| Dec-15-07 | | haven: The background to this game was dramatic--Schlechter had a one-point lead in the tournament over Janowski, so this game brought them level. Schlechter looks like he might hang on, but cracks up at the end. Janowski is like a proto-Kamsky (a pit bull). |
|
Jun-23-20
 | | KEG: This game decided the Monte Carlo 1901 tournament. Going into this round, Janowski was in first place 0.25 points ahead of Schlechter (not a point behind as <haven> suggests who was 0.25 points ahead of Tchigorin. Schlechter hadn't lost since the first round, but saved his worst play of the tournament for this game. Schlechter chose to repeat the variation of the Ponziani Opening Tchigorin had used against Janowski two rounds earlier and obtained a tiny edge. But as soon as the game got on new ground, Schlechter made some uncharacteristicly wild and unsound attacking moves and was lost by move 19. Janowski finished nicely here, and then hung on to win the tournament. Schlechter recovered by winning a replay against Gunsberg and then winning his final round game against Reggio, landing him in 2nd place 0.75 points behind Janowski and 1/2 point ahead of Tchigorin and von Scheve (who tied for 3rd). 1. e4 e5
2. Nf3 Nc6
3. c3 Nf6
4. d4 Nxe4
5. d5 Nb8
6. Bd3 Nc5
7. Nxe5 NxB+
8. NxN Be7
9. 0-0
click for larger viewThus far, play has duplicated the 10th round game between Tchigorin and Janowski. I have discussed this opening at length in my commentary on that game. Suffice it to say here that the praise heaped on Janowski and the scorn on Tchigorin/Schlechter for play to this point is all wide of the mark. At this stage, chances are about equal (if anything, White is slightly better based on his superior development. The worst thing that can be said about White's opening play thus far is that it did not yield any real advantage. There is no reason to expect Black to prevail. But I don't quite understand why Schlechter wanted to repeat this line. 9... d6
Janowski had played 9...0-0 in his game against Tchigorin. The text could easily have transposed into that earlier game had play here continued 10. c4 d6. 10. Qf3
Varying from the Tchigorin-Janowski game. While there is nothing wrong with the text, if this is what Schlechter had prepared (having obviously seen the earlier game), it is not much of an improvement. 10... 0-0
11. Nd2
"11. c4 followed by Nc3 is better as Tchigorin played." (Sittenfeld in the Tournament Book). Once again, the choice is a matter of style. The developing text move is also quite OK. 11... Nd7
12. Re1
"White mush prevent Ne5." (Sittenfeld)
That threat does not seem so terrible. The text was fine, but Schlechter could also have played 12. b3, ignoring the "threat." 12... Re8
"On 12...Bf6 White would play 13. Ne4." (Sittenfeld). 13. Nc4
click for larger view"Here the Knight has little scope. Better to play 13. Nf1 and Ng3." (Sittenfeld) I agree that the text was no great shakes and that 13. Nf1 was probably slightly better. Perhaps 13. b3 was best. But none of this explains Schlechter's coming debacle in this game (a painful one to play over for us Schlechter fans). 13... Nf8
13...Nb6 looks most natural, but Janowski generally preferred to keep his forces intact as far as possible so his attacking prowess might be brought to bear. 14. Nf4
"?"--(Tournament Book)
"14. Bf4?! is worth considering." (Cherniaev/Meynell ["C/M"] in their book on Janowski) The text looks awkward, but was hardly a blunder. 14. Bf4 was certainly no improvement. Best was probably 14. Bd2 or 14. b3 or maybe 14. Ne3. In any case, the game was still in the balance and neither side had as of yet achieved any real advantage. 14... Bf5
click for larger viewIt was beginning here, as I will discuss in my next post on this game, that Schlechter dissembled and lost his chance of following up his tie for first at Munich 1900 with a first-place finish here. |
|
| Jun-23-20 | | sudoplatov: Janowski had a pretty long run as a top player. He reached #2 at least once. Having read game books on Marshall, Lasker, and Capablanca, and Tarrasch, I tend to underestimate Janowski (though not Schlecter or Rubinstein or Alekhine). EDO for 1901.
