[what is this?]

[what is this?]

<< previous | page 5 of 5 | next >>

WCC: Lasker-Capablanca 1921 ORIGINAL: Lasker - Capablanca World Championship Match (1921) <FINISHED DRAFT EDIT> <Karpova> Jose Raul Capablanca was regarded as a chess prodigy,<1> yet his father wanted him to maintain the "even tenor of the average boy's way in his youth."<2> Capablanca moved to the USA in 1904 to complete his education. However, he left Columbia University in 1910 without a degree and pursued a career in chess.<3> His first international success was his clear win (+8 -1 =14) over the former world championship challenger in Capablanca - Marshall (1909). After that, he was considered a worthy contender for the title of world champion,<1> and reigning champion <Emanuel Lasker> commented "Capablanca has shown himself to be a great player."<4> Capablanca's admirers had suggested a title challenge as early as 1908.<5> Even prior to his first European tournament, León Paredes had suggested to Lasker that he play a match with Capablanca,<6> but Lasker declined.<7> Capablanca himself remained cautious.<5> The hype surrounding Capablanca made Lasker admit that the subject got "on his nerves."<8> Capablanca made his international tournament debut at San Sebastian (1911). He unexpectedly won 1st prize, a result even he hadn't anticipated.<9> About seven months after this success, he challenged Lasker to a title match.<10> Lasker published the proposed conditions,<11> but Capablanca replied in a private letter that they were unacceptable.<12> After Lasker had published a commentary on the conditions in the press,<13> Capablanca issued a statement to him asking "But why should he not play me on the same terms that he has granted to all other aspirants for his title?"<14> Lasker replied to Capablanca's first letter, complaining that the Cuban wanted to impose his own rules on him and called for Walter Shipley to act as arbiter.<15> Both Amos Burn<16> and the "British Chess Magazine"<17> sided with Capablanca, since the proposed conditions were obviously in favor of Lasker. The world champion accused Capablanca of having "aimed a deliberate blow against my professional honor,"<18> and when Shipley did not side with him, Lasker broke off the negotiations.<19> Most people considered Lasker's treatment of Capablanca to be unjust.<20> The Cuban would later assess Lasker's chances in a title match in 1911 to "have been excellent."<21> Akiba Rubinstein challenged Lasker for the title in August 1912 and after negotiations, the match was scheduled for the fall of 1914.<22> The outbreak of World War I led to the cancellation of the match. Capablanca suggested a world championship tournament<23> and hoped for a match in 1915.<24> During St. Petersburg (1914), won by Lasker ahead of his former challenger, Capablanca drew up a new set of rules for the world championship.<25> After the war, Capablanca considered himself, Lasker and Rubinstein to be the strongest players.<25> Capablanca began negotiations with Lasker in January 1920,<26> and published "My Chess Career" to convince the public of his right to a challenge.<27> Yet Rubinstein still had a contract and felt left out. He proposed an official body to administer the world championship, and suggested a triangular tournament as a compromise to determine the champion. But Rubinstein had lost his basis of financial support in post-war Europe,<28> and Capablanca was left as Lasker's chief rival. Capablanca declared that, should he win the title, he would accept a challenge from Rubinstein.<25> On January 23, 1920 Lasker and Capablanca agreed to a title match to begin no earlier than 1921.<26> In June, Lasker suddenly resigned, declaring Capablanca the new world champion.<29> The Cuban didn't want to become champion that way,<30> so he managed to convince Lasker to play a match. Lasker agreed, although he insisted on being regarded as the challenger.<31> The match was held in Havana from March 15 to April 27, 1921.<32> The winner would be the first to 8 points, draws not counting. If neither player reached that goal, the one with more points after 24 games would win. There would be five play days a week, with one session of play lasting 4 hours. The time limit was 15 moves per hour, and the referee was Alberto Ponce. Lasker would receive $11,000 and Capablanca $9,000 of the $20,000 purse. An additional $5,000 was donated after five games had been completed, with $3,000 going to the winner and $2,000 to the loser.<33> After his win in game 14, with the score now +4 -0 =10 in the Cuban's favor, Lasker gave up and Capablanca was declared the new world champion.<32> 1 "Wiener Schachzeitung" August 1909, pp.236-239. In "ANNO / Österreichische Nationalbibliothek" http://anno.onb.ac.at/cgi-content/a... 2 J R Capablanca, "Munsey's Magazine" October 1916, pp.94-96. 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.2 3 Winter, "Capablanca" (McFarland 1989), pp.10-12 4 Emanuel Lasker, "The Evening Post". In Winter, "Capablanca" (McFarland 1989), p.17 5 Edward Winter, "Capablanca" (McFarland 1989), p.55 6 L Paredes (President of the Havana Chess Club) "Crónica de Ajedrez" May 1911, p.12. In Winter, "Capablanca" (McFarland 1989), p.33 7 Emanuel Lasker, "New York Evening Post" 15 March 1911. In Winter, "Capablanca" (McFarland 1989), p.33 8 "American Chess Bulletin" April 1910, p.88. In Winter, "Capablanca" (McFarland 1989), p.32 9 Olga Capablanca, "Chessworld" May-June 1964, pp.20-37. In Winter, "Capablanca" (McFarland 1989), p.32 10 Winter, "Capablanca" (McFarland 1989), p.56 11 Emanuel Lasker, "The Evening Post" 22 November 1911. In Winter, "Capablanca" (McFarland 1989), pp.56-57 12 Winter, "Capablanca" (McFarland, 1989), pp.57-59 13 Emanuel Lasker, "The Evening Post". In Winter, "Capablanca" (McFarland 1989), pp.59-61 14 "American Chess Bulletin" February 1912, p.31. In Winter, "Capablanca" (McFarland 1989), pp.61-62 15 Emanuel Lasker, "The Evening Post" 20 January 1912. In Winter, "Capablanca" (McFarland 1989), p.62 16 A Burn, "Liverpool Courier" 19 January 1912, p.3. In Winter, "Capablanca" (McFarland 1989), p.63 17 "British Chess Magazine, February 1912, pp.51-52. In Winter, "Capablanca" (McFarland 1989), p.63 18 Emanuel Lasker in a letter to Shipley, 20 February 1912. In Winter, "Capablanca" (McFarland 1989), p.64 19 Emanuel Lasker, "The Evening Post" 15 May 1912. In Winter, "Capablanca" (McFarland 1989), pp.64-65 20 Winter, "Capablanca" (McFarland 1989), p.66 21 J R Capablanca, "The Windsor Magazine" December 1922, pp.86-89. In Winter, "Capablanca" (McFarland 1989), pp.4-8 22 John Donaldson and Nikolay Minev, "The Life & Games of Akiva Rubinstein – Volume 1: Uncrowned King, 2nd edition" (Russell Enterprises 2006), pp 290-295 23 "American Chess Bulletin" July 1912, p.147. In Winter, "Capablanca" (McFarland 1989), pp. 65-66 24 "Glasgow Weekly Herald", 10 October 1914. In Edward Winter, "Capablanca" (McFarland 1989), p.83 25 "The Observer, 24 August 1919, p.9. In Winter, "Capablanca" (McFarland 1989), pp.97-98 26 "American Chess Bulletin" March 1920, pp.45-46. In Winter, "Capablanca" (McFarland 1989), pp.108-109 27 Winter, "Capablanca" (McFarland 1989), p.105 28 Donaldson and Minev, pp.370 29 "American Chess Bulletin" July-August 1920, p.126. In Winter, "Capablanca" (McFarland 1989), p.109 30 "British Chess Magazine" October 1922, pp.376-380. In Winter, "Capablanca" (McFarland 1989), pp.112-115 31 "American Chess Bulletin" September-October 1920, p.141. In Winter, "Capablanca" (McFarland 1989), p.110 32 Edward Winter, "How Capablanca Became World Champion" 2004 http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/... 33 "The World's Championship Chess Match Played at Havana between Jose Raul Capablanca and Dr. Emanuel Lasker 1921" (New York 1921), p.39. In Winter, "Capablanca" (McFarland 1989), p.111 For further reading: <How Capablanca Became World Champion> Edward Winter (2004) http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/... <Lasker on the 1921 World Championship Match> Edward Winter http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/... <Capablanca’s Reply to Lasker> Edward Winter http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/... ##################################### EDIT Passage <Karpova> <After the war, Capablanca considered himself, Lasker and Rubinstein to be the strongest players.25 Capablanca began negotiations with Lasker in January 1920,28 and published "My Chess Career" to convince the public of his right to a challenge.26 Yet Rubinstein still had a contract and felt left out. He suggested a triangular tournament as a compromise to determine the champion. But Rubinstein had lost his basis of financial support in post-war Europe,27 and Capablanca was left as Lasker's chief rival. However, the Cuban declared that, should he win the title, he would accept a challenge from Rubinstein.25> ####################################### EDIT material <Karpova> Capablanca's US education: C.N. 6378, http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/... <In 1904 Capablanca entered Woodycliff School in South Orange, NJ.Y> <In C.N. 3333 we added that in 1906 Capablanca was attending Groff School, 228 W 72 Street, New York.> <Capablanca’s university record (he was a non-graduate in engineering in the Class of 1910, although we are not sure exactly when the course was broken off) is mentioned on page 134 of the Columbia University Alumni Register 1754-1931 (New York, 1932)> Baseball team picture: C.N. 5108, Link: http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/... 3 games, 1921 WCC: Lasker-Marshall 1907 ORIGINAL: Lasker - Marshall World Championship Match (1907) ################### <MOST RECENT DRAFT> by <crawfb5> Frank James Marshall was born in New York City, but spent his youth in Montreal. He returned to New York City as a young man of 15 and was described as being “...of considerable promise, whose reputation has preceded his arrival here.”1 At the age of 26, Marshall won the very strong Cambridge Springs 1904 tournament a full two points ahead of world champion Emanuel Lasker. Marshall began his first round of negotiations with Lasker for a world championship match in 1903. Lasker deemed Marshall's conditions inadequate and did not take the proposal seriously. He wrote to Walter Penn Shipley, “The challenge was from beginning to end unacceptable.”2 Marshall, who was in England at the time, proposed the match should be for a stake of $500 per side and take place in England before the end of the year. Lasker replied that the stake had to be at least $2,000 per side and he flatly stated, “Time and place of the match to be determined by the holder of the title.” Lasker also mentioned that he would prefer the organizers to supply a purse because he considered it “a hardship that chess champions should be obliged to find their own stakes.”.3 Lasker planned a 1904 match with Siegbert Tarrasch that was postponed because of the latter's skating accident.4 In late 1904, Marshall issued a new challenge with terms that were taken more seriously by Lasker, although negotiations eventually broke down.5 Marshall's backers were unwilling to make the required $500 deposit without assurances that Lasker would do the same and they took exception to Lasker reserving the right to name the match time and location. With his funding at serious risk, Marshall broke off negotiations. Lasker signed terms with Geza Maroczy in 1906, but Maróczy failed to make his cash deposit by the deadline and was considered in default.6 Marshall was then finally able to successfully negotiate terms with Lasker nearly identical to those of the Maróczy match. The notable exception was a purse of $1000 raised by Shipley instead of stakes of $2000 per side.7 The time control was 15 moves per hour and no more than three games were played per week, with eight wins required to win the match.8 The match was held from January 26 to April 8, 1907 in the cities of New York (Games 1-6 and 15), Philadelphia (Games 7 and 8), Washington, DC (Game 9), Baltimore (Game 10), Chicago (Game 11), and Memphis (Games 12-14). Marshall was usually more successful in tournaments than match play, while Lasker was a strong match player. “In the worst situations he knows no panic, and his defense is strong at all times, with a drop of poison always contained in his defensive moves.”9 Marshall failed to win a single game. 1 Brooklyn Daily Eagle, 1/9/1896, page 10. 2 Hilbert, J. S. Walter Penn Shipley: Philadelphia's Friend of Chess, 2003, page 255. 3 Brooklyn Daily Eagle, 7/8/1903, page 12. 4 Brooklyn Daily Eagle, 8/4/1903, page 15. 5 Wiener Schachzeitung, 1904, page 364. 6 Brooklyn Daily Eagle, 1/8/1905, page 13. 7 Brooklyn Daily Eagle, 10/28/1906, page 9. 8 American Chess Bulletin, December 1906, pages 237-238. 9 New York Daily Tribune, 10/28/1906, page 12. 10 Tarrasch, S. Der Schachwettkampf Lasker-Marshall 1907. cited in Wiener Schachzeitung, 1907, page 163. ############################ <Karpova> EDIT I found some material on the negotiations between Lasker and Maroczy. This can be turned into a griping narrative, since Marshall seized the opportunity presented by the failed Maroczy-negotiations, and challenged Lasker himself. Here it is: Announcement: "Brooklyn Daily Eagle" (Brooklyn, New York), 7 April 1906, p. 8. In <Brooklyn Newsstand> http://bklyn.newspapers.com/image/#... Conditions: "Brooklyn Daily Eagle" (Brooklyn, New York), 8 April 1906, p. 74. In <Brooklyn Newsstand> http://bklyn.newspapers.com/image/#... Defaulting forfeit: "Brooklyn Daily Eagle" (Brooklyn, New York), 26 August 1906, p. 32. In <Brooklyn Newsstand> http://bklyn.newspapers.com/image/#... Match is off: "Brooklyn Daily Eagle" (Brooklyn, New York), 11 September 1906, p. 6. In <Brooklyn Newsstand> http://bklyn.newspapers.com/image/#... Marshall steps in: "Brooklyn Daily Eagle" (Brooklyn, New York), 13 September 1906, p. 6. In <Brooklyn Newsstand> http://bklyn.newspapers.com/image/#... Lasker and Marshall earnestly strive to agree: "Brooklyn Daily Eagle" (Brooklyn, New York), 16 September 1906, p. 17. In <Brooklyn Newsstand> http://bklyn.newspapers.com/image/#... Maroczy shifts the blame: "Brooklyn Daily Eagle" (Brooklyn, New York), 7 October 1906, p. 23. In <Brooklyn Newsstand> http://bklyn.newspapers.com/image/#... Facts against Maroczy: "Brooklyn Daily Eagle" (Brooklyn, New York), 28 October 1906, p. 19. In <Brooklyn Newsstand> http://bklyn.newspapers.com/image/#... ############################ <Karpova> EDIT Here is a permanent link to the published match conditions, source <American Chess Bulletin, Dec 1906, pages 237-238> as given by <crawfb5> and <TheFocus>: http://hdl.handle.net/2027/njp.3210... ############################ <Karpova> EDIT (new source) <Edward Winter, Chess Note 8641. Lasker v Marshall world title match> http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/... Dwight Weaver (Southaven, MS, USA) draws our attention to his article World Chess Championship in Tennessee – 1907, which includes an account of Marshall’s protest over the use of stop-watches rather than a chess clock. http://memphischessclub.blogspot.ch... ############## EDIT SUGGESTION <Ohio> <<Frank James Marshall was born in New York City, but spent his youth in Montreal. He returned to New York City as a young man of 15 and was described as being “...of considerable promise, whose reputation has preceded his arrival here.”1 At the age of 26, Marshall won the very strong Cambridge Springs 1904 tournament a full two points ahead of world champion Emanuel Lasker. [new paragraph] Marshall began his first round of negotiations with Lasker for a world championship match in 1903. > I don’t care for the timeline of that section. The quote is in reference to his return to NYC at 15, then jumps to a tournament success at 26, then back to WC negotiations initiated at 25. The 1904 reference seems to be a teaser as to Marshall's suitability to challenge, but the negotiations had started a year before that tournament.> === EDIT SUGGESTION <Ohio> <Marshall was then finally able to successfully negotiate terms with Lasker nearly identical to those of the Maróczy match.> I think “then” is redundant. I hate to add words, but maybe “….Lasker that were nearly” strikes me as worth it. <The time control was 15 moves per hour and no more than three games were played per week> I think “were played” can be dele with no loss of meaning. ========= EDIT SUGGESTION <Ohio> << Marshall was usually more successful in tournaments than match play, while Lasker was a strong match player. “In the worst situations he knows no panic, and his defense is strong at all times, with a drop of poison always contained in his defensive moves.”9 Marshall failed to win a single game.> I don't like this formulation of "The Sentence". I see no reason for the unattributed quote in the middle of it. Footnote or not, I think the author of that must be cited in the text. Regardless, I don't think the current forumation is very good.> Logged. ################################ EDIT <Karpova> <I get your point, though it again boils down to this very sentence <Marshall usually fared worse in match play than tournaments, but the Lasker match was a disaster for Marshall, who failed to win a single game.>. We may rectify this a bit with a quote from page 163 of the May July 1907 'Wiener Schachzeitung'. Siegbert Tarrasch 's book 'Der Schachwettkampf Lasker-Marshall 1907' (Nuremberg, Germany, 1907) is presented there (54 pages overall, quoted were pages 53 to 54): <Laskers Spiel in diesem Wettkampf verdient trotz mancher Fehler, wie sie eben jedem vorkommen, größte Anerkennung.>* or <In den schlimmsten Situationen kennt er keine Panik, und seine Defensive ist immer stark, stets ist ein Tropfen Gift in seinen Verteidigungszügen enthalten.>** If all of this is too long, we could simply quote from the same page (not the book presentation, but a news item announcing the end of the match) that it <hat mit einem großartigen Siege Laskers geendet.>*** * Lasker's play in this contest deserves maximum approval, despite of some mistakes which happen to anybody. ** In the worst situations he knows no panic, and his defense is always strong, ever a drop of poison is contained in his defensive moves. *** ended with a great victory for Lasker. P.S.: One of the problems with this match is that mainly Tarrasch (but also Maroczy) was considered Lasker's main rival for the title, yet they had not played a WC match. But both had decisively beaten Marshall, so they always compare each others results and play against Marshall. The match itself was pushed in the background and instead of being an end in itself in discussions, was a mean for comparing Tarrasch and Lasker.> ########################### <crawfb5: Lasker objected to Marshall's 1903 challenge on a couple of points. In his letter to Shipley, Lasker wrote "[Marshall's] condition for instance that the match must be played in England and before the end of the year virtually prescribes date and place." Marshall was in England at the time. Lasker's letter of reply reprinted in the Brooklyn Daily Eagle of 4 Aug 1903, page 15 flatly stated "Time and place of the match to be determined by the holder of the title." An even more serious issue was the money. Marshall's challenge letter was printed in the Eagle 8 Jul 1903, page 12 in which he suggests stakes of 100 pounds or $500 per side. Lasker's reply was 400 pounds per side was his minimum. <You want to pick the time and place and play for a fourth of the money I consider a minimum? Forget you.> I think the only one who took Marhsall's conditions seriously was Marshall himself. Even this early Lasker was in favor of moving to a purse system. At the end of his reply to Marshall he wrote, "I consider it a hardship that chess champions should be obliged to find their own stakes, and that in no distant time an international organization will be formed to organize championship matches on the basis of purses." In Lasker's letter to Shipley he said a purse system would be better for both players.> <crawfb5: The 1904 Lasker-Marshall negotiations seems to have finally broken down due to Marshall's backers: <"...his backers were not pleased with Dr. Lasker's attitude in the world championship negotiations and had refused to post the $500 forfeit demanded under the champion's terms." -- Marshall quoted prior to departing for Europe to play Janowski, Brooklyn Daily Eagle, 8 Jan 1905, page 13>. The final letters to each other were printed in the <American Chess Bulletin, 1905, pages 1-2>. Earlier letters may be seen in the <American Chess Bulletin, 1904, pages 130-131.> Lasker had demanded a $500 deposit from Marshall, selection of a second not employed by a newspaper, and reserved the right to chose time and location of the match. Marshall felt strongly about the choice of a particular newspaperman and Lasker withdrew that objection. Marshall's backers were unwilling to make the $500 deposit without assurances Lasker would do the same and took exception to Lasker reserving the right to name the match location. With his funding at serious risk, Marshall broke off negotiations.> ############################## EDIT <Ohio> and <Boomie> <OhioChessFan: I agree with <Boomie> per the overly long last paragraph in Lasker-Marshall 1907> ############################# EDIT <Karpova> <But I think there is missing content implied by the "was then able"- something changed between 1903 and 1904 that enabled Marshall to make an offer more acceptable to Lasker.> One of the possible changes may have been his tournament successes. On page 75 of the 1905 'Wiener Schachzeitung' he is quoted <Ich hoffe, in Europa Leistungen zu vollbringen, welche mich berechtigen, Sie auch ohne Kampf als geschlagen zu betrachten.>* from an open letter to Dr. Lasker prior to his departure from New York (apparently for his 1905 match against Janowski). * I hope to achieve accomplishments in europe, which will entitle me to consider you beaten without a fight.> ############################### EDIT <crawfb5> <Lasker thought Marshall's first proposal was totally inadequate and wrote as much to his friend Walter Shipley, who would eventually be in charge of raising money for the 1907 match. So that proposal was dead on arrival. We can add details about the failed matches that led up to the successful 1907 agreement, but at some point it seems too much detail in a short intro. The prize was changed from stakes of $2000 per side, which was the arrangement with Maroczy, to a purse of $1000 for the match with Marshall. (<<<source>>> Hilbert's bio of Shipley, although could be sourced to 1906 ACB as an option).> #################### EDIT <Karpova> <I would suggest to always write Dr. Lasker, like Dr. Tarrasch and so on.> <Page 375 of the 1906 'Wiener Schachzeitung' reports that according to news from New York. the match which has been prepared for months would begin between January 15 and 20 with 1000 $ for the winner.> #################### EDIT <TheFocus>, <crawfb5> <PUBLISHED MATCH CONDITIONS: 1. The match to he eight (8) games up, draws not to count. 2. The first game to be played on January 4th, 1907.. 3. The time limit to be fifteen (15) moves an hour. 4. There shall be six (6) play days per week. No more than three (3) games shall be begun in any one (1) week, and not on consecutive days. 5. There shall be six (6) play hours per day; between one (1) p. m. and eleven (11) p. m. 6. The players shall jointly be the owners of all the games. 7. During the match, each player, by written notice to his opponent served prior to twelve (12) o'clock noon of the regular play day, may postpone the game to the following day, but this privilege can be used by each player no more than six (6) times. 8. Mr. Walter P. Ship ey to be the treasurer. 9. In consideration of the difficulty of obtaining a backing amounting in all to four thousand ($4,000.00) dollars, we hereby agree to ask Mr. Walter P. Shipley, No. 404 Girard Building, Philadelphia, Pa., to declare his willingness to accept contributions for a purse. Each contributor of an amount of not less than ten ($10.00) dollars, shall have the right to witness each game of the match; he shall receive the service of the Match Journal, free of cost, and a memento. 10. In case.by December 10th, it should be found that the purse thus raised falls short of one thousand ($1,000.00) dollars, it will be understood that there is not sufficient interest for the match, which will, therefore, be declared off. 11. In case the purse will be at least one thousand ($1,000.00) dollars, each player will be bound by a forfeit (whose amount will then be fixed) to fulfill all the conditions agreed upon by mutual consent. The winner of he match shall receive one. thousand ($1,000.00) dollars as a prize and the remainder of the purse shall be equally divided between the players to help in defraying their expenses. 12. Messrs. Prof. I. L. Rice, W. P. Shipley, J. H. Watson having kindly agreed, to accept the positions as referees, all points in dispu e between the two contestants shall be submitted to them and the r decisions shall be final and not subject to appeal. 13. In order to give all chess lovers, whether they be club members or not, an opportunity to witness the contest, the games shall be played as much as possible in public, and a fee for admiss on charged, except to patrons. These incomes shall be equally divided between the players to defray their expenses and to furnish a purse for the loser. 14. In each city, where games of the match will be played, either of the players shall select from the patrons a second. And a committee shall be selected to declare the series begun, to decIde minor points of dispute, to order the series closed and to announce where and when the next game is to take place. From the decisions of this committee an appeal to the <<<referees>>> shall be possible but notice of appeal must be served and the appeal must be made in writing. (Signed) Emanuel .lasker. Frank J. Marshall. New York, October 26, 1906.> <Courtesy of <TheFocus> and <crawfb5> TWO SOURCES for the agreement: <American Chess Bulletin>, Dec 1906, pages 237-238 <Lasker’s Chess Magazine>, August-September, 1906.>> ############################ See also EDIT <crawfb5>: <Obviously, the match started at the end of January 1907 rather than the start. The reference to six "play" days per week but only three "games" per week was to allow one day to finish off any adjournment without altering the schedule. They mostly played games on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays. Game 1 -- Thomas Jefferson Hall, Brooklyn Games 2-6 and 15 -- Everett House, NYC Games 7-8 -- Franklin CC, Philadelphia Game 9 -- Arlington Hotel, Washington, DC Game 10 -- Baltimore Game 11 -- Sherman House, Chicago Games 12-14 -- Business (Men's?) Club, Memphis> ################## EDIT <crawfb5> <The match agreement for the Lasker-Maroczy match that never was played was signed at the Rice CC on 6 Apr 1906. It was similar to the Lasker-Marshall agreement, with the major exception of the money to be a <stake> of $2000 per side instead of a <<<purse>>>. The Google Books version I have of the 1906 ACB is missing the latter half of the agreement, but it seems the only other difference would be all the games for Lasker-Marshall would be played in the US instead of split between Europe and the US for Lasker-Maroczy.> [1"Frank Marshall, United States Chess Champion" Andy Soltis MacFarland 1994 p. 109-111] ################################ EDIT <Karpova> <The report from <New Yorker Staatszeitung> is reprinted on pages 100 ff. of the 1907 'Wiener Schachzeitung' with some interesting details: The first game was played at the 'Thomas-Jesserson-building [sic], Court Square, Brooklyn. Seconds were E. Clarke and E. W. Libaire and Libaire won the drawing so Marshall had White in game 1 (so apparently, Clarke was Dr. Lasker's and Libaire Marshall's second). The arbiters were Prof. Rice and Herbert J. Watson.> ################################# [[Even in his autobiography, Marshall’s only mention of this match was a single sentence: "Tedious play aimed at wearing down my opponent is averse to my nature."1]] ######################## EDIT <crawfb5> <We might also add that Marshall was never a particularly good match player, so his poor result against Lasker was hardly anomalous.> SEE ALSO EDIT <Karpova> <With regards to the suggested edit that <Marshall was never a particularly good match player>: While it's hard to argue against it, if you add such a judgement you should also document it and then that minor point would occupy too much pace. Maybe you could add that Marshall was not among those considered worthy of a WC match by Dr. Lasker in his article in 1906 (when he mentioned Dr. Tarrasch and Maroczy, and also Schlechter)> You would even have a source for that statement: <<<<[1] p. 96, 1907 'Wiener Schachzeitung' (or even better if anyone has access, Dr. Lasker's original from 'Lasker's Chess Magazine' 1906 on chessmasters of the past and presence)>>> <Dr. Lasker discusses WC candidates and considers only Dr. Tarrasch and Maroczy worthy challengers. The only other one mentioned was Schlechter whom had the capability but lacked something demoniacal (<so wenig Dämonisches an sich hat>) though ultimately he would put up the greatest fight from all of them. Marshall is not mentioned at all, despite the fact that this article was written only a year before the match.> ########################## [ 1 My Fifty Years of Chess, by Frank Marshall ] 3 games, 1907 WCC: Lasker-Schlechter 1910 ORIGINAL: Lasker - Schlechter World Championship Match (1910) 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 Pillsbury at 12th DSB Congress, Munich (1900), won both Vienna (1904/05) (1904) and the huge Ostend (1906) tournament, and shared 1st at both Vienna (1908) and Prague (1908). 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 Dory 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, Semyon 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 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. 1 Rod Edwards, <Carl Schlechter> http://www.edochess.ca/players/p536... 2 "Wiener Schachzeitung", December 1928, p. 370. In <ANNO / Österreichische Nationalbibliothek> http://anno.onb.ac.at/cgi-content/a... 