| Lasker - Janowski (1909) |
|
Two separate matches were held in Paris in 1909. The first was a short four-game match which Janowski drew, encouraging his backers to support a larger-scale match in which Lasker dominated. Adding up these 1909 purse(s) indicates that Leo Nardus helped the challenger raise their portion of the 7000 francs jackpot. Research has demonstrated that the World Championship title was not at stake in either match. Challenger Match (May 12-21, 1909):
1 2 3 4
Lasker 1 0 0 1 2.0
Janowski 0 1 1 0 2.0
World Championship Exhibition (October 19 - November 9, 1909): 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0
Lasker = 1 1 1 1 0 1 = 1 1 8.0
Janowski = 0 0 0 0 1 0 = 0 0 2.0
The Lasker - Schlechter World Championship Match (1910) was held during the next winter, and the Lasker - Janowski World Championship Match (1910) was arranged later that year.Based on an original collections by User: suenteus po 147.
|
|
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| May-21-14 | | Shams: I wonder who first advanced the theory of Lasker playing bad moves on purpose. |
|
May-21-14
 | | Sally Simpson: Reti and everyone copied him.
Tarrasch was of the opinion Lasker practised 'Dark Arts', 'Witchcraft' or 'Hypnotism'. |
|
| May-21-14 | | Shams: <Sally Simpson> I see, thank you. Was Reti prone to similar speculations about other players? |
|
May-21-14
| | Sally Simpson: Hi Shams,
He seems to be OK with the other players in 'Masters of the Chessboard." But nobody could figure out Lasker (we still can't! Fischer called him a coffee house player.). Reit explains his reasoning.
At first Reti thought it was luck that Lasker won so many games others would lose. Then he realised that was silly so came to the conclussion: "Lasker often deliberately plays badly." and goes as far as saying Lasker could not win a game unless at some stage he was close to losing. He thought some of the games Lasker won he would not have won had he played 'correct and steady Chess.' Ground breaking stuff and it did open up a new theory. Pity is no one really questioned it till many years later. There again who knows - he may be right. Great player Lasker and I think Soltis captures him very well, but he is still very hard to pigeon hole. |
|
| May-21-14 | | john barleycorn: Lasker in his book "common sense in chess" said that Reti could make deep combinations, his combinations of a 100 moves are often correct, true inspirations but that his 2 moves combinations are often incorrect. Maybe Reti in his effort to decode Lasker's style could not get over this. |
|
| May-21-14 | | john barleycorn: Classical games: Emanuel Lasker beat Richard Reti 4 to 0, with 2 draws. |
|
| May-23-14 | | ughaibu: Keypusher: How about 13...Qa2? Ilyin-Zhenevsky vs Lasker, 1925 |
|
May-23-14
 | | keypusher: <ughaibu>
Since 13....Qxa2 isn't inferior (it or ...b5 seems to be the best move), it doesn't qualify. Bogoljubov's sensible comment: <A rather odd combination of Lasker's which happens to turn out very well indeed; yet, it was fairly risky to give up the Q for and R and a B even though Black does secure a fairly sound position. Lasker probably wished to avoid the exchange of Queens because he considered it to give White a superior position.> I-Z does really seem to go to pieces afterwards, though. |
|
| May-27-14 | | ughaibu: Fair enough, though one could speculate that Lasker thought it inferior, as the other players reportedly thought so when it was played. Perhaps a better place to look for an example is in an unfavourable endgame, or an opponent's time-trouble. |
|
May-27-14
| | keypusher: <ughaibu>
<Perhaps a better place to look for an example is in an unfavourable endgame, or an opponent's time-trouble.> I did say <one> example, so I asked for that. On the other hand, if we see Lasker doing what any chess master would do (try to complicate in a bad position), it doesn't really seem to tell us much about his approach. All those caveats out of the way, I don't know of good examples. I know he was in bad time pressure in the famous game against Napier, but his famous 25.Bxh5 was just a way to simplify, give the rook back and reach a won ending. Lasker vs W Napier, 1904
In this game 35.Qxa7 is supposed to be a mistake, but an inferior move made deliberately? I doubt it. Lasker vs Maroczy, 1924
I'm not up to tackling this game at midnight local time... Lasker vs Schlechter, 1910
This game is in the ballpark, but you can see from my kibitzes that I don't think it qualifies. Lasker vs G Marco, 1896 |
|
| May-30-14 | | ughaibu: Lasker vs W Napier, 1904 is a good one. Even in the 60s (or whenever it was that Euwe wrote The Development of Chess Style) Lasker's h3 and g4 was considered to be nonsense and responsible for his problems. The two main problems are 1. Lasker himself may not have thought it inferior, and 2. is there any annotator or computer yet born or written/fabricated, that is better able to judge than Lasker? In short, perhaps neither man nor machine will ever be strong enough to state when Lasker went wrong by design. Accordingly, we seem to be stuck with having to rely on a Lasker confession, if there is one. I'm a little saddened that nobody shares my enthusiasm for the project, surely, together, we can find at least one example of Lasker intentionally choosing an inferior move? |
