< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 5 OF 5 · Later Kibitzing> Jul-15-09 solskytz : Dear VishyBrainDoctor,

thank you very much for your illuminating, stimulating comments, relating to the match as a whole and specifically delineating the proceedings of each individual game. This is a marvelous introduction to a match that I was actually curious about for a long time. Now I read your comments for a game, then examine it, and so on. Thanks again :-) solskytz Jun-09-10 wandas : NO DOUBT 2 WINS BS WAS REQUIRED,

encyclopediasupreme.org/wcc1910.pgn HERES FINE SITE EXPLAINS IT ALL, LASKER WAS BAD, SCHLECTER SHOULD HAVE BEEN CHAMP UNTIL 1921 OR CO CHAMP, HE PLAYED BETTER, SHAME ON LASKER! Jun-09-10 Marmot PFL : <visayanbraindoctor> I must look at all these games, but in the few i did so far the substandard, almost casual opening play defines the era as pre-modern. As early as game 2 Lasker was in serious trouble with white and i do not think a modern player like Carlsen or Anand would let him escape, nor even an older player like Korchnoi or Larsen. Jul-15-10 dmillergp : I think part of the reason Schleter played for the win in game 10, and something people forget about, this match was played for a high amount of money, and for a man like Schleter, who ended up dying of starvation, money was short so this was a big deal Jul-15-10

TheFocus : Actually, Schlechter died of pneumonia brought on by his weakened condition from an lack of food. I am not trying to cut straws here. If there had been enough food in Europe, he might have lived. Schlechter also supported his Mother. I wonder how she fared? Jul-16-10

keypusher : <dmillergp: I think part of the reason Schleter played for the win in game 10, and something people forget about, this match was played for a high amount of money, and for a man like Schleter, who ended up dying of starvation, money was short so this was a big deal> Things were a lot better in 1910 for Schlechter (and millions of other people in Central Europe) than they were at the end of the Great War. In his Lasker book Soltis dubbed Schlechter the hardest-working man in chess, editing magazines, writing openings books, and maintaining a killer tournament and match schedule. Jul-16-10 ughaibu : 1) it's pretty much a cliche that the easiest way to lose, is to play for a draw. Schlechter, I expect, was aware of this. 2) I think the simplest explanation for Schlechter's play is that he thought he was making the best moves. Jul-16-10 Petrosianic : <something people forget about, this match was played for a high amount of money,> We forget about it because it's irrelevant. The prize fund wasn't pro-rated by score. A 6-4 victory wouldn't have paid any better than a 5½-4½ victory would have. UNLESS that elusive 2-point clause existed. but if it did, there's no mystery about why he played so hard. May-22-11 Adriano Saldanha : Games 1-5 took place in Vienna.

Games 6-10 took place in Berlin.

Here an extract from both games 5 and 6:

FIFTH GAME - Ruy Lopez - Here Schlechter chose a better continuation against the same defence, as in the first and third games. Lasker courted the exchange of pieces, relying on his superlative skill in the end-game. But Schlechter met the champion on his own ground, and playing in masterly style, scored the first victory in the match. This game closed the Vienna series, the net result of which showed Shlecter in a highly favourable light. Not only had he registered the only won game, but he had troubled Lasker in the majority of the drawn games, and the honours of the series were largely in his favour. SIXTH GAME - Ruy Lopez - The first game of the Berlin series, interest in the news from Vienna, that Schlechter held the big advantage of 1 to 0 and 4 draws. Hence the latter half of the match worthily upheld the interest of the former. In this game Schlechter again utilised the recognised defence to the variation hitherto played by Lasker. Exchanges in passing from the opening to the close of the middle game left Lasker with a Pawn ahead for the ending. Here again he was unable to utilise his skill in the end-game to appreciable advantage, and Schlechter was able to draw an instructive ending. source:

http://graeme.50webs.com/chesschamp... Oct-23-11 visayanbraindoctor : For an analysis of all the games of this match, please go to User: bridgeburner and User: game mapping project, part of a project to determine and compare the error rates of key World Championship matches. Oct-23-11 visayanbraindoctor : The analysis in the project referred to above indicate that Lasker and Schlechter were playing about the same quality (in terms of the ability to avoid errors) of chess as Kramnik in the Anand-Kramnik World Championship Match (2008); and that Anand was playing just a tad better than Kramnik, Lasker and Schlechter. Jul-14-12 blazerdoodle : I'd like to see the original in German, of course. I can have it read to me by friends. Jan-29-13 LastDaysofSaloFlohr : Maybe if his mother had named him Hannibal he would have had the requisite killer instinct to finish Lasker off. (Geddit?)