1 Lasker, Emanuel 2711
2 Pillsbury, Harry 2664
3 Maróczy, Géza 2649
4 Tarrasch, Siegbert 2648
5 Chigorin, Mikhail 2618
6 Schlechter, Carl 2613
7 Lipschütz, Salomon 2607
8 Janowsky, Dawid 2603
9 Lovegrove, Walter 2584
10 Burn, Amos 2571
Never (until today) heard of Walter Lovegrove. |
|
Jun-24-20
| | KEG: <sudoplatov>Janowski was the Ilie Nastase of chess. Like Nastase, Janowski had great talent but little discipline and a difficult and rambunctious personality that held him back more than it psyched out his opponents. Nastase won two major tournaments (the French Open and the U.S. Open, both once). Janowski won Monte Carlo 1901 (arguably not a major event with Lasker, Tarrasch, Pillsbury, and Maroczy missing); Hanover 1902, and tied for first at Barmen 1905. Both had some near misses. Nastase was a runner up twice at Wimbledons. Janowski tied for second at Cambridge Springs 1904 with Lasker, and drew a short (4-game) match with Lasker. Neither player is remembered as one of the greats. In each case, it might have been otherwise with a bit more work and a bit more discipline. Both had enormous talent. At his best, Janowski could trade tactical punches with anyone. As for Nastase, I attended the Monte Carlo tournament in 1972 and watched him annihilate a strong field, crushing Jan Kodes (a very strong clay-court player in the final by the score of 6-0, 6-4, 6-3. Whatever their talents, my memory of Janowski is always colored by the thrashings he received from Lasker in their two major matches (at least one of which was probably for the World Championship). My most distinct memory of Nastase was watching Stan Smith demolish him on clay in Rumania in what proved to be the crucial match in the Davis Cup final. One much take the bad with the good, and thus Nastase could never be deemed remotely the equal of Laver, Borg, Connors, or McEnroe; and no one will ever put Janowski in the same class as Tarrasch, Pillsbury, or Rubinstein, let alone Lasker, Capablanca, or Alekhine. |
|
Jun-24-20
| | KEG: Post II
15. g4?
click for larger view"?"--(Tournament Book)(C/M)
"A highly dubious move." (C/M)
"This move compromises White's game without even giving him a chance of attack." (Sittenfeld) Hard to believe that Schlechter--of all people--played this wild weakening move. I suppose that he preferred to have Janowski defending rather than have him attacking. But the text, as Sittenfeld properly said, didn't even create any real attacking prospects for Schlechter. 15... Bd7
16. Bd2 Ng6
"!"--(Tournament Book)
Not quite sure why this move deserved an "!"--16...Qc8 and 16...f5 were also strong--but it did cut the wind out of any purported attack by Schlechter and left Janowski with a clear edge whatever Schlechter replied. 17. NxN
"?"--(Tournament Book)
"Again weakly played as Black soon works up an attack. 17. Nh5 was necessary." (Sittenfeld) The text was hardly the source of Schlechter's troubles, though 17. Qg2 or 17. h3
(or even 17. b4 or 17. Rad1) were perhaps better. In any case, Sittenfeld's suggested 17. Nh5 would have been quite bad, especially had Janowski answered with 17...b5 or 17...Rf8. 17... fxN
click for larger view18. Na5
"?"--(Tournament Book)
"The ruin of White's game. By 18. Ne3 he might have held things together." (Sittenfeld). More Monday morning quarterbacking. 18. Ne3 was no improvement Black could reply 18...Bh4 or 18...Rf8 or 18...Bg5). And Schlechter was nowhere near lost or "ruined" after the text. It was only after his next move was Schlechter sunk. Best for Schlechter here was probably 18. Rad1 or 18. Be3 or 18. b3 or perhaps 18. Qg2. 18... Rf8
click for larger viewWith 19. Qg2, Schlechter would still have had his work cut out for him, but should likely have been able to hold the game. But Schlechter here seemed to lose his mind with: 19. Be4?
"In this game, White finds only the weakest moves. 19. Qg2 was better." (Sittenfeld) 19... Bh4
Janowski was always a wizard with the two Bishops, and from this point on in this game he demonstrated this once again. But here, 19...Bg5 may have been even stronger for Black. 
click for larger view20. Re2?
