It is stated that Tartakower had offered to draw the second game, which offers the Indian player declined." (12)
Despite having White, Sultan Khan lost the first game of the match. He allowed Tartakower to seize the initiative with:
click for larger view
18...Rd4!. In his notes, Tartakower wrote that this was "Positionally decisive." (13)
but this overstates the case. In a difficult position with doubled <e> pawns Sultan Khan had a reasonable expectation of holding the game but there was no room for error. He blundered on move 25 by allowing Tartakower's Queen to penetrate his position and despite Sultan Khan's determined resistance necessitating an adjournment on move 43, he lost the opening game.
Game 2 - Sunday 18th January 1931.
"The Chess Duel. Vienna, Monday. The second game in the 12-game chess match between Dr Tartakower and Sultan Khan, which began at Semmering, yesterday, was won Sultan Khan, Dr Tartakower giving up after 71 moves. Dr Tartakower won the first game —Press Association Foreign." (14)
"Tartakower - Sultan Khan. Sultan Khan wins the second game.
Sultan Khan used an uncommon variation of the Sicilian Defence in this game. He traded the Queen early, in order to be able to capitalize on the possession of two Bishops against a Bishop and a Knight in a game with minor pieces and Rooks. After protracted manoeuvres, Tartakower forced him to exchange the Bishop for his Knight but lost a pawn. After this came his downfall. An error, which cost him his Bishop and accelerated his defeat...The playing time is from 10 to 2 and from 4 to 8 hours." (15).
Perhaps stung by his loss in the first game, Sultan Khan was more aggressive although he now had the Black pieces. In a Sicilian Defence, the position was dynamically equal for a long time. Tartakower allowed himself to be saddled with a weak and isolated <c> pawn which Sultan Khan won. The game should then have been quickly decided in Black's favour as he had a powerful passed <d> pawn. Tartakower came close to holding the game, but then blundered away a piece. After that, he played on in the vain hope of a miracle.
Game 3 - Sultan Khan's Stonewall system provided him with no opening advantage. Tartakower played dynamically and sacrificed two pawns in the opening for piece play. He won one back quickly and entered a rook and pawn ending one pawn down but with Sultan Khan nursing weak pawns. Tartakower played very accurately and the game was drawn but only after going to bare Kings.
Game 4 - The game was equal deep into the middle game until Sultan Khan failed to realise that he was walking his King into danger:
click for larger view
with <31...Kg6?!> and after <32.Rf4 Kg5?> his vulnerable King cost him the game.
Tartakower may have now harboured pleasant hopes, having scored 2½ from the first four games, but he would never again be ahead in the match.
Game 5 - "Sultan Khan wins the fifth match. In this game, in which Tartakower played the French Defence, Sultan Khan immediately headed for the endgame. He soon reached this and possessed a strong Knight against a poor Bishop. That this advantage with the best play would have been enough to win is doubtful. Sultan Khan played this end-game excellently. He refused a draw offer and slowly, but surely, increased his positional advantage. Even after he had won a pawn, he continued to play very finely to escape a draw, and finally, he won. The game lasted seven hours. The score is now: Sultan Khan 2, Tartakower 2, drawn 1..." (16).
Sultan Khan had to win this game to avoid being two points behind. Despite this pressure, it is a display of Sultan's Khan's technique in the ending and perhaps his best game of the match. The minor piece ending was analysed by Nikolay Dmitrievich Grigoriev and quoted by Euwe and Hooper (17)
"A passed pawn two files away often wins if the stronger party has a Knight, but wins much less frequently if he has a Bishop...In the present case, White has taken care to block the <g> pawns in such a way that his own cannot be attacked by Black's Bishop, and it is important for him not to have it otherwise."
Sultan Khan vs. Tartakower, position after Black's 46th move:
click for larger view
In his book "School of Excellence: Endgame Analysis," Mark Izrailovich Dvoretsky analyses this and another very similar endgame. He wrote: "The (end) game Sultan Khan-Tartakower, played in 1931, was indeed almost completely identical to Dolmatov's game played in 1988.“
Dolmatov vs Drasko, 1985, position after White's 46th move:
click for larger view
In both cases, Black lost.
