< The occasion of Dr. Tarrasch's 60-th birthday allows me to repay a part of an old, heavy debt. Together with other young masters I searched new paths in chess and I fought long and hard against the masters of old, not only over the board, but also by my pen and ink. And I fought primarily against Dr. Tarrasch, for in him I saw then and I see now the very paragon of chess of his era.

Yet I also have had a guilty conscience that I, a young person, have so often lead an attack against this man, who can look back upon a life full of activity and accomplishments, who in his own youth was great innovator, from whom we learned so much. Thus I have looked for an opportunity to ease my conscience and say, as well as I can, what Tarrasch has ment fopr chess. I do not know if I am the most apropriate person to do so, but I do feel to be the most obligated one.

--- a long background on state of chess art during Steinitz years ---

...Tarrasch's biggest chess contribution was that he combined the technique of Steinitz with an otherwise common chess practice of fast development (Steinitz had a tendency to neglect that). Thus Tarrasch created a playing style that remains a fundamental cornerstone of chess till this day.

Tarrasch further developed another branch of Steinitz research, that of correct handling of cramped position of an oponent. That is not a trite or trifling aspect of Steinitz teaching. Oh, contraire! Quite possibly, spatial advantage may be the most important of Steinitz positional advantages because most other types of positional edge, such a twin bishops or weak squares, can transform into spatial gains. We shall remind ourselves that most of the famous tournament wins of Maroczy, Schlechter, Teichmann, and many others came as a result of progresive crowding of their oponent, and thus we will discover also here the degree of critical influence of Dr Tarrasch on the chess development of his time.

The impact of Dr. Tarrasch comes not only from his practical chess activities, but also from his literary writings. In a sharp contrast to other masters who kept their methods secret, Tarrasch always shared his theories, his way of thinking, and he put them up for a debate. .... Perhaps his accomplishment could have been even greater -- and they were grand -- had Tarrasch not shared all of his discoveries. But our descendants, who will certainly not only value chess as a sport, but rather view it as an art, will certainly appreciate Dr. Tarrasch not only according to his results -- and even those were certainly great -- but rather according to the intrinsic content of his contribution.

...

Tarrasch always valued his beloved chess. And he always lead a life of a high priest of the art!

Tarrasch vs Schlechter, 1894

Tarrasch vs G Marco, 1898

Tarrasch vs Walbrodt, 1898

Although they did their their work primarily due to sincere intellectual curiosity, it was also necessary to give credibility, to assign serious scientific weight to a pursuit viewed by many as somewhat frivolous.

Sometimes almost fanatical swearing by, and adherence to the newly discovered principles came with the territory. Historically, the course was the same, or similar, in other fields. Until they were taken seriously.

Rather than nitpicking on a particular phraseology, we should be grateful to the Pioneers and Teachers.

By the way, was it not Dr.Tarrasch who remarked that Nimzowitch was so "anti-dogmatic" in his views of the predecessors that that in itself constituted a form of dogmatism :-)

"Tarrasch granted me the honour of playing a serious game with him. My opening play was ... most bizarre, as I was already consciously avoiding well-worn paths. A lot of spectators gathered ...

After the tenth move, Tarrasch, folding his arms across his chest, suddenly made the following pronouncement: 'Never in my life have I had such a won game after ten moves as I have now!' The game, incidentally, ended in a draw. But for a long time I could not forgive Tarrasch for the 'insult' he inflicted on me in front of all those onlookers. Soon afterwards this game was published, to the great annoyance of Tarrasch ... "

Position after <10...cxd5>:

click for larger view

Tarrasch vs Nimzowitsch, 1904

Tournament result (based on 22 rounds, in order):

<Have all your moves fit definite plans. When ahead in material, trade down safely and quickly. Avoid doubled pawns, isolated and backward pawns. In cramped positions free yourself by exchanging. Do not expose your king when queens roam the board. All combinations are based on the double attack, or weak pieces. If your opponent has exposed pieces look for a combination. Look to open lines to the king.>

I am not going to get in a fight with you. We have had too many. And there are plenty of people who can defend Nimzowitsch better than I can. But that's got to be the most off-target thing I've ever read about Nimzo's chess.

http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/...

Tarrasch explained his bad start to the 1908 WC match against Lasker and says that a master didn't play the training match with him they agreed upon. So <keypusher> asked for the identity of the master and Edward Winter says:

<This matter was touched on by Emanuel Lasker in the New York Evening Post of 24 October 1908:

You said German chess circles - Would Tarrasch consider players (like Schlechter) from the Austro-Hungarian Empire to be part of German chess circles (or would they do so)?