Yet another poor move by Schlechter. He still might have had a chance to hold on with 20. Be3 or 20. Rf1 20... Qf6
"Black now acquires a strong initiative." (C/M). 
click for larger viewFrom this point on, Janowski ran Schlechter off the board. A painful spectacle for us Schlechter fans to watch (this was not his day), but a fine display of what Janowski was capable of when he was at his best. |
|
Jun-24-20
| | KEG: Post III
21, Qg2 Qf3
"!"--(Tournament Book)
21...h5 or 21...Rae8 were also powerful choices. 22. QxQ RxQ
click for larger viewThe ending was probably hopeless for Schlechter. But he made matters a good deal worse when he played: 23. g5?
23. Be3 or 23. Re4 or perhaps 23. Rf1 were better, but Schlechter would even then have been in trouble. 23... Raf8
24. Be3 Bh3
click for larger view"The Black Bishops dominate the board." (C/M)
"24...R3f5 should win immediately." (Sittenfeld) While 24...R3f5 was also a winner, the text--bringing both Bishops to the show--was also a killer and was very much in Janowski's style. One imagines him playing the text with a flourish. 25. Nb3 R3f5
click for larger viewAs is obvious, White must lose material (26. f4 Re8 would not be much fun for White). 26. Nd4?
Desperation. 26. c4 was probably the best move at Schlechter's disposal here, but even that would leave Black in total command after 26...Bxg5 or 26...Re5 or 26...Re8. 26... Rxd5
27. f4 Re8
click for larger view28. Nf3?
"White has no defense." (C/M)
"If 28. Bf2 RxR 29. NxR BxB+ 30. KxB Rd2." (Sittenfeld) 28. b3 or 28. b4 were probably the best tried for White. But, as stated above, White has no defense. 28... Bg4
click for larger viewSchlechter might have spared himself the finale. He was so desperate to eliminate at least one of Janowski's Bishops that he played: 29. Nxh4?
"29. Kg2 loses to 29...Rd3." (C/M)
"If 29. Rf1 Rd3." (Sittenfeld)
The really bad news for Schlechter was that 29. Kg2 or 29. Rf1 were his best options. His desperation sacrifice of the exchange turned out even worse. 29... BxR
30. Kf2 Rd3
31. Ng2 Bg4
click for larger view0-1
A terrible debacle for Schlechter. |
|
| Jun-28-20 | | Howard: As some would say, don’t underestimate the old timers. People like Janowski and Schlechter would have been quite competitive today. |
|
Jun-28-20
| | KEG: <Howard> I tend to agree about Schlechter, who was capable of much finer play than shown here. He might well be a strong player (with the same tools today's players have at their disposal) if matched against all but the absolute top players today. I can imagine him being in the top 20-30 today perhaps. Janowski (his tactical prowess notwithstanding) would probably have been eaten alive by today's tigers. Schlechter demolished him when they finally played a match (six wins to one with three draws), and Lasker completely annihilated him in their two serious matches by a combined score of 16-1. I can only imagine what Fischer, Karpov, Kasparov, and/or Caruana, Anand, or Carlsen would have done to Janowski. It almost certainly would not have been pretty. Indeed, I cannot imagine that Janowski today would be ranked in the top 50 today, and might even be considerably lower than that. |
|
| Jun-29-20 | | Howard: Some have argued that Janowski is unfairly remembered most for being blown off the board by Lasker twice in matches, plus finishing dead last at NY 1924. In the latter case, he was getting old and was well past his prime. |
|
Jul-01-20
| | KEG: <Howard>It is certainly unfair to judge Janowski based upon his last-place finish at New York 1924. As for the matches with Lasker, they demonstrated that Janowski was not in Lasker's league. Of course, few other players were in Lasker's league, and saying that Janowski was inferior to Lasker is not to tar his reputation. Janowski was one of the 5-10 strongest players in the world at the beginning of the 20th century. And he gave us many memorable games. Not a bad legacy. |
|
Jul-01-20
 | | perfidious: Janowski, same as Marshall, was a fine if somewhat uneven tournament player. In match play, neither had a snowball's chance against the inexorable Lasker and his ability to play away from an opponent's strengths while ruthlessly exploiting his weaknesses. Using Janowski's result at New York 1924 to define his career is analogous to drawing inferences as to Alekhine's greatness, solely by examining games he played in 1944-45, by which time he had clearly lost a step. |
|
Jul-03-20
| | KEG: <perfidious> You've said it all. |
|
|
|
|
Kibitzing