Game 6 - Friday 23rd January 1931.
"Semmering Chess Duel. Semmering, Friday. The sixth game the chess duel between Sultan Khan and Tartakower ended to-day in a draw after fifty-three moves. The position is now two wins for each player, two drawn games. Press Association. Foreign Special." (18)
This was a game which Tartakower should have won in a splendid fashion. Sultan Khan chose to defend with the French Defence.
click for larger view
With <31.Rxg7> he should have won but he transposed moves
click for larger view
Here, Tartakower played <34.Bxf7?> which lost his initiative after Sultan Khan exchanged Queens. Instead, <34.Qxe7> Nxe7 35. Bxf7 would have won.
Game 7 - Tartakower defended with a Dutch, a defence he had favoured for many years and with which he had gained one of his most famous victories - Maroczy vs Tartakower, 1922.
Sultan Khan achieved no advantage and his opponent began to build a King-side attack advancing his <f> pawn to <f4> and manoeuvring his Queen and Rook onto the <h> file. Sultan Khan exchanged two minor pieces for a Bishop and a Knight to relieve the pressure on his position and the game ending in a perpetual check.
Game 8 - Monday 26 January 1931.
Sultan Khan pulled into the lead in the match which he would hold until Game 11.
"Sultan Khan wins again. Semmering, Monday. The eighth game in the match between Sultan Khan and Tartakower was given up Tartakower after 40 moves. Sultan Khan now leading by three to two. Three games have been drawn." (19)
"Sultan Khan has won the eighth game against Tartakower. Tartakower, learning from the first games of the match, tried to avoid an endgame, because that is where the Indian is in his element. The Polish champion once again tried to defeat him by an attack with pieces. He led this in by a pawn sacrifice in the manner of the Blackmar Gambit, arising from the Caro Kann Defence. This time too, however, Tartakower had no success.
Sultan Khan defended himself with great skill and when Tartakower did not make the best moves, which happened a few times, he took his chance. Tartakower's last, blunders due to time pressure, provided Sultan Khan with the opportunity to end the game with a Bishop and an attack on his king. The score is now: Sultan Khan 3, Tartakower 2, drawn 3." (20).
Sultan Khan chose to defend with a Caro-Kann defence. Tartakower sacrificed a pawn for open lines for his two Bishops. Sultan Khan returned the Pawn and obtained a threatening King-side attack. Tartakower fell into time trouble, miscalculated and lost his Queen for a Rook and Bishop. He could not then hold the ending.
Game 9 - Tuesday 27th January 1931.
"Semmering Chess Duel. Semmering, Tuesday. The ninth game the chess match between Sultan Khan and Tartakower ended in a draw after nineteen moves. The total result so far is Sultan Khan, three games, and Tartakower two. Four games were drawn. — Press Association Foreign Special." (21).
"The ninth game lasted only forty minutes and comprised only nineteen moves. Sultan Khan chose a closed <d4> opening and, by exchanging on <d4> he did not handle it in the best way. Tartakower dominated the open <c-file>. By defending himself well afterwards, the Indian managed to escape from his doom. They swapped off many pieces and at the proposal of Tartakower ended the game with a draw, the chances then being perfectly balanced." (22).
Sultan Khan's slow Colle System with <b3> gave him no advantage with White and instead led to a rapid exchange of pieces and a quick draw. Sultan Khan remained a point ahead with three games to play. He would have Black in two of the games, so the match was still wide open.
Game 10 - Wednesday 28th January 1931.
"Chess. Sultan Khan and Tartakower. Vienna. Wednesday (Press Association Foreign Special). The tenth game (the chess duel between Sultan Khan and Tartakower played at Semmering to-day, was drawn after 28 moves." (23)
Sultan Khan defended with a Queen's Indian Defence. This was a game without any drama. Tartakower played cautiously and after exchanging off all but one pair of the minor pieces the game was drawn.
. . .
Game 11 - Thursday 29th January 1931.