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> http://anno.onb.ac.at/cgi-content/a... 6 "Wiener Schachzeitung", September 1909, p. 315. In <ANNO / Österreichische Nationalbibliothek> http://anno.onb.ac.at/cgi-content/a... 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> http://content.onb.ac.at/cgi-conten... 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> http://anno.onb.ac.at/cgi-content/a... 11 Emanuel Lasker, "Ost und West", March 1910, pp. 171-176. In <Compact Memory> http://www.compactmemory.de/index_p... - 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> http://anno.onb.ac.at/cgi-content/a... 13 Emanuel Lasker, "Pester Lloyd", 19 January 1910, p. 7. In <ANNO / Österreichische Nationalbibliothek> http://content.onb.ac.at/cgi-conten... 14 "Wiener Schachzeitung", February-March 1910, pp. 78-95. In <ANNO / Österreichische Nationalbibliothek> http://anno.onb.ac.at/cgi-content/a... 15 Emanuel Lasker, "Pester Lloyd", 4 February 1910, p. 6. In <ANNO / Österreichische Nationalbibliothek> http://content.onb.ac.at/cgi-conten... 16 "Wiener Schachzeitung", February-March 1910, pp. 92-94. In <ANNO / Österreichische Nationalbibliothek> http://anno.onb.ac.at/cgi-content/a... 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, http://www.chesshistory.com/). 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> http://anno.onb.ac.at/cgi-content/a... 19 Emanuel Lasker, "Pester Lloyd", 12 February 1910, p. 20. In <ANNO / Österreichische Nationalbibliothek> http://content.onb.ac.at/cgi-conten... ####################################################### Note <4> full text and reference. The passage about Schlechter is part of a discussion about who would be among the most likely candidates to become the next world chess champion. "Chess Masters- Past and Present" by Dr. Emanuel Lasker <"It is true that the Austrian, Schlechter, also has the ability that would enable him to compete with a good chance for success, but Schlechter has only the ability- nothing more. He his a man who loves Nature and the simple life and who has so little of the <<<devil>>> about him that he could not be moved to take anything coveted by somebody else. Perhaps if Mark Twain would give him a lecture he might reform; but, as it is, he must be left out of consideration."> "Lasker's Chess Magazine" (Jan 1906), p.126 ############################### EDIT SUGGESTION <Ohio> <<detected in his personality a lack of anything demoniacal which could induce him to seize someone else's possessions. (4)> If any of that is a quote, it needs to be in quotation marks. If it isn't, it's pretty outdated rhetoric.> I think <Karpova> is paraphrasing, which doesn't need quotations, and also translating from German. I think if that's the way <Lasker> actually wrote, we should have as close to literal translation as possible. Logged. ########################### EDIT <Karpova> <On page 315 of the 1909 'Wiener Schachzeitung' is the anouncement that the WC match would take place (signed by Dr. Lasker and Schlechter, Berlin and Vienna, 1909.09.15), as the financing seemed to be secure (it's mentioned that the chess friends from St. Petersburg (<die St. Petersburger Schachfreunde>) are willing to pay 3000 roubles honorarium for the last 6 games to take place in St. Petersburg, as an example). Both players are willing to play either in December, January, February or March of the coming winter (i. e. the winter 1909/1910) and fees were to be given to <Regierungsrat> J. Berger from Graz, Austria (so probably Johann Nepomuk Berger ) and it would be a public match (so the games could be reprinted and so on).> <<Wettkampf Lasker-Schlechter Ende November hatte sich der österreichische Vorkämpfer Karl Schlechter nach Berlin begeben, um den Weltmeister Dr. Emanuel Lasker zum Wettkampf herauszufordern. In einer vom 3. Dezember datirten Zuschrift an Schlechter nahm Dr. Lasker die Herausforderung an und setzte folgende Bedingungen fest: 1. Der Wettkampf geht auf 30 Partien; Sieger ist, wer zum mindesten zwei Partien mehr als der andere gewonnen hat. Im Remisfalle behalte ich den Titel der Weltmeisterschaft bis zum Entscheid eines noch zu arrangierenden Stichkampfes. 2. Die Bedingungen in bezug auf den Siegespreis sind die nämlichen wie im Wettkampf mit Marshall. 3. Die Bestimmung des Ortes und der Zeit liegt mir ob, doch will ich Ihnen zum mindesten einen Monat vor dem festzusetzenden Termin das vollständige Programm mitteilen. 4. Es wird mit einer Zeitbeschränkung von 15 Zügen die Stunde und sechs Stunden am Tage gespielt. Schlechter hat diese Punkte ohne jeden Vorbehalt angenommen. Der Wettkampf soll Ende 1909 stattfinden.> From page 376 of the 1908 'Wiener Schachzeitung' In short: - Berlin, end of November 1908: Schlechter challenges Dr. Lasker for the WC title and the latter accepts on Dec-3 with following conditions: 1. 30 games match. Winner is who wins 2 more games than the other one. In case of a draw, Dr. Lasker remains WC until decision of the tie-break to be arranged 2. Conditions for prize the same as in WC match with Marshall 3. Dr. Lasker decides about time and place but he will communicate program to Schlechter at least one month before the match begins 4. Time control: 15 moves per hour, 6 hours per day - Schlechter accepted without reservation. - Match to be played at the end of 1909> <Now from the 1910 'Wiener Schachzeitung' Page 1: Vienna, January 7, the match begins and many guests were at the opening ceremony like Albert Freiherr von Rothschild (honorary president of the Wiener Schach-Klub), Arnold Mandel (president of the Wiener Schach-Klub) and the vice-presidents Dr. Franz Liharzik and Heinrich Groß. There were people from the press like Semion Alapin and Jacques Mieses. The seconds were Hugo Fähndrich, Dr. Siegmund Pollak and Dr. Edouard Stiaßny (though it's not clear whose seconds they were exactly). <Kampfleiter> Georg Marco started the game at <5 Uhr> (5 pm as it says on p. 3 that the game was paused after 3 hours play at 8 o'clock in he evening). Page 2: Among the spectators were Dr. Tartakower, Dr. Perlis, Weiß, Zinkl, Horwitz, Krejcik and Dr. Ph. Meitner among others. It is mentioned (see post above) that the reprint of game scores is only allowed if permitted by Dr. Lasker). First game was played on January 7 and 10. Page 3: Dr. Lasker chose to take his rest day on January 8. Game resumed on January 10. Again, many guests like Adolf Albin and Heinrich Wolf to name just two, but not only chessplayers. Page 5: Game 2 played on January 13 and 14, ending in a draw. Also drawn was game 3, played on January 15. Page 25: Just a short report on the results of the games 4 to 9 (Schlechter now leading 5-4) and that the <Wiener Schule> is the basis of his success. Page 58: Report from Georg Marco (originally 'Interessantes Blatt', Nr. 3, 1910), about the match (January 7 to February 10). First 3 games played in the <Wiener Schach-Klub>, the next 2 games shall be played at a public Viennese pub/saloon (<Lokal>) and then they move on to Berlin. Page 59: Picture and the caption could imply that Fähndrich and Pollak were Schlechter's seconds (<Sitzend: Carl Schlechter, (Dr. Sigm. Pollak, Hugo Fähndrich als Sekundanten), Siegfr. Reg. Wolf, Dr. E. Lasker, Adolf Scharz>) but the comma behind Schlechter makes this appear a bit questionable to me. Page 68: 4th game played on January 18, 19 and 20. Now the match took place at Cafe "zur Marienbrücke" (Rotenturmstraße 31), the tournamnet director (<Turnierleiter>) was now Hugo Fähndrich, and the seconds were Baron Döry von Jobohaza and Dr. Siegmund Pollak. Page 72: 4th game resumed on Januray 20 at the Cafe Herz (Rotenturmstraße 31) and Dr. Lasker offered a draw immediately and Schlechter accepted after having a look at the sealed move. Page 73: Game 5 played on January 21 and 24 (Monday) at the Cafe "zur Marienbrücke". Page 78: After 4 rest days, 2nd leg of the match at Berlin. Page 81: 6th game played on January 29 and 30. Page 84: 7th game played on January 30 (directly after the 6th game) and February 1. Page 88: 8th game played on February 2, 4 and 5. Page 89: 9th game played on February 5 (directly after game 8), 6 and 7. Page 91: 10th game played on February 8, 9 and 10. Page 92: Conjectures on why Schlechter played the 10th game the way he did: 1) Fearing a malicious ambush 2) Increasing his lead in case the <Zufallssieg> (Zufall = accident/chance) in game 5 appeared to him too insignificant 3) Hoping to win the match easier this way as he probably had researched the variation deeply - but no match conditions of +2 mentioned. In the annotations to the game (on move 10...b4) it is specifically mentioned that a draw would have been enough for a match win (stated again on pages 93-94 on 34...Nc5). Page 95: Schlechter is cited ('Allgemeine Sportzeitung', 1910.02.27) that he didn't want to "play for a draw" (<Ich wollte die letzte Partie nicht "auf Remis spielen" [...]>, i. e. a colloquialism to express that you try to force a draw from the beginning). After the match was finished, Dr. Lasker mentioned the possibility of another match (<und stellte einen neuerlichen Wettkampf in Aussicht> (<in Aussicht stellen> is less binding than to announce)).> EDIT <Karpova>: <First of all, I don't think that the new history page should be centered around it exclusively as it was before, but maybe just a short mention. While the 1908 conditions clearly support the +2 conjecture, I think that it can hardly be upheld though. After all, they possibly came to a new agreement (but I didn't see the exact conditions for 1910 published anywhere). But we can conclude from the lack of evidence that a +2 rule was unlikely - why should there be hypotheses about Schlechter's aggressive (opening) play if it was clear that he needed another win (and this not being one of the hypotheses)? Then it's mentioned 2 times in the annotations that a draw would have been enough. Furthermore, Schlechter mentions that he didn't want to "play for a draw" - why should he have felt compelled to say that, if it was clear to everyone that he needed +2? I doubt there was such a clause in 1910 as it is mentioned nowhere and everyone acts as if it didn't exist (so maybe it did). But his relatively reckless play puzzled them already back then. I'm sure that the 1908 conditions helped to create the myth in later times. For certain, Dr. Lasker seemed to have liked the clause but if we look closer at the 1908 match conditions and the 1910 match, there is one huge difference: The 1908 rules were for a 30 games match, in 1910 there were only 10 games. If Dr. Lasker had had a +2 clause in the latter match, it would have been absurd not only in the eyes of the public. Possibly, Schlechter was simply in a fighting mood and trusted his preparation (he also got a nice position, so this was justified) and furthermore he may not have considered his win in game 5 to be convincing enough.> ##################### EDIT <Edward Winter CN4144> courtesy of <Karpova <4144. Lasker v Schlechter The 1910 Lasker v Schlechter controversy (was it a world championship match and, if so, did Schlechter have to win by two points to gain the title?) has been referred to, inconclusively, in several C.N. items. Now Richard Forster (Winterthur, Switzerland) submits the following report by Walter Preiswerk (who was then in Leipzig) in the Basler Nachrichten of 20 February 1910, i.e. ten days after the Lasker v Schlechter match ended (+1 –1 =8): ‘... Man nahm nun allgemein an, die letzte Partie werde mit remis enden, und Schlechter werde sich dadurch den Sieg sichern. Aber merkwürdigerweise gewann Lasker und machte so den Wettkampf unentschieden. Es ist wirklich seltsam, dass Schlechter, der von 9 Partien keine verlor, nun gerade in der letzten unterlag, und die Annahme, dieser Ausgang sei beabsichtigt gewesen, liegt nahe. Ein knapper Sieg Schlechters hätte diesem nämlich keineswegs die Weltmeisterschaft eingebracht, sondern einen ernsten Revanchekampf zu Folge gehabt, der ohne Rücksicht auf seine Finanzierung hätte ausgetragen werden müssen. Dies mag beiden Meistern, die ja auch ausgezeichnete Geschäftsleute sind, nicht gepasst haben. - Das Resultat des Matchs ist übrigens die konsequente Folge seiner Bedingungen, und man könnte ihm den Wahlspruch geben: “Tu mir nichts, ich tu dir auch nichts!”’ It is difficult to know quite what to make of this commentary. Below, in any case, is our English translation: ‘It was generally assumed that the last game would end in a draw and that Schlechter would thereby ensure victory for himself. Curiously enough, however, Lasker won, which meant that the match ended indecisively. It is very strange that Schlechter, who lost none of the first nine games, succumbed in the final one, and the assumption suggests itself that this outcome was intentional. A narrow victory by Schlechter would by no means have given him the world championship but, instead, it would have brought him a serious return match to be carried out irrespective of its financing. This may not have suited the two masters, who, after all, are also excellent businessmen. The result of the match is, incidentally, the logical consequence of its conditions, and it could be accorded the motto, “Do not kill me, and I shall not kill you”.’> ##################################### EDIT <Karpova> <Edward Winter> <From the Factfinder: <Lasker v Schlechter (controversy over 1910 match) CE 177; CFF 280 + C.N.s 4144, 5855, 7109, 8222> http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/... Though only 7109 (newer sources listed) and 4144 could be interesting.> ##################################### EDIT <Karpova> <Tim Harding's <One Hundred Years Ago: Chess in 1910>: http://chesscafe.com/text/kibitz164... He quotes Fraenkel (letter from 1974): <<<As for the Lasker-Schlechter match 1910 there is no mystery about it at all (although a lot of nonsense has been written about it). After all, I attended the tenth game myself as a schoolboy, and many years later when I got to know the Doctor we discussed it more than once. He admitted that it was rash to agree on a mere ten games, but there just weren't enough funds for a longer match... Lasker had to win the tenth game in order to draw the match and thereby keep his title.>>>> ##################################### EDIT <JFQ> <Match conditions From <Schlechter> biographer Warren Goldman: <"...conditions governing the truncated contest [1910] were never published as so far as the author has been able to determine [as of 1994]" "The <<<Deutsche Schachzeitung>>> declared that 'it was left to a netrual decision as to whether one or two games should constitute winning majority.' The magazine later confirmed that a simple majority was required but stated that the referee would decide the title in the event of a draw." "<<<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."> Warren Goldman "Carl Schlechter! Life and Times of the Austrian Chess Wizard" Caissa Editions 1994, pp. 400-401> ##################################### EDIT <Karpova> <Page 95 of the 1910 'Wiener Schachzeitung': <Der deutsche Vorkämpfer hat seinen Weltmeisterschaftstitel gerettet. Jeder gewann eine Partie, acht Partien wurden Remis und so endete der Kampf unentschieden. Schlechter hat in dem Kampf bestätigt, daß er zu den ersten Meistern der Welt gehört. Lauter Beifall erscholl, als das Resultat verkündet wurde.> (The German champion/spearhead saved his title of World Champion. Both won a game, eight games were drawn and so the fight ended drawn. Schlechter proved in the fight/struggle that he belongs to the first masters in the world. Acclamation rang out as the result was announced.)> ################## 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 place with Harry Pillsbury at 12th DSB Congress, Munich (1900), following up with 1st places at Vienna (1904/05) (1904) and the huge Ostend (1906) tournament, and a shared 1st at Vienna (1908) and Prague (1908). Theodor Gerbec wrote 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)] But in 1906, world champion Emanuel Lasker, while acknowledging Schlechter's aptitude to play for the crown, detected in his personality a lack of anything "demoniacal" which could induce him to seize someone else's possessions. [(4)] Following his tournament successes, Schlechter travelled to Berlin in November 1908 and challenged Lasker to a title match. The world champion accepted the challenge and they both published a statement on December 3, wherein the match was to last 30 games, the winner to need a +2 score and the match to take place at the end of 1909. [(5)] Further negotiations led to an announcement on September 15, 1909, that the match was to 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)] On January 7, 1910, the 10-game world championship match began in the Vienna Chess Club and many celebrities were present. Georg Marco was the match director, the seconds were Hugo Faehndrich, Siegmund Pollak and Eduard Stiaßny. [(8)] 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. [(9)] The time control was 15 moves per hour. [(10)] On January 8, Lasker took a rest day. [(9)] After the third game, play was relocated to two Vienna saloons for games 4 and 5 with Faehndrich becoming the match director and Pollak and Nikolaus Dory von Jobahaza serving as seconds. The 1st leg of the match ended after game 5, which the challenger had managed to win after four draws. [(11)] The 2nd leg began on January 29 in the Hotel de Rome in Berlin, after 4 rest days. Lasker was held to draws in games 6, 7, 8 and 9 and had only one chance left to defend his title, having the white pieces in game 10. [(12)] The game lasted 3 days and more than 11 hours. Although a draw would have sufficed for a match victory [(13)], 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 that Schlechter had really wanted to add a 2nd win [(10)]. Schlechter remarked that he hadn't wanted to "play for a draw" in the last game [(14)]. The match ended drawn (+1 -1 =8). Lasker retained his title but Schlechter hadn't been beaten. [(1)] http://www.edochess.ca/players/p536... [(2)] Wiener Schachzeitung, December 1928, page 370 [(3)] Richard Reti, Modern Ideas in Chess, Hardinge Simpole, 2002, pages 82-83 [(4)] Wiener Schachzeitung, March-April 1907, page 95 (originally from Lasker's Chess Magazine 1906) [(5)] Wiener Schachzeitung, December 1908, page 376 [(6)] Wiener Schachzeitung, September 1909, page 315 [(7)] Warren Goldman, Carl Schlechter! Life and Times of the Austrian Chess Wizard, Caissa Editions, 1994, pages 400-401 [(8)] Our sources do not indicate who was whose second, and we assume that the seconds' role was restricted to administrative tasks mainly. [(9)] Wiener Schachzeitung, January 1910, pages 1-5 [(10)] Ost und West, March 1910, pages 171-176. In http://www.compactmemory.de/index_p... Organ der Deutschen Conferenz-Gemeinschaft der Alliance Israélite Universelle Organ der Alliance Israélite Universelle [(11)] Wiener Schachzeitung, February-March 1910, pages 58-78 [(12)] Wiener Schachzeitung, February-March 1910, pages 78-95 [(13)] Wiener Schachzeitung, February-March 1910, pages 92 and 93-94 [(14)] Wiener Schachzeitung, February-March 1910, page 95 (originally from Allgemeine Sportzeitung February 27, 1910) 3 games, 1910 WCC: Lasker-Steinitz 1896 ORIGINAL: Lasker - Steinitz World Championship Rematch (1896) <DRAFT EDIT> in progress:<crawfb5> ######################## EDIT <Karpova> This time line tool is very useful: http://www.chessarch.com/excavation... ######################### EDIT <Karpova> Steinitz interview <C.N. 8290 has a summary of a Steinitz interview from 1899 which may be of interest for the Steinitz - Lasker matches> ####################### EDIT <OhioChessFan> <<Come November, the two great rivals met in Moscow.> "Come November" strikes me as far too colloquial. <Four weeks later, Steinitz's mind went, and he was sent to a psychiatric clinic. He was soon found to be hopelessly mad. 1 > There's got to be a better term than "mind went".> ####################### EDIT <Karpova> <See http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/... for the match conditions according to page 468 of the December 1896 'BCM': <it will be decided by ten won games, draws not being counted. The time-limit is 15 moves an hour. A purse of £200 will be presented by the Moscow Club to the winner, and £100 to the loser.> Isn't it incredible that the biggest part of the original history page deals with Nuremberg (1896) instead of the WC match itself?> ######################## In January of 1896 Emanuel Lasker won the very strong St. Petersburg Tournament ahead of Steinitz, Pillsbury, and Chigorin by an impressive two point margin. Wilhelm Steinitz achieved second place, and this admirable finish was enough to encourage the persistent veteran to challenge Lasker one more time. Lasker accepted, and they agreed to meet in Moscow in November of 1896. However, before that match could take place, there was one more very strong tournament to get through: the Nuremberg Tournament in the summer. In addition to Lasker and Steinitz, the line-up included Tarrasch, Pillsbury, Chigorin, Blackburne and a rising star from Vienna named Carl Schlechter. In August of 1896, after 18 intense rounds of chess, Lasker took the top honors at Nuremberg with a score +12 -3 =3, one of the crowning achievements of his career. Steinitz's sixth place with a score of +10 -6 =2 was a disappointment, and did not bode well for his chances in the upcoming Moscow match. Come November, the two great rivals met in Moscow. Steinitz lost the very first game with the White pieces. Lasker won the second game, which some regard as the best game of the match. More wins for Lasker followed, one after another, and after only 17 games, Lasker retained his title with the tremendous score of 10 to 2 (and 5 draws). Four weeks later, Steinitz's mind went, and he was sent to a psychiatric clinic. He was soon found to be hopelessly mad. [1]]] ########################### [1Harold Ribalow and Meir Ribalow http://www.jewsinsports.org/Publica... 3 games, 1896 WCC: Lasker-Tarrasch 1908 ORIGINAL: Lasker - Tarrasch World Championship Match (1908) <NEW DRAFT EDIT> <Karpova> Siegbert Tarrasch was born in Breslau, Prussia (now Wrocław, Poland) in 1862. In the late 1880s, he established himself as one of the strongest players in the world with several tournament successes.<1> After Tarrasch's first place in Manchester (1890),<2> the Havana Chess Club proposed a match against world champion Wilhelm Steinitz.<3> A practicing physician, Tarrasch declined as he couldn't devote that much time to chess.<3> Besides his successful chess career, he is also famous for propagating and deepening chess, which earned him the nickname "praeceptor germaniae" (lat. teacher of Germany).<4> In 1906, world champion Emanuel Lasker singled out Tarrasch and Geza Maroczy as worthy contenders for the world championship, and said "Dr. Tarrasch's strength or weakness, if one likes - is his pronounced amour propre [(fr. self-love)]. Without it he would have been a very mediocre chess player; gifted to an abnormal degree, he has become a giant."<5> Instead of participating in Dresden (1892), won by Tarrasch,<6> Lasker challenged the tournament winner to a match via Leopold Hoffer. <7> Tarrasch declined the offer, since Lasker had avoided a tournament battle with him by not participating in Dresden. Tarrasch was willing to play Lasker, once the latter had won first prize in an international tournament.<8> Two years later, Lasker took the title from Steinitz in the Steinitz - Lasker World Championship Match (1894) match. After his successful comeback at Monte Carlo (1903), Tarrasch challenged Lasker for a world championship match,<5> to take place in autumn 1904. The conditions were published at the end of 1903.<9> An ice-skating accident in January 1904 disabled Tarrasch. He visited Lasker in Berlin in March 1904, suggesting they postpone the match until the next year. But Lasker declined, declaring the contract null and void if the match couldn't take place at the agreed date. Tarrasch would have to issue a new challenge.<10> Tarrasch's victory in the Marshall - Tarrasch (1905) match induced Rudolf Gebhardt, chairman of the German Chess Federation, to contact the Manhattan Chess Club on November 24, 1905 to negotiate a match for the title. The Club didn't respond, so after five months Gebhardt contacted Lasker directly on April 20, 1906. Lasker agreed to play Tarrasch in principle, but wanted to play in America only, as he believed that a match could be financed nowhere else. Tarrasch said he could only play in Germany, due to his profession.<11>In 1906, Lasker also negotiated for a world championship match with Maróczy, but ultimately without success.<12> When Lasker defended his title in the Lasker - Marshall World Championship Match (1907) by the score (+8 -0 =7), comparisons were made to Tarrasch's previous victory (+8 -1 =8) against the same opponent in 1905,<13> as if the title match had only been a substitute for a match between the two German chessmasters. Later that year, Tarrasch triumphed in Ostend Champions (1907), so a match between them again became a pressing matter.<11> A good opportunity for negotiations arose in February 1908, when Lasker visited Europe again for the first time in four years.<11> The lengthy negotiations were successfully finalized on August 1, 1908.<14> Lasker had originally demanded an honorarium of 15,000 Marks. The chairmen of the German (Gebhardt) and Bavarian (Schenzel) Chess Federations persuaded the world champion to accept a lower honorarium of 7,500 Marks. Tarrasch even agreed to forego an honorarium in order to help bring about the match. The winner would be the first to win eight games, with draws not counting. The victor would receive 4,000 Marks, and the loser 2,500 Marks.<15> <16> The time control was 1 hour for 15 moves.<17> Otto Rosenfeld was the arbiter. Tarrasch's second was Heinrich Renner. Lasker's second in Düsseldorf was Appun, while in Munich Schropp and Kollmann alternated as seconds.<18> The match began on August 17 in the Kunstpalast in Düsseldorf, where the first 4 games were played. The contract stipulated that the match be relocated to Munich as soon as one competitor had scored three points.<19> Both players were in a separate room, together with their seconds. The numerous spectators followed the match in a large hall. Lasker drew the white pieces by lot, and won game 1. According to Lasker, Tarrasch could have won game 2, had he abstained from pawn grabbing and continued his attack.<20> With Lasker leading 2-0, Tarrasch took two rest days to recover from the losses,<21> and then scored his first win in game 3. Lasker won game 4 on August 31, after refuting Tarrasch's combination by 27...Rxf4.<crawfb5- be sure to use the "Rook" figure for the html> With the score now 3-1 in Lasker's favor, the match now moved to the Rathaus in Munich on September 1. About 1,200 spectators witnessed Lasker's win in game 5. Game 6 ended drawn, although Tarrasch missed a win on move 42. After his win in game 7, Lasker was in the lead by the score of +5 -1 =1. The match became more even now, with draws in games 8 and 9.<20> Tarrasch won game 10, called by Garry Kasparov "probably his best game of the match."<22> Lasker struck back by winning game 11. 1,100 spectators in the afternoon and 1,300 in the evening attended game 12. Tarrasch won, and Lasker's lead was now cut to +6 -3 =3.<20> Lasker took four rest days,<23> and then won game 13.<20> In game 14, Tarrasch tried to convert a better position for three days and 119 moves, but the game was finally drawn. Lasker was held to a draw in game 15. On September 30, Tarrasch blundered a piece in time trouble and immediately resigned. Lasker won the match +8 -3 =5.<20> Several commentators considered Tarrasch to have played below his ability, and that the result did not truly represent his true strength. Most, however, agreed that Lasker's victory was well deserved, and that he had demonstrated his superiority over Tarrasch.<24> <25> 1 Rod Edwards, <Siegbert Tarrasch> http://www.edochess.ca/players/p455... 2 Rod Edwards, <Manchester 1890> http://www.edochess.ca/tournaments/... 3 "New York Sun", 6 October 1890. In Jacques N. Pope, <Chess Archaeology> http://www.chessarch.com/excavation... 4 "Wiener Schachzeitung", February 1934, pp. 49-50. In <ANNO / Österreichische Nationalbibliothek> http://anno.onb.ac.at/cgi-content/a... 5 Emanuel Lasker, "Lasker's Chess Magazine", January 1906, pp. 126-127. In Edward Lasker, ed., "Lasker's Chess Magazine" Vol.III Nov 1905 - April 1908, Olomouc 1998. Translation of Amour propre by karpova. Lasker goes on explaining "His amour propre is such that he must excel at something. Chess was, as it were, the easier medium for him to choose, and he is very fond of chess, therefore, but most particularly of his own chess." 6 Rod Edwards, <Dresden 1892> http://www.edochess.ca/tournaments/... 7 Leopold Hoffer, "The Championship Match: Lasker v. Tarrasch", London 1908, p. 1 8 Siegbert Tarrasch, "Der Schachwettkampf Lasker-Tarrasch um die Weltmeisterschaft im August-September 1908", Jens-Erik Rudolph Verlag, Hamburg 2009. Originally Veit & Comp., Leipzig 1908. Chapter 1, p. 1 9 "Wiener Schachzeitung", December 1903, pp. 291-292. In <ANNO / Österreichische Nationalbibliothek> http://anno.onb.ac.at/cgi-content/a... 10 Tarrasch, chapter 1, p.2 11 Tarrasch, chapter 1, p.3 12 "Brooklyn Daily Eagle" (Brooklyn, New York), 11 September 1906, p. 6. In <Brooklyn Newsstand> http://bklyn.newspapers.com/image/#... 13 "Wiener Schachzeitung", May-July 1907, pp. 163-164. In <ANNO / Österreichische Nationalbibliothek> http://anno.onb.ac.at/cgi-content/a... 14 "Brooklyn Daily Eagle" (Brooklyn, New York), 2 August 1908, p. 45. In <Brooklyn Newsstand> http://bklyn.newspapers.com/image/#... 15 "Wiener Schachzeitung", May-June 1908, pp. 176-177. In <ANNO / Österreichische Nationalbibliothek> http://anno.onb.ac.at/cgi-content/a... 16 "Wiener Schachzeitung", September-October 1908, p. 263. In <ANNO / Österreichische Nationalbibliothek> http://anno.onb.ac.at/cgi-content/a... 17 "Wiener Schachzeitung", September-October 1908, p. 265. In <ANNO / Österreichische Nationalbibliothek> http://anno.onb.ac.at/cgi-content/a... 18 Tarrasch, chapter 1, p.15. Among the tasks of the seconds mentioned were checking the clocks prior to the games. The chessplayer's second had to be contacted at least 1 hour before start of the game, if a rest day was taken (chapter 1, p.14). They were not for analysis of adjourned games, as clause 13 prohibited analysis or replaying of adjourned games in presence of a third person. 