Aha, missed that. :)

<Actually I'm a lot more concerned about this "Check and Mate" issue.>

Hey, one thing at a time. Contrary to stereotypes, I don't do that 'multitasking' business. :p

This was originally published in German in 1952.

The English translation was published in 1959 by Andre Deutsch in London and Simon & Schuster in New York.

I have the Dover 1991 edition which is promising me that it's an "unabridged republication of the work first published in English... in 1959."

In its entirety:

<"The one unpleasant aspect of the great match of 1908 was the fact that the two contenders did not happen to be on speaking terms. Tarrasch was not a very conciliatory man, and his animosity against his great adversary had been embittered by the lengthy negotiations due to Lasker's insistence on holding out for his financial terms. At the beginning of the match mutual friends among the members of the organising committee hoped to bring about a reconciliation of the two masters or at least their readiness to observe the conventional social civilities in the course of the match.

Lasker was quite willing, and it was arranged from him to wait in a private room while the kindly committee member went to fetch Dr Tarrasch. But the Doctor only came as far as the door. There he made a stiff little bow and exclaimed: 'To you, Herr Lasker, I have only three words to say: <<<Check and Mate!'>>> He made another bow and turned on his heels. Lasker merely shrugged his shoulders. As for Tarrasch, he was not to have many opportunities of speaking the three ominous words.>

The quote is actually used, unsourced, in the intro to this event Lasker-Steinitz World Championship (1894), but there's no indication her when, exactly, Tarrasch is supposed to have said this.

We could really use your help. This project might take a long time eh?

Too many cooks never spoil the broth if you are one of the cooks.

Speaking of unfounded opinions, here is <Edward Winter's> judgment of Dr. Hannak's biography of Lasker:

<Lasker

We have just been re-reading Emanuel Lasker, The Life of a Chess Master by J. Hannak (London, 1959), ‘translated’ into English by Heinrich Fraenkel, an <<<unreliable>>> work.

To justify our remark, we take as an example a single page (page 27):

a) misspelling ‘concurrant’.

b) ‘Samuel Hoffer, Chess Editor of The Field ...’ Leopold would be correct. (Translator’s mistake.)

c) (At Amsterdam, 1889, Lasker ... ) ‘lost the decisive game against the British master Burn.’ Not so. In fact, Lasker never lost to Burn.

d) ‘For the first time in his life Lasker crossed the German border and got the thrill and experience of being abroad in a foreign land.’ (So much more thrilling than being abroad at home ...)

e) ‘Nor was he to fare any better when, early in 1890, he went to compete in a small Austrian tournament at Graz.’ ‘Late in 1890’ would be more exact since the event took place in September.

f) ‘True, he didn’t lose a game.’ Untrue, he did.

Not bad for one page.>

Even without the scorn of Winter, I'd like to see an account of CHECK AND MATE earlier than 1952 before including it (propagating it) in a WCC intro here at Cg.com.

The first FIDE tourney to decide a new WC needs a cross table.

FIDE World Championship Tournament (1948)

There is indeed a direct link to the article itself on this edit page now: Game Collection: WCC: Steinitz-Gunsberg 1890

The <archaeology> link is right there in the citation and it's working fine direct to the POPE HIMSELF, I just checked it again.

We can't put the crosstable in ourselves on that page, but when we're done all the editing we will give the crosstable info to <Mr. Boone> and he'll put it in.

Thanks for the Hoffer quote. Dr. Tarrasch was certainly an outspoken man, but he also abdicated a honorarium for the 1908 match to enable it while Dr. Lasker demanded a high sum.

This one IS probably in the wrong place but since Annie mentioned Game Collection: Marshall versus Tarrasch Match, Nuremberg 1905, I blame her.

I've spotted two typos:

From the Dept. of Redundancy Dept. in the quote - "the match <in in> a German language booklet"

And this curiosity: "Tarrasch went onto two further"

You see that's a "games collection" and nobody can change it except the person who made it.

Here we are concerned with editing only the History of the World Chess Championship, and we're currently looking at the first 8 starting from <Steinitz-Sugarloaf Mountain 1886>.

You can read more about what we're doing by clicking on my face and reading my profile.

I've got Schonberg's "Grandmasters of Chess" here as well.

He does repeat the "Check and Mate" story, and sources it to (Hannak).

Literally (Hannak).

<Mr. Boone> is using different code for the WCC series, code so top secret that he actually showed it to us in an earlier post in our forum here.

I think when we do finish our editing, he will write some new code to accomodate an Angry Table.

That was a good catch on that.