"Chess Masters Level. Semmering, Thursday. Sultan Khan as checkmated to-day Dr Tartakower at the fortieth move the eleventh game. Up to the present, each player has won three games and five have been drawn. The twelfth and final game, which is to be played tomorrow afternoon, may, therefore, be decisive. Press Association Foreign Special." (24)
Tartakower had taken a timeout before this game. (25) which he described this games as "The Massacre" (26)
click for larger view
As in Game One, a passive opening system left Sultan Khan few favourable options. In this game, Sultan Khan lashed out with <14. f4?> leaving himself with a permanent weakness on <e3>. Gideon Stahlberg labelled it <?>, and
"White is not content with his original pawn formation on Queen-side but thinks he could afford yet another extravagance - a backward pawn on <e3>. However, it was high time that he sought simplification with <Qc2> for example, <14. 14. Qc2 Qh5 15.
e4 dxe4 16. Nxe4 Nxe4 17. Bxe4 Bxe4 18. Qxe4..."
"Of Sultan Khan's play in this game, one cannot conclude that he is an aspirant for the World Championship! Despite good individual performances, one must say that in chess terms the match Tartakower - Sultan Khan was simply disappointing". (27)
Tartakower in his notes (28) was more diplomatic "A psychological moment. White thinks Black's bold strategy should meet with bold punishment but the reaction caused by the text is not in his favour..."
. . .
Game 12 - Friday 30th January 1931.
"Sultan Khan-Tartakower Final Game Semmering. Friday. The twelfth and final game between Tartakower and Sultan Khan was begun this afternoon and adjourned after 32 moves. It will continue tomorrow. Sultan Khan seems to have an advantageous position at the moment. Each of the champions has so far won three games, and five have been divided." (29)
"British Chess Victory. Sultan Khan, the British chess champion, won to-day's 12th game in the chess duel with Dr Tartakower, and thus won the series by four games to three. The remaining five games were drawn. Today's game ended by Tartakower's abandoning after 77 moves." (30)
This was the second longest game of the match. Tartakower had the White pieces and had to win to tie the match. He played aggressively castling on the opposite side to his opponent. Despite opening the <g> file and then doubling his rooks on it, Sultan Khan's Kingside fortress remained secure. Sultan Khan pushed his centre pawns and destroyed any hopes Tartakower had of a combinative victory. Instead, Sultan Khan won two pawns and Tartakower was left to defend Rook and Pawn vs Rooks and three connected pawns. The last twenty or so moves of the game were made in desperation rather than out of necessity by Tartakower.
“Without exposing himself, Sultan Khan attacked Tartakower, restricting him more and more in the choice of his moves and, in the awareness of his superiority did not win a pawn. He strove for a higher goal, the total destruction of the enemy. Tartakower had to await his fate, and when faced with a threatening, deadly attack, he had to do something, he entered a losing endgame, in which he was two pawns down”. (31).
"Sultan Khan Wins Chess Match with Dr Tartakower, 4 to 3. Semmering, Austria, Jan. 31.
Mir Sultan Khan, East Indian chess export and holder of the British Chess Federation championship, today won the deciding game in a match of twelve games with Dr.S.Tartakower of Paris. The Oriental thereby took the match by the score of 4 to 3 with five drawn. So impressive has been the recent showing of Sultan Khan, who has twice finished high amongst prize winners in international masters' tournaments that his backers plan to groom him for a match with Alexander Alekhine for the world's championship." (32).
According to Hermann Helms ('The Dean of American Chess.' ) "Mir Sultan Khan of India, champion of the British Chess Federation moves up still closer to that higher flight of experts entitled to consideration when world championship matters are under discussion. This, it is understood, is his ultimate goal. He has made a splendid start." (33)
(33). Hermann Helms in "The Brooklyn Daily Eagle" 5th February 1931, p.24.
"That Sultan Khan unquestionably is of grandmaster cannot be denied anymore. After all Dr Tartakower is one of the ten or twelve strongest chess players in the world: he is an excellent theoretician, cunning and resourceful; he has an extraordinary technique, as he is absent from almost no tournaments. Although he suffered four days of rheumatic illness, so that the possibility he experienced the disadvantageous effects during the games cannot be discounted, it cannot be denied that it still takes a respectable player to lift a master like Dr Tartakower out of the saddle.
