chessgames.com
Members · Prefs · Laboratory · Collections · Openings · Endgames · Sacrifices · History · Search Kibitzing · Kibitzer's Café · Chessforums · Tournament Index · Players · Kibitzing

  WCC Overview
 
  << previous HISTORY OF THE WORLD CHESS CHAMPIONSHIP next >>  
Lasker vs Tarrasch 1908
Düsseldorf / Munich

Siegbert Tarrasch was born in Breslau, Prussia (now Wrocław, Poland) in 1862. In the late 1880s, he established himself as one of the strongest players in the world with several tournament successes.[1] After Tarrasch's first place in Manchester (1890),[2] the Havana Chess Club proposed a match against world champion Wilhelm Steinitz.[3] A practicing physician, Tarrasch declined as he couldn't devote that much time to chess.[3] Besides his successful chess career, he is also famous for propagating and deepening chess, which earned him the nickname "praeceptor germaniae" (lat. teacher of Germany).[4] In 1906, world champion Emanuel Lasker singled out Tarrasch and Geza Maroczy as worthy contenders for the world championship, and said "Dr. Tarrasch's strength or weakness, if one likes - is his pronounced amour propre [fr. self-love]. Without it he would have been a very mediocre chess player; gifted to an abnormal degree, he has become a giant."[5]

Tarrasch and Lasker Instead of participating in Dresden (1892), won by Tarrasch,[6] Lasker challenged the tournament winner to a match via Leopold Hoffer. [7] Tarrasch declined the offer, since Lasker had avoided a tournament battle with him by not participating in Dresden. Tarrasch was willing to play Lasker, once the latter had won first prize in an international tournament.[8] Two years later, Lasker took the title from Steinitz in the Lasker - Steinitz World Championship (1894) match. After his successful comeback at Monte Carlo (1903), Tarrasch challenged Lasker for a world championship match,[5] to take place in autumn 1904. The conditions were published at the end of 1903.[9] An ice-skating accident in January 1904 disabled Tarrasch. He visited Lasker in Berlin in March 1904, suggesting they postpone the match until the next year. But Lasker declined, declaring the contract null and void if the match couldn't take place at the agreed date. Tarrasch would have to issue a new challenge.[10]

Tarrasch's victory in the Marshall - Tarrasch (1905) match induced Rudolf Gebhardt, chairman of the German Chess Federation, to contact the Manhattan Chess Club on November 24, 1905 to negotiate a match for the title. The Club didn't respond, so after five months Gebhardt contacted Lasker directly on April 20, 1906. Lasker agreed to play Tarrasch in principle, but wanted to play in America only, as he believed that a match could be financed nowhere else. Tarrasch said he could only play in Germany, due to his profession.[11] In 1906, Lasker also negotiated for a world championship match with Maróczy, but ultimately without success.[12] When Lasker defended his title in the Lasker - Marshall World Championship Match (1907) by the score (+8 -0 =7), comparisons were made to Tarrasch's previous victory (+8 -1 =8) against the same opponent in 1905,[13] as if the title match had only been a substitute for a match between the two German chessmasters. Later that year, Tarrasch triumphed in Ostend (Championship) (1907), so a match between them again became a pressing matter.[11] A good opportunity for negotiations arose in February 1908, when Lasker visited Europe again for the first time in four years.[11]

The lengthy negotiations were successfully finalized on August 1, 1908.[14] Lasker had originally demanded an honorarium of 15,000 Marks. The chairmen of the German (Gebhardt) and Bavarian (Schenzel) Chess Federations persuaded the world champion to accept a lower honorarium of 7,500 Marks. Tarrasch even agreed to forego an honorarium in order to help bring about the match. The winner would be the first to win eight games, with draws not counting. The victor would receive 4,000 Marks, and the loser 2,500 Marks.[15] [16] The time control was 1 hour for 15 moves.[17] Otto Rosenfeld was the arbiter. Tarrasch's second was Heinrich Renner. Lasker's second in Düsseldorf was Appun, while in Munich Schropp and Kollmann alternated as seconds.[18]