<When was the training match to take place?>

Tricky question. The negotiations for the match were very difficult and prolonged, because Lasker was demanding a large honorarium from the German chess clubs that were sponsoring the match. The first section of Tarrasch's match book consists of a blow-by-blow account of the negotiations. Tarrasch wrote that for a long time he doubted that the match would take place, because he did not think Lasker's demands would be met. Not until shortly before the match (two weeks, I think) was everything in place. And at that time, Tarrasch wrote, he tried frantically to get the master to come and start playing with him, but the master made himself unreachable.

<You said German chess circles - Would Tarrasch consider players (like Schlechter) from the Austro-Hungarian Empire to be part of German chess circles (or would they do so)?>

Yes, I think so. Remember that Germany as a nation separate and distinct from Austria was less than 40 years old when the Tarrasch-Lasker match took place. There is also the fact that Tarrasch stresses the jealousy of the master: he did not want to help Tarrasch, because Tarrasch might win and that would make Tarrasch grander than he already was. Well, why wouldn't the master be equally concerned about making Lasker grander? One possible explanation would be that Tarrasch lived in Germany, while Lasker, at that time, lived in the United States. (Incidentally, Tarrasch's stressing of the master's supposed jealousy provides indirect evidence that he was writing about Schlechter, not Rubinstein; in 1908 Rubinstein was just establishing himself as a first-rate master on the international chess scene, while Schlecter had been well-established since at least Hastings 1895. So Rubinstein had much less cause to be jealous.)

Of course, I can't pretend that I really know whether Austrian chessplayers in 1908 considered themselves part of a larger German-speaking chess community. But I suspect that they did.

<It would be interesting to find out more about Lasker's source since he said that Tarrasch wrote it. So there must be some article or book.>

<Not until shortly before the match (two weeks, I think) was everything in place. And at that time, Tarrasch wrote, he tried frantically to get the master to come and start playing with him, but the master made himself unreachable.>

Rubinstein's last tournament before the Lasker-Tarrasch WC match took place was in Prage (Schlechter was also there, May-18 to June-12) and afterwards (in autumn) he played in Lodz only (Marshall visited Poland). I think it may have been quite difficult to travel from Poland to Germany at short notice.

<Yes, I think so. Remember that Germany as a nation separate and distinct from Austria was less than 40 years old when the Tarrasch-Lasker match took place.>

But the separation from Germany had taken place long ago already. Austria became a dukedom (privilegium minus) in the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation in 1156 thanks to Barbarossa. Austria got under Habsburg rule in 1282. Karl the Fifth (1500-1556) turned it into a world empire. In 1804 Franz the Second became Emperor of Austria (-> Franz the First) and on Aug-6 1806 Franz the First put down the imperial crown of the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation.

Not to forget wars like the first silesian war (1740-1742) between Prussia and Austria. The second silesian war followed (1744-1745), etc.

Carlsbad 1907 for example saw Heinrich Wolf longing for a victory of Maroczy since both players were represantatives of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.

<There is also the fact that Tarrasch stresses the jealousy of the master: he did not want to help Tarrasch, because Tarrasch might win and that would make Tarrasch grander than he already was.>

I agree with you - That's a bit strange regarding Rubinstein whose greatest successes were yet to come. Schlechter might have appeared to be jealous of Tarrasch since Tarrasch got the chance to play (and perhaps beat) the WC while Schlechter may have thought he deserved it also (in 1908) and he only had to wait two years to get his WC match.

<Of course, I can't pretend that I really know whether Austrian chessplayers in 1908 considered themselves part of a larger German-speaking chess community. But I suspect that they did.>

Probably depends on the chessplayer if he did or not. You can still distinguish yourself from people from other countries despite similarities concerning to the language (e. g. USA - UK; Germany - Switzerland - Austria). So the reason for the alleged jealousy might be that Tarrasch got the chance to play a WC match and may have had nothing to do with the chessplayer being part of a larger German-speaking chess community ("German-speaking" in the widest sense - e. g. this might include Rubinstein again if he spoke Yiddish) and the latter part being merely a characterization of the chessplayer and not being connected to the reason for the alleged jealousy. Tarrasch may have thought that every chessplayer (except for Lasker and Marshall) would be jealous of him.

<For my part, I can make a more complete and competent translation of Tarrasch's remarks about this training match that never was. But probably it will be a while before I get around to it.>