"The ninth game came to adjournment, after 50 moves were made. Although the Queens were exchanged early, the game was of lively character. Tarrasch, again, like in the seventh game chose the MacCutcheon variation, stood a little cramped after the opening, and I obtained a strong position in the <center (?)<<>>>. Nevertheless, Tarrasch led his bishops very cleverly, pushed with the queenside pawns to win mobility. <He parried <<>>> a Knight attack which could have easily become very dangerous to him and <he <<>>> went on the counterattack."

- - in der Mitte - I think he meant the center, but I am not sure...

- - posirte - a completely unknown word to me; maybe it's parieren (to parry) or ripostieren (to riposte (fencing)) that he meant...

First the choice of the attack object — my pawn at h3, equally difficult to reach for protection and attack. Then making the <proposed target immobile <<>>> — the thrust [=advance, push] h6-h5-h4 which I <am not entitled to hinder <<>>>. Finally with g7-g6, <when <<>>> Tarrasch had to put his troops in line of fire of my Bishop. At that moment, <the exemption of the a-pawn begins <<>>> and (he) deflects the forces of the enemy on himself and in this manner saves my h-pawn from the usually inevitable loss. With this the position is cleared and equality created.

<'Last part': There is nothing to chance [change]>

Better English for <eine ganze Reihe...> is probably "a series of useless moves." And instead of "still have his word in the conversation.", better is "the pawn will still have a say" in the game or outcome of the game.

Translating can be difficult but fun sometimes.

There are several sources stating that the game has been adjourned after 50 moves (and one probably wrongly claims after 55).

Here 71 moves are mentioned: http://resolver.kb.nl/resolve?urn=d..., and here is a corresponding version: http://resolver.kb.nl/resolve?urn=d....

And to make the confusion complete, here is a version with the 72th move: http://resolver.kb.nl/resolve?urn=d....

Dr. Emanuel Lasker writes that the game was adjourned after 50.Bb5 (September 11). It is one column with two reports from Dr. Lasker, the second one is from September 12 and ends with 72.Kf3 draw.

<But it doesn't seem too likely to me that Tarrasch needed that extra time to get convinced of the game being drawn.> Yes, I completely agree, and more important: Tarrasch, too. After 68.. ♗b4 he wrote: "Schwarz kann nicht mehr gewinnen, da der a-Bauer schon zu weit vorgerückt ist. Er legt noch eine kleine Falle und bescheidet sich dann mit Remis." Then he assigns 71.♗xe4 with a "!" and gives some analysis of 71.a7?.

Lasker offered a draw at move 46, and Tarrasch accepted that he cannot play any longer for a win. So, *normally* the last move should be made by Black. However, apart of an adjournment, another explanation for the difference is possible: the position is very simple, 71... ♗xa6 was expected and Lasker had already noted his reply. Maybe he even played it, but Tarrasch did not write it down.

+++

You might be right - but I am not convinced. I have another picture to paint - and this is about Tarrasch's view on Lasker.

Way back in the late 1880'es/early 1890'es Tarrasch was widely considered - also by himself - to be the best german player - if not the best player in the world. Tarrach's status and influense as such was huge and beyond dispute. It should be remembered, that in those years Stenitz' authority as WCh was very weakened.

It is in this light, that the reaction to Laskers early challenge to Tarrasch should be seen - to Tarrach and many of his contemporaries in german chess Lasker had not yet earned any right to challenge of the Master himself.

This early relationship between them did not change much from Tarrasch's perspective - even though he - with some bitterness - had to accept Lasker as WCh. But in his own mind HE - and not Lasker - was the true Master - and he have had little reason to change his mind considering their mutual results between 1894 and 1908.

F.x. at Hastings 1895 Tarrash being an amateur was out of form and had a disastrous start - but later on he won 4 in a row - including a 19th round defeat of Lasker.

My point is, that when they finally met in 1908 Tarrasch was still pretty confident and convinced that he could deal with Lasker. But again he was - as a true amateur - not in form to begin with - and after the 5 first games he was down 1:4. Later he played himself up, but was never able to narrow the gap.

Lasker also started poorly but at a later stretch scored 10 wins and a draw before going awry at the end. He still finished 1.5 points ahead of Tarrasch, whose game with Lasker did the victor no particular credit.

Tarrasch vs Lasker, 1895

The following year Lasker again finished 1.5 points ahead of Tarrasch and flattened him in their individual game.

Lasker vs Tarrasch, 1896

"In fact, he's a player I've always meant to have a closer look at."

I haven't noticed a high regard for Reinfeld's writing in the comments here at CG.com but I do like the book Nimzovich the Hypermodern. It doesn't match Ray Keene's masterwork, of course, but it is competent and pleasant.

It really strike me that back in those days before the Internet, it was not so easy to get access to game scores from the top tournaments of the past. I get the impression that there was a great deal more of an oral tradition. People would pass along stories of legendary games "be sure to play over Capa vs Janowski San Sabastian 1911 if you ever get the chance!"

There are probably a lot of closet Reinfield fans knocking about. He was OK, his fault being he wrote so many books and was bound to drop a few clangers and it is the dodgy ones that people remember.

Agree Hypermodern Chess is also very good. Nimzovitch for the layman. You enjoy the games without the Nimzo spin.

Yes in the days before the net getting a score would be very hard, you would have to rely on magazines and newspaper columns.

Taking our cue from Nimzovitch & Reinfeld how about the 'Immortal Zugzwang Game.'

Saemisch vs Nimzowitsch, 1923

It was ignored by the press, magazines, books - Reinfeld wrote, 'Thirty-five Nimzowitsch Games, 1904-1927 and missed it.

Now the game has it's own pages on wiki and Edward Winter.