Members · Prefs · Laboratory · Collections · Openings · Endgames · Sacrifices · History · Search Kibitzing · Kibitzer's Café · Chessforums · Tournament Index · Players · Kibitzing
Emanuel Lasker vs David Janowski
Lasker - Janowski (1909), Paris FRA, rd 2, May-14
Spanish Game: Closed. Averbakh Variation (C87)  ·  0-1



Click Here to play Guess-the-Move
Given 19 times; par: 133 [what's this?]

explore this opening
find similar games 36 more Lasker/Janowski games
sac: 48...Qh7 PGN: download | view | print Help: general | java-troubleshooting

TIP: You can make these tips go away by registering a free account then visiting your preferences page. Simply check the option "Don't show random tips on game pages." and click the Update Profile button at the bottom.

PGN Viewer:  What is this?
For help with this chess viewer, please see the Olga Chess Viewer Quickstart Guide.


Kibitzer's Corner
Mar-21-03  ughaibu: In May 1909 Lasker and Janowski played a four game match, the result was two wins each. On the strength of this result Janowski's patron, Leo Nardus, put up the cash for a longer match, this time Lasker won overwhelmingly, something like 8-1 with a few draws. Bearing in mind Lasker's attitude to chess as a profession it has often been suggested that Lasker allowed Janowski to draw the first match, in that sense maybe Fischer wasn't so far off with his "coffee-house player" remark. Anyway, if Lasker intentionally lost this game I would say that it's one of the greatest masterpieces of chess strategy, almost in a catagory of it's own.
Feb-15-04  ughaibu: Any views on this as a possible demonstration of "psychology"?
Feb-15-04  Halfpricemidge: I guess it's a 'humbling' psychology if you let your opponent have an advantage for a couple of games(in order to test his style) and then demolish him on the third game. So what was Fischer's remark? Opinion has it that he is not such a deity and that Kasparov, and even Kramnik, Karpov, and Morosevich could win against this great American chess player.
Premium Chessgames Member
  Calli: <ughaibu> No time to analyse. A little info: Janowsky beat Lasker in a neat minature which is not on Chessgames. Nardus was impressed enough to fund the four game match. The short match for DM 2500 was played in the villa léa in Suresnes near Paris. So did Lasker intentially lose the offhand game, then tie the 4-game match before crushing Janowski in the 10 game match? Hmmm, why would he overwhelm him in the ten game match? Why not make it closer?
Jun-30-04  Javid Danowski: Re Calli <Janowsky beat Lasker in a neat minature which is not on Chessgames>. That game is usually given as Janowski and Soldatenkow vs Lasker and Taubenhaus. There is another Lasker / Taubenhaus vs Janowski+Soldatenkow, 1909 game on chessgames, which ended in a draw. The game to which Calli refers is given in another source as Janowski v Taubenhaus. I must confess that this game strikes me as a pre-arranged fake ( another such alleged example is Capablanca vs H Steiner, 1933 (played with living pieces). Black's play in the opening of the Janowski et al game is dreadful and Janowski never played the Danish Gambit in any other games on chessgames.
Jun-30-04  ughaibu: Thanks for that. The game as they give it doesn't seem to make sense, 18.Re8 would be mate in 2(?)
Premium Chessgames Member
  Calli: <Ugh> You are right, they give the incorrect score. Black played 17...Kxf7 for the very reason that you state. The brevity and style of the game argues against it being a consultation game. It looks more like a fast blitz type of game. This would explain Lasker's loss and Jano playing the Nordic gambit.

<Javid> I don't agree that the opening is so badly played. Lasker loses with 14...c6?? instead of 14...Nc6 which holds the position.

Another source says the game was actually played during the four day match. This kind of indicates a fast game.

As far as the Capablanca game, both Capa and Steiner later admitted to composing the game. The big Hollywood director Cecil B De Mille "refereed" the game in Los Angeles. I think it was pretty much understood at the time as publiicy stunt and even the LA Times said "The chance are high that the game was prearranged". It was inevitable, however, that the game today now makes it into databases without comment.