|
May-30-14
| | keypusher: <Even in the 60s (or whenever it was that Euwe wrote The Development of Chess Style) Lasker's h3 and g4 was considered to be nonsense and responsible for his problems.> I doubt Euwe thought anything of the kind. Euwe vs Najdorf, 1953 He may have thought he was helping student chessplayers by writing it. It would be good to see some contemporaneous annotations of Lasker-Napier. The notes I've seen to his games written in the 1890s and 1900s never mention psychology, that's for sure. Of Bird vs Lasker, 1895 Blackburne writes <Mr. Lasker's play throughout the whole of this game is characterised by his usual correctness and force>. That's a typical comment. |
|
| May-30-14 | | ughaibu: I don't remember in great detail what Euwe wrote about h3 and g4, but it wasn't overflowing praise and I see no reason to suppose he didn't mean it. What's the relevance of the Najdorf game? Is there a comment by someone I have on ignore? |
|
May-30-14
 | | Stonehenge: According to both http://resolver.kb.nl/resolve?urn=d... and http://resolver.kb.nl/resolve?urn=d... Lasker won the first two games of the May match. |
|
May-30-14
| | keypusher: <ughaibu: I don't remember in great detail what Euwe wrote about h3 and g4, but it wasn't overflowing praise and I see no reason to suppose he didn't mean it. What's the relevance of the Najdorf game? Is there a comment by someone I have on ignore?> I thought it was an example of him making the same sort of moves that Lasker made against Napier. |
|
| May-30-14 | | ughaibu: Okay, I don't see it myself, but anyway. . . you made a great point, that Euwe was intentionally penning inferior annotations to psychologically manipulate his reader. Of course, unless we have Euwe, in print, or while substituting in a game of Maroczy's, confessing to this behaviour, we must admit that we're speculating. Reti too, might moot from beyond the grave, his right to speculate. I'm not a lawyer, but I'd prefer evidence a little harder. |
|
May-30-14
| | keypusher: <ughaibu: Okay, I don't see it myself, but anyway. . . you made a great point, that Euwe was intentionally penning inferior annotations to psychologically manipulate his reader.> Yes, disappointing, given that he was such a moral exemplar otherwise. I suppose headmasters bowdlerized Plato for the same reasons. |
|
| May-30-14 | | ughaibu: About disappointments; I was body-to-head slammed by a crow while cycling home yesterday. |
|
May-30-14
 | | perfidious: <ughhaibu: About disappointments; I was body-to-head slammed by a crow while cycling home yesterday.> The crow obviously came off with by far the worse of things. |
|
| May-31-14 | | ughaibu: Keypusher: How about 14....Ng4? Tarrasch vs Lasker, 1908 |
|
| Jul-22-14 | | Karpova: <Dr. Lasker has now defeated decisively Steinitz, Marshall, Dr. Tarrasch and Janowski, although the encounter with the Parisian was not in the nature of a match, and not for the title, as in the case of each of the other opponents.> Source: 'American Chess Bulletin', January 1910, p. 2 (on the October-November 1909 match against Janowski in Paris). |
|
| Jul-16-16 | | zanzibar: Well, maybe the title wasn't at stake, but the match was important enough for WSZ to run an in-depth article about it, with a almost full-page photograph of the players. It's a shame <CG> doesn't have it at the top of the page. Now, where's that dropbox? |
|
Mar-02-17
 | | offramp: <Zanzibar> For the first 4-game match the stakes were divided, which meant that each player received 1,250 francs. |
|
| Aug-09-24 | | Petrosianic: Many older books list the second 1909 match as a World Championship Match, but it seems generally agreed now that it wasn't. |
|
Aug-09-24
| | perfidious: <Geoff....Great player Lasker and I think Soltis captures him very well, but he is still very hard to pigeon hole.> The difficulty even Lasker's greatest rivals experienced in coming to grips with his style attests to that. |
|
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
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:
- No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.
- No spamming, advertising, duplicate, or gibberish posts.
- No vitriolic or systematic personal attacks against other members.
- Nothing in violation of United States law.
- No cyberstalking or malicious posting of negative or private information (doxing/doxxing) of members.
- No trolling.
- 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.
- Do not degrade Chessgames or any of it's staff/volunteers.
Please try to maintain a semblance of civility at all times.
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!
Copyright 2001-2025, Chessgames Services LLC
|
Kibitzing