The victory of Sultan Khan is particularly notable because the Indian is a natural player. He knows almost nothing about the Western opening theory and therefore had to build upon his own strengths, and that his victory in the struggle, has come from his own love of chess and his own natural gifts." (34).
Sultan Khan was invited to take part in the very strong and prestigious Bled (1931) (July 1931) but the invitation was declined on the explanation that he was to play in the British Championship in Worcester (10th-21st August 1931). He came equal second half a point behind Yates which was a disappointing result for a potential challenger to Alexander Alekhine.
In February 1932, he played the up and coming Salomon Flohr who too had emerged in 1929 (at the Rogaška Slatina tournament) and also was spoken of as a potential world championship aspirant. Sultan Khan lost this match (+1-2=3).
Sultan Khan was not a free agent, he was an indentured servant and his choices were determined by Colonel Nawab Sir Umar Hayat Khan (35) and in December 1933, his chess career ended when he returned to India with Sir Umar. It may be that the loss to Flohr had persuaded Sir Umar to abandon his plans for Sultan Khan.
"Sultan Khan - Tartakower. A retrospective.
The twenty-five-year-old Mr Malik Sultan Khan...has defeated Dr S. Tartakower, a player whose strength is well-known, in a match. Matches are better standards for playing games than competitions for 'participants'.
Sultan Khan has become a remarkable figure in the Western chess world through this success, even more so than through his previous successes. For those interested, the main question was how he and how Tartakower, whose style they have known for many years, would play. Sultan Khan is an emerging star and one wants to see to what heights he can rise. Also because he is the first Oriental, who can measure himself against the very strongest of European players.
Sultan Khan's future development is probably good. In some games of the Scarborough, Hamburg and Liège tournaments, he was not too cautious. Now, against Tartakower, he could sense he was more cautious, careful and patient. This is probably a result of the experience against the great players against whom he lost and gives hope for the future young players. Young players, who dare to reflect and then to moderate their daredevilry, even if they occasionally lapse into passivity through too much circumspection, usually achieve more than those who are anxious to do so.
A positive feature of Sultan Khan is that he also deviates from the usual variations in the openings, possibly and happily due to little study. He goes his own way although this may not always be the best. In addition, he has a rare feeling for the endgame, which is rare among young players. Furthermore, he rarely makes gross mistakes and he takes those chances the opponent offers him. He is strong in the role a defender and he takes into account his opponent's personality even if he did this against Tartakower too many times.
If a new player, whose style has not yet been formed, had already achieved such results as Sultan Khan's, there is a good chance that he will continue to grow in strength. Because of the flaws that still cling to his method of play, he is not yet ready for the greatest players, but it seems likely that this will not be the case in a short time.
The match between Sultan Khan with Tartakower has been of great importance for the theory of game openings. Not because he produced important new ideas, but because "the value of great knowledge of the opening theory" took a hit. One observed that Tartakower, a connoisseur, a specialist, an author of numerous textbooks and articles about openings, was in the area against a player, who knows little, or at least very much less than him.
Indeed, Tartakower, against a proud Sultan Khan who put aside what is correct and recommended, failed even to win a game through his greater knowledge of opening theory. This is encouraging for those who do not have the time or desire to study in chess all the time, and who, like Sultan Khan, are therefore so-called "natural players." (36).
Tartakower's reputation was not significantly affected by this loss. Indeed, he wrote a brochure with the annotated games of the match. Although not regarded as a world championship contender he continued to be regarded as a leading master.
"The victory of the Indian builds on his previous achievements so it is not surprising and is a new success for the younger chess generation. One cannot say this shows that Sultan Khan is superior to Tartakower. This is evident from the fact that in the last game and deciding game Tartakower took too many risks; besides during the match he was hampered by poor health". (37)
"The result of the match convinced me of the old truth that optimism, a precious quality in tournaments, is an evil counsellor in such contents." (38)
As an international chess publication of record in nearby Vienna, the “Wiener Schach-Zeitung” could be expected to provide the most reliable information on the match.
Issue no. 3, February 1931, page 33 (title page) gives the dates for the match as 17th to 31st January 1931. Yet on page 34, it shows Game 1 commencing on the 19th January whilst on page 40 it shows Game 2 as commencing on 18th January!
