Few months after his victory in San Sebastian Tournament, Jose Raul Capablanca (1988-1942) from Cuba issued a challenge to Lasker. Lasker answered through the Evening Post of November 8th 1911: “If this match should come to pass it will be the hardest struggle that ever…I will take some time to work out terms and conditions upon a basis of justice to all concerned, but I do not hesitate that in principle I am ready to defend the title.”
In the ACB of February 1912 Lasker and Capablanca published their views on the regulations (annex). But no agreement was reached between the two Masters and the matter was sent to Walter Penn Shipley for arbitrage. Many believe that Lasker was to strict and try to force unfair conditions to his young challenger among them: time limit, stakes, playing time and the limit of 30 games. The BCM of February 1912 wrote on the subject add:“…Lasker’s hustling method of refusing the present challenge can only be scored against him. It may lessen his popularity but can not jeopardize his title.”
Walter Penn Shipley wrote on February 5th:“…I fear it is more than likely that my decision, when given, will not prove entirely satisfactory to either Lasker or Capablanca. I do not see anything has been published by either player that should prevent an amicable understanding or interfere with players meetings upon friendly terms in a match for the championship.”
Lasker who apparently didn’t receive this letter on time wrote to the Mr. Walter Penn Shipley on February 20th:”…Capablanca has aimed a deliberate blow to my honour. I therefore broke off all direct negotiations with him…”
After the endless negotiation between Lasker-Capablanca which unfortunately collapsed, Akiba Rubinstein came to the picture. An interesting editorial of BCM appeared in January 1913:“ …If the match between Capablanca and Lasker had taken place it would be certainly have given a crowning distinction in 1912, yet I have a notion that a meeting between Capablanca and Rubinstein would have been more interesting…Rubinstein was intent for a championship match. This will be a momentous event if it comes about re-establishing the present champion, perhaps for good and all, or else finally passing the title on to another generation. Of course it cannot be lightly undertaken by Lasker-he has everything to lose; and of course Rubinstein is eager, for his has much to gain.”
BCM mentioned in April 1913 that Lasker was proposing to found an international federation to settle questions affecting the chess world and guide its undertakings. In September of the same year the St. Petersburg grand Master’ Tourney is announced for April next year. Most of the top players of the world will be invited but Lasker has declined the invitation (he will change his mind a bit later). The Committee intends to join with the British Chess Federation, the Deutsches Schachbund and other organizations discuss and finalize terms for a World Championship match between the winner of the tournament and Lasker. Should the latter decline, then the winner of the St. Petersburg grand Master’ Tourney will rank a world champion.
The Schachwart magazine published the condition of the match agreed on by Lasker and Rubinstein. The winner of the best twenty games will be world’s champion: if the issue is decisive, Lasker to remain champion. The match will begin when at least 10,000 marks will be collected. Later it was said that Lasker was demanding Clubs or Unions a payment of 1,500 marks per games for the taking over of four games. A huge sum of money at the time and the all business was heavily criticized I the German press.
The ACB reproduced in his issue of January 1914 an statement of Lasker: “Supposing all my hope are realized, the income for the match for both players would amount about $ 8,000. This would be our compensation for fully six month of work. Why should not the chess Masters earn a decent wage when chess player all over the world would be interested in such match? The condition made in this instance were adopted so as to give chess master a proper social standing, and if the public were to support such a movement, then chess player would not starve as old age overtook them.” According Lasker, the match will take place next summer and fourteen games has been bid by the club of Berlin, Frankfurt, Moscow, Lodz and Warsaw.
In the same issue confident that the match will start soon, the ACB lunched a subscription for the Lasker-Rubinstein book of the match at $ 5.00 each
The British Chess Federation, one of the oldest federation created in 1903 made a call through his honorary Secretary Mr. Rees for the creation of an international world-wide body with the aim to create rules to govern match for the world chess championship and other international matter. The full text was sent begin of 1914 to leading organizations and individual authorities together with a draft of the suggested championship rules.
Proposed Rules for the Competition for the World’s Championship.
1—That the competition for the world’s championship shall be controlled by the I. C. F. (International Chess Federation) under the conditions laid down by these rules.
2 the title of Chess Champion of the World shall be gained by playing and winning a match with the existing champion.
3—That such match shall be brought about by a challenge to the champion by another player, such challenge, with proposed conditions, to be sent by the challenger to the secretaries of the boards meeting in the countries in which the champion challenger reside, to the General Secretary of the I. C. F., and also to the champion himself.
4—That the conditions of the match shall, if possible, be agreed by the champion and challenger direct, subject to these rules.
5—That in the event of an agreement not being arrived at within six weeks of the date of receipt of the challenge, the challenger shall have the right of submitting his final terms to the I. C. F. through the secretary of the board meeting in the country in which the champion resides, or, if there be no such board, through the secretary of the board meeting in the country in which the challenger resides, or, if there be no such alternative board, through the General Secretary of the I. C. F.
6—That, in either of the first two cases mentioned in the last rule, the board receiving the reference of final terms from the challenger shall, if the board consider them reasonable, or with such modifications, accepted by the challenger, as the board deem right, advise the champion of these final conditions, requesting his acceptance of same. In the third case, the matter shall be dealt with by the Referee Board in a similar manner.
7—That if the champion refuses to accept these conditions he must, within two weeks of their receipt by him, furnish to the secretary of the acting board a statement of his reasons for such refusal.
