On its face, this was a short boring draw in which nearly all the pieces were traded off by move 23.

But some of the play was bonkers. And when the same players re-played the game with colors reversed two days later (as per the rules in effect at Monte Carlo 1902), that game was also a short draw.

I am a hundred twenty-one years removed from this game. But it sure appears that this was a pre-arranged draw. You be the judge:

1. e4 e6
2. d4 d5
3. exd5

Mieses played the exchange variation of the French at least 15 times. Like Morphy--Mieses generally played this variation for a win. But what happened here is not easy to explain.

3... exd5
4. Be3

4. Nf3 or 4. Bd3 are more usual and considered better, but there is nothing suspicious about the text since Mieses played the text regularly.

4... Bd6

4...Nf6 is normal and perhaps best, but there is nothing much wrong with the text.

5. Nc3

5. Nf3 looks better, but--yet again--there is nothing terribly wrong with the text, which left the following position:

click for larger view

5... Nc6?

Huh? This move has never otherwise been played. And small wonder. It at least temporarily loses a pawn. Black gets some counterplay after 6. Nxd5 Be6, but why on earth would Schlechter play 5...Nc6 unless...the players had already agreed to a quick draw with neither side making any serious effort to win.

6. Bd3?

Who turned out the lights? Why didn't Mieses play 6. Nxd5?

6... Nf6

6...Nb4 immediately looks better...unless one is playing moves by rote.

Black, of course, was still fine after the text (which belatedly protects the pawn on d5). This all left:

click for larger view

7. Qd2

Either 7. a3 (to prevent Black's Nb4) or 7. Nb5 (to go after the Black Bishop) look indicated. The text is not horrible, but why would Mieses make this choice?

7... Nb4

That certainly looks right.

8. Nb5

Better late than never.

8... NxB+
9. QxN

9. cxN to prevent 9...Bb4+ was probably better, despite the doubled pawns. But at least here I can fathom why Mieses played as he did at this turn.

The position was now:

click for larger view

Now, surely, Schlechter would play 9...Bb4+. Right?

9.. 0-0

Nope.

Now, surely, Mieses would capture the d6 Black Bishop. Right?

10. Ne2

click for larger view

Having played over most of Schlechter's tournament and match games, I cannot believe he played 5...Nc6 with the idea of responding to 6. Nxd5 with 6...Bxh2.

Perhaps <tamar> is right and this is just a matter of a bad score. But the problems continue for much of the game, as I will discuss in my upcoming post.

Either this was a truly rotten score or the players were messing around. Toward the end of the tournament there were at least eight documented instances--one involving Schlechter in which the players agreed in advance to two draws (i.e., including the "replay") without any moves being made. Granted, those all occurred in the final two rounds, but perhaps Mieses and Schlechter cooked up their own way to achieve the same result.

But in your other line, Black does have 6. Nxd5 Bxh2 7. Qf3 Bxg1, for now if 8. Bf4 <Bg4> will follow.

But, in light of your discovery, can't White still get something close to a win in your line with 8. 0-0-0!

Work was prevented me from up-dating my comments on the Mieses -Schlechter game, but I hope to be back to work on this tonight or in the next day or so.

10... Re8?!

I fail to understand why Schlechter would leave his dark-square Bishop on d6 where White could exchange it off.

Black would have the better chances after 10...Be7 or 10...Bb4+. Now he loses the advantage of having the two Bishops and makes a Bishops of opposite colors ending more likely. Not a bad strategy is Black is hell-bent on playing for a draw.

11. NxB

Of course.

11... QxN

The game was now looking drawish:

click for larger view

But there was yet play in the position, and some care was still required (unless the players had already agreed to a draw).

12. h3

12. 0-0 looks clearly best. The text, of course, wasn't any sort of blunder. But...

12... Qb4+

click for larger view

13. Nc3?!

Why not simple 13. Qc3 which leaves Black with at most a tiny edge. But now:

click for larger view

13... Ne4?!

Why not simply 13...Qxb2! The Tournament Book denied that Black would derive any edge from 13...Qxb2, but its analysis seems bad: After 13...Qxb2 The Tournament Book's claim that White would obtain a useful attack with 14. 0-0 was based on the belief that Black's best respond would have been 14...Qb6 after which White could play 15. Bg5. But all this falls apart once 14...Bf5! which gives Black something close to a winning position; e.g., 15. QxB [best] QxN after which Black emerges with an extra pawn.

White's best play after 13...Qxb2 would be 14. Rb1 Qa3. The Tournament Book is correct that 15. Nxd5 would now be a mistake in light of 15...Qa5+. But White would, though still inferior, would be better advised to play 15. 0-0 with some compensation.

14. 0-0

White would also be OK with 14. 0-0-0 or 14. Qb5.

After 14. 0-0 the position was:

click for larger view

14... c6

This seems to abandon any effort to exploit Black's small remaining advantage. Probably 14...NxN followed by 15...Qa4 was the only chance for Black to try for anything beyond a draw.

Now...let the exchanges begin:

15. NxN RxN
16. f3 Re8
17. Rae1

A little trap into which Schlechter did not fall:

click for larger view

17... Bd7

Not 17...Qxb2? 18. Bc1! and White wins!

After the text, the players traded off nearly all the pieces and arrived at the draw they both likely sought:

18. b3 Qd6
19. Bf2 Qg6
20. QxQ hxQ
21. RxR+ RxR
22. Re1 RxR+
23. BxR

click for larger view

Schlechter looks in bad trouble around move 10:

Schlechter vs J Mieses, 1909

Vidmar vs Schlechter, 1916

Tartakower vs Schlechter, 1909

<Maybe Schlechter somehow misevaluated the consequences of 6. Nxd5.> For me, Mieses was who misevaluated the consequences of 6.Nxd5... When he refused the freshly launched gambit, maybe out of respect to Schlechter's well known analytical capability

<Serious flaws in opening analysis> The "Bilguer" gives the notation until 10...Re8, with a <=> mark. Schlechter successfully exchanged in d3, Mieses forgot his long Castles and quick attack plan from games with Black c7-c6 and signaled something with the symmetric exchange in d6.