Anyway, back to sobriety - I read Thomas Glavinic's novel based on Schlechter - <Carl Haffner's Love of the Draw.> An interesting and entertaining read but that's all. One of the previous kibitzers noted that Lasker and Schlechter had both written annotations to (most of) the match games - where could I find these? Have they been translated into English? The controversy about the conditions for the match - did Schlechter need to win by two points? - is perhaps something that could be settled by a thorough scholar looking through the archives (assuming they weren't destroyed during WWII.) What about contemporary reports in the newspapers or chess magazines? I'm sure they've been researched but you never know. I don't believe e.g. that Schlechter felt bad about winning game #5 - Capablanca had some nerve to call it a "fluke" (if he did write that.) It was a tremendous struggle and yes, Lasker should have won but it was extremely complicated. Dvoretsky (and other annotators) looks at the game in great detail in his Analytical Manual. In Lasker the human element was very important; certain players (Schlechter and Rubinstein) perhaps neglected this aspect in favour of strict objectivity and their games are all the better for it. But Lasker wasn't World Champion for over twenty five years for nothing. Apr-30-14 Karpova : Dr. Emanuel Lasker (Berlin, January 29, 1910):

<Ich habe in Schlechter eine neue Spielweise zu bekämpfen; mit Schwierigkeit habe ich die richtige Strategie entdeckt, bin aber gerade dann unglücklich gewesen. In der fünften Partie schien mir der Sieg bereits sicher, als ich den entscheidenden Fehler beging. Es wäre nicht so gekommen, hätte Schlechter mich nicht durch Ausnützung jeder gebotenen Gelegenheit ermüdet, und es hätte auch so leicht anders kommen können. In der Theorie bin ich im Vorteil geblieben, wenn mir auch die Praxis unrecht gegeben hat.> In Schlechter, I have to fight a new way of playing; with difficulty I discovered the correct strategy, but was unfortunate right then. In the fifth game, my victory appeared already safe, when I committed the decisive mistake. This wouldn't have occurred, hadn't Schlechter tired me through capitalising on every given opportunity, and that way it could also have easily been otherwise*. In theory I kept my advantage, but practice proved me wrong.) Source: 'Pester Lloyd', 1910.01.31, p. 5

* I hope this is clear. I guess that with this last part of the sentence, Lasker wants to say that even with schlechter tiring him, he may not have committed the mistake, i. e. that the blunder was not an inevitable. Oct-10-15

Richard Taylor : < ughaibu: 1) it's pretty much a cliche that the easiest way to lose, is to play for a draw. Schlechter, I expect, was aware of this. 2) I think the simplest explanation for Schlechter's play is that he thought he was making the best moves. > Yes and no. Schlecter didn't really want to be seen as playing weak chess but also both of them wanted to "mix it up" hence this particular game has errors, but the errors are all understandable and happen even today in real chess conditions. This game I think Schlecter had to draw although it is unclear what the exact match conditions were. I played all the games and they are excellent. Schlecter and Lasker played interesting and spirited chess. No question of dull draws at all. Schlecter played possibly his best chess. Sad his end, but Lasker also didn't fare as well as he might have. They were both two of the greatest players. Oct-11-15 Petrosianic : <wandas> : <SCHLECTER SHOULD HAVE BEEN CHAMP UNTIL 1921 OR CO CHAMP, HE PLAYED BETTER, SHAME ON LASKER!> IF HE WERE WORLD CHAMP AFTER HE DIED, THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN A NEAT TRICK! Apr-12-16 The Kings Domain : Impressive performance by Schlechter. It's too bad practicality wasn't foremost in his mind as he could have had the proud distinction of ending Lasker's long reign by then and winning the championship at his peak. Apr-12-16 Howard : But, Petrosianic, if Schlecter had become world champion in 1910, do you think he would have died of starvation, in 1918 ? Possible, but not likely. Apr-12-16 Lambda : If Schlechter had won, I expect he'd have felt obliged to offer Lasker a rematch, and Lasker would probably win that. Apr-17-17