19 "Wiener Schachzeitung", July-August 1908, p. 193. In <ANNO / Österreichische Nationalbibliothek> http://anno.onb.ac.at/cgi-content/a... 20 Emanuel Lasker, "Wiener Schachzeitung", Supplementheft 1908, pp. 381-416 (originally from Pester Lloyd 1908). In <ANNO / Österreichische Nationalbibliothek> http://anno.onb.ac.at/cgi-content/a... 21 Tarrasch, chapter 3, p. 30 22 Garry Kasparov, On My Great Predecessors Part I, 2003, Everyman, pp. 167-168. 23 Tarrasch, chapter 13, p. 78. The break lasted 5 days overall, since a Sunday was in between. 24 "Wiener Schachzeitung", September-October 1908, pp. 323-328. In <ANNO / Österreichische Nationalbibliothek> http://anno.onb.ac.at/cgi-content/a... . The "Bohemia" and Karl Behting, in the "Düna-Zeitung", agreed that Tarrasch had played below his strength but acknowledged Lasker's superiority. The "Frankfurter Zeitung" (2 October 1908) was more sympathetic to Tarrasch, noting that the match result was not indicative of his actual strength. Hans Seyboth in the "St. Petersburger Zeitung", Eugene Znosko-Borovsky in "Novoe Vremia", and the "New-Yorker Staatszeitung" noted Lasker's superiority. 25 "Wiener Schachzeitung", December 1908, pp. 370-376. In <ANNO / Österreichische Nationalbibliothek> http://anno.onb.ac.at/cgi-content/a... . Max Hofschläger in the "Hamburger Nachrichten" notes that Lasker was the better player, but that Tarrasch had played below his strength. ################################# Lasker achieved this score after winning the 4th game on August 31. The match continued in the Rathaus in Munich until September 30, when Lasker won the 16th game and the match (+8 -3 =5).<21> ################################# EDIT Tarrasch's <amour propre> Lasker: <"Dr. Tarrasch's strength or weakness, if one likes-- is his pronounced <<<amour propre.>>> Without it he would have been a very mediocre chess player; gifted to an abnormal degree, he has become a giant. His <<<amour propre>>> is such that he must excel at something. Chess was, as it were, the easier medium for him to choose, and he is very fond of chess, therefore, but most particularly of his own chess. He has written two chess books and is writing a third one-- <<<all about himself, his victories, his opinions, his life and evolution.>>> He writes very wittily and entertainingly. But his <<<naive self-adoration>>> often influences his judgment of men and affairs and even chess positions. There is no game on earth played by anybody but Dr. Tarrasch in which he would not point out a mistake or a faster road to victory or improvement of some kind. In his criticisms his personality must be predominant. This is the one great weakness of the doctor's critical judgment. In his personal life he is, like many Germans of the better classes, always 'correct.' To be 'correct' signifies, in Germany, the attitude of a an whose conduct, in the judgment of his neighbors, is always proper and befitting his station. In order to be 'correct,' one must be guided by the opinion of others; one must be without a moral or ethical code of one's own, and annex that of one's surroundings. In dress, in what he says and does in public, Dr. Tarrasch is always 'correct.' It is the same in chess. He always tries to find the 'correct' move which if his understanding of it is analyzed, is the move which, in the opinion of the best judges, would satisfy all requirements. As he is very painstaking and earnest in his studies, his strength in chess is exceedingly great. But still one cannot help feeling that it is acquired, not born in him, for he follows the progress of ideas but never heads it."> -"Lasker's Chess Magazine" (Jan 1906), p.126. In Edward Lasker, ed., "Lasker's Chess Magazine" Vol.III Nov 1905 - April 1908, Olomouc 1998. === EDIT <Regarding>: "Meanwhile, Lasker negotiated for a world championship match with Maroczy in 1906 without success.(9)" Two Items of interest: 1. "The Defection of Maroczy" (title of article) <"After several months of silence, after having failed for four weeks to respond to a cablegram, Maroczy, questioned by a representative of the 'Staatszeitung,' has declared the match with Lasker 'off.' <<<The cause that he assigns for his strange conduct is activity in politics.>>> And according to the report of the Staatszeitung's representative he proposes to make amends by paying a forfeit of five hundred dollars to Lasker or postpone the match for a year, at the latter's option. Mr. Maroczy seems under the impression that the affair is a mere business transaction. But he is mistaken; his honor is involved. It goes without saying that Lasker will not accept Marozy's offer of money. But it is equally clear- and this is a point which the Hungarian seems completely to overlook- that the Americans who had promised liberal support will have no further use of one who has broken his solemnly pledged word without an effort of apology and explanation to any of the parties concerned.> -"Lasker's Chess Magazine" (July 1906), p.l30. In Edward Lasker, ed., "Lasker's Chess Magazine" Vol.IV May 1006 - Oct 1906, Olomouc 1998 2. <"<<<'The Morning Post,'>>> in commenting on Mr. Maroczy's failure to post his forfeit, says: <<<'Maroczy has no doubt been disappointed by his backers, and the matter may be rectified; but if it is not this additional shock to public confidence will make it increasingly difficult to bring about a championship match, even if a suitable candidate should arise.'>>> -"Lasker's Chess Magazine" (July 1906), p.l30. In Edward Lasker, ed., "Lasker's Chess Magazine" Vol.IV May 1006 - Oct 1906, Olomouc 1998 ################################### EDIT <Karpova> <TARRASCH CANNOT PLAY STEINITZ He Must Stay at Home and Look After His Sick Clients. In reply to a cablegram o Dr. Tarrasch asking him whether he would accept the invitation of the Havana Chess Club to play a match with Steinitz in Havana the German expert replied as follows: "Regards for my professional praxis prevent me from devoting myself exclusively to chess and to undertake to stay away from home for so long a time. I therefore regret very sincerely not being able to accept the invitation, which I consider as honorable as it is generous. Allow me to convey my most hearty thanks, all the same. "Tarrasch"> Source: 'New York Sun', October 6, 1890. In Jacques N. Pope http://www.chessarch.com/excavation... Interestingly, there is also correspondence regarding the Steinitz - Chigorin match (Baron Albert von Rothschild declining the offer of referee, but accepting to be stakeholder) and Steinitz - Gunsberg. ############################# EDIT <Karpova> EDIT <Karpova> According to p. 245 of Kurt Landsberger, "William Steinitz, Chess Champion", McFarland, 1995 <The Manhattan Chess Club proposed a title match between Tarrasch and Steinitz (after the Gunsberg match), which Steinitz considered feasible. Tarrasch declined as he had to look after his patients and could devote himself to chess not more than once a year.> #################################### EDIT <Karpova> placeholder: <and said and said "Dr. Tarrasch had become a giant in chess thanks to his amour propre.(3)"> after <whiteshark>, <Domdaniel> and <perfidious>: <Dr. Tarrasch's strength or weakness, if you will, is his pronounced self-love. Without it, he would have become only a a very mediocre chessplayer. But with his particular talent, he grew into a giant.3> ############################### EDIT <JFQ> and <Karpova> <In the late 1880s, he established himself as one of the strongest chessplayers in the world with several tournament successes [(1)].> Change to From the late 1880s on, he established himself as one of the strongest chessplayers in the world with several notable tournament successes, finishing clear first at 6th DSB Congress, Breslau (1889), the 9th DSB Congress, Leipzig (1894), Vienna (1898), and Monte Carlo (1903). ########################### KARPOVA TEXT and SOURCES: < Karpova: <WCC Editing Project> On Game Collection: WCC: Lasker vs Tarrasch 1908 I would replace <At one point, Lasker had challenged him to a match and been curtly brushed off. Because of Tarrasch's earlier snub, the two were not on speaking terms for years, which delayed any chance Tarrasch might have of playing for the title> with maybe the following: Already in 1903, Dr. Tarrasch had challenged Dr. Lasker for a WC match [1] to take place in autumn 1904 [2] [3] and the conditions were published at the end of 1903 [4]. After Dr. Tarrasch suffered an ice-skating accident, the WC match to take place later that year, was postponed indefinitely. In 1908, long negotiations headed by the chairmen of the German (Gebhardt) and Bavarian (Schenzel) Chess Federations lead to Dr. Lasker accept a lower honorarium than originally demanded while Dr. Tarrasch even abdicated a remuneration [5] [6] to enable the match taking place in Germany... [1] p. 96, 1907 'Wiener Schachzeitung' (or even better if anyone has access, Dr. Lasker's original from 'Lasker's Chess Magazine' 1906 on chessmasters of the past and presence) [2] p. 364, 1904 'Wiener Schachzeitung' [3] <perfidious>' source 'Championship Chess' by P W Sergeant [4] p. 291-292, 1903 'Wiener Schachzeitung' [5] p. 176-177, 1908 'Wiener Schachzeitung' (<The winner got 4,000, the loser 2,500 Mark. Dr. Lasker an additional 7,500 Mark (originally demanded 15,000 Mark) while Dr. Tarrasch abdicated a honorarium, as in the text> - are there additional sources?) [6] p. 263, 1908 'Wiener Schachzeitung' http://anno.onb.ac.at/cgi-content/a... > KARPOVA PART TWO <On a sidenote, Dr. Tarrasch's claim that the sea air at Düsseldorf was partly responsible for his poor showing in the first four games is reprinted from 'Berliner Lokalanzeiger' of 1908.08.26 on page 193 of the 1908 'Wiener Schachzeitung'. In an interview with Dr. Hans Taub ('Münchner Neueste Nachrichten', 1908.09.23 'Bei Dr. Tarrasch'), he claims that a well-known Viennese master (<bekannter Wiener Meister>) agreed to training but then declined at the last moment and so he was not well-established at the beginning of the match (while he says that claim about sea air was not true <Das ist absolut unrichtig>), page 303 of the 1908 'Wiener Schachzeitung' - Max Weiss is discussing this discrepancy on pages 321-323. Interesting is the following: Dr. Lasker wrote in the 'Pester Lloyd' on August 17, 1908 (reprinted on page 381 ff. of the 1908 'Wiener Schachzeitung') that he proposed a match to Dr. Tarrasch 16 years ago (<Bereits vor sechzehn Jahren, [...], trug ich Dr. Tarrasch an, ein Match zu spielen. Damals lehnte er ab.>) but the latter declined, so Dr. Lasker played the revenge match against Steinitz. I guess that Dr. Lasker's match proposal in 1892 and the almost played match in 1904 were thrown together. Sadly, I did not find anything about the Dr. Tarrasch's Steinitz quote but a reference (which may not lead to the quotation): Gareth Williams, Lasker's Last Stand, Chess Monthly 6 (1), (1996), 44-45. from http://www-history.mcs.st-and.ac.uk... Dr. Tarrasch did not write articles for the 'Wiener Schachzeitung' and his articles don't appear there. As Dr. Lasker was not WC in 1892, do you think that the match proposal back then should be mentioned? I'm not sure, as it was no title match, it needn't be and as long as we differentiate between the declined match proposal by Dr. Lasker in 1892 and the WC challenge by Dr. Tarrasch in 1903, everything should be fine.> ############################### <BATGIRL> on Lasker v Tarrasch: http://www.chess.com/groups/forumvi...> <"In the meantime the date for the Dresden Congress of the German Chess Association approached, in which Lasker intended to take part. He changed his mind, and did not enter. But during its progress he wrote a letter to me, with the request to ask (privately) the winner of this tournament, presumably Dr. Tarrasch, whether he would be willing to play him a match. I handed his letter over to Dr. Tarrasch, but his reply was unsatisfactory, and I informed Lasker of my abortive mission. This episode has been ventilated in the chess press at the time, and need not be recapitulated here in detail. It will suffice to state that I did not communicate Dr. Tarrasch's reply verbatim. but in a form which I deemed less offensive to Lasker, so as not to prevent a renewal of the challenge. Dr. Tarrasch held afterwards that I had no right to give what I called a diplomatic answer, and <the consequence was a sharp polemic in the Chess Monthly,> which disturbed my friendly relations with Dr. Tarrasch for the time being ; but the matter was finally cleared up during the Hastings Tournament, in which Dr. Tarrasch competed."> <Batgirl SOURCE>: <The Championship Match Lasker v. Tarrasch / edited by L. Hoffer. London : E.A. Michell and Frank Hollings, 1908, p.1> And this topic amplified by <TheFocus>: <This was earlier related by Lasker himself in <London Chess Fortnightly>, Issue 2, September 1, 1892, pg. 15: <Some days before the conclusion of the Dresden Tournament, we requested Mr. Hoffer to kindly address a private enquiry to the first prize winner, asking if he would be prepared to play a match with us on English soil for 500 pounds, some time next year. Upon Dr. Tarrasch being declared the winner, he was approached by Mr. Hoffer, but gave as a reply that the duties of his calling prevented him from giving the matter any consideration. Some of the leading German papers and also the <German Chess Journal> stated, however, by way of reply, that he would reconsider the matter as soon as we had been awarded the first prize at an International Tournament. from this it would appear that Dr. Tarrasch does not consider us good enough yet to be able to compete with him. Whether he is right or wrong in this case we leave to others to judge. in any case, we must confess that we hardly expected a public reply to our private enquiry.>> ############################## <And this EDIT info from <perfidious>, which still <<<REQUIRES SOURCING>>>:> <Sergeant corroborated this much later as follows: <It appears that Lasker had intended to enter for the Dresden Tournamet this year; but for some reason he changed his mind. While it was in progress he wrote to Hoffer, who was in Dresden, as to the chances of a match with the winner of it, which Tarrasch already seemed likely to be. Hoffer approached Tarrasch, whose reply, he asserts, was so unsatisfactory that he did not communicate it verbatim to Lasker. At this date Tarrasch clearly saw no comparison between their records.>> ############################## [[In 1908, Tarrasch challenged Emanuel Lasker for the World Chess Championship. Lasker accepted, but was convinced that Tarrasch had hypnotic powers and therefore requested he play the match from a different room. The match took place in Germany between August 17 and September 20, 1908. It was considered by many to be the most exciting chess match in history up to that date. An attempted reconciliation before the match came to nothing, when Tarrasch refused to shake hands, made a stiff little bow, and said: "To you, Herr Lasker, I have only three words to say: Check and mate!"1]] ####################################### <<CHECK AND MATE> Provenance: the earliest account of this anecdote found so far is here (1952):> <"The one unpleasant aspect of the great match of 1908 was the fact that the two contenders did not happen to be on speaking terms. Tarrasch was not a very conciliatory man, and his animosity against his great adversary had been embittered by the lengthy negotiations due to Lasker's insistence on holding out for his financial terms. At the beginning of the match mutual friends among the members of the organising committee hoped to bring about a reconciliation of the two masters or at least their readiness to observe the conventional social civilities in the course of the match. Lasker was quite willing, and it was arranged from him to wait in a private room while the kindly committee member went to fetch Dr Tarrasch. But the Doctor only came as far as the door. There he made a stiff little bow and exclaimed: 'To you, Herr Lasker, I have only three words to say: <<<Check and Mate!'>>> He made another bow and turned on his heels. Lasker merely shrugged his shoulders. As for Tarrasch, he was not to have many opportunities of speaking the three ominous words.> SOURCE: <Dr. J. Hannak Emanuel Lasker - The Life of a Chess Master Dover, 1991 p.130 This was originally published in German in 1952. The English translation was published in 1959 by Andre Deutsch in London and Simon & Schuster in New York. The Dover 1991 edition says it is an exact copy of the 1959 English translation> ORIGINAL SOURCE (from Edward Winter- Chess Note 5707 ): <How far back can the ‘Schach und Matt’ story be traced? It appeared on page 118 of Emanuel Lasker Biographie eines Schachweltmeisters by J. Hannak (Berlin-Frohnau, 1952): http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/...> ############################### <Siegbert Tarrasch> was born in Breslau, Prussia (now Wrocław, Poland) in 1862. In the late 1880s, he established himself as one of the strongest chessplayers in the world with several tournament successes. [(1)] After Tarrasch's first place in Manchester (1890),[(2)] the Havana Chess Club proposed a match against world champion <Wilhelm Steinitz>.[(3)] Tarrasch declined as he couldn't devote that much time to chess, being a practicing physician.[(3)] Besides his successful chess career, he is also famous for propagating and deepening chess, which earned him the nickname "praeceptor germaniae" (lat. [[teacher of Germany]]).[(4)] In 1906, world champion <Emanuel Lasker> singled out Tarrasch and <Geza Maroczy> as worthy contenders for the world championship, and said "Dr. Tarrasch's strength or weakness, if you will, is his pronounced self-love. Without it, he would have become only a very mediocre chessplayer. But with his particular talent, he grew into a giant."[(5)] Before he won the title from Steinitz, Lasker had already approached Tarrasch for a match in 1892. Tarrasch declined, leaving Lasker with the impression that he didn't consider him good enough yet.[(6)] In 1903, Tarrasch challenged Lasker for a world championship match [(5)] to take place in autumn 1904.[(7)] The conditions were published at the end of 1903.[(8)] After Tarrasch suffered an ice-skating accident, the match was postponed indefinitely.[(7)] Meanwhile, Lasker negotiated for a world championship match with Maroczy in 1906 without success.[(9)] When Lasker defended his title in the <Lasker – Marshall world championship match (1907)> by the score (+8 -0 =7), comparisons were drawn to Tarrasch's previous victory (+8 -1 =8) against the same opponent in 1905,[(10)] as if the title match had only been a substitute for a match between the two German chessmasters. Finally, the long-anticipated match was brought about after lengthy negotiations in 1908. The chairmen of the German (Gebhardt) and Bavarian (Schenzel) Chess Federations persuaded Lasker to accept a lower honorarium of 7,500 Mark (instead of originally demanded 15,000 Mark), while Tarrasch even agreed to forego an honorarium. The winner was the first to win eight games with draws not counting and received 4,000 Mark, while the loser got 2,500 Marks.[(11)] [(12)] The time control was 1 h for 15 moves.[(13)] The match began on August 17 in the Kunstpalast in Düsseldorf where the first 4 games were played. The contract stipulated that the match be relocated to Munich as soon as one competitor had scored three points.[(14)] As Lasker achieved this score after winning the 4th game on August 31, the match continued in the Rathaus in Munich until September 30, when Lasker won the 16th game and the match (+8 -3 =5).[(15)] Several commentators considered Tarrasch to have played below his ability and the result not to be representative of his true strength, yet Lasker's victory was regarded to be deserved as he had demonstrated his superiority.[(16)] [(17)] [(1)] Rod Edwards, http://www.edochess.ca/players/p455... [(2)] Rod Edwards, http://www.edochess.ca/tournaments/... [(3)] "New York Sun", October 6, 1890. In Jacques N. Pope http://www.chessarch.com/excavation... [(4)] Wiener Schachzeitung, February 1934, pp. 49-50 [(5)] Wiener Schachzeitung, March-April 1907, pp. 95-96 (originally from Lasker's Chess Magazine 1906) [(6)] Emanuel Lasker, London Chess Fortnightly, Issue 2, September 1, 1892, p. 15 [(7)] Wiener Schachzeitung, December 1904, p. 364 [(8)] Wiener Schachzeitung, December 1903, pp. 291-292 [(9)] Brooklyn Daily Eagle, 1/8/1905, page 13. [(10)] Wiener Schachzeitung, May-July 1907, pp. 163-164 [(11)] Wiener Schachzeitung, May-June 1908, pp. 176-177 [(12)] Wiener Schachzeitung, September-October 1908, p. 263 [(13)] Wiener Schachzeitung, September-October 1908, p. 265 [(14)] Wiener Schachzeitung, July-August 1908, p. 193 [(15)] Emanuel Lasker, Wiener Schachzeitung, Supplementheft 1908, pp. 381-416 (originally from Pester Lloyd 1908) [(16)] Wiener Schachzeitung, September-October 1908, pp. 323-328 [(17)] Wiener Schachzeitung, December 1908, pp. 370-376 3 games, 1908 WCC: OVERALL INTRODUCTION ORIGINAL: History of the World Chess Championship ############################## Information about <6th American Chess Cognress> Game Collection: New York 1889 The 6th American Chess Congress was to end with a match. The committee decided on the stipulation, that the 2nd or 3rd prize winners only had the right to challenge the 1st place winner to a world championship match (<Wettkampf um die Meisterschaft der Welt>). Chessplayers who hadn't participated, or other prize and non-prize winners could challenge the tournament winner, but this would not be a world championship match then. Source: Deutsches Wochenschach, 19 May 1889, issue 20, pp. 171-172, https://archive.org/stream/deutsche... I do not know what became of those plans. According to Rod Edwards, http://www.edochess.ca/tournaments/..., Chigorin seems to have drawn a short match versus Weiss. This seems to have been a short play-off match to decide on the 1st prize winner, rather. This is confirmed on p. 179 of the Deutsches Wochenschach, 26 May 1889, issue 21: Three play-off games were planned, four were played and Weiss and Chigorin shared 1st and 2nd place ($1,000 + $750). With a shared 1st place, the match plans appear hard to realize, except for when Chigorin and Weiss would have played. Furthermore, I wonder if it would have been taken seriously. Steinitz was missing (and he had just beaten Chigorin in a match), and some other already strong players had also been missing. ============== It's claimed to be well-known now that a match between the 1st prize winner of the 6th American Chess Congress and <"Champion"> (quotation marks in the original) Steinitz for the Championship of the World shall be played. Since Weiss and Chigorin shared 1st place, the question arises, which one of the two shall play. In addition, Gunsberg shall have been empowered by his friends in England to challenge Chigorin to a match. Source: Deutsches Wochenschach, 16 June 1889, issue 24, p. 208, === http://www.chessarch.com/excavation... http://www.chessarch.com/excavation... http://www.chessarch.com/excavation... === I really don't know what to make of this information, but since the world championship was mentioned, I thought I should post it. It doesn't seem to have had an influence on the world chess championship (Steinitz-Chigorin 1889 had already been played, next was Steinitz-Gunsberg 1890 and then Steinitz would play Chigorin in 1892 again. Chigorin played Gunsberg in 1890, though.). In addition, I just remember too well the other tries by New York tournament organizers, e. g. closely prior to WWI (but also later), to unsuccessfully get involved with the world championship. The whole matter becomes even more puzzling with every new find: <The all-important tie game in the international chess tournament between Weiss and Mason will be played to-day. If Mason beats Weiss, Tchigorin wins first prize, in which case he will be at once challenged by Gunsberg for the championship. If, however, Weiss beats Mason, then Weiss wins first prize by half a point, and he will then be possibly challenged by Tchigorin.> Source: New York Daily Tribune, 21 May 1889, http://www.chessarch.com/excavation... === See also the New York Sun, 21 May 1889, http://www.chessarch.com/excavation... for more on this. http://www.chessarch.com/excavation... === Another interesting tidbit: <Mr. Tchigorin is one of the handsomest men in the tournament, and is a gentleman of culture and refinement. He is of medium height and weight. His complexion is clear and rather dark. His black hair, always brushed back from his forehead, makes his features prominent.> Source: New York Sun, 22 May 1889, http://www.chessarch.com/excavation... === The Boston Herald of 23 May 1889 calls the play off games <world championship games>. http://www.chessarch.com/excavation... Same with the New York Daily Tribune, http://www.chessarch.com/excavation... One day later, the Boston Herald calls them <candidates for the world's championship.>, http://www.chessarch.com/excavation... And the New York Daily Tribune alike, http://www.chessarch.com/excavation... <Baron Kolisch, the eminent Austrian player and at one time the world's champion, died recently.> Atlanta Sunny South, 25 May 1889, http://www.chessarch.com/excavation... After the conclusion of the play-off (drawn), suddenly the Boston Herald of 28 May 1889, announces that the <championship of the sixth American Chess Congress> was left <undecided>. http://www.chessarch.com/excavation... The New York Daily Tribune maintains that the <the question of the world's chess championship is left undecided, in an unsatisfactory manner.> http://www.chessarch.com/excavation... There is something on Steinitz and the championship here http://www.chessarch.com/excavation... (Galveston Daily News, 2 June 1889), but I can hardly decipher it. Interesting: <The challenge match part of the tournament has evidently fallen through, as Tchigorin was announced to have sailed for Europe yesterday.> Newark Sunday Call, 2 June 1889, http://www.chessarch.com/excavation... The St. Paul Daily Globe still speaks of the world chess championship: http://www.chessarch.com/excavation... The Atlanta Sunny South of 15 June 1889 is a bit critical: http://www.chessarch.com/excavation... === <Karpova> This whole matter seems to me to be hardly connected to the world championship. A fairly strong tournament was organized, although not even all of the world's best participated, and the organizers decided to link it to the world chess championship. This neither seems to have been accepted by the chess world, nor did it produce a notable result (they not even had a sole winner). So I doubt that it is relevant for the WCC Editing Project. If someone ever wants to write an introduction for New York (1889), he/she will find a lot of material in the Jack O'Keefe Project timeline, at least until 16 June 1889. === For the sake of completeness: After the play-off between Weiss and Chigorin, only in the first game did Chigorin and Weiss fight for the win. The last game was only a repetition of the two preceding games. Both, Weiss and Chigorin rather lost several hundred $ than to win the last game. The winner would have been forced to wait 30 days for a challenger, and that match then may have lasted another 2 months. This seems to be based on 'The Times Democrat.' Source: Deutsches Wochenschach, 30 June 1889, issue 26, p. 223, https://archive.org/stream/deutsche... ######################## 3 games, 1836 WCC: Petrosian-Spassky 1966 Original: Petrosian - Spassky World Championship Match (1966) DRAFT EDIT <JFQ> Boris Spassky Leonard Barden, "Portrait of a World Champion" "Chess Life and Review" Vol. 29, No.1 Jan 1970, pp.9-13 ########################## <Spassky in the Candidates Cycle> "The year 1965 brought the end of FIDE's Candidates Tournaments and a switch to a series of knockout matches." -Andrew Soltis, "Soviet Chess 1917-1991" (McFarland 1997), p.268 (Needs primary source corroboration) -<Change to a Candidates Match format> Averbakh: <"At the 1962 Congress at Varna, the Candidates' tournament format was <<<changed>>> to matches..."> --Yuri Averbakh "Centre-Stage and Behind the Scenes- the Personal Memoir of a Soviet Chess Legend." Steve Giddins, tranls. (New in Chess 2011), p.114 === -<USSR Championship Semifinal 1963> in Kharkov. 2d to Viacheslav Osnos http://al20102007.narod.ru/ch_urs/1... -<USSR Championship 1963> in Leningrad \(Russian Zonal qualifier- top six plus Korchnoi would play in a Russian zonal) Shared 2d with Leonid Stein, lost after playoff. USSR Championship (1963) -<Russian Zonal 1964> (Top three would go to the Amsterdam 1964 Interzonal). 1st, over Stein, Bronstein, Kholmov, Suetin, Korchnoi and Geller. USSR Zonal (1964) -<Amsterdam Interzonal 1964> Shared 1st with Smyslov, Larsen and Tal. Amsterdam Interzonal (1964) -<Candidates Matches>- Geller - Smyslov Candidates Quarterfinal (1965) Spassky - Keres Candidates Quarterfinal (1965) Spassky - Geller Candidates Semifinal (1965) Tal - Portisch Candidates Quarterfinal (1965) Larsen - Ivkov Candidates Quarterfinal (1965) Tal - Larsen Candidates Semifinal (1965) Spassky - Tal Candidates Final (1965) === <Petrosian's events before the match>: ################################################### <Preparation> Petrosian- <"Before the match, <<<Petrosian studied>>> more than five hundred of Spassky's games..."> -Vik L. Vasiliev, "Tigran Petrosian- His Life and Games" Michael Basman, transl. (Batsford 1974), p.159 ============== Averbakh interview after the 22d game of the match- Petrosian: <I began training long before the match was supposed to start. Spassky had not yet sat down to play with Tal in the last elimination match when Boleslavsky and I drew up a detailed plan of preparations. The first stage was devoted to a study of of my games from all angles. <<<I made a special trip to Tbilisi to watch my rivals, Spassky and Tal... When it grew clear that Spassky would win I returned to Moscow and began analyzing his games.