Ok here's how we do this and how I will remember your edits.

Look up in the profile here- at the bottom is the list of "mirror games collections." You'll see I've now added Game Collection: WCC: FIDE WCC Tournament 1948.

This is just a mirror of the original intro here FIDE World Championship Tournament (1948).

You see, we can't directly edit the official intros, but we can edit intros in the mirror collections. You'll note that I've entered your edit into the <HERE, FIDO, HERE BOY 1948> mirror intro: Game Collection: WCC: FIDE WCC Tournament 1948

====
EDIT <Boomie> <TOURNAMENT CROSS TABLE NEEDS TO BE ADDED>

====

Now we'll remember your edit many moons from now, after your post in this forum is on the back pages.

Once we are done all of our edits for all the WCC events, once we have fact-checked, sourced, and style edited all of the intros, then we will submit our report to <Daniel Freeman> (you may already know him as "Boone").

<1. Did <Tarrasch> write articles in English, or only in German?>

My working hypothesis would be that he (almost?) never wrote in English. (As you can see in Ballo's article, Tarrasch's main goal has been to get the acceptance by his countrymen.

[This is in stark contrast to Lasker who lived for instance in GB/USA 1891-1896, and who published his 'common sense in chess' firstly in English]

<2. Does the play on words in the "Tarrasch quote" make sense in German idiom?<>>

Yes, it works the same way in German.

Additionally to the Klamm's Tarrasch biography I'd like to check some contemporary chess magazines as well as two more books: the even more monumental (1,079 pages) Lasker Biography http://www.schachversand.de/e/detai... as well as Robert Huebner's 234p book on the 1894 WC match http://www.edition-marco-shop.de/ep...

Thank you so much for answering those questions and sharing your valuable information and analysis.

We are so happy you are able and willing to help in such a substantial way.

Ok the <IM Jack Peters> reference from Game Collection: WCC: Lasker vs Steinitz 1894 is now confirmed:

<2 Chess Life, December 1994 (p40) <CONFIRMED> BY <wordfunph>

<<" Lasker had noticed signs of uncertainty in Steinitz' handling of "simplified" middlegames, without <<<Queens.>>> Recognizing the champion's superiority in managing a full army of pieces, Lasker deliberately sought early Queen exchanges. This strategy certainly worked in Philadelphia.">>

positive on page 41 of Chess Life December 1994.>

So now we have two options. We can keep the original quote with CONFIRMED reference, or we can replace it with the new quote by Andy Soltis that <crawfb5> found:

<Here's a slightly different take than Peters. It's from Soltis' <Why Lasker Matters> 2005, p. 34 In discussing Lasker vs Steinitz, 1894 (Game 9, the first game in Philadelphia), this position just before White plays 11. Bxd8!?

Soltis writes:

<"Most modern GMs would retreat the queen automatically, White enjoys a slight edge after, say 11. Qd2 Be7 12. Be3! and 13. O-O-O. But Lasker had discovered Steinitz's weakness: he could be beaten in endgames. Queens went off the board as early as move six and eight (twice) in other games of this match. Altogether, endings were reached in 16 of the 19 games. The average length of a game was 52 moves.

Compare that with the Kasparov-Karpov match of 1984-1985, when queens were traded only 17 times in 48 games. Or with the hard-fought Fischer-Spassky match of 1972, which averaged 45 moves.

It wasn't Steinitz's inclination to play endgames: He did it only six times in 23 games of his previous match, with Tchigorin. It was Lasker's plan to make it The Great Endgame Match.">>

I vote we use a suitably abridged length of the new Soltis quote, since I think it's more substantive and accurate.

In 1999 <Robert Huebner> wrote in <"SCHACH">, a German chess magazine, a series of 5 articles on the 1910 Lasker-Schlechter match. It includes a 10 page biographical intro to Lasker.

There Hue3ner wrote that

after Laskers victory (in the 1894 match) Curt v Bardeleben commented in Deutsche Schachzeitung (1894, p183-185) the match, pointing more on Steinitz's weaknesses than on Lasker's strength, but all in a moderate tone, <but Tarrasch was seething. <Tarrasch aber schäumte>>*.

*footnote of sources for these 3 words

Deutsches Wochenschach 1894, p.200
Deutsche Schachzeitung 1984, p.286
La Strategie 1894, p.265
<British Chess Magazine 1984, p.295-296> [sic!]

<Upon returning to the USA, he won the US Championship (although refused to accept the honor, as Harry Nelson Pillsbury did not participate).> should probably be cut. Not really true and probably irrelevant to the WC match.