The match began on August 17 in the Kunstpalast in Düsseldorf, where the first 4 games were played. The contract stipulated that the match be relocated to Munich as soon as one competitor had scored three points.[19] Both players were in a separate room, together with their seconds. The numerous spectators followed the match in a large hall. Lasker drew the white pieces by lot, and won Game 1. According to Lasker, Tarrasch could have won Game 2, had he abstained from pawn grabbing and continued his attack.[20] With Lasker leading 2-0, Tarrasch took two rest days to recover from the losses,[21] and then scored his first win in Game 3. Lasker won Game 4 on August 31, after refuting Tarrasch's combination by 27...♖xf4. With the score now 3-1 in Lasker's favor, the match now moved to the Rathaus in Munich on September 1. About 1,200 spectators witnessed Lasker's win in Game 5. Game 6 ended drawn, although Tarrasch missed a win on move 42. After his win in Game 7, Lasker was in the lead by the score of +5 -1 =1. The match became more even now, with draws in Games 8 and 9.[20] Tarrasch won Game 10, called by Garry Kasparov "probably his best game of the match."[22] Lasker struck back by winning Game 11. 1,100 spectators in the afternoon and 1,300 in the evening attended Game 12. Tarrasch won, and Lasker's lead was now cut to +6 -3 =3.[20] Lasker took four rest days,[23] and then won Game 13.[20] In Game 14, Tarrasch tried to convert a better position for three days and 119 moves, but the game was finally drawn. Lasker was held to a draw in Game 15. On September 30, Tarrasch blundered a piece in time trouble and immediately resigned. Lasker won the match +8 -3 =5.[20] Several commentators considered Tarrasch to have played below his ability, and that the result did not truly represent his true strength. Most, however, agreed that Lasker's victory was well deserved, and that he had demonstrated his superiority over Tarrasch.[24] [25]

click on a game number to replay game 12345678910111213141516
Lasker11011½1½½0101½½1
Tarrasch00100½0½½1010½½0

FINAL SCORE:  Lasker 8;  Tarrasch 3 (5 draws)
Reference: game collection WCC Index [Lasker-Tarrasch 1908]

NOTABLE GAMES   [what is this?]
    · Game #2     Tarrasch vs Lasker, 1908     0-1
    · Game #4     Tarrasch vs Lasker, 1908     0-1
    · Game #1     Lasker vs Tarrasch, 1908     1-0