MissScarlett : Linlithgowshire Gazette, August 26th 1910, p.3: <Mr. A. L. Stevenson send to "Cheltenham Examiner" the following readable extracts:- LASKER ON SCHLECHTER'S STYLE

[From an article by Lasker in the "Neue Freie Presse" for January 16th, 1910.] "Schlechter has set us this new and quite up-to-date problem: - How is it possible to defeat the player who regards the promises of success and the threats of a dangerous-looking attack with equal coolness, thinks first and foremost of his own safety, and pursues this end with consumate science, and, if necessary, with the quickest wit and keenest scent? The answer to this question is at present unknown, but, theoretically, one may say with certainty that if the Schlechter tactics were combined with an opportune taking of the initiative, perfection of style would be attained, and Schlechter would be invincible."> May-04-19

Telemus : There is a recent feature article by E.Winter, called "The Lasker v Schlechter Controversy (1910)" (see http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/...) dealing with <What were the conditions for the ten-game match in 1910 between Emanuel Lasker and Carl Schlechter? In particular, did Schlechter have to win by a two-point margin to gain the world title? Since 1982, a series of C.N. items has considered these matters and has examined the concluding game, which Lasker won.> For some years now, I had the impression that Winter regarded the problem as unsolved and I think this is confimed by the article. Quite surprising! Neither Winter nor his legion of expert contributors seem to have consulted the relevant primary sources. Instead a lot of secondary material is presented. And it is even worse: it has been all been published already some years ago by one of Germany's best chess historians! The English speaking audience may hope that the new Lasker volumes by Forster and Negele will eventually close the gap. May-04-19 Boomie : <Telemus: Neither Winter nor his legion of expert contributors seem to have consulted the relevant primary sources.> Which begs the question "What sources?" Please give links to these sources. CGers have searched in vain for a definitive answer. May-05-19

Retireborn : <Boomie> Wolfgang Heidenfeld (who probably knew the sources that <Telemus> refers to) says that Schlechter played the last game in the same style as he played throughout the match. The idea that he needed to win by two is a myth as far as I know. May-05-19 Boomie : Larry Evans, who was not known for his historical accuracy, said that two days before the final game, Lasker clearly indicated that there was no 2 point clause. Unfortunately, none of the Sunday papers have been digitized and Feb. 6 was a Sunday. So if anyone can find the Feb. 6, 1910 copy of The Evening Post (NY), we could at least put Evans claim to rest. Aug-14-20 Wanda Nida : [Event "WCC 1910, match drawn 5:5, Lasker was lucky & had white last game, defanding champion that keeps the title if match is drawn should not have white the last game. Was Schlechter screwed, did Lasker demanded 2 points win to relinquish crown? Schlechter should be rightly named co-champion until 1921. Lasker didnt defand his title for 11 years, that's totally unacceptable!!!"] [Event "wcc"]

[Site "Berlin"]

[Date "1910.??.??"]

[Round "10"]

[Comments "Strange loss, Schlechter had easy draw, nerves?"] [White "Lasker Em"]

[Black "Schlechter C"]

[Result "1-0"]