>>> This took up a considerable amount of time. Only after that did I begin training for the approaching... marathon match... Boleslavsky and I elaborated the opening systems and also the tactics I would employ. I quit all chess training about a month before the world series to give myself a rest."> <"I realized that I could well find myself in worse playing form than Spassky, and, therefore, competed in the Erevan International Tournament, the Moscow-Leningrad Match, Moscow Team Championships, and a specially organized Grandmasters' tourney. In all these events I pursued the requisite training purposes and tried to find out my weak spots. <<<The two games with Viktor Korchnoi in the Moscow-Leningrad match rendered me a great service in this respect.>>> They forced me to give serious attention to my training, to pull myself together for the coming title clash."> -Harry Golombek and Peter Clark, "Petrosian vs. Spassky- The World Chess Championships Moscow 1966 and 1969" (Hardinge Simpole 2004), p.41 === Barden: <"When I interviewed him at Hastings 1966-67, he told me it was difficult to organise his time to prepare properly for the Petrosian match. <<<'When I live alone a lot of time is spent on everyday practical problems. I have to wash my shirts and look after myself... I don't like this kind of life when it is so disorganised. A bachelor's life is very bad. But now that I am so involved with the world championship I don't like to spend a lot of time with girls- just enough to say how-do-you-do and goodbye.'">>>> -Leonard Barden, "Forward" in Bernard Cafferty, "Spassky's 100 Best Games- The Rise of Boris Spassky 1949-1971" (Hardinge Simpole 2002) (originally Batsford 1972), pp. 26-27 <"Spassky's preparation for the 1969 match... were more thorough than in 1966, <<<when he was tired>>> by the long series of elimination contests.> -Leonard Barden, "Forward" in Bernard Cafferty, "Spassky's 100 Best Games- The Rise of Boris Spassky 1949-1971" (Hardinge Simpole 2002) (originally Batsford 1972), p.28 =============== David Levy interview- "David Levy asked Boris in 1970... what he thought about the method of qualifying for the world championship..." Spassky: <"I think it is necessary to change it because the challenger has to spend a lot of nervous energy and this is very hard. I know this because I was qualifying for six years and it is awful. <<<The challenger comes to the match for the title completely ruined>>> because he has spent his ideas and he is completely spent inside."> -Leonard Barden, "Forward" in Bernard Cafferty, "Spassky's 100 Best Games- The Rise of Boris Spassky 1949-1971" (Hardinge Simpole 2002) (originally Batsford 1972), p.23 === Averbakh Interview Petrosian: <"I agree with Botvinnik that Spassky's journey to the Hastings Christmas Congress wasn't the best way to prepare for the world title match. <<<I also believe that the results of the Challengers' Rounds were to blame for Boris' under-estimation of the games with me.>>> He believed in his lucky star after his brilliant victories over Keres, Geller, and Tal, and thought that things would continue to move on by inertia, so to speak."> -Harry Golombek and Peter Clark, "Petrosian vs. Spassky- The World Chess Championships Moscow 1966 and 1969" (Hardinge Simpole 2004), p.43 ############################# <Predictions> <"At the end of 1965, in the newspaper 'Trud,' an interview with various Soviet and non-Soviet chess players was published. In it appeared a question on the chances of Petrosian and Spassky in a match... Keres, Larsen, Gligoric, Reshevsky, Najdorf all spoke in favour of Spassky. Later on, two ex-champions, Tal and Smyslov, joined them. Botvinnik, Euwe and Fischer withheld their judgment. <<<Only Stahlberg expressed his belief in Petrosian's victory...>>> Tal put the situation very accurately: 'Petrosian has two problems to resolve; one of them, formal- to hold his champion's crown; the other, moral: to unsettle the general conviction that Spassky must win.'"> -Vik L. Vasiliev, "Tigran Petrosian- His Life and Games" Michael Basman, transl. (Batsford 1974), pp.159-160 ############################ <Conditions> Golombek: "Conditions of play were exactly the same as those of preceding World Championship matches." A maximum of 24 games were due to be played, but should one player gain 12 1/2 points then the match is over... (draw odds for Petrosian) ...40 moves in 2 1/2 hours, 16 moves per hour after, 5 hour sessions of play from 4:30pm, three games a week on Monday, Wednesday and Friday, adjourned games played the next day in the Central Chess Club. -<Venue> Estrada Theatre -<Seconds> Boleslavsky (Petrosian) and Bondarevsky (Spassky) --<Chief Referee> O'Kelly, assistant ref. Filip. -Harry Golombek and Peter Clark, "Petrosian vs. Spassky- The World Chess Championships Moscow 1966 and 1969" (Hardinge Simpole 2004), p.15 <Course of the Match> ################################ <1st game> Spassky vs Petrosian, 1966 <1/2> ################################ <2d game> Petrosian vs Spassky, 1966 <1/2> ################################# <3d game> Spassky vs Petrosian, 1966 <1/2> ################################# <4th game> Petrosian vs Spassky, 1966 <1/2> ################################## <5th game> Spassky vs Petrosian, 1966 <1/2> "Turning Point"? Leonard Barden- Spassky: <"When I failed to win the 'won' fifth game, to a certain degree <<<I lost confidence in myself,>>> and my opponent was right there to pick up his confidence. It was by no means coincidental that after the twelfth game he was leading the match with a two-point margin."> -Leonard Barden, "Forward" in Bernard Cafferty, "Spassky's 100 Best Games- The Rise of Boris Spassky 1949-1971" (Hardinge Simpole 2002) (originally Batsford 1972), p.26 ############################### <6th game> Petrosian vs Spassky, 1966 <1/2> ############################### <7th game> Spassky vs Petrosian, 1966 <0-1> Petrosian: <"I regard the seventh game as <<<my best achievement in this match.>>> It demonstrates my objectives: limitation of the adversary's possibilities, strategy of play all over the board, and the encircling and gradual tightening of the ring of encirclement around the rival king"> -Harry Golombek and Peter Clark, "Petrosian vs. Spassky- The World Chess Championships Moscow 1966 and 1969" (Hardinge Simpole 2004), p.41 === Spassky: <"During the 1966 match, <<<I was convinced that even if I could only win one game as Black, I would win the marathon struggle.>>> But alas! My dream was not realized. More than that, it was not I, but my formidable opponent who had succeeded in defeating me in one of the games in the last match with Black. I remember well how this victory brought Petrosian joy and confidence in the match's satisfactory outcome."> Boris Spassky (Hanon W. Russell tranls.), "Chess Life and Review" No. 11 Nov 1969, pp.446-47 From "The Fifth Game"- an analysis of his victory in game 5 of the 1969 match. ############################### <8th game> Petrosian vs Spassky, 1966 <1/2> ############################### <9th game> Spassky vs Petrosian, 1966 <1/2> ################################# <10th game> Petrosian vs Spassky, 1966 <1-0> ################################# <11th game> Spassky vs Petrosian, 1966 <1/2> ################################# <12th game> Petrosian vs Spassky, 1966 <1/2> Averbakh Interview Petrosian: <"There were two crucial moments for me in the match. The first arose after the twelfth game where <<<I embarked on a beautiful combination but didn't carry it out to the end.>>> I wish to explain that the ending of this game proceeded during acute time-trouble, and I forgot about the possibility of repeating the same position three times. Naturally, this blunder affected me, and, probably, it was the cause of my later suffering a sore throat. I had to ask the judges for a postponement, but, evidently, whilst I was receiving treatment, Spassky was able to pull himself together after those unpleasant moments for him in the first half of the match: he came back to beat me in the thirteenth game." -Harry Golombek and Peter Clark, "Petrosian vs. Spassky- The World Chess Championships Moscow 1966 and 1969" (Hardinge Simpole 2004), p.41 ################################# <13th game> Spassky vs Petrosian, 1966 <1-0> ################################# <14th game> Petrosian vs Spassky, 1966 <1/2> ################################# <15th game> Spassky vs Petrosian, 1966 <1/2> ################################# <16th game> Petrosian vs Spassky, 1966 <1/2> ################################# <17th game> Spassky vs Petrosian, 1966 <1/2> ################################# <18th game> Petrosian vs Spassky, 1966 <1/2> ################################# <19th game> Spassky vs Petrosian, 1966 <1-0> Petrosian: <"The second crisis occurred after <<<the nineteenth game, which I lost when experiencing time trouble...>>> Although the situation grew tense in the match, this defeat affected me favorably; it compelled me to concentrate myself for the concluding decisive games."> -Harry Golombek and Peter Clark, "Petrosian vs. Spassky- The World Chess Championships Moscow 1966 and 1969" (Hardinge Simpole 2004), p.42 Golombek: <"After the eighteenth game the World Champion had availed himself of the polite fiction whereby a player in the match can claim a postponement of the next game on the supposed grounds of ill health. In this case, as so often before in world championship matches, <<<it was merely in order to gain an extra rest period.>>> Petrosian had Black, and, either dissatisfied with his position out of the opening of the seventeenth game, or else for the sake of its surprise value, he abandoned the Sicilian Defence in favour of the French. Mistakenly in my opinion, since the French Defence results in positions alien to the character of Petrosian's play."> -Harry Golombek and Peter Clark, "Petrosian vs. Spassky- The World Chess Championships Moscow 1966 and 1969" (Hardinge Simpole 2004), p.47 Golombek: <"The nineteenth game should have been played on May 25th, but it was postponed, officially for reasons of health though <<<Mrs. Petrosian rather gave away matters>>> when she informed reporters that her husband was not ill but merely wanted a rest."> -Harry Golombek and Peter Clark, "Petrosian vs. Spassky- The World Chess Championships Moscow 1966 and 1969" (Hardinge Simpole 2004), p.30 ################################# <20th game> Petrosian vs Spassky, 1966 <1-0> Golombek: <"(The game) was adjourned in a won position for the World Champion and the public rightly gave him <<<a great ovation>>> at the end of the session's play. When Spassky saw the sealed move the next day he resigned without further play, leaving the score 10 1/2 - 9 1/2 in Petrosian's favor..."> -Harry Golombek and Peter Clark, "Petrosian vs. Spassky- The World Chess Championships Moscow 1966 and 1969" (Hardinge Simpole 2004), p.49 ################################# <21st game> Spassky vs Petrosian, 1966 <1/2> ################################# <22d game> Petrosian vs Spassky, 1966 <1-0> ################################# <23d game> Spassky vs Petrosian, 1966 <1-0> ########################################## <24th game> Petrosian vs Spassky, 1966 <1/2> ################################# <Evaluations> "After the match was ended, Petrosian said: 'I consider that one of the reasons for Spassky's failure was the general belief in his victory. Quite a large part was played, perhaps, by the appearance of Bondarevsky's book (Boris Spassky Storms Olympus). The publication... might have been better left till the match was over." -Vik L. Vasiliev, "Tigran Petrosian- His Life and Games" Michael Basman, transl. (Batsford 1974), p.160 ############################## 3 games, 1966 WCC: Petrosian-Spassky 1969 Original: Petrosian - Spassky World Championship Match (1969) DRAFT EDIT <JFQ> Boris Spassky ########################### EDIT <Chessical>: YOu may find this of use for an introduction: "(Korchnoi) has some harsh words to say about how he was deprived of the services of his second, Semyeon Furman, in his biography "Chess is My Life". But at the time, Korchnoi admitted "Spassky's superiority in playing the middle game was so great ...". After winning the sixth in a great comeback, "I threw everything into the next game in a style uncharacteristic of me ...Spassky at the present time is ahead of all his contemporaries..." Spassky had this generous remark to say about his opponent "I feel Korchnoi is a harder worker than I am and is stronger than me in tactics.." <"Korchnoi's 400 Best Games", pages 159-160.> The match took place in the "October Place of Culture" in Kiev. <"Boris Spassky 300 Wins, page 162.> This was later renamed as Kiev's "International Centre of Culture and Arts". === <CHESSICAL> ON THE ACTUAL TITLE MATCH: The first packet concerns Petrosian's controversial change of defence to <1.e4> from the more passive Petroff to more active Sicilian and the Ruy Lopez (Spanish) in Games 17, 19 and 21. "To expect Spassky would again go in for a harmless continuation would have been too optimistic, and the Petroff defence is not one of those reliable openings that should be employed regularly. Petrosian decide to join battle and go in for a complicated game with chances for both sides". Boleslavsky (Petrosian's trainer) in his note to Game 17 as quoted by Kasparov "My Great Predecessors, Part 3" on p.291 Bondarevsky (Spassky's trainer)appears to support this contention, commenting on Spassky's conservative play against the Petroff in the 13th and 15th games he states, "The depression that began with Spassky after the 9th game had not yet passed. In such a state is there any point in going in for sharp variations. The time for decisive battles had not yet arrived!"; as quoted by Kasparov "My Great Predecessors, Part 3" on p.290 Spassky was quoted as " The 17th Game gave me very valuable psychological information. I realised that the Champion was continuing to avoid any risk. That meant striving to seize the initiative and to impose complicated double-edged play was fully justified"; quoted in Petrosian v Spassky, The World Chess Championship Moscow 1966 and 1969, Golombek and Clarke, Harding Simpole (2004), p. 104. === <WCC Editing Project> Further material for the introduction to the Game Collection: Game Collection: WCC: Petrosian-Spassky 1969 ... While preparing for our exhausting contest , I paid serious attention to variations in the Queen's Gambit. I wanted to alter the generally accepted opinion that my speciality is the move <1.e4>.In the long contest , I considered it important to feel confident beginning my game with <1.d4>...however failure awaited me in the 11th Game, and once and for all Petrosian convinced me that I had no business playing <1.d4>, that <1.d4> was not my cup of tea... <Source -> Spassky's notes to Game 5, Chess Life and Review p.446, December 1969 <The importance of the 9th Game> "Spassky missed a great opportunity in the ninth game. At the start of the game he was leading in the match by a commanding score of 5-3. Conducting the White pieces in the ninth game, he emerged from the opening with a substantial positional advantage...It seemed to all observers that Spassky could not fail to win this game...but he missed several golden opportunities. Had he scored this point the match would have been virtually over...Tension and over-anxiety must have played an important role. Spassky's failure to win the game had an adverse psychological effect on him as was discernable in the next two games which he lost ignominiously." <Source -> Reshevsky's notes to Game 9, Chess Life and Review p.35, January 1970 <Petrosians' collapse> When the last third of the match began, the score was tied at 8 points each. Since Petrosian had demonstrated his fighting spirit and resilience , he was favoured at this point to retain the title but Spassky showed his determination and fighting spirit to forge ahead in the 17th game, which was the beginning of the end for Petrosian....(he) played very badly in this game committing tactical errors at several stages, which is very unusual for him. This game (17th) seems to have broken his confidence and resistance (Petrosian offered a draw on move 21 but Spassky declined - e.d) <Source -> Reshevsky's commentary, Chess Life and Review p.35, January 1970 === More material from <Chessical> Petrosian's and Spassky's preparation: "I (Petrosian - ed.), as always, prepared for the match with my old chess friends - Grandmasters Isaac Boleslavsky and Aleksey Suetin. In the "Red Pahra" holiday home near Moscow we spent well our time in the company of Grandmaster Seymen Furman (who had trained Korchnoi and would go onto train Karpov - ed.) Quite a lot of the time I dedicated to physical fitness..." <Source -> "Boris Spassky's 300 Wins", CS Chess Stars, 1998, p.165 Spassky was assisted Grandmasters by I. Bondarevsky and N.Krogius. They identified that sharp active play (hence the Tarrasch Defence) would be effective against Petrosian. Consequently, Spassky planned to "maintain the desire and willingness to fight to the last move of the last game" and "play in a strictly classical manner...(Petrosian is) not a player of strict classical style his style directed towards limiting an opponent's possibilities is unique..." Spassky stated after the match, "...you can draw the conclusion that passive cautious play 'to hold the balance' became one of the basic reasons for Petrosian's defeat". <Source - > Quotes from interview with "Soviet Sport" translated in "Petrosian v Spassky, The World Chess Championships Moscow 1966 and 1969, GOlombek and Clarke, Harding Simpole 2004, p.102-104 ########################### Leonard Barden, "Portrait of a World Champion" "Chess Life and Review" Vol. 29, No.1 Jan 1970, pp.9-13 ################### <Candidates Cycle> <"The year 1965 brought the <<<end of FIDE's Candidates Tournaments>>> and a switch to a series of knockout matches."> -Andrew Soltis, "Soviet Chess 1917-1991" (McFarland 1997), p.268 (Needs primary source corroboration) <Sousse Interzonal (1967)> Sousse Interzonal (1967) After Robert James Fischer withdrew, Bent Larsen, Viktor Korchnoi, Lajos Portisch, Efim Geller, Svetozar Gligoric and Samuel Reshevsky qualified to compete in an eight-player candidates series of knock-out matches. Boris Spassky and Mikhail Tal qualified directly to these candidates matches due to their semifinal wins in the previous candidates matches: Spassky-Geller Candidates Semifinal Match (1965) and Tal-Larsen Candidates Semifinal Match (1965). (Find primary source for the FIDE rule explaining how the winners of the previous candidates semifinal matches were seeded directly into the candidates matches in the next FIDE cycle.) Spassky - Geller Candidates Quarterfinal (1968) Spassky - Larsen Candidates Semifinal (1968) Spassky - Korchnoi Candidates Final (1968) ########################### <Preparation> Barden: <"Spassky's preparation for the 1969 match... were more thorough than in 1966, when he was tired by the long series of elimination contests. He spent three months in early 1969 studying the openings and Petrosian's games. <<<The team of helpers now included Nikolai Krogius, a psychology lecturer as well as a grandmaster.>>> Boris also worked hard for physical fitness: a cross-country run each morning and Yoga exercises were part of his programme."> -Leonard Barden, "Forward" in Bernard Cafferty, "Spassky's 100 Best Games- The Rise of Boris Spassky 1949-1971" (Hardinge Simpole 2002) (originally Batsford 1972), p.28 === Petrosian: <"...I prepared for the match with my old chess-friends- grandmasters Boleslavsky and Alexei Suetin. In the company also of grandmaster <<<Semyon Furman>>> we all spent the time pretty well at the 'Krasnaya Pakhra' Holiday Home near Moscow (before moving on to my favourite Sukhanovo)... I also devoted not a little time to physical preparation. So far... I cannot complain about my health. All the same, in this most important component my possibilities, I must admit, are closer to those if not of Tal then at least Korchnoi than those of Botvinnik, Smyslov, or my future rival. I did a lot of skiing and walking in the beautiful winter forest..."> -Harry Golombek and Peter Clark, "Petrosian vs. Spassky- The World Chess Championships Moscow 1966 and 1969" (Hardinge Simpole 2004), p.66 ########################### <Conditions> <A maximum of 24 games were due to be played, but should one player gain 12 1/2 points then the match is over... (draw odds for Petrosian) ...40 moves in 2 1/2 hours, 16 moves per hour after, 5 hour sessions of play from 4:30pm, <<<three games a week>>> on Monday, Wednesday and Friday, adjourned games played the next day in the Central Chess Club.> -<Venue> Estrada Theatre -<Seconds> Boleslavsky (Petrosian) and Bondarevsky (Spassky) --<Chief Referee> O'Kelly, assistant ref. Filip. -Harry Golombek and Peter Clark, "Petrosian vs. Spassky- The World Chess Championships Moscow 1966 and 1969" (Hardinge Simpole 2004), p.60 ################################### <Course of the Match> <1st game> Spassky vs Petrosian, 1969 <0-1> ################################### <2d game> Petrosian vs Spassky, 1969 <1/2> ################################### <3d game> Spassky vs Petrosian, 1969 <1/2> ################################### <4th game> Petrosian vs Spassky, 1969 <0-1> Tal on Petrosian in game 4: <"In one game it is too <<<difficult>>> to play for a win and a draw simultaneously."> Clarke: <"The World Champion 'won' the theoretical duel carried on from the Second Game, but in trying to justify his initiative he over-reached himself. His bold play was followed up inconsistently, and towards the end of the session he collapsed in a most uncharacteristic way... Spassky had drawn level and also brought off his <<<first win ever with the black pieces>>> against his great rival."> -Harry Golombek and Peter Clark, "Petrosian vs. Spassky- The World Chess Championships Moscow 1966 and 1969" (Hardinge Simpole 2004), p.68 ################################### <5th game> Spassky vs Petrosian, 1969 <1-0> ################################### <6th game> Petrosian vs Spassky, 1969 <1/2> ######################################## <Korchnoi>, reporting for "64" on the second <Petrosian-Spassky> match. Summing up games 1-6, with Spassky leading 3.5 - 2.5: <"I do not think that the World Champion's reserves are exhausted. Throughout the course of six years he has hardly ever considered himself obliged to play at full power. And, if one can so put it, he has become unaccustomed to <<<'manly play.'>>>"> The translator is not listed, but I would be interested to know from a Russian speaker what phrase became "manly play" in English. --Harry Golombek and Peter Clark, "Petrosian vs. Spassky- The World Chess Championships Moscow 1966 and 1969" (Hardinge Simpole 2004), p.72 ################################### <7th game> Spassky vs Petrosian, 1969 <1/2> ################################### <8th game> Petrosian vs Spassky, 1969 <0-1> ################################### <9th game> Spassky vs Petrosian, 1969 <1/2> ################################### <10th game> Petrosian vs Spassky, 1969 <1-0> ################################### <11th game> Spassky vs Petrosian, 1969 <0-1> ################################### <12th game> Petrosian vs Spassky, 1969 <1/2> ################################### <13th game> Spassky vs Petrosian, 1969 <1/2> ################################### <14th game> Petrosian vs Spassky, 1969 <1/2> ################################### <15th game> Spassky vs Petrosian, 1969 <1/2> ################################### <16th game> Petrosian vs Spassky, 1969 <1/2> ################################### <17th game> Spassky vs Petrosian, 1969 <1-0> ################################### <18th game> Petrosian vs Spassky, 1969 <1/2> ################################### <19th game> Spassky vs Petrosian, 1969 <1-0> ################################### <20th game> Petrosian vs Spassky, 1969 <1-0> ################################### <21st game> Spassky vs Petrosian, 1969 <1-0> ################################### <22d game> Petrosian vs Spassky, 1969 <1/2> ################################### <23d game> Spassky vs Petrosian, 1969 ################################### 3 games, 1969 WCC: Smyslov-Botvinnik Rematch 1958 ORIGINAL: History of the World Chess Championship Game Collection: Smyslov vs World Champions Decisive Games ########################## <Chess events 1957-1958> ########################## <Match preparation> -<Pessimism of Smyslov> Golombek: <"I remember that, late in 1957 when the European Team Championship was being held at Vienna, Smyslov said to me, <<<'Maybe these six games are the only games I'll play as World Champion.'>>> ...I believe Smyslov lost the match through underestimating Botvinnik. In consequence, his preparation for the contest was not nearly so thorough as Botvinnik's, a circumstance that was reflected very strongly in the opening play. It seems too that this match had a shattering effect on Smyslov's confidence in his own powers as a player. For there has been a marked decline in his tournament results since then."> Harry Golombek "Some Olympian Moments," in "Chess Treasury of the Air" Terence Tiller, ed. (Hardinge Simpole 2002), p.86 === Botvinnik: <"I had to decide whether I should play a return match or not. In other words did I have hope of winning back the lost title? Over the course of two months I carried out analytical work. This established what the reader already knows. I might add that in the period from September 1956 to April 1957 I played too many games (50!). When I ceased to experience chess "hunger" I always played without any drive. I prepared my plan of preparation, but still had hesitations over taking a final decision. Podtserob came for me, we called in on Ragozin and Podtserob drove us up to the Lenin Hills. <<<'Mikhail Moiseyevich, you simply must play the match. I have studied you, you simply can't just 'live'. If you opt out of the struggle for the world championship then you will think up something else to undertake. It's better if you just play chess.'>>> I told my friends about the work I have done and my plans of preparation- we came to the conclusion that I should play! So I sent an official telegram to the FIDE President, and there was now no retreat."> Mikhail Botvinnik "Achieving the Aim" Bernard Cafferty, transl. (Pergamon 1981) p.148 Originally published in Russia "Achieving the Aim", Moscow: Young Guard, 1978 ========= Botvinnik originally published the following recollection in 1978: <...in the period from September 1956 to April 1957 I played too many games (50!)">. -Mikhail Botvinnik "Achieving the Aim" Bernard Cafferty, transl. (Pergamon 1981), p.148. Originally published as "Achieving the Aim", (Moscow: Young Guard), 1978 But he either forgot the number of games he had played during this period, or he deliberately left out his 9 training games with <Averbakh>, wanting to keep that information concealed. The following count shows that <Botvinnik> actually played 59 (50 + 9) games during this period: Botvinnik played 13 games at the Moscow Olympiad (31 Aug - 25 Sept 1956), 15 games at the Alekhine Memorial (9 Oct - 2 Nov 1956), 9 training games vs. Aberbakh (25 Dec 1956- 30 Jan 1957) at Botvinnik's dacha in Nikolina gora, and 22 games in the second championship match vs. Smyslov (5 March - 27 April 1957), for a total of 59 games. So it seems likely that at the time of publication of his autobiography "Achieving the Aim" in 1978 Botvinnik was deliberately concealing his 9 training games with Averbakh. Game count sources for period from September 1956 to April 1957: -<Moscow Olympiad 1956> (13 games) -"Olimbase" http://www.olimpbase.org/1956/1956i... -Edward Winter, ed. "World Chess Champions" (Pergamon Press 1981), p. 148 ============= -<Alekhine Memorial 1956> (15 games) -Di Felice, "Chess Results 1956-1960" (McFarland 2010), p.48 -Winter, ed. "World Chess Champions", p.148 ============= -<Averbakh Training Match 1956-1957> (9 games) -Yuri Averbakh "Centre-Stage and Behind the Scenes" Steve Giddins transl. (New in Chess 2011), p.101 -Jan Timman, "Secret Matches: The Unknown Training Games of Mikhail Botvinnik" (Russell Enterprises Inc. 2000), pp.79-83 =============== -<Championship match vs. Smyslov 1957> (22 games) -Winter, ed. "World Chess Champions", p.148 ######################### <Conditions> -<Match length> First to 12 1/2 points from a maximum of 24 games. -Harry Golombek "The World Chess Championships of 1957 and 1958" (Harding Simpole 2002 -original copyright Golombek 1957), p.141* *Pagination of this section of the 1958 portion of this volume follows the original pagination from the "BCM" No.5 (June 1958), pp.141-196 === -<Time control> FIDE rules Paris 1949 Congress : Translation by <Tabanus> <2. At a World championship contest* there should in general be played three games a week, so that unfinished games from each round are continued the following day. The first 40 moves shall be made in <<<two and a half hours,>>> and the game will be interrupted after five hours of total playing time. Adjourned games shall be played with 16 moves an hour. Further adjournments will happen only after six hours total playing time, i. e. when at least 88 moves have been made.> Tidskrift för schack, nr. 7-8, Juli-Aug. 1949, p.157 === -<Draw odds> for the champion: FIDE rules Paris 1949 Congress : Translation by <Tabanus> -<Punkt 9> <9."If a world champion in a world championship match achieves a <<<draw>>>, or ties for first place with one or more participants in a world championship tournament, he retains his title."