Jul-04-04  Javid Danowski: <Calli> Sorry not to respond earlier, but I have been out of contact for the lat couple of days. As far as Black's play in the consultation/whatever-it- was-game is concerned, I canot conceive how Lasker could defend a 1 e2-e4 gambit opening without getting round to playing ...d5 at some stage. Maybe that is just a prejudice. I must, however, apologize to you for not recognizing that you had yourself earlier raised th edubiou status of Capablanca vs H Steiner, 1933. What is worse, the day before I wrote that kibitz, completely unaware about your previous kibitz, I gave a kibitz on Janowski vs O Chajes, 1916 in which I drew attention to a famous chess coincidence. Whooooo.
Premium Chessgames Member
  Calli: Heh, well its fun to read old posts. I didn't know for sure at that point, but I think some of Edward Winter's research confirmed that the game was made up.

Anyway, I don't have problem with it. In the old days, Chess celebrities were often called upon to do some entertainment. Its only a problem if the master then publishes the game as real. The Capablanca games that are not actual contests are the Steiner one and the Baca Arus blindfold game - another stunt for the crowd. Capa used a game from a simul and the neat combo he later found in it. I also suspect that the Fonaroff game is an unplayed variation that Herman Helms couldn't resist publishing, but thats probably unprovable.

Premium Chessgames Member
  ray keene: in this game-an interesting win by janowski-i think 59..qc1 is a mistransliteration for 59 ...qf1 -the former move seems to allow white an instant perpetual check with 60 kg5 and qg6+ whereas 59...qf1 guards against this. both moves wd be Q-B8 in descriptive so that doubtless explains the confusion.i think this is worth a correction. other sources also say 59 qf1 so i think we can assume its the move which was played.
Premium Chessgames Member
  ray keene: admin-i think have found a correction pls note -take a look at blacks 59th move!!
Premium Chessgames Member Thanks Ray.
Premium Chessgames Member
  Honza Cervenka: This is Janowski's masterpiece. 70...Nc2! is cool final stroke.
Jul-06-08  JimmyVermeer: White's 71st move - he would have been better off playing Ra4 (followed by Ra7).

Black's 71st move - dxe5 would be a faster win:
71 Rxe5? dxe5 72 Kg4 b2 73 Kf5 b1Q 74 Ke6 Ne3 75 Kxe5 Kg6 76 d6 Qd3 77 dxc7 Nc4+ 78 Kf4 Kh5 79 c8Q Qe3+ 80 Kf5 Qe5#

Premium Chessgames Member
  whiteshark: Interesting to read Nimzowitsch's critique on Tarrasch's annotations in <Die moderne Schachpartie, game 28, p53-p57>.

On the one hand Tarrasch dogmatism in the opening/early middlegame looks actually entitled, on the other hand his annotation on the scale of things get the essence quite well.

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

Please observe our posting guidelines:

  1. No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.
  2. No spamming, advertising, duplicate, or gibberish posts.
  3. No vitriolic or systematic personal attacks against other members.
  4. Nothing in violation of United States law.
  5. No cyberstalking or malicious posting of negative or private information (doxing/doxxing) of members.
  6. No trolling.
  7. The use of "sock puppet" accounts to circumvent disciplinary action taken by moderators, create a false impression of consensus or support, or stage conversations, is prohibited.

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

Blow the Whistle

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

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

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

This game is type: CLASSICAL. Please report incorrect or missing information by submitting a correction slip to help us improve the quality of our content.

Featured in the Following Game Collections[what is this?]
Chapter 4: The Exchange
from The Middlegame by Max Euwe by kmchess
Match Lasker!
by docjan
July, p. 151 [Game 172 / 1708]
from American Chess Bulletin 1909 by Phony Benoni
37...Rf4! pawn weakness obligation
from Challenger Janowski by Gottschalk
Match Lasker!
by amadeus
by lazintata
David Janowsky's exchange sacrifices
by Karpova
David Janowsky's exchange sacrifices
by Nimzophile
Chapter 4: The Exchange
from The Middlegame by Max Euwe by eternalloss

Home | About | Login | Logout | F.A.Q. | Profile | Preferences | Premium Membership | Kibitzer's Café | Biographer's Bistro | New Kibitzing | Chessforums | Tournament Index | Player Directory | Notable Games | World Chess Championships | Opening Explorer | Guess the Move | Game Collections | ChessBookie Game | Chessgames Challenge | Store | Privacy Notice | Contact Us

Copyright 2001-2021, Chessgames Services LLC