FOOTNOTES

  1. Rod Edwards, Siegbert Tarrasch
  2. Rod Edwards, Manchester 1890
  3. New York Sun, 6 October 1890. In Jacques N. Pope, Chess Archaeology
  4. Wiener Schachzeitung, February 1934, pp. 49-50. In ANNO / Österreichische Nationalbibliothek
  5. Emanuel Lasker, Lasker's Chess Magazine, January 1906, pp. 126-127. In Edward Lasker, ed., Lasker's Chess Magazine Vol.III Nov 1905 - April 1908, Olomouc 1998. Translation of amour propre by Karpova. Lasker goes on explaining "His amour propre is such that he must excel at something. Chess was, as it were, the easier medium for him to choose, and he is very fond of chess, therefore, but most particularly of his own chess."
  6. Rod Edwards, Dresden 1892
  7. Leopold Hoffer, The Championship Match: Lasker v. Tarrasch, London 1908, p. 1
  8. Siegbert Tarrasch, Der Schachwettkampf Lasker-Tarrasch um die Weltmeisterschaft im August-September 1908, Jens-Erik Rudolph Verlag, Hamburg 2009. Originally Veit & Comp., Leipzig 1908. Chapter 1, p. 1
  9. Wiener Schachzeitung, December 1903, pp. 291-292. In ANNO / Österreichische Nationalbibliothek
  10. Tarrasch, chapter 1, p.2
  11. Tarrasch, chapter 1, p.3
  12. Brooklyn Daily Eagle (Brooklyn, New York), 11 September 1906, p. 6. In Brooklyn Newsstand
  13. Wiener Schachzeitung, May-July 1907, pp. 163-164. In ANNO / Österreichische Nationalbibliothek
  14. Brooklyn Daily Eagle (Brooklyn, New York), 2 August 1908, p. 45. In Brooklyn Newsstand
  15. Wiener Schachzeitung, May-June 1908, pp. 176-177. In ANNO / Österreichische Nationalbibliothek
  16. Wiener Schachzeitung, September-October 1908, p. 263. In ANNO / Österreichische Nationalbibliothek
  17. Wiener Schachzeitung, September-October 1908, p. 265. In ANNO / Österreichische Nationalbibliothek
  18. Tarrasch, chapter 1, p.15. Among the tasks of the seconds mentioned were checking the clocks prior to the games. The chessplayer's second had to be contacted at least 1 hour before start of the game, if a rest day was taken (chapter 1, p.14). They were not for analysis of adjourned games, as clause 13 prohibited analysis or replaying of adjourned games in presence of a third person.
  19. Wiener Schachzeitung, July-August 1908, p. 193. In ANNO / Österreichische Nationalbibliothek
  20. Emanuel Lasker, Wiener Schachzeitung, Supplementheft 1908, pp. 381-416 (originally from Pester Lloyd, 1908). In ANNO / Österreichische Nationalbibliothek
  21. Tarrasch, chapter 3, p. 30
  22. Garry Kasparov, On My Great Predecessors Part I, 2003, Everyman, pp. 167-168.
  23. Tarrasch, chapter 13, p. 78. The break lasted 5 days overall, since a Sunday was in between.
  24. Wiener Schachzeitung, September-October 1908, pp. 323-328. In ANNO / Österreichische Nationalbibliothek. The Bohemia and Karl Behting, in the Düna-Zeitung, agreed that Tarrasch had played below his strength but acknowledged Lasker's superiority. The Frankfurter Zeitung (2 October 1908) was more sympathetic to Tarrasch, noting that the match result was not indicative of his actual strength. Hans Seyboth in the St. Petersburger Zeitung, Eugene Aleksandrovich Znosko-Borovsky in Novoe Vremia, and the New-Yorker Staatszeitung noted Lasker's superiority.
  25. Wiener Schachzeitung, December 1908, pp. 370-376. In ANNO / Österreichische Nationalbibliothek. Max Hofschläger in the Hamburger Nachrichten notes that Lasker was the better player, but that Tarrasch had played below his strength.

 page 1 of 1; 16 games  PGN Download 
Game  ResultMoves YearEvent/LocaleOpening
1. Lasker vs Tarrasch 1-0551908Lasker - Tarrasch World Championship MatchC68 Ruy Lopez, Exchange
2. Tarrasch vs Lasker 0-1411908Lasker - Tarrasch World Championship MatchC66 Ruy Lopez
3. Lasker vs Tarrasch 0-1441908Lasker - Tarrasch World Championship MatchC99 Ruy Lopez, Closed, Chigorin, 12...cd
4. Tarrasch vs Lasker 0-1411908Lasker - Tarrasch World Championship MatchC66 Ruy Lopez
5. Lasker vs Tarrasch 1-0381908Lasker - Tarrasch World Championship MatchC98 Ruy Lopez, Closed, Chigorin
6. Tarrasch vs Lasker ½-½531908Lasker - Tarrasch World Championship MatchC10 French
7. Lasker vs Tarrasch 1-0761908Lasker - Tarrasch World Championship MatchC12 French, McCutcheon
8. Tarrasch vs Lasker ½-½481908Lasker - Tarrasch World Championship MatchC67 Ruy Lopez
9. Lasker vs Tarrasch ½-½711908Lasker - Tarrasch World Championship MatchC12 French, McCutcheon
10. Tarrasch vs Lasker 1-0321908Lasker - Tarrasch World Championship MatchC67 Ruy Lopez
11. Lasker vs Tarrasch 1-0281908Lasker - Tarrasch World Championship MatchC12 French, McCutcheon
12. Tarrasch vs Lasker 1-0651908Lasker - Tarrasch World Championship MatchC49 Four Knights
13. Lasker vs Tarrasch 1-0441908Lasker - Tarrasch World Championship MatchD32 Queen's Gambit Declined, Tarrasch
14. Tarrasch vs Lasker ½-½1191908Lasker - Tarrasch World Championship MatchC67 Ruy Lopez
15. Lasker vs Tarrasch ½-½521908Lasker - Tarrasch World Championship MatchD02 Queen's Pawn Game
16. Tarrasch vs Lasker 0-1261908Lasker - Tarrasch World Championship MatchC49 Four Knights
 page 1 of 1; 16 games  PGN Download 
  REFINE SEARCH:   White wins (1-0) | Black wins (0-1) | Draws (1/2-1/2)  