> Tidskrift för schack, nr. 7-8, Juli-Aug. 1949, p.156 === -<arbiter (also termed "umpire"- source Golombek)> Gideon Stahlberg -<controller (also termed "judge"- source Golombek)> Harry Golombek -Mikhail Botvinnik "Botvinnik's Complete Games (1942-1956) and Selected Writings (Part 2)." Ken Neat, transl., ed., (Olomouc 2012), p.33 --Harry Golombek "The World Chess Championships of 1957 and 1958" (Harding Simpole 2002 -original copyright Golombek 1957), p.85* *Pagination of this section of the 1958 portion of this volume follows the original pagination from the "BCM" No.4 (April 1958), pp.85-89 === -<Seconds> Grigory Goldberg (Botvinnik), Igor Bondarevsky (Smyslov) Botvinnik: <"Comparatively soon after the conclusion of the 1957 match the FIDE Vice-President Vyacheslav Ragozin (on the instructions of the President) obliged me to make a certain 'pressure' on the part of some old friends and only after I myself had made a plan of preparation for the return match, in July 1957 I sent an appropriate telegram to Stockholm addressed to the FIDE President Folke Rogard. The USSR Chess Federation suggested that the return match should begin on 4 March 1958. Agreement was reached on the venue (Moscow) and the arbiters (arbiter- Gideon Stahlberg, controller- Harry Golombek). The FIDE Congress in Vienna (August 1957) approved these proposals. Naturally, the regulations for the return match should have duplicated the regulations for the 1957 match. However, disagreements between the contestants unexpectedly arose, and the FIDE President had to intervene. The President's decision is of fundamental importance, since it also applies to future matches. The President declared... <<<3) since one of the contestants insisted that, in accordance with FIDE rules, only a second should offer help in the analysis of unfinished games, he (the President) cannot meet the request of the other contestant for a second assistant.>>> The FIDE President's decision was announced to the contestants and the organisers by the arbiter Gideon Stahlberg shorty before the match. The arbiter also confirmed the names of the seconds: Igor Bondarevsky (second of the world champion) and Grigory Goldberg (second of the ex-champion)."> Mikhail Botvinnik "Botvinnik's Complete Games (1942-1956) and Selected Writings (Part 2)." Ken Neat, transl., ed., (Olomouc 2012), pp.32-33. Originally published in Mikhail Botvinnik, "Match-revansh Smyslov-Botvinnik" (Iskusstvo, Moscow, 1960) === -<Venue> Sovietskaya Hotel Concert Hall Adjournments to be played on the following day at the Central Chess Club -Harry Golombek "The World Chess Championships of 1957 and 1958" pp.85*, 86* =============== -<Champion's right of rematch> FIDE Congress Moscow 1956: "FIDE has increased the number of zones from 7 to 9, through making an Asian zone and increasing the zones in Europe from 2 to 3" "The Candidate tournament in 1959 to select the challenger to the World Champion will be organised with 7 participants and quadruple rounds, and the final will be played in 1960. The right for dethroned World champions to step in as third participant in a final competition has been annulled and replaced by the right for him to have a return match against the new World champion before the Candidate tournament under certain conditions." http://www.schack.se/tfs/history/19... === ################################# <Course of the match> <1st game> Smyslov vs Botvinnik, 1958 (0-1) "Botvinnik attributed his own comeback in the rematch to his surprise adoption of the Caro-Kann Defense ('The effect was shattering') which gave him a three-point lead after three games. Smyslov 'won' the rest of the match games 10.5-9.5, 'But what use was that?' Botvinnik asked." -Andrew Soltis, "Soviet Chess 1917-1991" (McFarland 1997), p.239 (This source requires CORROBORATION) Corroboration from <Botvinnik> (use this only) "A sensation was caused by the success of the Caro-Kann Defence. Black achieved an equal score, but it should not be forgotten that this result also includes the 15th game [Botvinnik lost game 15 on time by "forgetting about the clock"] ######################## <2d game> Botvinnik vs Smyslov, 1958 (1-0) ######################## <3d game> Smyslov vs Botvinnik, 1958 (0-1) Botvinnik: <"After two games Smyslov felt unwell, and our official doctor M.S. Senkevich certified his illness. Smyslov received the right to one time out. <<<Apparently he still did not feel particularly well during the 3d game>>>: an unexpected oversight of a piece led to the loss of another point."> Mikhail Botvinnik "Botvinnik's Complete Games (1942-1956) and Selected Writings (Part 2)." Ken Neat, transl., ed., (Olomouc 2012), p.33 ######################## <4th game> Botvinnik vs Smyslov, 1958 (1/2) Botvinnik: <"...in the next game, the 4th- it was adjourned in a <<<winning position>>> for Smyslov..."> Adjourned position- (Source: -Mikhail Botvinnik, "Three World Chess Championship Matches: 1954, 1957, 1958" I.Y. Botvinnik, ed., Steve Giddins transl. (New in Chess 2009), pp.203-204) Botvinnik sealed <45.Kc3>: click for larger view -<"...In addition I had become unwell, and Senkevich [the official match doctor] advised me not to show up for the resumption... Of course, I couldn't accept this suggestion, since to miss the resumption was not sensible- all the same this would be recorded as a time-out, and in one just one day I would not get better.. <<<I preferred to play (seeing as the position was hopeless, I would only have to make a few moves),>>> and to use the illness certificate the following day, a Saturday- then I would also be able to stay in bed on the Sunday (the adjournment day) and the Monday (a rest day)- and all for one time-out. Of course, the doctor couldn't object to such a decision... On the resumption, against expectation, I had to make not a few moves, but as many as 40! My opponent committed two inaccuracies and missed the win."> Mikhail Botvinnik "Botvinnik's Complete Games (1942-1956) and Selected Writings (Part 2)," pp.33-34 -According to Botvinnik, the losing inaccuracy: 55...Kg4 click for larger view <"Missing the win, because now White manages to regroup. Immediately after the game, Smyslov pointed out <<<the winning move 55...h5,>>> which creates a zugzwang (56.Ke3 c3! 57.bxc3! Ke6 and... Kd5). Black instead decides to exchange the c4 pawn for that on g3, but this only leads to a draw..."> VARIATION: position after the suggested winning line 55...h5 56.Ke3 c3! 57.bxc3! Ke6- click for larger view Mikhail Botvinnik, "Three World Chess Championship Matches: 1954, 1957, 1958," pp.204-205 ######################## <5th game> Smyslov vs Botvinnik, 1958 (1-0) ######################## <6th game> Botvinnik vs Smyslov, 1958 (1-0) ######################## <7th game> Smyslov vs Botvinnik, 1958 (1/2) ######################## <8th game> Botvinnik vs Smyslov, 1958 (1/2) ######################## <9th game> Smyslov vs Botvinnik, 1958 (1/2) ######################## <10th game> Botvinnik vs Smyslov, 1958 (1/2) ######################## <11th game> Smyslov vs Botvinnik, 1958 (1-0) ######################## <12th game> Botvinnik vs Smyslov, 1958 (1-0) ######################## <13th game> Smyslov vs Botvinnik, 1958 (1/2) ######################## <14th game> Botvinnik vs Smyslov, 1958 (1-0) ######################## <15th game> Smyslov vs Botvinnik, 1958 <1-0> Botvinnik lost on time. Botvinnik: <"It is clear that after 55. ... f5 56.Kf2 Kf6 57. Bf3 Be8 Black's two active bishops, centralised king and pawn majority on the kingside give him every chance of a win. <<<Here I was absorbed by the question:>>> how can Black more quickly win a piece - by creating a passed pawn after ...g6-g5-g4, on the h-file or the f-file? It seems that an f-pawn is stronger since the queening square at f1 can then be controlled via both the a6-f1 and h3-f1 diagonals."> Mikhail Botvinnik, "Botvinnik-Smyslov/ Three World Chess Championship Matches: 1954, 1957, 1958" (New in Chess 2009), p.244 === More on how <Botvinnik> lost this game on time. Botvinnik: <"In the 15th game Smyslov chose a risky opening, and on this occasion the adjourned position was <<<completely lost>>> for him...."> Smyslov had sealed <41.h3>, making this the adjourned position- click for larger view Botvinnik: <I had a real opportunity to increase my lead to 10-5, but 'in my joy' I neglected my analysis, [and] <<<committed an oversight>>> at the start of the adjournment session...> <Botvinnik's> "oversight" was to play <41...h5>, a move he thought about for only 2 minutes 13 seconds after viewing <Smyslov's> sealed move- click for larger view Harry Golombek on <41...h5>: <"A <<<bad move>>> that unnecessarily returns the pawn. In fact, all of Botwinnik's play from the adjournment (move 41) can only be explained by his feeling out of sorts."> Botvinnik continues: <...and on the 55th move (still in a winning position!) <<<I forgot about the clock and lost on time!!>>> And this (not, of course only 'this', but also my confusion, caused by fatigue) for a time saved Smyslov. In the rules it is written that if a contestant has made a move, but has forgotten to press his clock, the arbiter may remind him about the clock. However, in the rules it does not say the arbiter may remind a contestant that he has not made the time control move, and so Stahlberg, operating in strict accordance with the regulations, in fact did nothing to avert the loss on time."> Sources: -Mikhail Botvinnik "Botvinnik's Complete Games (1942-1956) and Selected Writings (Part 2)." Ken Neat, transl., ed., (Olomouc 2012), p.34 -Harry Golombek "The World Chess Championships of 1957 and 1958" (Harding Simpole 2002 -original copyright Golombek 1957), pp.151-52* *Pagination of this section of the 1958 portion of this volume follows the original pagination from the "BCM" No.6 (July 1958), pp.151-52 ####################### <16th game> Botvinnik vs Smyslov, 1958 (1/2) ######################## <17th game> Smyslov vs Botvinnik, 1958 (1/2) ######################## <18th game> Botvinnik vs Smyslov, 1958 (1-0) Botvinnik: -<"...both contestants were rather tired. The 18th game was especially typical in this respect (at Smyslov's request, Stahlberg decided to move it to a closed room- the grandmaster room at the Cnetral Chess Club). First Smyslov should have lost, then he himself could have mated the enemy king... In the end <<<the game was decided by a serious oversight by Smyslov>>> soon after the start of the adjournment session."> -Mikhail Botvinnik "Botvinnik's Complete Games (1942-1956) and Selected Writings (Part 2)." Ken Neat, transl., ed., (Olomouc 2012), p.35 === Earlier in the game, after he had played 26.Qg5, Botvinnik almost resigned even before Smyslov played his 26th move. Position after 26.Qg5?: click for larger view After his move, <Botvinnik> noticed that he is lost if black replies 26...Rd2: click for larger view Botvinnik: <"White is mated after 26...Rd2 (27.Be6+ Rf7! 28.Bxf7+ Kxf7)... <<<At first I decided to resign, without even waiting for the reply,>>> but then I changed my mind. To my surprise, Smyslov did not make his reply immediately, but during the game I thought this was just because he had 15 minutes left to reach the time control, and wanted to check the variations, so as to avoid any unexpected surprises. But after six minutes had gone by, I started to hope: What if he doesn't play 26...Rd2? ...Finally, after eight minutes' thought, when Smyslov picked up the rook from d8, I nervously took up my pen to write down my resignation, but then I could not believe my eyes- Smyslov had played the rook to e8! It can certainly be said that in this game, the two players proved worthy of each other..."> -Mikhail Botvinnik, "Botvinnik-Smyslov/ Three World Chess Championship Matches: 1954, 1957, 1958" (New in Chess 2009), p.254 === This is <Smyslov's> "serious oversight... soon after the start of the adjournment session." that "decided" the game: Black to play: click for larger view Botvinnik: -<46...Be8 <<<A tragic mistake.>>> Smyslov became a victim of his own devices; he sat down at board quickly, and immediately played 46...Be8...> click for larger view Botvinnik answered with 47.Bd7- click for larger view Botvinnik: -<-<Now Black <<<loses two pawns,>>> and the result of this chaotic game becomes clear.> -Mikhail Botvinnik, "Botvinnik-Smyslov/ Three World Chess Championship Matches: 1954, 1957, 1958" (New in Chess 2009), p.256 ######################## <19th game> Smyslov vs Botvinnik, 1958 (1-0) Botvinnik: -<After winning the 19th game Smyslov fell ill and (with the doctor's permission) he twice took a time-out. He felt so unwell that <<<he requested that the arbiter should allow him a fourth time-out>>> (I learned of this only after the match). Stahlberg consulted with the President [of FIDE] by telephone, but Rogard refused to sanction a violation of the FIDE rules, and after a six-day break the battle was renewed.> -Mikhail Botvinnik "Botvinnik's Complete Games (1942-1956) and Selected Writings (Part 2)." Ken Neat, transl., ed., (Olomouc 2012), p.35 ######################## <20th game> Botvinnik vs Smyslov, 1958 (1/2) ######################## <21st game> Smyslov vs Botvinnik, 1958 (1/2) ######################## <22d game> Botvinnik vs Smyslov, 1958 (0-1) ######################## <23d game> Smyslov vs Botvinnik, 1958 (1/2) Botvinnik: <...before the last encounter I was already so worn out, that Senkevich [the official match doctor] allowed me a third and last time-out on account of illness. <<<This was therefore a 'record' match with regard to illness- both contestants fully used their right to be unwell>>> [Botvinnik means both used their allotted 3 sick time-outs].> -Mikhail Botvinnik "Botvinnik's Complete Games (1942-1956) and Selected Writings (Part 2)." Ken Neat, transl., ed., (Olomouc 2012), p.35 ######################## -<Evaluations> Golombek: <"I remember that, late in 1957 when the European Team Championship was being held at Vienna, Smyslov said to me, <<<'Maybe these six games are the only games I'll play as World Champion.'>>> ...I believe Smyslov lost the match through underestimating Botvinnik. In consequence, his preparation for the contest was not nearly so thorough as Botvinnik's, a circumstance that was reflected very strongly in the opening play. It seems too that this match had a shattering effect on Smyslov's confidence in his own powers as a player. For there has been a marked decline in his tournament results since then."> Harry Golombek "Some Olympian Moments," in "Chess Treasury of the Air" Terence Tiller, ed. (Hardinge Simpole 2002), p.86 3 games, 1958 WCC: Steinitz-Chigorin 1889 ORIGINAL: Steinitz - Chigorin World Championship Match (1889) http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/... <Havana, Cuba January 20 - February 24 1899> ########################### I want to add that the match is discussed on pp. 162-165 (then follow the annotated games) of Wilhelm Steinitz, 'The Modern Chess Instructor', Part I, 1889. Addendum: 6th American Chess Congress: <At the end of the tournament there was a tie between M. Tschigorin, of St. Petersburg, and Herr Max Weiss, of Vienna. Both these masters expressed a desire not to be compelled to play a championship match, as provided by the rules, and as there was no other challenge for the title and the prizes offered for the purpose, the Committee decided that this contest should not take place.> Source: Wilhelm Steinitz, 'The Book of the Sixth American Chess Congress', New York, 1891, p. xxiii (more on the rules for the match can be found on the preceding pages) ################# Karpova: Originally from 'La Strategie': According to the finally determined conditions, Steinitz and Chigorin will not just play a number of games, but a real match. Both masters will contribute $600 each to the purse. In addition to the amount of money the players have to raise, the Havana Chess Club, in whose rooms the match will be played, will pay for every game 100 Frs. to the winner and 50 Frs. to the loser. In case of a draw, each player receives 50 Frcs.. The Havana Chess Club also pays both master's travel expenses. During his stay, Chigorin will play matches against the Club's strongest players and give Simul and Blindfold exhibitions. Source: Deutsches Wochenschach, 13 January 1889, issue 2, p. 20, https://archive.org/stream/deutsche... ########################### Karpova: The match had to be interrupted at game 16, since Chigorin became sick (<da Tschigorin unwohl wurde.>) Source: Deutsches Wochenschach, 24 February 1889, issues 7/8, p. 67, https://archive.org/stream/deutsche... -- Steinitz won the match by scoring 10.5 points after 17 games, i. e. more than 50% with 20 games to be played overall. Source: Deutsches Wochenschach, 10 March 1889, issue 10, p. 84, https://archive.org/stream/deutsche... -- Later follows a longer article on the Steinitz-Chigorin 1889 match, which I will look at later. Source: Horatio Caro, Der Wettkampf zwischen Steinitz und Tschigorin, Deutsches Wochenschach, 24 March 1889, issues 11/12, pp. 86-91, https://archive.org/stream/deutsche... -- The match was indeed declared won for Steinitz and ended after the drawn game 17 with 10.5 out of 20 possible points. They note that sources were partly `Times Democrat', 'Rivista de Ajedrez' and the 'International Chess Magazine'. Source: Deutsches Wochenschach, 24 March 1889, issues 11/12, p. 104, https://archive.org/stream/deutsche... -- The final part of the article mentioned above: Source: Horatio Caro, Der Wettkampf zwischen Steinitz und Tschigorin, Deutsches Wochenschach, 7 April 1889, issue 14, pp. 115-117, https://archive.org/stream/deutsche... ########################### On Game Collection: WCC: Steinitz-Chigorin 1889 Later follows a longer article on the Steinitz-Chigorin 1889 match, which I will look at later. Source: Horatio Caro, Der Wettkampf zwischen Steinitz und Tschigorin, Deutsches Wochenschach, 24 March 1889, issues 11/12, pp. 86-91, https://archive.org/stream/deutsche... The article begins with biographical sketches. Steinitz first, and the match versus Zukertort is, for reasons unknown to me, not mentioned. The part about Chigorin may be of greater interest: He was born in St. Petersburg. At the end of 1880, by beating Schiffers +7 -1 =3, he finally established himself as the strongest Russian chessplayer. He represented Russia at Berlin (1881) and came in shared 3rd-4th. At Vienna (1882), he was less successful overall, but drew his mini-matches versus Steinitz, Zukertort, Mackenzie and Noa. At the great London (1883) tournament, he came in 4th. This was his last international tournament, but notable is his match victory over Schiffers in 1885 (5 to 1). The author adds, that Chigorin is an amateur chessplayer. I will leave out the complete game description, as it may give a wrong impression and is possibly not even necessary for a draft. Game 1: Chigorin's favorite opening, the Evans Gambit. Steinitz introduced a novelty (6...Qf6). Chigorin won after 6.5 hours of play. The only interruption was the usual 2 hour-break after White's 35th move after 4 hours of play at 6 o'clock. Game 2: Thursday, January 22nd, in the rooms of the Union Klub, began at 2 p.m.. Steinitz won after 4 hours. Game 3: 24th January. Chigorin won after 9.5 hours. Chigorin sealed his 47th move and gave it to the arbiter, then began the 2 hours-break. Then, the game was continued until 12 o'clock midnight, but adjourned at move 72. Chigorin again had to seal his move. The game finished on Friday in less than 2 hours. Game 4: 26th January. Steinitz won in 22 moves. Game 5: Chigorin played the Evans again, and Steinitz tried his novelty 6...Qf6 for a second time. Chigorin resigned. The game had lasted 2 hours and 33 minutes. The General Captain of Cuba together with his whole entourage was present during the whole sitting. The next 3 games will be played in the Casino de Espagnola, because this society together with the Centre de Sport have an agreement with the Union-Klub and the Klub von Ajedrez, that a part of the match is contested in their rooms. ########################### The final part of the article mentioned above: Source: Horatio Caro, Der Wettkampf zwischen Steinitz und Tschigorin, Deutsches Wochenschach, 7 April 1889, issue 14, pp. 115-117, https://archive.org/stream/deutsche... Game 6: January 1889. Chigorin won. Game 7: January 1889. Steinitz resigned on move 34. Game 8: 3 February 1889. Chigorin resigned on move 38. Game 9: 5 February 1889. Chigorin resigned on move 56. Game 10: 7 February 1889. Chigorin resigned on move 27. Game 11: 10 February 1889. Steinitz resigned on move 31. Game 12: February 1889. Steinitz won on move 61. Game 13: February 1889. Chigorin won. Game 14: February 1889. Steinitz won on move 35. Game 15: 21 February 1889. Steinitz won after 36 moves. Game 16: 23 February 1889. Steinitz won on move 52. The game descriptions in the last part of the report have become more sketchy, he is rather describing the course of the games. It was still surprising to me, that Chigorin's sickness, which led to an interruption of the game, was not mentioned here. Game 17: 24 February 1889. The game ended drawn after move 70. Steinitz won 10.5-6.5, but Chigorin can be satisfied, having proven to be a master of 1st rank. Steinitz is better in closed positions, and the safer player, but Chigorin is stronger when attacking. Chigorin is still young, so the chess world can hope for great accomplishments in the future. ########################### <From the 1889 'Wiener Schachzeitung' (Sonderheft) P. 6: <Habana, 21. Feber. (Vom Spezial-Berichterstatter.). Im Hafen hat sich ein Haifisch gezeigt. Mehrere zu Gast hier weilende Schachspieler nahmen ihren Schwiegermüttern Abonnements für die See-Bade-Anstalt.> (Havana, February 21. (By the special correspondent). A shark showed up in the harbour. Several of the chessplayers who are guests here, took sea swimming baths subscriptions for their mothers-in-law.)> P. 7: <Habana, 22. Feber. Die gestern gemeldete Maßregel war von Erfolg begleitet. Der Haifish ist verschwunden.> (Havana, February 22. The measure reported yesterday, was successful. The shark disappeared). #################### <From Chess Archaeology site> -<"Charleston Sunday News" (27 Jan 1889)> "Among the conditions of the match between Messrs Steinitz and Tshegorin, now being played in Havana, we notice the following: Second. For their expenses in Havana each will receive 240 pesos in gold. Third. From sixteen to twenty games will be played. The winner of each game to receive $20 and the loser $10. In the event of a draw each shall receive $10." http://www.chessarch.com/excavation... === "Newark Sunday Call" (27 Jan 1889)> "The entire expenses of the two players, Steinitz and Tchigorin, in going and returning from New York and Havana are borne by the Havana Club." http://www.chessarch.com/excavation... === "The third contest, which ended January 24, occupied over nine hours and the Russian came off victorious." http://www.chessarch.com/excavation... === -<"Charleston Sunday News" (3 Feb 1889)> "The days of play are Tuesdays, Thursdays, Saturdays and Sundays. The Havana Chess Club gave a grand banquet, in honor of the visitors, on the 10th January, at which the Captain General, foreign consuls and other notabilities participated." http://www.chessarch.com/excavation... === -<"Newark Sunday Call" (24 Feb 1889)> "The latest reports from Havana give the score, Steintz, 9; Tshigorin, 6. Another game will make it impossible for Steinitz to lose, and two more will give him the victory." http://www.chessarch.com/excavation... === -<"Boston Herald" (26 Feb 1889)> "Steinitz won the 16th game. It was begun with the Zukertort gambit, and lasted six hours. The 17th game, which was begun with the Evans gambit, and lasted five hours, resulted in a draw. It was agreed that the match be considered as ended, with Steinitz as winner." http://www.chessarch.com/excavation... === -<"Brooklyn Daily Eagle" (27 Feb 1889)> "The great chess match which has been in progress at the Havana Chess Club since January 21 terminated on February 25 in a declared victory for Mr. Steinitz, who won ten out of the sixteen games played. There were four more games of the twenty to be played and Steinitz had but to win one of the four to make up the eleven necessary to bear off the prize, and in view of the near approach of the international tourney at New York he resigned from the contest. http://www.chessarch.com/excavation... === -<"Charleston Sunday News" (3 March 1889)> "Owing to Mr Tshigorin's attack of sickness, play in this contest was suspended for three days, hence the 13th game did not take place until the 16th ult. It was an Evans gambit, with the usual result, a victory for the Russian. The 14th game took place on the 19th and was won by Steinitz in 35 moves, the score at this stage being, Steinitz 8, Tschigorin 6, with 6 games still to play. The Times-Democrat, from whose columns we take the following score of the 14th game, says: It will be very difficult for Mr Tschigorin to overcome Steinitz's lead, for as the El Union Constitucional points out, he would have to win four of these to draw the match. The Cuban climate, too, is evidently a factor in the contest. The Russian champion experiences unfavorable results in the transition from St Petersburg to Havana; indeed, we note that at one stage he pronounced himself literally 'suffocated by the heat.'" http://www.chessarch.com/excavation... === -<"Newark Sunday Call" (3 March 1889)> "Steinitz having won the sixteenth and drawn the seventeenth game in the Havana engagement his score is 10½ to Tchigorin's 6½. It being now impossible for Tchigorin even to tie for the match, it has been terminated, and once more the unconquerable Steinitz arises a victor..." http://www.chessarch.com/excavation... === -<"Kirksville Weekly Graphic" (8 March 1889)> "Steinitz has won the great chess match in Havana, the score being Steinitz, 10, Tchigorin, 6, Drawn 1. This gives Steinitz a stake of $1,200 and maintains his supremacy as champion of the world, a position he has held by many a hard fought battle with men of weight and renown. Tchigorin the champion of Russia, is a gentleman well-known in diplomatic circles. The news will be received with disappointment in New York, the adopted home of the Austrian Jew, where he has made himself unpopular by his aggressiveness and unreasonable petty jealousies. Tchigorin on the contrary, notwithstanding his defeat, will be received with open arms at the forthcoming chess congress in New York where he is likely to meet gentlemen of his own ilk and more worthy his knightly chessic spear." http://www.chessarch.com/excavation... === -<"Newark Sunday Call" (10 March 1889)> "It is certainly very amusing to see the contortions resorted to by those who desire to depreciate Steinitz's play. In the latest match these wise critics say that Tchigorin was 'suffocated' by the heat in Havana. Steinitz has won matches in cold climates and in warm, against antagonists of all kinds and nationalities, but in every case the critics say that Steinitz could not, would not, or should not have won, if certain conditions had been otherwise. But the fact remains that he does win. In order to depreciate Steinitz's play it is necessary to depreciate the play of all his antagonists. What silly nonsense it all is! Entirely apart from the man's personal character, why not admit what is unmistakable, that Steinitz is the best living chess-player. An acknowledgment of his chess ability is not an endorsement of his personal character nor an approval of the literary Steinitz gambit." http://www.chessarch.com/excavation... ===] -<"New York Daily Tribune" (20 March 1889)> "The Manhattan Chess Club was again the centre of interest among the players yesterday afternoon, on account of the arrival of Michael Tchigorin, the noted player, of St. Petersburg. He had just come from Havana, where he played a match with Mr. Steinitz. To a Tribune reporter he said that during his match with Mr. Steinitz he had suffered much from the effects of the warm climate, and he brought his coat together to show how much he had lost in weight. He said, further, that he had made errors: that after three or four hours' play, on account of the heat and noise, he would get somewhat confused. He had, he said, no intention at present of remaining in this country after the Congress closes, but would be governed by circumstances." http://www.chessarch.com/excavation... ########################### 3 games, 1889 WCC: Steinitz-Chigorin 1892 ORIGINAL: Steinitz - Chigorin World Championship Rematch (1892) http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/... EDIT <Karpova> According to p. 245 of Kurt Landsberger, "William Steinitz, Chess Champion", McFarland, 1995 <The Manhattan Chess Club proposed a title match between Tarrasch and Steinitz (after the Gunsberg match), which Steinitz considered feasible. Tarrasch declined as he had to look after his patients and could devote himself to chess not more than once a year.> ############################ EDIT <OhioChessFan> <In 1892, Wilhelm Steinitz defended his title against his old rival, Mikhail Chigorin. Just as in the first Steinitz-Chigorin match, this contest took place in Havana, Cuba--and once again, Steinitz emerged triumphant.> Wordy. It takes 15 words to affirm what the header states in one word-that it was contested in Havana. The second clause takes 6 words to affirm what we later find out-Steinitz won. I think the entire sentence can be deleted. <And so, after 23 games, Steinitz won his fourth World Championship match, by a score of +10 -8 =5> I don't like the "And so" at all. I think it can be deleted.> ############################# In 1892, Wilhelm Steinitz defended his title against his old rival, Mikhail Chigorin. Just as in the first Steinitz-Chigorin match, this contest took place in Havana, Cuba--and once again, Steinitz emerged triumphant. The highlight of this match is the biggest shock ending in the history of the Championship. In game #23, Chigorin, a piece ahead, was on the verge of tying the score at 9-9 and extending the match to tie break games. Rather than sealing his move, he made it on the board, and in so doing, left his h-pawn unprotected, allowing Steinitz a mate-in-two that ended the match.[1] And so, after 23 games, Steinitz won his fourth World Championship match, by a score of +10 -8 =5. 3 games, 1892 WCC: Steinitz-Gunsberg 1890-1891 ORIGINAL: Steinitz - Gunsberg World Championship Match (1890) <PROMOTED DRAFT>: <Karpova> DON'T WORK ON THIS ONE ANY MORE IT IS FINISHED FOREVER. Isidor Gunsberg was born in Budapest, Hungary in 1854. During the mid-1880s, he established himself as one of the strongest chessplayers in the world.<1> In matches, he beat Henry Bird in 1886 <2> and Joseph Blackburne in 1887.<3> His tournament successes included 1st at 4th DSB Congress, Hamburg (1885), shared 1st with Amos Burn at London 1887,<4> 1st at Bradford 1888,<5> and shared 1st with Bird at London 1889.<6> In 1888, he said that before considering a challenge for Wilhelm Steinitz 's title, his play should first become " a little more mature."<7> A year later, when Mikhail Chigorin got his <shot at the title> <insert match link>- Steinitz - Chigorin World Championship Match (1889), chess journalist Leopold Hoffer asked Steinitz why he hadn't chosen George Mackenzie or Gunsberg. Steinitz replied that the former had refused and the latter had a worse record than Chigorin.