1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. e3 g6 5. Nc3 Bg7 6. Bd3 O-O 7. Qc2 Na6 8. a3 dxc4 9. Bxc4 b5 10. Bd3 b4 11. Na4 bxa3 12. bxa3 Bb7 13. Rb1 Qc7 14. Ne5 Nh5 15. g4 Bxe5 16. gxh5 Bg7 17. hxg6 hxg6 18. Qc4 Bc8 19. Rg1 Qa5+ 20. Bd2 Qd5 21. Rc1 Bb7 22. Qc2 Qh5 23. Bxg6 Qxh2 24. Rf1 fxg6 25. Qb3+ Rf7 26. Qxb7 Raf8 27. Qb3 Kh8 28. f4 g5 29. Qd3 gxf4 30. exf4 Qh4+ 31. Ke2 Qh2+ 32. Rf2 Qh5+ 33. Rf3 Nc7 34. Rxc6 Nb5 35. Rc4 Rxf4 36. Bxf4 Rxf4 37. Rc8+ Bf8 38. Kf2 Qh2+ 39. Ke1 Qh1+ 40. Rf1 Qh4+ 41. Kd2 Rxf1 42. Qxf1 Qxd4+ 43. Qd3 Qf2+ 44. Kd1 Nd6 45. Rc5 Bh6 46. Rd5 Kg8 47. Nc5 Qg1+ 48. Kc2 Qf2+ 49. Kb3 Bg7 50. Ne6 Qb2+ 51. Ka4 Kf7 52. Nxg7 Qxg7 53. Qb3 Ke8 54. Qb8+ Kf7 55. Qxa7 Qg4+ 56. Qd4 Qd7+ 57. Kb3 Qb7+ 58. Ka2 Qc6 59. Qd3 Ke6 60. Rg5 Kd7 61. Re5 Qg2+ 62. Re2 Qg4 63. Rd2 Qa4 64. Qf5+ Kc7 65. Qc2+ Qxc2+ 66. Rxc2+ Kb7 67. Re2 Nc8 68. Kb3 Kc6 69. Rc2+ Kb7 70. Kb4 Na7 71. Kc5 Kc8 72. Kb6+ Kb8 73. Rc7 Nc8+ 74. Kc6 Na7+ 75. Kd7 Nb5 76. Rc8+ Kb7 77. a4 Na7 Schlechter could have won it all, he should have been proclaimed co-champion of the world, this was drawn, it was his match. There is enough proof Lasker demanded +2 winning score if Schlechter was to become champion, if it's true, how insane; duh, imagine if Schlechter won this game & thus the match, then questions will arise, how come he did not win it? 10 games match in 1910 1-0 [Event "World Championship 19th"]

[Site "Moscow R6"]

[Date "1951.03.26"]

[Round "24"]

[Comments "Weird game, Bronstein had easy draw, was it bad nerves cuz it was final game?"] [White "Bronstein, David I"]

[Black "Botvinnik, Mikhail"]

[Result "0-1"]

[ECO "B63"]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 d6 6. Bg5 e6 7. Qd2 h6 8. Bxf6 gxf6 9. O-O-O a6 10. f4 Bd7 11. Kb1 Be7 12. Be2 Nxd4 13. Qxd4 Qa5 14. Rhf1 h5 15. Rf3 Qc5 16. Qd2 Bc6 17. Re3 Qa5 18. Bf3 O-O-O 19. Qd3 Rd7 20. h4 Kb8 21. a3 Bd8 22. Ka2 Qc5 23. Re2 a5 24. a4 Bb6 25. b3 Rc8 26. Qc4 Qxc4 27. bxc4 Rh8 28. Kb3 Rdd8 29. Rd3 Bg1 30. Red2 Kc7 31. Ne2 Bf2 32. Rd1 Bc5 33. Ng3 Rdg8 34. Ne2 Rh7 35. f5 e5 36. Nc3 Bd4 37. Rxd4 exd4 38. Rxd4 Rhg7 39. Ne2 Rxg2 40. Bxg2 Rxg2 41. Nf4 Rg3+ 42. Kb2 Rg4 43. Nxh5 Rxh4 44. Nxf6 Kb6 45. Rxd6 Kc5 46. e5 Rd4 47. Rxd4 Kxd4 48. Ng4 Bxa4 49. e6 fxe6 50. f6 Be8 51. Kb3 e5 52. c3+ Ke4 53. Nh6 Kf4 54. f7 Bxf7 55. Nxf7 e4 56. Nd8 e3 57. Kc2 Kg3 58. Kd1 Kf2 Again, almost a champ. ♗otvinik kept the title he didn't deserve, this was luck and (communist) pressure on ♗ronstein was not small, ♗ronstein should have been named co-champ of the world because he drew the match. He was white in the final game, if the champ retains title if match is drawn, opponent should be allowed last game's color, at least here ♗otvinik was blak! 0-1 Jump to page # (enter # from 1 to 5)

search thread:

< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 5 OF 5 · Later Kibitzing>