Kibitzer's Corner
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 5 OF 5 ·  Later Kibitzing>
Jun-30-23
Premium Chessgames Member
  FSR: Lasker dominated Maroczy in their encounters, scoring +4=2. https://www.chessgames.com/perl/che... I don't count Lasker vs Maroczy, 1902, also allegedly won by Lasker, because its provenance is dubious and its circumstances (if indeed it even occurred) unknown.

In early 1906 it was announced that Lasker and Maroczy would play a championship match in October of that year. Maroczy backed out for reasons that have never been adequately explained. https://www.chess.com/blog/kahns/a-...

Jun-30-23
Premium Chessgames Member
  FSR: Had the great Harry Nelson Pillsbury not ventured out and gotten syphilis from that hooker at St. Petersburg (1895/96), he coulda been a contender. For him, the wages of sin really were a sadly premature death.

I once asked St. Petersburger (is that what they call them?) Peter Svidler about the veracity of this story on a Zoom call. He acknowledged that that is the commonly understood version of events about Pillsbury, but said that he (Svidler) hadn't been there. Seemed fair.

Jun-30-23  Petrosianic: <Capablanca demanded that his challenger come up with a huge purse, and it took six years for someone (Alekhine) to do so.>

That's Half True at best. In fact, Alekhine challenged under the London Rules, which all the top players, including Alekhine himself, had agreed to at London 1922. Capablanca didn't name his own price.

Jun-30-23
Premium Chessgames Member
  perfidious: Sergeant wrote that after his win at Dresden 1926, Nimzowitsch issued a formal challenge to Capablanca.
Jun-30-23  sudoplatov: Tarrasch was by no means a spent force in 1908, maybe by 1918. Ostend 1907 and Monte Carlo 1903 come to mind.
Jul-01-23
Premium Chessgames Member
  FSR: <sudoplatov> I agree. Note also St. Petersburg (1914), where Tarrasch made the final (unlike, for example, Rubinstein, Bernstein, Nimzowitsch, and Janowski), where he finished behind Lasker, Capablanca, and Alekhine, but ahead of Marshall. Tarrasch won the key game Capablanca vs Tarrasch, 1914 against Capablanca. That, in conjunction with Lasker's own immortal win over Capablanca, allowed Lasker to come from behind and win the tournament ahead of Capablanca. (Everyone always remarks on Lasker's win over Capa, but fails to recognize that Tarrasch's win was also necessary for Lasker to win. You can't overcome a 1.5 point deficit in one game.) That must have left a bittersweet taste in Tarrasch's mouth.
Jul-01-23
Premium Chessgames Member
  FSR: <Petrosianic: <Capablanca demanded that his challenger come up with a huge purse, and it took six years for someone (Alekhine) to do so.>

That's Half True at best. In fact, Alekhine challenged under the London Rules, which all the top players, including Alekhine himself, had agreed to at London 1922. Capablanca didn't name his own price.>

I think I knew that at some prior time, but had forgotten. Excellent point. My recollection is that Alekhine expressed bitterness about the purse Capablanca demanded, but his complaint is greatly undercut by his prior agreement to that condition.

Jul-01-23
Premium Chessgames Member
  MissScarlett: < In fact, Alekhine challenged under the London Rules, which all the top players, including Alekhine himself, had agreed to at London 1922.>

Capa made him an offer he couldn't refuse.

Jul-01-23  sudoplatov: Tarrasch had poor results right after WWI. However, he did show some strength at times like Vienna 1922 (4th) when he was 58. He was 4th in Trieste 1923 but that was a fairly weak tournament by Tarrasch's standards.

Only Lasker seems to have not aged too much. Sometimes I think the older guys play to give the younger ones a reasonable hurdle; they won't win too often but they are clever enough to refute most blunders.

