KEG: By this point in the 1902 Schlechter-Janowski match, Schlecter had taken a commanding and almost certainly decisive edge. This was a match for a projected 14 games. Of the first eight games, Schlechter had five wins to Janowski's one (the other two games having been drawn). To have any chance of catching (let alone overtaking Schlechter), Janowski would have to win his remaining three games as White and then manage to win at least one game as Black. It was thus vital for Janowski to win the instant game (Game #9) while Schlechter only needed a draw to render Janowski's task close to impossible. This helps explain what happened in the game. Schlechter tried to avoid complications while Janowski desperately needed a win. When the game--despite all of Janowski's efforts--reduced to a drawn minor piece ending, Janowski must have been frustrated.
But then, on move 44, Schlechter erred and needlessly allowed Janowski to win a pawn. But even then the Knight and two pawns against Bishop and pawn ending was almost certainly a theoretical draw, Janowski, however, refused to accept this result, and forced Schlechter to play on for more than fifty moves. Even worse from a sporting perspective, the triple-repetition rule seems not to have been in effect. On no fewer than SIX occasions, there was a triple repetition on the board, but Schlechter had to play on in a position in which only a gross blunder could have allowed Janowski to win. The game dragged on for two days before Janowski, after 101 moves, agreed to a draw.
This result meant that Schlechter remained four games ahead, now with only five games to play. Technically, Schlechter did not clinch a win with this draw. But it was now clear to anyone watching the games that Janowski (with only two games as White remaining) was a dead duck in this match/
1. e4 e5
Schlechter had played the French Defense in Game #3 (which he won) but played 1...e5 in the other games in this match in which he was Black.
2. Nf3 Nc6
Schlechter had played (and won with) the Petroff Defense in Game #1, but played 2...Nc6 in Games 5 and 7--and again here.
3. Bb5 Nf6
In Games 5 (a draw) and 7 (Janowski's only win), Schlechter had played 3...a6. Having lost in Game #7, Schlechter chose to vary here with the text.
4. 0-0 Nxe4
5. d4 Be7
The more usual 5...Nd6 immediately is probably slightly more accurate.
6. Qe2
As both players undoubtedly knew, the text yields a slight opening advantage for White. Schlechter probably liked the exchange of minor pieces--including Janowski's White square Bishop--seemingly confident he could achieve a draw from the somewhat inferior Black position.
6... Nd6
7. BxN bxB
8. dxe5 Nf5
The text certainly looks superior to the then more usual (but hopelessly cramped) 8...Nb7. White is still better, but Schlechter correctly concluded that the text was a superior way to play for a draw:
Desperate for a win, Janowski was not satisfied with the more usual ways of retaining White's small edge (i.e., 9. Qe4; 9. Nc3; or 9. c4) and so elected to try to give the usually unflappable Schlecter a jolt:
9. g4?!
As always, Schlechter took this in his stride and calmly and confidently achieved a safe position:
9... Nh4
10. NxN BxN
11. f4 Be7
Schlechter now had the two Bishops and a safe position with no obvious weaknesses. I will discuss how Janowski tried to created complications from here and how Schlechter refused to get distracted in my next post on this game.
Kibitzing
