Source of all tournament games St. Petersburg 1914.>

The game is on pp.192-93, for starters. And I promise you, it has only 29 moves in the book.

I would hesitate to treat Brandreth’s edition of Tarrasch’s book as authoritative anyway, given that it erroneously indicates a Capa-Nimzo game in Round 11 (though that’s really just a typo). But Skinner and Verhoeven don’t appear to be following it anyway. You really shouldn’t submit correction slips based on S&V.

Two hours for 30 moves (pretty standard in those days, I think), then 1.5 hrs for 22 moves, then 15 hours per move.

There were supposed to be no draws, except via perpetual check, repetition, or stalemate, in under 45 moves.

Incidentally, Tarrasch complained rather bitterly about this non-effort in the tournament book <The opponents against whom Janowski had played with this full strength — there was really only one, namely Tarrasch — had been hurt that he really only simulated a game here.>

Marshall played 2... Nc6 (page 173).

Nürnb<u>rg in my earlier post today should be Nürnb<e>rg.

<ughaibu> I can imagine many possibilities, including that the two players went to the arbiter and said “we can repeat moves here, and we’re both more than ready to be done with this game. Can you please just let us end it here?” Or they may have played out the threefold repetition and Tarrasch didn’t bother to include it. I don’t see any reason to accept a correction from a secondary source that is here misquoting Brandreth’s rendering of Tarrasch’s book, especially since Brandreth seems to have made some errors himself.

But. . . . don't you think that Tarrasch's reliability should also be called into question? After all, hasn't some species of lack of objectivity been established already, for example, by the 'luck tables'?

Analysis by Stockfish 260819 64 POPCNT:

Ooh, good point. Tarrasch even has a diagram of the position in his tournament book and a comment, but 18.Rxe6 doesn't occur to him, though it is kind of obvious if you think for a few seconds. His comment on 18.Bh7+(??): <Exchanging the bishop would have been dubious, for the advancing e-pawn would have destroyed the uniformity of the positions and thereby the double-sided drawing chances.>

And his bilious overview-of-the-round comment about this game in full: <Whether Janowski, who played the French against Alekhine and produced an exchanging game without interest, thereby satisfied his tournament obligation, I leave to the judgement of the chess world. His opponent was a presumptive prize-winner, and so Janowski had to stake everything on holding him back, particularly as he did not incur the slightest risk thereby. The opponents against whom Janowski had played with the fullest strength--there was really only one, namely Tarrasch--had been hurt that he really only simulated a game here. It is not justifiable to play very well against one and not to play very well against another. The choice of opening was already a sign of a very peaceful disposition; otherwise, Janowski never plays the French.>

Let it never be said that Tarrasch couldn't hold a grudge. Despite what he says, he's not really leaving much to the judgment of the chess world, is he?

This was the last round of the preliminary tournament, and Alekhine mostly just wanted to qualify for the finals; but since preliminary scores carried over to the finals, he could have used the extra half-point that 18.Rxe6 would likely have gotten him.

Why would he risk anything here? Going all out for a win could have been quite costly. There was a great deal at stake except for Capablanca, who had long since qualified.

We can run with the theory there is a mistake in the notation and perhaps 18.Rxe6 was never a valid option.

Here instead of 17.Bf5 Qb6

click for larger view

How about 17.Bh7+ Kf8 18.Bf5 Bxf5 19.Qxf5 Nf6 20.Qf4 Qxf4

All perfectly reasonable and we are back to the position that appeared in the game.

click for larger view

The catch is the note by Tarrasch saying White should not play 18.Bxe6.
It is hard to imagine Tarrasch sitting with that position in front of him missing 18 Rxe6 and letting it go without comment.
Perhaps he had made his mind up before looking at the game that Janowski, who had beaten him in an earlier round did not try too hard against Alekhine and it ran past him.

The Alekhine-Janowski game is given; the score is as shown in CG, with the addition of 30. K-Q3 K-K3.