It's interesting how well some "amateurs" do in chess: Tarrasch, Maroczy, Duras, Euwe, Bernstein, Kolish, ....

Dec-17-24
Premium Chessgames Member
  Chessical: The conditions of the match as given in "Der Schachwettkampf Lasker - Tarrasch um die Weltmeisterschaft im August - September 1908" were:

Victory: The winner would be the first to win eight games, with draws not counting. Prize: The winner would receive a prize of 4,000 marks, and the loser would receive 2,500 marks.

Lasker's Fee: Dr. Lasker would receive a fixed fee of 7,500 marks.

Tarrasch's Fee: Dr. Tarrasch would waive a playing fee to facilitate the match, but would be guaranteed compensation for his expenses by the German Chess Federation, which he would waive in whole or in part in the event of his victory.

Start Date and Location: The match would begin on Monday, August 17, 1908, at 2:45 PM in Düsseldorf and would continue and end in Munich from August 31, 1908.

Playing Schedule: There would be six playing days per week, with no more than six hours of play per day.

Rest Days: Each player would have the right to take five days off, but this must be notified to the opponent's second at least one hour before the start of the playing time.

Game Frequency: No second game would be started on any given day.

Playing Speed: Each player must make 15 moves per hour, with saved time being credited.

Impartial Referee: An impartial referee would be chosen before the start of the match.

Seconds: Each player would choose a second at each location where the match was played, whose task would be to determine the facts in case of a disagreement and present them in written form to the match referee for arbitration.

Draw After 50 Moves: Either opponent could at any time request that the game be declared a draw after 50 moves, unless it had already been decided.

Use of Entry Fees: Any entry fees would be used to cover the shortfall guaranteed by Dr. Tarrasch, the costs of the German Chess Federation up to a maximum of 500 marks, and the surplus would be divided equally between the two players.

Ownership of Games: Each of the two players would have ownership rights to the games.

Forfeit Fee: Each of the two players would undertake to pay a deposit of 2,000 marks to the German Chess Federation. This amount would be forfeited to the opponent if either of the two masters withdrew before the start of the match. It would be repaid after the first game had been played.If a player wanted to protest something, they had to submit the protest in writing to the opponent's second, who would then include it with the record of the facts and present it to the impartial referee for a final decision. Each player had the right to reject two of their opponent's seconds, and if necessary, the local committee would provide a second. Additionally, the seconds were responsible for checking the clocks before the start of the game.

Dec-27-24
Premium Chessgames Member
  Chessical: After the match, Dr Tarrasch published a book reviewing the games. It did not meet with universal acclaim. A review from the '(Neue) Wiener Schachzeitung' of March 1909:

A new book by Dr. Tarrasch:

"The Lasker-Tarrasch Chess Match"

has recently been published. (Published by Veit & Co. in Leipzig; price 3 marks.) Foaming and tingling, puffing and often a little fire-breathing—as the author's cheerful mood dictated—strong in assertions, weak in proof, courageous in criticism, sparing in praise of the opponent's moves, but full of tender consideration for his own—the real Tarrasch, as he lives and breathes, confronts us on every page of this book. Quite naturally, since every person is trapped in his own skin for life.

The admirable clarity with which Dr. Lasker explained all positions immediately after the end of the game—still, so to speak, amid the thunder of the cannons and in the fog of gunpowder smoke—for the "Pester Lloyd") and for the "Münchener Neuesten Nachrichten" was something Dr. Tarrasch could not achieve this, despite months of analysis. He criticizes good moves and praises weak ones, his "proofs" are incomplete and obvious mistakes are praised as subtle, winning combinations. The hotly contested question of whether Lasker's victory was due to real superiority or just a coincidence of fortunate circumstances has thus been finally decided. Dr. Tarrasch has proved more clearly through his book than through the championship match that he is no match for Lasker. Nevertheless, no one who wants to perfect their chess skills should now think that they can do without studying this book.

Dec-27-24  stone free or die: That's a butal review, yips!
Dec-28-24  FM David H. Levin: <<stone free or die>: That's a butal review, yips!>

Yet it concludes with support, albeit too cool to register on thermometers then in use.