<8> In support of Gunsberg, "Chess Monthly" declared that Chigorin should have played Gunsberg instead of Steinitz. The Havana Chess Club announced it would host a match between Gunsberg and the Russian, even if the latter lost to Steinitz.<9> Gunsberg drew the Havana match against Chigorin in early 1890.<10> This result was enough to convince Gunsberg to challenge Steinitz to a title match. The Manhattan Chess Club served as intermediary for this preliminary negotiation, and Steinitz "settled" in principle to play for a stake of $1,500.<11> James Mason objected to the choice on the grounds that Steinitz favored challengers who were both fellow Jews and weaker players than himself. Steinitz labeled the objection "impudent" and insinuated that Mason was drunk when he made it.<12> At New York 1889, Gunsberg had performed considerably better than Mason.<13> Mason suggested that Gunsberg should play him first as a condition for a match against Steinitz, but the champion rejected this proposal.<11> The conditions were agreed upon on December 6, 1890. The winner would be first to 10 games (draws not counting), or most wins after 20 games. A draw would be declared in the case of 9 wins each.<14> The stakes were $1,500 with 2/3 for the winner.<15> Gunsberg received $150 travelling expenses from the Manhattan Chess Club. The winner of a game received $20, the loser $10 and in case of a draw, they both got $10. British amateurs contributed 75 pounds towards Gunsberg's share of the prize fund.<16> The match began on 9 Dec 1890 in the Manhattan Chess Club. Club Vice President Colonel G. F. Betts opened the proceedings and introduced the players.<17> The referee was Isaac Rice, and the umpires were Holladay for Steinitz and August Vorrath for Gunsberg. Fred Mintz was in overall control of the match.<18> They played in a small room between 13:30 to 17:00 and 19:00 to 22:30, while the spectators followed the games on a wallboard in a larger room downstairs. Initially the match received less interest than expected because Steinitz was considered a prohibitive favorite, and also because a popular ongoing cable match between Steinitz and Chigorin had to be interrupted.<18> Steinitz took an early lead with a win in game 2. The match was suspended after game 4 because Steinitz had a bad cold.<19> In game 5 Steinitz lost with the white pieces in a Queen's gambit, after which he vowed to keep playing this opening until he won with it.<20> With Gunsberg pulling ahead, interest in the match increased.<21> Still not fully recovered from his cold, Steinitz managed to win game 6. During this game, Gunsberg exceeded the time limit but Steinitz refused to claim a win.<22> Steinitz reached his goal of winning with the Queen's gambit in <game 7> <insert game link>-Steinitz vs Gunsberg, 1890 and retained the lead for the rest of the match. After a brief Christmas break,<23> Gunsberg struck in <game 12> <insert game link>- Gunsberg vs Steinitz, 1891 with the Evans Gambit. Prior to the match, Steinitz had challenged Gunsberg to a theoretical duel in this opening.<24> The contested position had also previously arisen in the adjourned Steinitz-Chigorin cable match and the public had been looking forward to Gunsberg taking up Steinitz's challenge.<25> Steinitz did not show up for game 18. The telegram he had sent to excuse himself had been delayed. Gunsberg could have claimed the game but did not.<26> Gunsberg played the Evans Gambit for the 4th time in game 18. Gunsberg had previously scored well with it, but he lost this game. Steinitz drew game 19, thereby winning the match and retaining his title (+6 -4 =9). <1> Rod Edwards, http://www.edochess.ca/players/p417... <2> Rod Edwards, http://www.edochess.ca/matches/m838... <3> Rod Edwards, http://www.edochess.ca/matches/m864... <4> Rod Edwards, http://www.edochess.ca/tournaments/... <5> Rod Edwards, http://www.edochess.ca/tournaments/... <6> Rod Edwards, http://www.edochess.ca/tournaments/... <7> "Bradford Observer Budget" 28 July 1888. In Edward Winter, "Chess Note 5136" (submitted by Joost van Winsen, Silvolde, the Netherlands) http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/... <8> Kurt Landsberger, "William Steinitz - Chess Champion 2d ed." (McFarland 1995), p.209 <9> Landsberger, p.210 <10> Rod Edwards, http://www.edochess.ca/matches/m927... <11> Landsberger, pp.238-239 <12> Landsberger, pp.237-238 <13> Rod Edwards, http://www.edochess.ca/tournaments/... <14> "International Chess Magazine" (Nov 1890), pp.325-328. In Edward Winter, "World Chess Championship Rules" http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/... <15> Landsberger, p.238 <16> Landsberger, p.240 <17> "The World" New York, 10 Dec 1890. In Jacques N. Pope, http://www.chessarch.com/archive/18... <18> "The Sun" New York, 10 Dec 1890. In Jacques N. Pope, http://www.chessarch.com/archive/18... <19> "New-York Daily Tribune" 19 Dec 1890. In Jacques N. Pope, http://www.chessarch.com/archive/18... <20> "The Sun" New York, 19 Dec 1890. In Jacques N. Pope, http://www.chessarch.com/archive/18... <21> "New-York Daily Tribune" 21 Dec 1890. In Jacques N. Pope, http://www.chessarch.com/archive/18... <22> "The Sun" New York, 21 Dec 1890. In Jacques N. Pope, http://www.chessarch.com/archive/18... <23> "The Sun" New York, 28 Dec 1890. In Jacques N. Pope, http://www.chessarch.com/archive/18... <24> "New-York Daily Tribune" 6 Jan 1891. In Jacques N. Pope, http://www.chessarch.com/archive/18... <25> "The World" New York, 6 Jan 1891. In Jacques N. Pope, http://www.chessarch.com/archive/18... <26> "New York Sun" 20 Jan 1891. In Jacques N. Pope, http://www.chessarch.com/excavation... ################################= <KARPOVA ORIGINAL DRAFT> <Isidor Arthur Gunsberg> was born in Budapest, Hungary in 1854. During the mid-1880s, he established himself among the strongest chessplayers in the world.<1> In matches, he beat <Henry Edward Bird> in 1886 <2> and <Joseph Henry Blackburne> in 1887.<3> His tournament successes include winning <Hamburg (1885)>, a shared 1st place with <Amos Burn> at London 1887 <4>, a win at Bradford 1888 <5> and shared 1st place with Bird in London 1889.<6> In 1888, he said that before a match against <Wilhelm Steinitz>, his own play should get " a little more mature." <7> Already a year later, when <Mikhail Chigorin> got his <shot at the title> <<(insert match link)>, Steinitz was asked why he hadn't chosen <George Henry Mackenzie> or Gunsberg.<8> Steinitz replied that the former had declined and the latter a worse record than Chigorin.<8> In support of Gunsberg, the 'Chess Monthly' declared that Chigorin should have played Gunsberg, instead of Steinitz.<9> The Havana Chess Club declared to host a match between Gunsberg and the Russian, even if the latter lost to Steinitz.<9> The match between Chigorin and Gunsberg took place in Havana in early 1890 and ended drawn.<10> This result was enough to entitle him to a world championship match against Steinitz.<11> <James Mason> objected to the choice, but his charges were impertinent,<12> and the result at New York 1889 spoke against him.<13> He suggested that Gunsberg playing him first should be the condition for a match against Steinitz.<14> This proposal was rejected by Steinitz .<11> The conditions for the title match between Steinitz and Gunsberg were negotiated. The stakes were $1,500 with 2/3 for the winner.<15> Gunsberg was agreed to receive $150 travelling expenses by the Manhattan Chess Club. The winner of a game received $20, the loser $10 and in case of a draw, they both got $10. The match was to last 20 games.<16> British amateurs enabled Gunsberg to contribute 75 pounds to the winner's prize.<17> The arrangements for the world championship match were completed on December 6.<18> The match began on December 9, 1890 in the Manhattan Chess Club. The match was opened by Colonel G. F. Betts.<19> The referee was <Isaac Leopold Rice>, the umpires were Holladay for Steinitz and <August Vorrath> for Gunsberg, while Fred Mintz was in control of the whole arrangement.<20> Play was conducted between 13:30 to 17:00 and 19:00 to 22:30.<20> The playing venue was a small room, while the spectators followed the games on a diagram board on the wall of the large room downstairs.<20> Initially, the match received less interest than the expected as Steinitz was considered the clear favorite and his cable match against Chigorin had to be halted.<20> Steinitz took an early lead. However, Gunsberg demonstrated that the match was no one-sided affair. He equalized the score and even pulled ahead after game 5. Although the match had to be suspended after game 4, as Steinitz suffered from a cold.<21> Interest in the match increased.<22> Steinitz hadn't fully recovered,<23> yet he won game 6. During this game, Gunsberg had exceeded the time limit but Steinitz refused to claim a win.<23> After game 5, Steinitz had declared to play the Queen's Gambit until he won.<24> He reached his goal in game 7 and retained the lead for the rest of the match. The match was halted during the Christmas holidays. <25> Gunsberg struck in game 12 with the Evans Gambit. Prior to the match, Steinitz had challenged Gunsberg to a theoretical duel in this opening.<26> The contested position had arisen in the adjourned Steinitz – Chigorin cable match and the public had been looking forward to Gunsberg taking up the challenge.<27> Steinitz did not show up for game 18. The telegram he had sent to excuse himself, had been delayed. Gunsberg could have claimed the game but did not.<28> Gunsberg played the Evans Gambit the 4th time in game 18. Despite his previous good score with it, he now lost. Steinitz drew game 19, thereby winning the match and retaining his title (+6 -4 =9). 1 Rod Edwards, http://www.edochess.ca/players/p417... 2 Rod Edwards, http://www.edochess.ca/matches/m838... 3 Rod Edwards, http://www.edochess.ca/matches/m864... 4 Rod Edwards, http://www.edochess.ca/tournaments/... 5 Rod Edwards, http://www.edochess.ca/tournaments/... 6 Rod Edwards, http://www.edochess.ca/tournaments/... 7 "Bradford Observer Budget", 28 July 1888. In Edward Winter, "Chess Note 5136." Retrieved from http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/... (submitted by Joost van Winsen, Silvolde, the Netherlands) 8 Kurt Landsberger, "William Steinitz - Chess Champion 2d ed." (McFarland 1995), p. 209 9 Kurt Landsberger, "William Steinitz - Chess Champion 2d ed." (McFarland 1995), p. 210 10 Rod Edwards, http://www.edochess.ca/matches/m927... 11 Kurt Landsberger, "William Steinitz - Chess Champion 2d ed." (McFarland 1995), p. 239 12 Kurt Landsberger, "William Steinitz - Chess Champion 2d ed." (McFarland 1995), pp. 237-238 13 Rod Edwards, http://www.edochess.ca/tournaments/... 14 Kurt Landsberger, "William Steinitz - Chess Champion 2d ed." (McFarland 1995), pp. 238-239 15 Kurt Landsberger, "William Steinitz - Chess Champion 2d ed." (McFarland 1995), p. 238 16 "The Sun", New York, 4 January 1891. In Jacques N. Pope, http://www.chessarch.com/archive/18... 17 Kurt Landsberger, "William Steinitz - Chess Champion 2d ed." (McFarland 1995), p. 240 18 Kurt Landsberger, "William Steinitz - Chess Champion 2d ed." (McFarland 1995), p. 247 19 "New-York Daily Tribune", 10 December 1890. In Jacques N. Pope, http://www.chessarch.com/archive/18... 20 "The Sun", New York, 10 December 1890. In Jacques N. Pope, http://www.chessarch.com/archive/18... 21 "New-York Daily Tribune", 19 December1890. In Jacques N. Pope, http://www.chessarch.com/archive/18... 22 "New-York Daily Tribune", 21 December 1890. In Jacques N. Pope, http://www.chessarch.com/archive/18... 23 "The Sun", New York, 21 December 1890. In Jacques N. Pope, http://www.chessarch.com/archive/18... 24 "The Sun", New York, 19 December 1890. In Jacques N. Pope, http://www.chessarch.com/archive/18... 25 "The Sun", New York, 28 December 1890. In Jacques N. Pope, http://www.chessarch.com/archive/18... 26 "New-York Daily Tribune", 6 January 1891. In Jacques N. Pope, http://www.chessarch.com/archive/18... 27 "The World", New York, 6 January 1891. In Jacques N. Pope, http://www.chessarch.com/archive/18... 28 "The World", New York, 20 January 1891. In Jacques N. Pope, http://www.chessarch.com/archive/18... ################################### [1 Nick Pope's article on the match from <Chess Archaeology>] http://www.chessarch.com/archive/18... <CONFIRMED> by <Thanh> <GUNSBERG WINS AGAIN. NOW LEADING IN HIS MATCH WITH MR. STEINITZ Brilliant Contest, in Which the English Player Announced a Mate in Five Moves - The Score Now Is: Gunsberg, Two; Steinitz, One - The Next Game Saturday. Mr. Steinitz put in an appearance yesterday in good time at the Manhattan Chess Club. He explained that, having a slight cold, he did not care to venture out of the house yesterday on account of the severe weather which raged in Upper Montclair, N.J., the place of his residence. He seemed, however, to be in good form and in his usual tenaciously combative mood. In spite of the fact that in the first and third game, wherein he adopted the Q gambit, he could not make much headway, he nevertheless persisted in playing this opening to-day, which, to tell the truth, was generally expected by those who know him well. As on previous occasions, Gunsberg has shown that he is entirely independent of any particular line of play or studied analysis of the opening by again varying his line of defense as he accepted the proffered gambit pawn. In consequence of the line of play pursued by Steinitz, Gunsberg, with good judgment, effected advantageous exchange of queens, thereby forcing white to move his king, while black himself castled on the ninth move. The position that resulted from the opening manoeuvres brought white’s king to QB2 on the tenth move. From that point, with every succeeding move, black developed his pieces in a telling way and brought increased and menacing pressure to bear upon the exposed adverse king. On the fifteenth move, by a combination of his minor pieces and probably also by an error of judgment on the part of his opponent, black won a pawn. White did not obtain the relief which he expected. On the contrary black directed his forces against the exposed king with such effect that after twenty moves the coming catastrophe could be foretold. On the twenty-fourth move black saw winning chances, which he grasped, and playing with great precision he obtained a position on the twenty-sixth move where, by a brilliant coup, he was enabled to announce a mate in five moves. Needless to say there was great pleasure and rejoicing among the chess connoisseurs of the Manhattan Chess Club who had the privilege of witnessing this fine game. <<<The prophets, both on this and the other side of the Atlantic, will have to find a new occupation. They ventured to predict - and Mr. Steinitz’s reputation and great achievements certainly warranted the forecast - that the veteran, as in past matches, would have matters all his own way with the English player, but the result shows that Gunsberg was too lightly reckoned and that once more he is following up his former brilliant achievements by making such a bold stand against the undefeated hero of twenty-five years' battle.>>> Whatever the final result now may be the brave fight will reflect honor on the younger player. The sixth game will be played on Saturday. Gunsberg will have the move and great anxiety prevails among the chess community whether now, with the score in his favor, he will play an Evans gambit.> =================== With the tenth game the first half of the contest is concluded, for, as the readers of THE WORLD will remember, the stipulations of the match contain the clause that if none of the players have scored the necessary ten “wins" the match shall be terminated after twenty games played, and the winner of the majority shall be declared the victor 3 games, 1890 WCC: Steinitz-Lasker 1894 ORIGINAL: Steinitz - Lasker World Championship Match (1894) <Note> The photograph is mislabeled- see kibbutzing on the match page. <FINISHED DRAFT> <Emanuel Lasker> had a promising start to his career. He placed at or near the top in a half-dozen tournaments, including an impressive 13-0 result in <New York 1893>. He had also won matches against <Curt von Bardeleben>, <Jacques Mieses>, <Henry Edward Bird>, <Joseph Henry Blackburne> and <Jackson Whipps Showalter>. He was considered a future contender for the world championship, despite not having played matches against top masters such as <Siegbert Tarrasch>, <Mikhail Chigorin> or <Isidor Gunsberg>. In 1892, Havana offered $500 plus free passage to and from Cuba to sponsor a championship match. <Wilhelm Steinitz> replied he was too busy, and Lasker replied he was not yet ready to play for the title. [1] By 1893, Lasker felt sufficiently prepared to issue a challenge to Steinitz. The original stakes of $3,000 a side were reduced due to Lasker's inability to collect from all of his pledged backers in financially difficult times. [2] This was also due to some extent to hostile pre-match commentary by Gunsberg and <Leopold Hoffer>. [3] Steinitz “reluctantly” agreed to reduced stakes of $2,250 per side. [4] By the time the agreement was finally signed, the stakes were reduced yet again to $2,000 per side. [5] Ten wins were required to win with a maximum of three games per week. Games were scheduled in New York until one player had four wins, in Philadelphia until one player won an additional three games, and in Montreal to complete the match. [6] Contemporary masters were unsure of the outcome. Lasker was talented, but not yet a fully proven quantity. Steinitz had a proven track record in world championship matches, but he was over twice as old as Lasker and also had health problems. On the eve of the match, The New York Times polled several prominent masters. <Eugene Delmar> said, “Lasker's youth might help him along, but Steinitz is Steinitz after all.” <Adolf Albin> said, “there is no telling whether Steinitz will be able to account for his youthful opponent.” Showalter said, “Ask me something easier. I know only one thing, that Steinitz never in his life met a man of Lasker's strength.” [3] The New York leg ended after eight games with Lasker holding a lead of 4 wins to 2. Lasker then won all three games in Philadelphia, giving him a commanding lead of 7 wins to 2. Steinitz rallied in Montreal by winning three games, but was unable to make up the deficit, as Lasker also won three games and with them, the match. Opinions at the time were that, while Lasker played well, Steinitz's play was uneven, with both good and poor games. The worst games for Steinitz were the three in Philadelphia (Games <9>, <10>, and <11>) and the <final game> of the match in Montreal. Modern masters have placed more emphasis on endgame play. IM Jack Peters claims that “Lasker had noticed signs of uncertainty in Steinitz' handling of 'simplified' middlegames” and so looked for early queen exchanges. [6] GM Andrew Soltis claims Lasker planned to make it the “Great Endgame Match,” reaching endings in 16 of 19 games with an average game length of 52 moves. [7] Steinitz himself called Lasker “the best living endgame player,” [8] but was unable to prevent critical games of the match from being decided in the ending. Steinitz and Lasker would play another match in 1896 under similar terms, but there was no clause in the original agreement giving Steinitz the right of a rematch should he lose. [1] New York Sun, 14 Nov 1892 p 5 [2] New York Sun, 13 Jan 1894 p 8 [3] New York Times, 11 Mar 1894 p 24 [4] New York Sun, 17 Jan. 1894 p 8 [5] New York Times 5 Mar 1894 p 8 [6] Washington Evening Star, 13 Mar 1894 p 3 [6] Peters, J. Chess Life, Dec. 1994, p 40 [7] Soltis, A. “Why Lasker Matters” (Batsford, 2005) p 34 [8] Cunningham, JG "The games in the Steinitz-Lasker championship match" (Whitehead and Miller, 1894), p 79 ############################## EDIT <Karpova> This is a good resource page for this match with links to many newspapers: http://www.chessarch.com/archive/00... Just two small suggestions: I do not think that so many players Lasker beat in matches need to be mentioned, maybe only Blackburne as he was strong enough a player. And this sentence <Steinitz and Lasker would play another match in 1896 under similar terms, but there was no clause in the original agreement giving Steinitz the right of a rematch should he lose.> can be left out. As there was no rematch clause, the 1896 match is too independent from the 1894 match, as if it needed to be mentioned. ############################## EDIT <Karpova> Steinitz interview <C.N. 8290 has a summary of a Steinitz interview from 1899 which may be of interest for the Steinitz - Lasker matches> ################################### [[Lasker vs Steinitz 1894 New York / Philadelphia / Montreal In 1894, defending champion Wilhelm Steinitz was challenged by an exciting 25 year old Prussian named Emanuel Lasker. They agreed to the following conditions: The winner of the match was to be the first to win 10 games, draws not counting. The time control was 15 moves per hour. The stakes were $2,000 per side. The match was to be played in New York, Philadelphia and Montreal, in that order.[1] The match began in New York on March 15, 1894, and was tied 2-2 after the first six games. But then Lasker won the last two in New York, and added three more consecutive victories in the second leg in Philadelphia.]] ############################ CRAWFB5 POTENTIAL SUBSTITUTE FOR PETERS QUOTE: <Here's a slightly different take than Peters. It's from Soltis' <Why Lasker Matters> 2005, p. 34 In discussing Lasker vs Steinitz, 1894 (Game 9, the first game in Philadelphia), this position just before White plays 11. Bxd8!? Soltis writes: <"Most modern GMs would retreat the queen automatically, White enjoys a slight edge after, say 11. Qd2 Be7 12. Be3! and 13. O-O-O. But Lasker had discovered Steinitz's weakness: he could be beaten in endgames. Queens went off the board as early as move six and eight (twice) in other games of this match. Altogether, endings were reached in 16 of the 19 games. The average length of a game was 52 moves. Compare that with the Kasparov-Karpov match of 1984-1985, when queens were traded only 17 times in 48 games. Or with the hard-fought Fischer-Spassky match of 1972, which averaged 45 moves. It wasn't Steinitz's inclination to play endgames: He did it only six times in 23 games of his previous match, with Tchigorin. It was Lasker's plan to make it The Great Endgame Match."> More or less the same conclusion, but at least concretely sourced.> ############################ [[IM Jack Peters attributed this success to Lasker's ability to convert queenless middlegames into advantageous endings: "Lasker had noticed signs of uncertainty in Steinitz' handling of 'simplified' middlegames, without Queens. Recognizing the champion's superiority in managing a full army of pieces, Lasker deliberately sought early Queen exchanges. This strategy certainly worked in Philadelphia."2 Steinitz was tenacious and managed to respond with back-to-back victories in the 13th and 14th games in Montreal, but the score was still heavily in Lasker's favor, 7 to 4. In the 19th game, Lasker achieved his 10th win, thereby becoming the 2nd World Chess Champion. It was no great surprise that Steinitz, then 58 years old, was unable to defend against the rising tide of players who had spent years studying his ideas. As Siegbert Tarrasch said, "In my opinion the match with Steinitz does not have the great importance that they themselves attribute to it. For Steinitz has grown old, and the old Steinitz is no longer the Steinitz of old."]] ############################ EDIT <Keypusher> <"In my opinion the match with Steinitz does not have the great importance that they themselves attribute to it. For Steinitz has grown old, and the old Steinitz is no longer the Steinitz of old." <<<I got the quote from an 1894 book on the match, made by cobbling together annotations from various places. But it didn't give an original source for the Tarrasch quote. I'm sure the quote is genuine, but I can't tell you where it is from originally>>> http://books.google.co.kr/books?id=...> SEE- A VAGUELY SIMILAR QUOTE from <Hoffer's> Match book: <"Now we arrive at the present challenge, which originated in a speech by Dr. Tarrasch at the banquet given after his decisive victory over Marshall, 1905. Dr. Tarrasch said : "After my newest and greatest achievement, I have no reason to consider that anybody stands above me in the chess world. It was certainly more difficult to beat the youthful Marshall than old Steinitz. "> <The Championship Match Lasker v. Tarrasch / edited by L. Hoffer. London : E.A. Michell and Frank Hollings, 1908, p.1> ################################# EDIT <whiteshark> TARRASCH REACTION TO LASKER VICTORY- <In 1999 <Robert Huebner> wrote in <"SCHACH">, a German chess magazine, a series of 5 articles on the 1910 Lasker-Schlechter match. It includes a 10 page biographical intro to Lasker. There HueBner wrote that after Laskers victory (in the 1894 match) Curt v Bardeleben commented in Deutsche Schachzeitung (1894, p183-185) the match, pointing more on Steinitz's weaknesses than on Lasker's strength, but all in a moderate tone, <but Tarrasch was seething. <Tarrasch aber schäumte>>*. *footnote of sources for these 3 words Deutsches Wochenschach 1894, p.200 Deutsche Schachzeitung 1984, p.286 La Strategie 1894, p.265 <British Chess Magazine 1984, p.295-296> [sic!]> ############################### [[Although Lasker was widely respected, few people at the time suspected the impact that he would have on chess during the decades to come, for he was no ordinary challenger--this victory marked the beginning of a reign which was to last 27 years.]] ######################## [1 New York Recorder, March 11, 1894] <CONFIRMED> http://www.chessarch.com/excavation... [2 Chess Life, December 1994 (p40)] <CONFIRMED> BY <wordfunph> <<" Lasker had noticed signs of uncertainty in Steinitz' handling of "simplified" middlegames, without <<<Queens.>>> Recognizing the champion's superiority in managing a full army of pieces, Lasker deliberately sought early Queen exchanges. This strategy certainly worked in Philadelphia."> positive on page 41 of Chess Life December 1994.> ######################## Regarding dates, rounds, and venue fields on the actual games: <crawfb5> has already edited the dates and rounds. For the venue fields, he favors a correction slip that includes all three legs, which would read <New York/Philadelphia/Montreal>. Round by Round with <crawfb5>: NEW YORK LEG -- UNION SQUARE HOTEL <Game 1> 15 Mar 1894 adjourned http://www.chessarch.com/excavation... 16 Mar 1894 Lasker wins adjournment http://www.chessarch.com/excavation... <Game 2> 19 Mar 1894 Steinitz wins http://www.chessarch.com/excavation... <Game 3> 21 Mar 1894 adjourned http://www.chessarch.com/excavation... 22 Mar 1894 Lasker wins adjournment http://www.chessarch.com/excavation... <Game 4> 24 Mar 1894 Steinitz wins http://www.chessarch.com/excavation... <Game 5> 27 Mar 1894 adjourned http://www.chessarch.com/excavation... 28 Mar 1894 draw agreed without resumption of play http://www.chessarch.com/excavation... <Game 6> 29 Mar 1894 adjourned http://www.chessarch.com/excavation... 30 Mar 1894 adjourned game drawn http://www.chessarch.com/excavation... <Game 7> 03 Apr 1894 Lasker wins http://www.chessarch.com/excavation... <Game 8> 05 Apr 1894 adjourned http://www.chessarch.com/excavation... 06 Apr 1894 Lasker wins adjournment http://www.chessarch.com/excavation... PHILADELPHIA LEG -- FRANKLIN CHESS CLUB <GAME 9> 14 Apr 1894 Lasker wins http://www.chessarch.com/excavation... <Game 10> 19 Apr 1894 Lasker wins http://www.chessarch.com/excavation... <Game 11> 21 Apr 1894 Lasker wins (held at Union League Club) http://www.chessarch.com/excavation... Lasker-Steinitz timeline -- PART 2 MONTREAL LEG -- COSMOPOLITAN CLUB <Game 12> 3 May 1894 draw http://www.chessarch.com/excavation... <Game 13> 5 May 1894 Steinitz wins http://www.chessarch.com/excavation... <Game 14> 8 May 1894 Steinitz wins http://www.chessarch.com/excavation... <Game 15> 15 May 1894 Lasker wins http://www.chessarch.com/excavation... <Game 16> 17 May 1894 Lasker wins http://www.chessarch.com/excavation... <Game 17> 19 May 1894 adjourned http://www.chessarch.com/excavation... 21 May 1894 Steinitz wins adjournment http://www.chessarch.com/excavation... <Game 18> 22 May 1894 adjourned http://www.chessarch.com/excavation... 23 May 1894 adjournment drawn http://www.chessarch.com/excavation... <Game 19> 26 May 1894 Lasker wins http://www.chessarch.com/excavation... 3 games, 1894 WCC: Tal-Botvinnik Rematch 1961 ORIGINAL: Tal - Botvinnik World Championship Rematch (1961) <Conditions> 1. Canceling the Champion's right to a rematch. Averbakh: <"...the FIDE Congress in Luxembourg in 1959 voted to <<<cancel>>> the champion's right to a return match. The delegates to the Congress acknowledged that allowing the champion to retain the title in the event of a drawn match, and to have a return match if he lost, gave him too many advantages... It meant that in order to keep the title, the challenger had to play the world champion not once, but twice- he had to beat him the first time, and not lose the second."> --Yuri Averbakh "Centre-Stage and Behind the Scenes- the Personal Memoir of a Soviet Chess Legend." Steve Giddins, tranls. (New in Chess 2011), p.114 === EDIT <Whiteshark> <"...Rogard nevertheless did not change the <<<rules>>> laid down for the three-year cycle 1958-1960, and for this period the right to a return match was retained."> -Mikhail Botvinnik "Achieving the Aim." Bernard Cafferty, transl. (Pergamon 1981), p.160 === EDIT <Whiteshark>, <tabanus> Tidskrift för schack, nr. 9, Nov. 1959, p. 265-26 Reports about FIDE-kongressen in Luxemburg. Transl. by <tabanus>: <"A significant news concerning the end phase of the competition system is, that the right for a dethroned World Champion to claim a return match is <<<abolished in principal,>>> though shall the current World Champion keep his right to such a match if he in 1960 should lose his title."