From other newspaper reports, the first game was Saturday 17th January 1931 and the second was on Sunday 18th January 1931
From then onwards, the Wiener Schach-Zeitung’s date matches those of other contemporaneous reports:
On page 41, it shows Game 3 commencing on 20th January.
On page 36, it shows Game 4 commencing on 21st January.
On page 41, it shows Game 5 commencing on the 22nd January.
On page 38, it shows Game 6 commencing on the 23rd January.
The “Wiener Schach-Zeitung”, no. 5, March 1931.
On page 69, it shows Game 7 commencing on 24th January.
On page 67, it shows Game 8 commencing on 26th January and further states that on Sunday 25th Tartakower gave a simultaneous display.
On page 70, it shows Game 9 commencing on 27th January.
On page 69, it shows Game 10 commencing on 28th January.
On page 89, it shows Game 12 commencing on 30th January.
The original round numbers of the games were incorrect and have been amended. Where known, complete dates have been given to the games.
(1) “Het Vaderland" (Netherlands), 22nd January 1931, p.3.
(2). See: http://www.chessmetrics.com/cm/CM2/....
(3). Tartakower - "My Best Games of Chess, 1905 - 1954, Part 2, p.1.
(4). "De Sumatra Post" (Netherlands), 5th February 1931.
(5). "De Sumatra Post" (Netherlands), 5th February 1931.
(6). Wikipedia article: Awan (tribe))
"Het nieuws van den dag voor Nederlandsch-Indie" (Netherlands), 12th February 1931, p.36.
(9). "Falkirk Herald" (UK), Wednesday 14th January 1931, p.15.
(10). Wikipedia article: William Zimdin.
(11). Wikipedia article: Creditanstalt
(12). "Hastings and St Leonards Observer" (UK), Saturday 24th January 1931, p.11.
(13). Tartakower - "My Best Games of Chess, 1905 - 1954, Part 2, p.3.
(14)."Lancashire Evening Post" (UK), Monday 19th January 1931, p.5.
(15)." Het Vaderland" (Netherlands), Thursday 22nd January 1931, p.3.
(16). "Het Vaderland" (Netherlands), Monday 26th January 1931, p.3.
(17). Euwe and Hooper - "A Guide to the Chess Endings”, example 143, p.90-91.
(18). "Aberdeen Press and Journal" (UK), Saturday 24th January, p.4.
(19)."Belfast News-Letter" (UK), Tuesday 27th January 1931, p.2.
(20). “Delftsche Courant” (Netherlands), Thursday 29th January 1931
(21). "Aberdeen Press and Journal" (UK), Wednesday 28th January, p.11.
(22). “Het Vaderland" (Netherlands), Friday 30th January 1931, p.2.
(23). "Hartlepool Northern Daily Mail" (UK), Wednesday 28nd January, p.8.
(24). "Aberdeen Press and Journal" (UK), Friday 30th January 1931 p.11.
(25) “Algemeen Handelsblad” (Netherlands), Saturday 7th February 1931, p.13.
(26). Tartakower - "My Best Games of Chess, 1905 - 1954, Part 2, p.6.
(27). Ståhlberg - "Tidskrift för Schack" (Sweden), May 1931, p.86.
(28). Tartakower - "My Best Games of Chess, 1905 - 1954, Part 2, p.6.
(29). "Western Morning News" (UK), Saturday 31st January 1931, p.14.
(30)."Derby Daily Telegraph", Saturday 31st January 1931, p.10.
(31). “Algemeen Handelsblad” (Netherlands), Tuesday 3rd February 1931, p.3.
(32). "New York Times" (USA), Sunday 1st February 1931, p.147.
(33). Hermann Helms in "The Brooklyn Daily Eagle" 5th February 1931, p.24.
(34). "Soerabaijasch Handelsblad", Saturday 7th Match 1931, p.3.
(35) Wikipedia article: Malik Umar Hayat Khan
(36). “Het Vaderland" (Netherlands), Friday 4th February 1931.
(37). “Wiener Schach-Zeitung”, no. 5, March 1931, p.67.
(38). Tartakower - "My Best Games of Chess, 1905 - 1954, Part 2, p.1.
This text and original research by User: Chessical.