This makes me wonder whether ending chess-book reviews positively was standard practice back then.

Dec-28-24  Olavi: Since the review is from the Wiener, it must be from the feather of Georg Marco, a brilliant writer - and a pen enemy of Tarrasch. Yes, the match book is not one of Tarrasch's better achievements.
Dec-28-24
Premium Chessgames Member
  Chessical: The review was written by Albin.
Dec-28-24  FM David H. Levin: <<Chessical>: The review was written by Albin.>

Albin's Cutting Camp Bit?

Dec-28-24  stone free or die: Here's a link to the article on <Hathitrust>:

https://hdl.handle.net/2027/njp.321...

And here it is on <Anno>:

https://anno.onb.ac.at/cgi-content/...

It's not entirely clear to me that Albin wrote the review, though he did extensively publish analysis on the match. .

Dec-29-24
Premium Chessgames Member
  Chessical: <Stone free or die>, the book review is entitled "Review of the Tarrasch book by S. Alapin in Munich." Also, he is referred to in the footnotes of the same page.
Dec-30-24  stone free or die: <Chessical> using the OCR text translated I get this from my <anno> link above:

<No. 5/6. March 190a. XII. Year

A new book by Dr. Tarrasch: "The Lasker-Tarrasch Chess Match" was recently published. (Published by Veit& Co. in Leipzig; price 3 marks.) Foaming and sparkling, puffing and often a little fire spitting—as the author's cheerful mood dictated—strong in allegations, weak in evidence, bold in criticism, sparing in praise the opponent's moves, but full of tender consideration for one's own — the real Tarrasch as he lives and breathes appears on every page This book is quite natural, as every human being has trapped in his own skin. ...

Of course, it also offers a wealth of beautiful, instructive remarks and From mistakes, under expert guidance, one can learn very useful truths I must leave this instruction to Mr. Alapin,
who published an extensive,
interesting and theoretically valuable series of articles on the “Tar- raschbuch”, which was very sharp with the author—almost I would say too harshly—in judgment.
Mr. Alapin was kind enough to publish his publications from the “Mün chener Neuesten Nachrichten” for the “Wiener Schachzeitung” partly to rework and supplement it in accordance with the latest standpoint. The following work by Alapin is therefore partly to be regarded as “original final contribution”.>

Dec-30-24  stone free or die: But now that you've called my attention to it, the second page of the issue does have a *different* review by Albin, which I'll include here for convenience (translated of course):

<Review of the Tarrasch book.

By S. Alapin in Munich.

Essentially, the author endeavours to prove that “he suffered defeat but was not defeated”. It There have been many situations in which “a player second place in his place would have won the games play after he, Dr. Tarrasch, once the winning positions Only lack of previous practice had caused his failure Despite the official contract of Koburg being signed on July 24th was signed by both sides, but the match only took place on August 17th gust began, he had only fourteen(!) days before the start of the competition fight the certainty that the competition is secured, and by a telegram about the deposit of the repentance money from 2000 Marks from Lasker”. When Dr. Lasker deposited the reu money for Dr. Tarrasch is not disclosed. Dr. Tarrasch had not succeeded in finding a master craftsman in the short term For this purpose he recently had “a Mr. A. R*) n offered a “nice fee”. The latter, however, said under the pretext of feeling unwell. Meanwhile, Dr. Tarrasch later found out the real reason: Mr. A. R n “did not want come because he feared that this would put Lasker at a disadvantage!” One should but believe that it is an act of ethics when a professional player**) waived “arbitrary fee” just to avoid going against a colleague Dr. Tarrasch, who takes a different view, puts forward his in the following form in the book: “Such a— (the one addition of the noun I must, in order to remain nice and parliamentary, to the esteemed readers, on whose zoological knowledge I appellire).” This can be read verbatim on page 112 of the book! How can you hope for consideration if you don't practice it?... Be that as it may, lack of prior practice could at most explain the Düsseldorf part of the match, but it should be noted would be that Lasker's last exercise with masters since his competition against Marshall, while Dr. Tarrasch has since then played major tournaments Between Düsseldorf and Munich there is a Week, during which a rich selection of masters will be present at Mr. Dr. Tarrasch was actually available free of charge. (The gentlemen Mieses and Wolf, for example.) In any case, for the Munich part There is no serious question of a lack of previous practice. But also of In the twelve Munich games, Dr. Tarrasch scored only 4 x /2 points. He has not won a single one of the last four games, although he has 12 (!) serious practice games behind him. How many games does he need because for practice?... Incidentally, in his most successful phase of Matches (No. 5 to 12 inclusive) he also lost: 2 to 3 different points.