> -Tidskrift för Schack, nr. 9, Nov. 1959, p. 265 =================== -<Return Match> "Under FIDE rules, the right to a return match was withdrawn at the congress in Luxembourg... in 1959, but this rule only came into effect beginning with the 1963 match. Botvinnik did not protest against this, although he considered it an unjustifiable breach with long-established tradition" -Igor Botvinnik, ed., Steve Giddens transl. "Botvinnik-Petrosian: The 1963 World Chess Championship Match" (New in Chess 2010), p.10 === -<Arbiters> Gideon Stahlberg and Harry Golombek -Mikhail Tal, "The Life and Games of Mikhail Tal" (Everyman Chess 2007), p.170 === <Seconds> Alexander Koblents (Tal) -Mikhail Tal, "The Life and Games of Mikhail Tal" (Everyman Chess 2007), p.170 ?? (Botvinnik): C.N. 8409 http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/... Botvinnik: <My friend, the master Goldberg, with whom I have worked these past years, refused to be my second this time. He is older than I, and to second is far more tiring than to play. It is exhausting, and I understand his point of view.> === Igor Botvinnik: <"It is well known that <<<S.A. Furman worked as an openings consultant to Botvinnik, in his world championship matches of 1961 and 1963.>>> This happened after Botvinnik was forced to manage without the help of his old comrade Grigory Goldberg. Mikhail Moiseevich told how, after his first match with Tal, he sensed Goldberg's admiration for the young champion, but even so, in the summer of 1960, he sent his old comrade a letter... with an invitation to be his second for the return match. He received a 9-page reply, setting out numerous conditions necessary for him to have any hope of revenge, all of which, Botvinnik laughed, were impossible to fulfill! And now it is time to dispose of one legend, which has made the rounds of the chess world. In the Russian book on Furman there is a story about Furman's time as Botvinnik's second. It is claimed that Furman once advised Botvinnik to play for a draw in an adjourned game, but that Botvinnik did not agree and went on to lose the game, after which Furman was sent off to read a lecture to junior players of the Trud chess club, to get him out of the way. When I once drew Mikhail Moiseevich's attention to this episode, I received a brusque answer: 'In this match, as in the earlier ones, Furman was just an openings consultant, not a second, and I did not analyse adjourned positions with him.'"> -Igor Botvinnik, ed., Steve Giddens transl. "Botvinnik-Petrosian: The 1963 World Chess Championship Match" (New in Chess 2010), pp.123-24 ########################## EDIT <Karpova> <Tal, Mikhail 'The Life and Games of Mikhail Tal', 2007, London, UK Page 169: <One disagreeable event, which is true, came after the finish of the tournament, was a recurrence of kidney colic in Moscow, just before the flight to Prague. At first it was bearable but I returned from Prague under medical supervision after lying there in hospital for several days. From Prague they even sent their medical diagnosis to Moscow, whereupon our Chess Federation began considering the question of deferring the match. I was asked to send a letter to the President of FIDE with preliminary evidence from a doctor commissioned by my opponent. To me this all seemed to be very complicated and rather insulting, and I preferred to play. Besides, my participation in the first match had itself given me enormous satisfaction, and I was even waiting impatiently for the second encounter.> (the tournament he is referring to was Stockholm 1961) Page 170: <The controllers were our charming old friends Stahlberg and Golombek, while Euwe also arrived for the start.> This page can also be quoted for his work with Alexander Koblents during the match. Page 175: <Seriously speaking, I was quite unprepared for the change which had taken place in Botvinnik. He arrived for the 1961 match extremely self-disciplined and aggressive, readily going in for a stormy position if it looked favourable for him, which he had not done in 1960.>> ########################## <ChessNote 8399.> Observations by Botvinnik http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/... -Eliot Hearst, "Botvinnik Meets the Press (Excerpts from an interview for the Latvian Magazine Šahs)" "Chess Life" Vol.17, No.6 June 1962, p.135 ‘Because of your good results in the “sixties”, the Caro-Kann Defense has once again become popular. What can you tell us about this defense?’ ‘This defense limits the possibilities of White. When the defenses P-K4, P-K3 or P-QB4 are employed, White has a much bigger choice of variations than in the case of the Caro-Kann Defense, where Black usually has a very solid position. As a result, in match-play the Caro-Kann is a very efficient weapon, since, in a match, one plays as White to win the game, whereas, as Black, one tries to merely obtain a satisfactory defense. And if, in the last Tal match, White got a slight advantage against this defense, the reason was not because of the opening itself, but because of errors committed later in the game.’ ‘What is your opinion about Tal’s play in the last match and about the style of your opponent in general?’ ‘It is said that if one is beaten by someone, it is necessary to criticize the opponent; and if one beats someone, it is necessary to praise him. I think it is better to always be consistent ... ... He is a rather unique player. When the game takes on a more or less open character, and when piece-play is important, nobody can equal Tal. The view that he calculates variations very quickly is widespread, and it is really so. In other positions he is weaker. Here no calculation can help him. In such positions one can play him entirely peacefully. As for me, it was natural that I would try to obtain such positions against Tal, where he would have difficulties. Further, I think that one of his shortcomings is that he is lazy. He used to work more, prepare better, particularly in the openings. If you have watched his games over the past two years, you will observe nothing new. He attempted the move 3 P-K5 against the Caro-Kann, but this variation is not very dangerous, and one cannot prepare only one variation for such a catch. This circumstance naturally offered me the possibility of preparing something new for him each time. This facilitated my work during the games. If Tal had been well-prepared, if he had devoted enough time to the study of typical positions, his talent would render him much more dangerous than he is now. No second can do the player’s work; the player has to work for himself.’ === Pages 38-40 of the November 1972 CHESS had an interview with Botvinnik by B.H. Wood, conducted during the Olympiad in Skopje. One question: ‘Do you think you would have won against Fischer?’ ‘Do you mean against the Fischer of today or when I was at my best? It depends on whether there would be a return match. If this were to be covered by the rules, then perhaps I should have lost the first match against him as I did against Tal, but then have made a serious study of his defects and exploited them in the return match.’ ########################## <Course of the Match> <1st game> ################################ <2d game> ################################ <3d game> ################################ <4th game> ################################ <5th game> ################################ <6th game> ################################ <7th game> ################################ <8th game> ################################ <9th game> ################################ <10th game> ################################ <11th game> ################################ <12th game> ################################ <13th game> ################################ <14th game> ################################ <15th game> ################################ <16th game> ################################ <17th game> ################################ <18th game> ################################ <19th game> ################################ <20th game> ################################ <21st game> ################################ <22d game> ################################ <23d game> ################################ <24th game> ################################ 3 games, 1961 WCC:Alekhine-Bogoljubov 1929 ORIGINAL: Alekhine - Bogoljubov World Championship Match (1929) <DRAFT EDIT> in progress: <JFQ> The ex-world chess champion Jose Raul Capablanca challenged Alexander Alekhine to a rematch on February 10, 1928, requesting two changes to the London rules that had governed their first title match. Capablanca wanted to alter the playing times and reduce the number of games, but Alekhine refused any changes.<1><"L'Echiquier" April 1928, pp.883-885 In Edward Winter, "Capablanca," pp.207-299.> Alekhine held Capablanca to the London Rules stipulation that the world champion "need not defend" his title "for a lower purse than $10,000 U.S. dollars."<"American Chess Bulletin" Sept-Oct 1922, p.150. In Winter, "Capablanca" p.188> Capablanca's inability to raise this purse became the main obstacle to a rematch.<Milan Vidmar, "Golden Schachzeiten, 2d auflage" (Walter de Gruyter 1981), p.176><Capa's inability to raise the funds- Winter "Capablanca" the Cuban government cancelling their $5000 dollar purse pledge in 1929> In 1928, American organizers offered Bradley Beach, N.J. as a venue for the rematch, but there exists no evidence that they ever raised the required $10,000 purse.<2><W.H.W.,"Daily Mail" 16 November 1928 p.17. In Edward Winter, Chessnote 8193, http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/...> After his victory at Bad Kissingen (1928), Efim Bogoljubov challenged Alekhine, who accepted "in principle,"<3><"American Chess Bulletin" Dec. 1928, pp.174-175. In Edward Winter, "Capablanca" p. 213> so long as the financial guarantees were in place.<4><"American Chess Bulletin" March 1929, p.41. In Edward Winter, "Capablanca" p. 215> Less than a year later, when it became clear that Bogoljubov could not guarantee a $10,000 purse, Alekhine agreed to play him for a smaller amount.<(note 8)"Neue Wiener Schachzeitung" 29 Aug. 1929, p.253 > Alekhine announced that "The match with Bogoljubow interests me far more than the battle with Capablanca... Bogoljubow is a much more serious opponent."<6><"Deutsche Schachblatter" 1 Feb. 1929, pp.35-37. In Edward Winter, "Capablanca" p. 215> Bogoljubov's record indicated that he was a legitimate challenger. He had drawn the Alekhine - Bogoljubov (1921) match, and finished first over Alekhine, Rudolf Spielmann, Ernst Gruenfeld, and Richard Reti at Bad Pistyan (1922). After sharing first with Alekhine and Geza Maroczy at Karlsbad (1923), he won both the USSR Championship (1924) and the USSR Championship (1925).<source- Cafferty and Taimanov "Soviet Championships"> At Moscow (1925) he finished first over Emanuel Lasker and reigning world champion Capablanca. He was also the FIDE champion, a title he had won twice in succession: Bogoljubov - Euwe: First FIDE Championship (1928) and Bogoljubov - Euwe: Second FIDE Championship (1928).<The FIDE champion was not considered to be world champion. See Edward Winter, "FIDE Championship (1928)." http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/...> At Bad Kissingen (1928) he triumphed over a group of very strong masters, including Capablanca, Max Euwe, Akiba Rubinstein, Aron Nimzowitsch, and Reti. The match began September 6, 1929 under the following conditions: Alekhine would get $6,000 dollars win or lose, with any surplus going to Bogoljubov. A winner would be declared if he scored 15 1/2 points with 6 wins from a maximum of 30 games to be played in various cities: Wiesbaden, Heidelberg, Berlin, The Hague, and Amsterdam.<8><"Wiener Schachzeitung" 29 Aug. 1929, p.253> Emanuel Lasker served as arbiter.<9><"Wiener Schachzeitung" Oct. 1929, pp.311-313> Alekhine drew first blood in <game 1>-<insert game link here> Alekhine vs Bogoljubov, 1929, but Bogoljubov fought back to even the score in <game 6>-<insert game link here> Bogoljubov vs Alekhine, 1929. Alekhine attributed the loss to an "enforced exchange of queens" on move 15 which produced a position that "could not be defended against by accurate play."<10><Edward Winter, "Seven Alekhine Articles." http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/...> Capablanca was not impressed, writing to Norbert Lederer "...can you imagine B. winning two games from me or Dr. L. so early?"<11><"The Russell Collection" Item 1494." In Edward Winter "Capablanca" p.217> Alekhine stormed back to take five points from the next six games, putting the match well out of reach. The <final game>-<insert game link here> Bogoljubov vs Alekhine, 1929 proved a fitting example of the whole match, which featured exciting, but risky tactical chess throughout. The Neue Wiener Schachzeitung commented that the games were played in "Wild West style," and that Alekhine had won by adapting himself to Bogoljubov's specialty, "the field of tactics."<12><"Wiener Schachzeitung" Nov. 1929, p.338> In post match interviews, Alekhine took the opportunity to address Emanuel Lasker's comment that chess would eventually succumb to "draw death." <13><Emanuel Lasker, "Mein Wettkampf mit Capablanca" (1926 ed.), pp.32-33. In Edward Winter, Chessnote 5437, http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/...> When asked what was the most significant aspect of the match, he replied that the notion of "draw death in chess is senseless... that is the fault not of chess but the players concerned."<14><"Aachener Anzeiger – Politisches Tageblatt" 30 Nov. 1929. In Edward Winter, Chessnote 7567, http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/...> Asked to compare Capablanca and Bogoljubov, Alekhine reckoned that his most recent foe was "more dangerous, although it is much more difficult to win against Capablanca."<14><"Aachener Anzeiger – Politisches Tageblatt" 30 Nov. 1929. In Edward Winter, Chessnote 7567, http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/...> According to Alekhine biographer Yuri Shabarov, the champion gave a more scathing judgment to a Düsseldorf newspaper, announcing that "Now nobody has a chance to win a match with Alekhine," and that he had "...no respect for Capablanca. I would not advise him to play a rematch, because after this new bout, his halo has completely darkened."<15><Yuri Shaburov, "No Equal" in "Alexander Alekhine- The Undefeated Champion" (The Voice 1992)> 1 "L'Echiquier" April 1928, pp.883-885 In Edward Winter, "Capablanca," pp.207-299. 2 W.H.W.,"Daily Mail" 16 November 1928 p.17. In Edward Winter, Chessnote 8193, http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/... 3 "American Chess Bulletin" Dec. 1928, pp.174-175. In Edward Winter, "Capablanca" p. 213 4 "American Chess Bulletin" March 1929, p.41. In Edward Winter, "Capablanca" p. 215 5 "The New York Times" 8 Sept. 1929, sect.2 p.3. In Edward Winter, "Capablanca" p. 216 6 "Deutsche Schachblatter" 1 Feb. 1929, pp.35-37. In Edward Winter, "Capablanca" p. 215 7 The FIDE champion was not considered to be world champion. See Edward Winter, "FIDE Championship (1928)." http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/... 8 "Wiener Schachzeitung" 29 Aug. 1929, p.253 9 "Wiener Schachzeitung" Oct. 1929, pp.311-313 10 Edward Winter, "Seven Alekhine Articles." http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/... 11 "The Russell Collection" Item 1494." In Edward Winter "Capablanca" p.217 12 "Wiener Schachzeitung" Nov. 1929, p.338 13 Emanuel Lasker, "Mein Wettkampf mit Capablanca" (1926 ed.), pp.32-33. In Edward Winter, Chessnote 5437, http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/... 14. "Aachener Anzeiger – Politisches Tageblatt" 30 Nov. 1929. In Edward Winter, Chessnote 7567, http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/... 15. Yuri Shaburov, "No Equal." In "Alexander Alekhine- The Undefeated Champion" (The Voice 1992) ################################# <SECONDS> 8409. World championship seconds From Leonard Barden (London): ‘In an interview after his match against Anand, Carlsen said that he had no on-site seconds in Chennai, although he was in contact via Skype with Jon Ludwig Hammer, Norway’s number two player. When was the last time that a player had no strong assistant at a world championship match? I am referring to assistants of master level capable of providing technical help, and not “seconds” who were effectively managers dealing with match rules and similar matters.’ Precise records of players’ seconds are often difficult to trace, and no list of the kind requested by a correspondent in C.N. 5657 has yet been built up. For example, for the 1929 and 1934 Alekhine-Bogoljubow matches and, even, the 1927 Capablanca v Alekhine encounter it seems unclear which other players were involved in any capacity. ################## <thomastonk>, <Karpova> On DRAW ODDS <Alekhine-Euwe 1935> <Kmoch describes with the last sentence beginning on that page and ending on the other. Here my rough translation:(concerning game 30) <"If Alekhine wins, the match is drawn, the champion undefeated and everthing remains the same, as it has happened after the match Lasker vs Schlechter.">> -pp. 133-134 of the May 1936 'Neue Wiener Schachzeitung' (Hans Kmoch, Amsterdam, 15 December 1935). ============= <On page 284 of the September 1935 'Neue Wiener Schachzeitung', there is a short note in the news section: The conditions were the same as in the last two WC matches. At least 30 games, winner is the one with more points, if he won at least 6 games or else the match goes on until he reached 6 wins> ############ C.N. 7567 http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/... <An interview with Alexander Alekhine shortly after his 1929 world championship match against Bogoljubow has been brought to our attention by Thomas Niessen (Aachen, Germany). It was published in the Allgemeine Zeitung (Chemnitz) and reprinted in the Aachener Anzeiger – Politisches Tageblatt of 30 November 1929: Below is our translation: > ‘What do you regard as the most important consequences of the match?’ ‘Whom do you consider stronger? Capablanca or Bogoljubow?’ ‘Oh no, it is really not possible to compare the two players. With Capablanca, for instance, everything is logical and natural. One knows exactly what he wants and how he will play. With Bogoljubow, though, it is always a case of being hurled into an unexpected adventure. On that account he is also more dangerous, although it is much more difficult to win against Capablanca.’ ###################### MATCH DATES: 6 Sept.-12 Nov. 1929 <BEFORE THE MATCH> <London Rules Challenge Clause> Clause 7: <"The champion <<<must defend his title>>> within one year after receiving a challenge. He will, however, only be compelled to accept such a challenge from recognised International masters."> Claue 8: <"The champion will not be compelled to defend his title for a purse below $10.000 <<<(Ten thousand dollars).>>> In addition to which sum the travelling expenses both ways of both players as well as their living expenses during the progress of the match must also be provided for."> --Vlastimil Fiala and Jan Kalendovsky, "Complete Games of Alekhine Vol. 2: 1921-1925" (Olomouc 1996), pp. 153-154 === ###################### <Negotiations> Capablanca challenges Alekhine to a rematch. 10 Feb. 1928 (date of letter from Capablanca to Alekhine) <Capablanca proposes to change the number of games and the time limit per move in the London Rules, but explicitly mentions the $10,000 purse guarantee be kept intact> "L'Echiquier" April 1928, pp.883-885 In Edward Winter, "Capablanca," pp. 207-299. ================ 29 Feb. 1928 (date of letter from Alekhine to Capablanca) <Alekhine writes Capablanca that he will never agree to any modifications of the London Rules> "L'Echiquier" April 1928, pp.886-887 In Edward Winter, "Capablanca," p.299. === Article published on February 1928 <"In a letter to the <<<American Chess Bulletin>>>...Dr. Alekhine... confirmed the report that he had agreed to meet Capablanca during 1929 in a return match, or, as he termed it, a 'match-revanche.'" Alekhine: "It is perfectly evident that the match in question, in order to justify its denomination- revanche- must be played on absolutely the same conditions as the first one- namely the rules elaborated by Capablanca himself in London, 1922."> -"American Chess Bulletin" Feb. 1928, p. 29. In Edward Winter, "Capablanca" (McFarland 1989), p. 207 === 24 August 1928- Last day of Bad Kissingen (1928) <EDIT> <Karpova> <Bogoljubov <<<challenged>>> Alekhine for a WC match in 1929 directly after winning Bad Kissingen (1928).> -"Neue Wiener Schachzeitung" 1928, p.298 ========== <"The last round of the Bad Kissingen tournament was played on 24 August. A few days later Bogoljubow wrote a letter to Alekhine <<<challenging him to a match>>>. It was published... on page 858 of the July 1930 L'Echiquier."> Edward Winter, "Capablanca" p.213 ================ 29 August 1928 - Alekhine accepts Bogo's challenge <In a letter to Capablanca, Alekhine says he had already accepted <<<"in principle, the challenge of E.D. Bogoljubow">>> on August 29 1928.> -"American Chess Bulletin" Dec. 1928, pp. 174-175 In Edward Winter, "Capablanca" p. 213 ================== 11 October 1928 <"According to a message from Reuter's correspondent at Berne... Alekhine... had... made the <<<arrangement with Bogoljubow>>> for a World Championship match. But this arrangement is only provisional, as Alekhine is still prepared to play Capablanca if the latter should make up his mind in time, and accept the previous conditions." (London Rules)> "Times Weekly" 11 Oct. 1928 (no page listed) In Edward Winter, "Capablanca" p. 212 === November 1928- Bradley Beach Offer <C.N. 8193 http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/... This following item does not appear in <Edward Winter's> Capablanca bio, and it is a crucial item, a necessary lynchpin in order accurately to evaluate the saga of Alekhine-Capablanca rematch negotiations: <"Whether the Alekhine-Bogoljubow match takes place depends upon the provision of the necessary funds. Meanwhile, the <<<offer of an American group to finance a match between Alekhine and Capablanca at Bradley Beach, New Jersey, next spring, holds good.>>> It is the only arrangement that will satisfy the chess world."> -W.H.W. "Daily Mail" 16 November 1928 p. 17 ================= 13 January 1929 Alekhine insists on London Rules Alekhine's letter to Alekhine-Bogo match organizer Strick van Linschoten: <"I... acknowledge receipt of your letter... in which you inform me that Mr. Bogoljubow... has paid in the sum of 500 dollars to serve as first guarantee for the conclusion of a match between him and me for the championship of the world at chess, and as a surety in case of the non-realization of this project... Mr. Bogoljubow will have to give me at least three months notice of the date of its commencement. Likewise, he will have to pay in at this time... the supplementary sums provided for by the <<<London rules,>>> or induce the organizers to do so. In case of the non-fulfilment (sic) of these conditions, the match with Mr. Bogoljubow... would not be able to take place."> "American Chess Bulletin" March 1929, p. 41. In Edward Winter, "Capablanca" p. 215 === January 1929 Alekhine interview on Match <"The match with Bogoljubow interests me <<<far more>>> than the battle with Capablanca."> -"Deutsche Schachblatter" 1 Feb. 1929, pp. 35-37. In Edward Winter, "Capablanca" p. 215 === 28 June 1929- Alekhine Confirms Match Status <"In an interview given by Alekhine to... <The Times>... he said that the match with Bogoljubow would <<<definitely>>> be for the world championship."> "The Times" 28 June 1929, p. 8. In Leonard Skinner and Robert Verhoeven, "Alexander Alekhine's Chess Games 1902-1946" (McFarland 1998), p. 490 === Sometime between 13 January 1929 and 6 Sept. 1929 (start of match) On the London Rules being waived "Times Weekly" 21 Sept. 1933" commentary on the match purse: <"It was reputed not to reach the amount prescribed by the London conditions, but as was clear no more would be available, Dr. Alekhine <<<consented to play.>>> In this connection it is as well to remember that the conditions state that 'the champion will not be compelled to defend his title for a purse below ten thousand dollars,' with the American dollar as the standard."> -Edward Winter, "Capablanca" p. 216 ######################## <Conditions> EDIT <Karpova> <From <<<page of the ''>>> the conditions: Begin: 6th September 30 games Winner is the one who scores most points (15 1/2), if he scored 6 wins. The World champion gets $6,000 in every case, Bogoljubov gets the surplus.* Programme: 8 games in Wiesbaden in September, 3 games in Heidelberg October 1-8, 6 games in Berlin Ocotber 10-22, 4 games in Haag and 2 in Amsterdam Ocober 24 to November 4, 7 games in Wiesbaden in November as finish. * "World Champion" apparently means Alekhine, and not the new WC after the match>. -"Neue Wiener Schachzeitung" 29 Aug. 1929, p.253 === EDIT <JFQ> <Bogoljubov had arranged a purse of $6,800 to be paid Alekhine should he win, and $5,000 should he lose> <There could be up to 30 games, but the winner had to score at least 6 wins and 15 1/2 points, meaning that there was also a necessary minimum number of games to be played> -"The Times" 28 June 1929, p. 8. In Leonard Skinner and Robert Verhoeven, "Alexander Alekhine's Chess Games 1902-1946" (McFarland 1998), p. 490 ============ ============== ########################### <Bogo career highlights> <Soviet Champion> USSR Championship (1924) August 23-September 15, 1924 USSR Championship (1925) August 11 - September 6, 1925 Moscow (1925) November 7th to December 10th. =============== <FIDE Champion> <The Netherlands had also been the venue, a few months previously, for a match between Euwe and Bogoljubow which page 132 of the May 1928 Deutsche Schachzeitung described as being for the championship of the World Chess Federation (‘um die Meisterschaft des Weltschachbundes’). Page 238 of the June 1928 BCM commented: ‘It has been stated that this victory entitles the winner to be regarded as the official (FIDE) candidate for a challenge match with the world champion. As the FIDE annual meeting of delegates is not until August next, at the Hague, we fail to see how this can have been decided.’ Below, for the record, is the complete text in the FIDE minutes (The Hague, 1928) with respect to the ‘Championnat de la FIDE’: ‘L’A.G. [Assemblée Générale] vu les décisions des Congrès de Budapest et de Londres, approuve l’attitude du Comité Central qui a adopté le premier match Bogoljubow-Euwe comme le premier match pour le titre de Champion de la FIDE. Le félicitant de [sa] victoire, elle reconnaît le Maître E. Bogoljubow comme le premier Champion de la FIDE. Mr Wahltuch propose de dresser la liste réglementaire des quatre candidats pour le championnat de la FIDE (art. 5 Règlement des Epreuves). Mais l’A.G. s’abstient pour cette année de l’établissement de cette liste, se réservant toute décision ultérieure à ce sujet.’ In short, the General Assembly approved the Central Committee’s decision to adopt the Bogoljubow v Euwe contest as the first match for the title of FIDE champion. The British delegate, Victor Wahltuch, proposed that the required list of four candidates for that title should be drawn up, but the General Assembly decided to defer the matter. Nothing was said about <<<Bogoljubow>>> possibly becoming the world championship challenger by dint of his victory over Euwe.> -Edward Winter, "FIDE Championship (1928)." Retrieved from http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/... === Bogoljubov - Euwe: First FIDE Championship (1928) April 4 - May 5 1928 Bad Kissingen (1928) August 12-24, 1928 Bogoljubov - Euwe: Second FIDE Championship (1928) 23 Dec. 1928 to 6 Jan. 1929 --- ######################### <Predictions, comments before the Match> January 1929 Alekhine interview on Match <"The match with Bogoljubow interests me <<<far more>>> than the battle with Capablanca."> -"Deutsche Schachblatter" 1 Feb. 1929, pp. 35-37. In Edward Winter, "Capablanca" p. 215 ############################# <Alekhine compares his style with Bogo's> <"I agree - Alekhine spoke - that in our understanding of the game of chess, we have a certain resemblance, but we have a dramatically different look on life as well as the principles of warfare. As far as I could see, Bogolyubov in his boundless optimism is always looking to gather new strength for creative ideas from his rich source of <<<natural talent.>>> He sees the enemy as an excellent experimental field for the application of his art, and never tries to study his opponent. He often hopes for a miracle where you need precise knowledge. This can lead to unexpected failures, which could undermine his confidence in himself. For Bogoliubov confidence is needed above all else. He considers his personal satisfaction to be the main purpose of the struggle.... I think three factors are necessary for success: first, an understanding of your strength and weakness in a chess position, and secondly, the precise understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of the enemy, and thirdly, a higher purpose than the momentary satisfaction. This purpose I see in the scientific and artistic achievements that put the game of chess on equal footing with a number of other arts. "> Yuri Shaburov, "Alexander Alekhine- The Undefeated Champion" (The Voice 1992), p.??? IT IS IN CHAPTER "No Equal" near the beginning. ############################# <THE MATCH> EDIT <Karpova> EDIT <Karpova> <On pages 311-313 of the October 1929 'Neue Wiener Schachzeitung' is a report by Hans Kmoch (Berlin, October 23, 1929) and on page 313 he mentions that Dr. Lasker was the arbiter. And the Ufa shot a film. Possibly, he was that just in Berlin (it's not mentioned)> <On page 313, it is also mentioned that they played a 41-board Simul <alternierend> (alternating) which lasted 4 hours and they won 36 games while conceding only 5 draws (a lady was among those who drew).> ============ Report by I. W. Keemink from Hilversum: <Match is relocated to the netherlands and Dr. Rueb welcomes them on October 25 in the "National Schaakgebouw" in the Haag chess club (? <Schachheim>, "Heim" is home/asylum) where games 18, 19 and 23 were played. 20th game in the "Hotel Bristol" in Rotterdam. Games 21 and 23 in the "Militiesaal" in Amsterdam (the masters were welcomed there by Dr. M. Levenbock. Page 321 of the November 1929 'Neue Wiener Schachzeitung' And then, on page 326 (after the game scores): The farewell address was given by Jhr. H. Strick van Lindschoten. Both masters departed for Wiesbaden on November 8 and 9. In a short summary of what happened in the Wiesbaden games, Alekhine's victory is reported. There follows a final report on pages 337-338 of the November 1929 'Neue Wiener Schachzeitung' which I will have a closer look at later. But it's mentioned that the public interest was not as great as could have been expected from WC match in Europe. And some remarks about Capablanca.> ###################### <After the Match> EDIT <Karpova> <Post-Game Collection: WCC:Alekhine-Bogoljubov 1929 interview with Alekhine in C.N. 7567: http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/... <An interview with Alexander Alekhine shortly after his 1929 world championship match against Bogoljubow has been brought to our attention by Thomas Niessen (Aachen, Germany). It was published in the Allgemeine Zeitung (Chemnitz) and reprinted in the Aachener Anzeiger – Politisches Tageblatt of 30 November 1929: Below is our translation: <<<‘Conversation with the world chess champion I met Dr Alekhine in the hotel. The last game had just finished, and I congratulated him with the comment that he had now truly earned a rest. ‘A rest – I do not know what that is. I am now going to prepare all the games for publication in book form under the title “Chess Thoughts During the Match with Bogoljubow”, and I shall clarify the meaning of all the games, where it was not always understood correctly. Then on 15 January there begins the San Remo tournament, in which I am taking part.’ ‘And the match with Capablanca?’ ‘If I receive his challenge, I shall meet him in a year’s time, probably in America, where it is an easy matter for him to acquire the money necessary.’ ‘For that too you need to prepare.’ ‘That is true, but I have my personal and quite idiosyncratic method of preparing. Essentially, I prepare only during the first games. I note exactly which variations my opponent chooses, what he is striving for, and then I select the openings which I shall play and establish my entire tactics accordingly. I find that each player should be allowed to play in his own style, but it is naturally then necessary to try to defeat him with his own weapons. Later on, I think about my own play, and my opponent’s. To give an example, in The Hague on one occasion I found a theoretical novelty in a cinema.’ ‘What do you regard as the most important consequences of the match?’ ‘Firstly, that everything that has been said recently about the draw death in chess is senseless. Every position, and even the best known, contains so many possibilities that it is merely necessary to make the effort to look for them. The largest number of drawn games was in the Lasker v Schlechter match and in Capablanca’s matches; however, that is the fault not of chess but of the style of the players concerned. Secondly, that the new legend that, with the progression of tournaments and every new winner of a first prize, the number of evenly-matched players will become larger and larger is absolutely false. No doubt the world champions occupy a special position.’ ‘And Nimzowitsch?’ ‘A very original and strong player with whom it is very difficult to do battle. However, for him psychological moments play a decisive role, and if fortune does not smile on him at the start of a tournament, this can affect his entire subsequent play. From that standpoint, Bogoljubow merits only respect, for he always remained very cool-blooded even if the situation in the battle was by no means fortunate for him. He was always cheerful and pleasant.’ ‘What do you consider to be his greatest strengths?’ ‘He possesses inexhaustible fantasy. There is no position where he finds nothing. His disadvantage is that in a bad position he does not have the necessary calm. It then seems to him that the position is lost, and he does indeed lose. Precisely in the positions where Capablanca managed to put up the greatest resistance, Bogoljubow breaks down completely. In contrast, he handles very well positions in which he stands somewhat better.’ ‘So you do not believe that Bogoljubow played more weakly in this match than usual?’ ‘That is what is always said about the player who loses. The same was also asserted about Capablanca. I have nothing against everyone losing against me even if afterwards it is claimed that they played more weakly than usual.’ ‘Whom do you consider stronger? Capablanca or Bogoljubow?’ ‘Oh no, it is really not possible to compare the two players. With Capablanca, for instance, everything is logical and natural. One knows exactly what he wants and how he will play. With Bogoljubow, though, it is always a case of being hurled into an unexpected adventure. On that account he is also more dangerous, although it is much more difficult to win against Capablanca.’ ‘Are you satisfied overall with the course of the match?’ ‘Yes, the organization was quite good. There is just one thing that I should like to see changed. The games should not be played in public. Instead of a chessplayer, one becomes a performer. The impression given is that the public is more or less interested only in outward appearances, instead of focussing on the game. In this respect it was better in Buenos Aires, as we were not exposed to the eyes of spectators.’ ‘And travelling from city to city?’ ‘That was because of the financial agreement, and from the standpoint of chess publicity it is very good and important. Wherever we went, we received a very friendly welcome. It was obvious to me that the sympathies lay with Bogoljubow, who lives in Germany and wants to become German. I was prepared for that and was therefore not surprised that general goodwill was primarily directed at Bogoljubow’s personality. But everyone was at pains not to give any such impression, and if I ever noticed anything I did not feel offended. I also think that this often gave me a fresh incentive to play better. I regard chess as an art. For me, the chess board and chess ideas are the most important thing. Sympathy and antipathy are human passions which have nothing to do with chess.’>>>> ####################################### EDIT <Karpova> <From page 338 of the November 1929 'Neue Wiener Schachzeitung' <Vor Beginn gab es in der gesamten Schachwelt mit Ausnahme von Bogoljubow niemand, der am Siege Aljechins auch nur leisen Zweifel gehegt hätte.> (Before the start, there was no one in the whole chess world with the exception of Bogoljubov, who would have entertained even quiet doubt about Alekhine's victory.) Bogoljubov is called one of the strongest tournament players of recent times but his lack of consistency excludes him from the list of potential World Champions. For elaboration from the previous page 337, the games are said to have been played in <Wild-West-Stil>. On the choice of this playing style (why their choice cannot be resented): <Bogoljubow nicht, der nicht aus seiner Haut herauskann, Aljechin nicht, der sich seinem Gegner angepaßt und ihn auf dessen ureigenster Domäne, dem Gebiete der Taktik, geschlagen hat.> (not Bogoljubov, as a leopard cannot change his spots, not Alekhine who adapted himself to his opponent and beat him on his* very own demesne, the field of tactics.) * "his" refers to Bogoljubov Now back to page 338: Alkhine abstained from a sharp weapon - solid positional play which he had demonstrated in his WC match against Capablanca. This one he will need in his rematch against Capablanca as he would lose horribly with the style employed against Bogoljubov. <Capablanca ist heute so stark wie je zuvor> (today, Capablanca is as strong as ever before). There's a footnote to this statement I will refe to later. Now the text goes on claiming that Capablanca fulfilled all imaginable obligations (<Der Kubaner hat seit mehr als Jahresfrist alle erdenklichen Voraussetzungen erfüllt [...]>) seemingly prior to 1929 already and now Alekhine was obliged to fulfill his promise back from Buenos Aires, to accept Capablanca's challenge first, even if this is not fully possible anymore, as fast as he can. The footnote cites an interview from the 'Mährisch-Ostrauer Morgenzeitung'. Bogoljubov: <Was Capablanca betrifft, so steht er nach meiner Meinung an vierter Stelle, also hinter Aljechin, Lasker und mir.> (concerning Capablanca, in my opinion, he ranks on 4th position behind Alekhine, Lasker and myself) Alekhine: <Bogoljubow spielt selbstverständlich ganz anders als Capablanca. Ich möchte sagen, daß er viel gefährlicher ist, schon deshalb weil er ein größerer Meister ist, und weil er viel mehr riskiert als Capablanca.> (of course, Bogoljubov plays completely different than Capablanca. I want to say that he is much more dangerous, if only because he is a greater master, and because he risks much more than Capablanca.)> ##################################### EDIT <Karpova> <Alekhine visited Vienna and was interviewed by Hans Kmoch on September 25, 1930 (pages 257-258 of the September 1930 'Neue Wiener Schachzeitung'. Page 257: Alekhine just ended his European tour and wants to remain in Vienna for about 2 weeks to finish his book "Der Weg zur Weltmeisterschaft" (On the road to World Championship). On October 18 he will leave for America, to visit the USA and Mexico but just for journalistic purposes and it has nothing to do with a rematch against Capablanca. He will return to Europe around Christmas. Page 258: No Match against Capablanca, who withdrew his challenge for financial reasons. According to London Rules, he had to deposit $500 "Reuegeld" (forfeit/fine) to Norbert Lederer. Alekhine is convinced that it expired, while Capablanca is entertaining the thought of demanding it back. If the matter is not settled amicably, Alekhine wants to appeal to the contractually stipulated arbitrary court. But he emphasizes, that he doesn't want the money for himself, but donated for a good cause. Alekhine's intention is merely to create a precedent. The World Champion shouldn't be challenged and thereby bound to certain obligations, maybe even financially harmed, and then quietly disbanded so to speak (<dann aber sang- und klanglos quasi entlassen wird>). So it's not directed against Capablanca but a matter of principle. Yet, Alekhine believes that there will be time for a rematch against Capablanca on a later point of time. The first among other candidates is Nimzowitsch but there are also younger ones like Kashdan and Flohr. Alekhine also heard the rumour that Bogoljubov was preparing for a second WC match but he doesn't know the full particulars. At the moment there's no challenge pending but he is ready to accept one any time.> ######################## <FIDE Championship (1928)> Edward Winter http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/... <Seven Alekhine Articles> Edward Winter http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/... 3 games, 1929 Wijk aan Zee Hoogovens 1968 The 30th annual Hoogovens international chess tournament was held in Wijk aan Zee, The Netherlands in 1968. Korchnoi had an incredible run, winning ten of his first eleven games, before falling to Lajos Portisch in the twelfth round http://www.olimpbase.org/Elo/Elo196... <Wijk aan Zee, Netherlands 10-28 Jan 1968> table[ Elo 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Pts 1 GM Korchnoi 2660 * 0 ½ 1 ½ 1 1 1 1 1 ½ 1 1 1 ½ 1 12½ =2 GM Portisch 2610 1 * 0 ½ ½ 1 ½ 0 1 1 0 ½ 1 ½ 1 ½ 9 =2 GM Hort 2570 ½ 1 * ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ 1 ½ 1 ½ 9 =2 GM Tal 2650 0 ½ ½ * ½ 0 ½ ½ ½ ½ 1 1 ½ 1 1 1 9 5 GM Gheorghiu 2530 ½ ½ ½ ½ * ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ 1 ½ ½ ½ ½ 1 8½ =6 GM Ciric 2530 0 0 ½ 1 ½ * ½ ½ 0 ½ 1 1 ½ ½ ½ 1 8 =6 GM Matanovic 2550 0 ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ * ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ 1 ½ 1 8 =8 GM Ivkov 2560 0 1 ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ * ½ ½ 1 ½ 0 ½ ½ ½ 7½ =8 IM Ree 0 0 ½ ½ ½ 1 ½ ½ * 0 ½ ½ 1 0 1 1 7½ =10 GM Padevsky 2480 0 0 ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ 1 * ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ 7 =10 GM Donner 2530 ½ 1 ½ 0 0 0 ½ 0 ½ ½ * ½ ½ 1 ½ 1 7 =10 GM Bobotsov 2540 0 ½ ½ 0 ½ 0 ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ * ½ ½ 1 1 7 13 IM Karaklajic 0 0 0 ½ ½ ½ ½ 1 0 ½ ½ ½ * 1 ½ ½ 6½ 14 GM Rossolimo 0 ½ ½ 0 ½ ½ 0 ½ 1 ½ 0 ½ 0 * ½ 1 6 15 IM Langeweg ½ 0 0 0 ½ ½ ½ ½ 0 ½ ½ 0 ½ ½ * ½ 5 16 IM Van Geet 0 ½ ½ 0 0 0 0 ½ 0 ½ 0 0 ½ 0 ½ * 3 ]table Game Collection: Wijk aan Zee Hoogovens 1968 ################################# Korchnoi Viktor Korchnoi USSR Mar-23-1931 Grandmaster 1956 [Gaige, p.222 ] Sousse Interzonal (1967) (15 Oct - 15 Nov) Shared 2nd, behind Bent Larsen. ================= Portisch Lajos Portisch Czechoslovakia Apr-04-1937 Grandmaster 1961 [Gaige, p.337 ] Sousse Interzonal (1967) (15 Oct - 15 Nov) 5th. Palma de Mallorca (1967) (27 Nov - 17 Dec) 4th. ================ Hort Vlastimil Hort Hort unbeaten in event, one of 3 wins was against Portisch Czechoslovakia Jan-12-1944 Grandmaster 1965 [Gaige, p.179 ] Sousse Interzonal (1967) (15 Oct - 15 Nov) Shared 6th. Hastings (1967/68) (27 Dec 1967 - 5 Jan 1968) Shared 1st with Alexey Suetin, Leonid Stein and Florin Gheorghiu === Tal Mikhail Tal USSR Nov-09-1936 Grandmaster 1957 [Gaige, p.418 ] USSR Championship (1967) (7-26 Dec) (Swiss sysetem) Shared 1st with Lev Polugaevsky. === Gheorghiu Florin Gheorghiu (Unbeaten in event) Romania Apr-06-1944 Grandmaster 1965 [Gaige, p.138 ] -<Vrnjacka Banja FIDE Zonal 1967> (11 Jan - 5 Feb) Fourth, behind Ivkov, Matanovic and Barczay. [Di Felice, "Chess Results 1964-1967" p.439 ] -<Bucharest 1967> (13-28 May) 1st, over Pfleger, Vasiukov, Soos, Partos, Haag, Ghitescu and others. [Di Felice, "Chess Results 1964-1967" pp.363-364 ] Moscow (1967) (21 May - 16 June) 14th. -<Poland-Romania Match 1967> In Warsaw (25-27 June) First board for Romania vs Sliwa, with +0 -0 =2. [Di Felice, "Chess Results 1964-1967" p.478 ] -<Harrachov Student Olympiad 1967> (15-31 July) First board for Romania, with +4 -0 =7. Romania finished 5th in the Final. [http://www.olimpbase.org/1967y/1967... ] Winnipeg (1967) (3-13 Oct) Shared 6th with Szabo, behind Darga, Larsen, Keres, Spassky and Benko. [Di Felice, "Chess Results 1964-1967" p.441 ] -<20th Romanian Championship 1967> In Bucharest (4-24 Nov) 1st, over Ciocaltea, Buza, Ghitescu and others. [Di Felice, "Chess Results 1964-1967" pp. 364-365 ] -<4th European Team Championship Semifinal 1967> (1-10 Dec) First board for Romania, with +1 -0 =1 vs Lazaros Vizantiades; +1 -0 =1 vs Uhlmann; and +0 -0 =2 vs Bobotsov. Romania failed to qualify for the Final. [Di Felice, "Chess Results 1964-1967" pp.464-465; http://www.olimpbase.org/1970eq/197... ] Hastings (1967/68) (27 Dec 1967 - 5 Jan 1968) Shared 1st with Alexey Suetin, Vlastimil Hort and Leonid Stein ================== Ciric Dragoljub Ciric Yugoslavia Nov-12-1935 Grandmaster 1965 [Gaige, p.72 ] -<Sarajevo 1966> (20 March - 7 April) Shared 1st with Tal, over Ivkov, Pachman, Matulovic, Pietzsch, Janosevic, Minev, Jansa and Kotov, with +9 -2 =4. [Di Felice, "Chess Results 1964-1967," p.303 ] -<Yugoslavian Championship 1967> In Kraljevo (20 April - 13 May) Shared 2nd with Matanovic, Ivkov, Bogdanovic and Bukic, behind Matulovic. [Di Felice, "Chess Results 1964-1967," pp.388-389 ] -<Sarajevo 1967> (20 March - 7 Aprl) Shared 5th with Byrne, behind Ivkov, Stein, Benko and Savon. [Di Felice, "Chess Results 1964-1967," p.303 ] -<Yugoslavia-USSR Match 1967> In Budva (21 June - 5 July) This was an 11 round all-play-all format. The USSR won 43.5 - 28.5. [Di Felice, "Chess Results 1964-1967," p.469 ] === Matanovic Aleksandar Matanovic Yugoslavia May-23-1930 Grandmaster 1955 [Gaige, p.273 ] -<Yugoslavian Championship 1967> In Kraljevo (20 April - 13 May) Shared 2nd with Ciric, Ivkov, Bogdanovic and Bukic, behind Matulovic. [Di Felice, "Chess Results 1964-1967," pp.388-389 ] Winnipeg (1967) (3-13 Oct) 8th. Sousse Interzonal (1967) (15 Oct - 15 Nov) 10th. === Ivkov Borislav Ivkov Yugoslavia Nov-12-1933 Grandmaster 1955 [Gaige, p.188 ] -<Sarajevo 1967> (20 March - 7 Aprl) Shared 1st with Stein, over Benko, Savon, Byrne and Ciric. [Di Felice, "Chess Results 1964-1967," p.303 ] -<Yugoslavian Championship 1967> In Kraljevo (20 April - 13 May) Shared 2nd with Matanovic, Ciric, Bogdanovic and Bukic, behind Matulovic. [Di Felice, "Chess Results 1964-1967," pp.388-389 ] Sousse Interzonal (1967) (15 Oct - 15 Nov) Shared 11th. Palma de Mallorca (1967) (27 Nov - 17 Dec) 6th === Ree Hans Ree Netherlands Sep-15-1944 International Master 1968 [Gaige, p.349 ] -<Netherlands Championship 1967> In Zierikzee (3-15 July) 1st, over Donner and Langeweg [Di Felice, "Chess Results 1964-1967" p.443 ] === Padevsky Nikola Padevsky Bulgaria May-29-1933 Grandmaster 1964 [Gaige, p.316 ] -<Bulgarian Championship 1967> In Sofia (21 Oct - 14 Nov) Shared 8th, behind co-champions Radulov and Peev, and Bobotsov 3rd. [Di Felice, "Chess Results 1964-1967" pp.425-426 ] =================== Donner Jan Hein Donner Netherlands Jul-06-1927 Grandmaster 1959 [Gaige, p.96 ] -<Netherlands Championship 1967> In Zierikzee (3-15 July) [Di Felice, "Chess Results 1964-1967" p.443 ] -<Capablanca Memorial 1967> -<Amsterdam IBM 1967> -<Venice 1967> (21 Oct - 5 Nov) 1st, over Tigran Petrosian, Evans, Janosevic, Pachman and others. [Di Felice, "Chess Results 1964-1967" pp.438-439 ] Palma de Mallorca (1967) (27 Nov - 17 Dec) Shared 10th. === Bobotsov Milko Bobotsov Bulgaria Sep-30-1931 Grandmaster 1961 [Gaige, p.43 ] Moscow (1967) (21 May - 16 June) Shared 2nd with Tal, Vasily Smyslov and Aivars Gipslis, behind Leonid Stein. -<Bulgarian Championship 1967> In Sofia (21 Oct - 14 Nov) 3rd, behind co-champions Radulov and Peev. [Di Felice, "Chess Results 1964-1967" pp.425-426 ] === Karaklajic Nikola Karaklajic Yugoslavia Feb-24-1926 International Master 1955 [ Gaige, p.204 ] -<Beverwijk Hoogovens 1967> 1st in the "Masters" section. The "Grandmasters" section was won by Boris Spassky. [Gino Di Felice, "Chess Results 1964-1967" pp.358-359 ] === Rossolimo Nicolas Rossolimo Kiev, Ukraine Feb-28-1910 Grandmaster 1953 [Gaige, p.362 ] === Langeweg Kick Langeweg Netherlands Mar-07-1937 International Master 1962 [Gaige, p.238 ] -<Netherlands Championship 1967> In Zierikzee (3-15 July) [Di Felice, "Chess Results 1964-1967" p.443 ] === Van Geet Dirk van Geet Netherlands Mar-01-1932 International Master 1965 [Gaige, p.440 ] ######################################## http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tata_S... http://chess.about.com/od/chesshist... === http://www.endgame.nl/wijk.htm The tournament moved to Wijk aan Zee in 1968. Hotel Kennemerduin became the playing hall. Commentary was given on the main floor. The higher groups played upstairs and the lower classes belonged in the cellar. Photo: venue http://www.endgame.nl/kennemerduin.... === http://archive.org/stream/zandvoort... === http://zanchess.wordpress.com/2014/... Photo: Tal at Wijk aan Zee: http://interlistchess.files.wordpre... === Harry Golombek "Encyclopedia of Chess" Hilary Thomas "Complete Games of Mikhail Tal 1967-1973" === <Korchnoi "Chess is my Life"> "Early in 1968 I went off to play in Holland aat the Wijk aan Zee Tournament. This was the first time for many years that I had been to an international tournament in a capitalist country. Such tournaments, where the prizes are in convertible currency, are especially valued, and only the top grandmasters gain the opportunity to play in them. The conditions were unusual for me, in that there were two adjournment sessions a day. On the whole I tend to have lots of adjourned games, and here at the very start I adjourned against Padevski, a game which was to continue almost to move 100, and each day I found myself working nine hours, not including preparations for the following round. What are trade unions for in this enlightened twentieth century? On round gave way to another, and all the time I was playing on the same adjourned game, winning each new encounter on the way! The situation cleared up after a week, when I had scored 7 out of 7. The eighth game was with Tal. Away from the board we were on friendly terms, and the tournament was going indifferently for him, but we had to make a game of it, especially since everyone around expected us to agree to a quick draw. Tal played the first part of the game accurately, and gained approximate equality, but then made a mistake. I managed to open up the position to my advantage, and win the game. It was only on the following day that I had my first draw, with Donner. In this series of seven wins there were several good games. Before this, in the Interzonal, I had played badly against the Yugoslavs, scoring only one point out of four. Here I gained my revenge, winning against Ivkov, Matanovic, Ciric and Karakajic. I consider my game with Matanovic (game 45) to be one of the best achievements in my life in the field of chess strategy. With 10 1/2 points (p.59) out of 11, I was heading for a new record in the tournament, but in round twelve, with the better position against Portisch, I blundered away a piece. The tournament lost interest for me, and I drew the remaining three games without a fight. Even so, it wasn't too bad: I had scored 12 points out of 15, three points ahead of Tal, Portisch and Hort.(p.60)" A Matanovic vs Korchnoi, 1968 ############################## <Mikhail Tal (Life and Games)> "The following year, 1968, brought me few laurels, and it all started in January, at the traditional tournament at Wijk aan Zee. I played there with Korchnoi, and the Leningrad player once again set a furious pace, scoring 6.5 out of 7 at the start. From my first games I felt that I had neither the enthusiasm, nor the right sort of mood, for chess. From the whole tournament there were only two games that I could boast about. The game against Donner is given here in this book, and this is the other (Rossolimo). This tournament was my last test before the start of the Candidates matches, and showed that, to put it mildly I was not in my best form. This was also confirmed by the start of my match with Gligoric." (339) Rossolimo game diagram on (340) ########################## <Hilary Thomas "Complete Games 1967-1973"> "Tal's first visit to the annual tournament in Holland sponsored by the Hoogoven Steel company was also part of his 'warming-up' for the 1968 series of world championship candidate matches. He was dissatisfied with his play and intensified his preparations for the coming encounter with Gligoic." (19) ############################ <"Nieuw Israelietisch weekblad" 26-01-1968> http://www.delpher.nl/nl/kranten/vi... Tim Krabbe: Een der deelnemers aan het thans bijna beeindigde Hoogoven-schaaktoernooi, een deelnemer aan de belangrijkste groep, die der grrotmeesters nog wel, beklaagde zich na enkele ronden in een interview over het feit dat hij op het ogenblik zo veel zwakker schaakte dan een jaar of vijf geleden. "Ik heb mijn oude kracht niet meer" zei hij. Het zal de lezer weinig moeite kosten te raden wie die klager was; Viktor Kortsjnoi natuurlijk. Toen de Rus zijn uitspraak deed voerde hij de ranglijst aan met 6 uit 6, op het ogenblik dat ik dit schrijf doet hij dat met 9 1/2 uit 10. En wanneer u dit leest doet hij het ongetwijfeld nog, al is het ons niet gegeven reeds nu te weten met hoeveel-en-een-half uit 13 dat zal zijn. En toch ben ik er van overtuigd dat Korchnoi's vreemd aan-doende opmerking niet gerangschikt dient dient te worden onder het zelfbeklag dat even onverbrekelijk bij schakers hoort als pionnen, paarden, en de Mannheimervariant van het Aangenomen Dame-gambiet. Evenmin lijkt KOrchnoi er des te meer bewondering voor zijn ongelofelijke prestatie mee te willen oproepen. ("Ach ja, met dat schijntje van mezelf dat ik nu nog maar ben, hak ik ze er ook allemaal wel af.") Als je hem ziet zitten, geloof je in zijn eerlijkheid. Hij is een stoere, stevige man, maar als je even niet kijkt, ben je zijn gezicht alweer vergeten. Nee, dan Donner, die ondertussen al meer in de publiciteit moet zijn geweest dan ex-wereldkampioen Euwe. Met Donner gaat het in dit toernooi alweer niet zo best. Na zijn fraaie zege in de eerste ronde op Portisch heeft hij geen partij meer gewonnen, maar er wel twee verloren. De aandacht richtte hij pas weer op zich, toen hij in de 9e ronde de eerste was die Korchnoi op remisie hield. "Zo ver is het nu al met me gekomen," gromde Donner na afloop, "ze feliciteren me nu al als ik remise speel." Maar wat zijn nu eigenlijk Donners uitschieters? Zijn dat Zierikzee 1967, IBM 1967, Havanna 1967, Palma 1967 en Hoogovens 1968? Of is het toch het door hem gewonnn grootmeester toernooi te Venetie? Wil dat laatste niet het geval zijn, dan zal Donner toch weer spoedig een ware grootmeester-prestatie moeten afleveren. One of the participants in the now almost discontinued Blast-chess tournament, a participant in the main group, that of grrotmeesters still, complained after a few laps in an interview about the fact that he is so much weaker at the moment abducted than five years ago. "I have my old power anymore" he said. It will advise the reader little effort who the complainant; Viktor Kortsjnoi course. When the Russian his statement did he headed the list with 6 out of 6, at the moment I write this he does with 9 1/2 out of 10. And when you read it does undoubtedly, though it is not us already given to know now how many and one-half of 13 that will be. And yet I am convinced that Korchnoi's strange-duty remark should not ranked to be among the self-pity that belongs as inseparable as chess pawns, horses, and Mannheimervariant the assumed Dame gambit. Nor Korchnoi seems to want it all the more calls admiration for his incredible performance with. ("Oh yes, with that pittance of myself that I now only am I chop them all well off.") If you see him sitting, your faith in his honesty. He's a tough, sturdy man, but if you look just not, you've already forgotten his face. No, Donner, who meanwhile must have been more publicity than former world champion Euwe. With Donner goes in this tournament again not so good. After his splendid victory in the first round on Portisch he has won a lot, but there two lost. The attention he founded again only on himself, when he was the first in the 9th round Korchnoi stopped remisie. "So far it's already come with me," Donner growled after, "they all congratulate me when I play a draw." But what are actually Donners outliers? That Zierikzee 1967, IBM 1967, Havana 1967, Palma de Mallorca in 1967 and Hoogovens 1968? Or is it the gewonnn he grandmaster tournament in Venice? Would the latter is not the case, Donner will yet again soon must deliver a true master achievement. === ############################ KRANTEN Wijk aan Zee 1968 http://www.delpher.nl/nl/kranten/re... http://www.delpher.nl/nl/kranten/vi... http://www.delpher.nl/nl/kranten/vi... http://www.schack.se/tfsarkiv/histo... ######################################## [Notes Original collection Game Collection: Wijk aan Zee Hoogovens 1968 by User: suenteus po 147. Introduction written and sourced by User: WCC Editing Project ] 120 games, 1968 Wijk aan Zee Hoogovens 1976 The 38th Annual Hoogovens Chess Tournament was a category XII event held in Wijk aan Zee, The Netherlands in 1976. 12 top grandmasters competed in a round robin format in the prestigous A event. The participants were (in order of ELO): Ljubomir Ljubojevic (2620), Mikhail Tal (2615), Jan Smejkal (2615), Ulf Andersson (2585), Walter Shawn Browne (2585), Fridrik Olfasson (2550), Mark Dvoretzky (2540), Bojan Kurajica (2525), Gennadi Sosonko (2505), Kick Langeweg (2450), Hans Bohm (2425), and Hans Ree (2420). Olafsson and Ljubojevic shared first place, each with 7.5/11. table[ 1 Olafsson * ½ ½ ½ ½ 1 ½ 1 ½ 1 1 ½ 2 Ljubojevic ½ * 0 ½ ½ 1 1 ½ 1 ½ 1 1 3 Kurajica ½ 1 * 1 0 ½ 0 ½ 1 ½ ½ 1 4 Tal ½ ½ 0 * ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ 1 1 1 5 Smejkal ½ ½ 1 ½ * 0 ½ 1 1 0 ½ 0 6 Browne 0 0 ½ ½ 1 * ½ 0 ½ 1 ½ 1 7 Andersson ½ 0 1 ½ ½ ½ * ½ ½ 0 ½ ½ 8 Ree 0 ½ ½ ½ 0 1 ½ * ½ ½ ½ ½ 9 Dvoretzky ½ 0 0 ½ 0 ½ ½ ½ * 1 ½ 1 10 Langeweg 0 ½ ½ 0 1 0 1 ½ 0 * ½ ½ 11 Sosonko 0 0 ½ 0 ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ * 1 12 Bohm ½ 0 0 0 1 0 ½ ½ 0 ½ 0 * ]table [Original collection Game Collection: Wijk aan Zee Hoogovens 1976 by User: suenteus po 147 ] 66 games, 1976 Zander bio draft Otto Zander 23 April 1933. This date was in the contemporary accounts as the founding date of the GSB. Federal conductor was Otto Zander , the CEO was Ehrhardt Post ordered. End of May 1933, Joseph Goebbels, the honorary chairman of the GSB... The German Chess Federation was formally legally continued until 1934. [4].... The GSB had set out in its Constitution, "only German Aryan descent" to include as members ( Aryan paragraph ). Already in the spring of 1933 had all Jewish chess officials resign from their positions, led by the President of the German Chess Federation, Walter Robinow . Yet in May 1933, wrote Heinrich Ranneforth in the German chess magazine : "Those who feel German and concerns and thereby the German people feel internally connected, why should not the as fellow can apply? "But as early as July 1933, Jews were no longer members of be chess clubs within the GSB. For example, had the former world chess champion Emanuel Lasker from the Berlin Chess Club , whose honor he was a member, are excluded. [8] During this time, some purely Jewish chess clubs were founded, which until 1938 had a partial inventory. 1935 and 1937 found even "Jewish Championships" held by Sammi Fajarowicz were recovered... http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_Z... From 1933 to 1938 Zander was the Federal Chairman of the Großdeutscher Schachbund (Greater German Chess Federation) At the inaugural meeting of the GSB in Bad Pyrmont on July 9, 1933 Zander gave a speech in which he announced the expulsion of all Jewish players from organized play operation: "Jews we can to our work do not need, they have to disappear from the clubs, because they were in Germany, the inventor and promoter of the class struggle and now rushing the other peoples with their lying propaganda against our country. " [1] http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gro%C3... 1 game, 1920

<< previous | page 5 of 5 | next >>