Lack of prior practice can only lead to fleeting oversights in limited playing time. When glossing the games after weeks of consideration using the material from all other critics no longer have the quoted apology. That Dr. Tarrasch took plenty of time to write his book The fact that he even remembered the Luxus allowed an appendix of 24 pages about certain tower ends games to add to the book. From a time expenditure to further Revision of his game glosses he did not expect any completion more. These glosses are therefore the quintessence and final instance his chess skills. Unfortunately, these glosses prove It is clear that Dr. Tarrasch’s errors were by no means fleeting nature, but that they were based on a fundamentally wrong assessment of the positions in question. Because even today, in the book In most relevant cases, he issues judgments that allow will amaze you!... The scope of the present essay does not allow a discussion of all the countless errors. In the I therefore limit myself to only to pick out an illustrative example.

*) Mr. Alapin is extremely well informed. He is really Mr. AR In his book, however, Dr. Tarrasch has never mentioned the initials AR, but only spoke of a “different” master. GM

**) I use the word following the abuse that has occurred in relation to Chess master has unfortunately naturalized. (A).>

(See post above for link)

Dec-30-24  stone free or die: So we have two reviews - once by Marco (presumably), and a second one by Albin.

At least I think so.

Dec-30-24  Olavi: Semyon Alapin Adolf Albin

Both gentlemen may have been in Munich at the time, but this is Alapin.

And it is clear that the piece on the frontpage is by Marco.

Dec-30-24  stone free or die: Sorry <Olavi>, I typed Albin in a state of mental confusion, but the text I quoted itself sets the record straight -

The first review is by Marco (almost certainly)

The second is by Alapin (100%).

Jan-25-25
Premium Chessgames Member
  Chessical: In his book of the match (1908) there is an extract "Scenes from the Lasker-Tarrasch chess match" by Fritz Tarrasch (p.118).

He describes the enormous public interest in the chess match. It attracted a daily average of 1,400 spectators in Munich. A local bookshop sold a hundred copies of Dufresne's chess textbook in five days. The audience consisted of a diverse group of people, including aristocrats, commoners, and foreigners. There were also many female spectators, who mostly supported Dr. Tarrasch. The spectators were interested in the players' moves, behavior, and emotions. In a separate room, a group of people analyzed the game and made predictions about the outcome. Dr. Bertold Lasker, brother of the world champion, provided commentary and analysis for the press. It concludes by mentioning that there were already plans for a rematch between Lasker and Tarrasch.

Jan-25-25
Premium Chessgames Member
  Chessical: Tarrasch included a newspaper article in his book (p.121). It was originally published in the "Frankfurter Zeitung" of 2nd October 1908.

Written by Ranneforth, it discussed whether Lasker truly dominated Tarrasch to the extent that the final score suggested. Tarrasch lost the match but was not outplayed. Tarrasch played well in the second half of the match, despite the pressure. The article argues that the match was too short. Lasker and Tarrasch had different playing styles. Tarrasch was a skilled theorist, while Lasker was a bold practitioner. The article concluded by saying that the match did not prove Lasker's superiority over Tarrasch.

Undoubtedly, Tarrasch was pleased with this assessment of the match.

Jump to page #    (enter # from 1 to 5)
search thread:   
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 5 OF 5 ·  Later Kibitzing>

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.
  8. Do not degrade Chessgames or any of it's staff/volunteers.

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 tournament 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 Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors.
All moderator actions taken are ultimately at the sole discretion of the administration.

Spot an error? Please suggest your correction and help us eliminate database mistakes!
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 2001-2025, Chessgames Services LLC