8—That the acting board shall decide whether such reasons are satisfactory, and, If not, it shall direct that the match take place in accordance with the approved conditions, and in the event of the champion still declining to play the match under these conditions, the title shall pass to, and be assumed by, the challenger as though he had played and won the match. If such reasons for declining to play are outside the conditions submitted, such as ill-health, &c.., such declining to play shall be considered a resignation of the title and be dealt with accordingly.
9—That the champion need not play a match within twelve months of the date of the last actual contest for the title.
10—That in the event of the death or resignation of the champion the Referee Board shall invite applications from masters to take part in a match for the championship, and from the applicants shall select two masters to play the match who, the board consider, from their performances in tournaments and matches during the previous tea years, are most entitled to take part.
11—That the two selected masters shall, If possible, arrange the conditions of the match, but if such arrangement be not arrived at within six weeks of selection the Referee Board shall fix the conditions under which the match shall be played.
12—That the maximum stake for a championship match shall be on each side.
In June 1914, ACB mentioned that the match Lasker-Rubinstein could be spilt with America however since the poor result of Rubinstein in St. Petersburg, the Americans are more fancy to see a match Lasker-Capablanca.
On August 1, 1914 during the International Tournament of Mannheim, Germany declared war to Russia. For the first time in the chess history a tournament was stopped and the Russian player A. Alekhine who was the leader at the time with 9.5/11 and six rounds to go was declared winner. With this tragic event, the chess activity in Europe will be minimized for the next 4 years and of course with it the question for the world championship ad all its implications will be froze until 1919.
- Winter in his book on Capablanca gave an interview that the Cuban made in 1919 to the Observer of London:”…Suppose that Lasker will not play, and resigns his title, what will then be the position? I certain think, after my challenge to him, and bearing in mind my record, that I would justified in claiming the title of chess champion. I shall then, of course, be willing to accept challenge from Russian master Rubinstein. We three-Lasker, Rubinstein, and myself-are generally considered the strongest living players…”
Lasker (GER) – Capablanca (CUB) 5-9
Havana, 15 March – 28 April 1921
Eleven years past until Lasker decided to accept after long negotiations a new challenge (see below Capablanca’s letter dated of 1922). On July-August 1920 ACB published an astonishing letter written by the World Champion:” From various facts I must infer that the chess world doesn’t like the conditions of our agreement. I cannot play the match, knowing that its rules are widely unpopular. I therefore resign the title of world champion in your favor. You have earned the title, not by formality of a challenge, but by your brilliant mastery. In your further career I wish you much success.” Capablanca was not willing to accept the title such way manage to push Lasker to reconsider his decision. Finally both players agreed to play in spring 1921.
However Lasker insisted that he should be the challenger as ACM published in September-October 1920: “I shall no more be champion. Should I win the title in the contest at Havana, it will be only to surrender it to the competition of the young chess masters. It is a pity that the chess world is not organized. That twenty people pull in twenty different directions does no good. Let those who have the cause of chess at heart find themselves and work together! My own idea is that Mr. Shipley, whom we all know as a just and lovable man, should start the ball rolling. In approaching Argentine and Cuba, he would be able to form an American Chess Federation that would be willing and strong to support international chess. Europe is hopelessly torn into fractions, but several associations in Europe that are desirous to see international chess prosper would gladly gravitate toward an active American Chess Federation.”
Capablanca already world champion on paper publish his statement dated on 20th August 1920 and signed World Champion Capablanca: “ In case the match with Dr. Lasker is played and I remain the champion, I shall insist in all future championship matches that there be only one session of play a day of either five or six hours, preferably six.
My idea is that the chess public in general would like to have as many games as possible finished in one sitting. They think rightly. I believe, that adjournment makes for analysis and that the champion should be the man capable of playing best over the board, not the man who can best study the game at home and has more patience to work out the variations that may arise; also, that the adjournment, by breaking the continuity of the game, lessens somewhat the interest of the onlookers.
As the champion of the world, I shall insist in introducing modifications in the playing rules of matches and tournaments that will tend to make them more attractive to its supporters, at the same time always safe-guarding the interests of the real masters.
In whatever modification I may introduce in the championship rules I shall look for no personal advantage either of a psychological character or otherwise, but will always be guided by three things, viz: I, the interests of the chess masters; 2, the interest of the chess public, and 3, last but not least, the interest of chess, which tome, far more than a game, is an art.
- Capablanca, Chess Champion of the World”
The match, which was supposed to be played in 24 games finished after 14 games with 4 wins and 10 draws for Capablanca. Lasker explained his premature capitulation by the fact that the climate of Havana was not suitable for his health…It was the worst result for Lasker until then.
The New York Tribune on March 15 printed the following editorial to introduce the match: “The two first-class powers of the world at chess, Dr. Emanuel Lasker and Jose Capablanca, begin their duel for supremacy in Havana today. This meeting has been looked forward to for years by followers of the game, from the acknowledged masters down to the humblest ‘wood-pushers.”
The combatants are without question the greatest chess geniuses since Paul Morphy. Whether or not Murphy could have defeated them is one of those speculations that tease curiosity without gratifying it. The New Orleans prodigy had little first-rate opposition; the titular champion of his day, Staunton, would not risk a match with him. So he could afford to toy with his opponents in all manner of dazzling sorties. But the coruscating style is archaic in the higher realms of chess today. The element of surprise has been almost eliminated; sound defenses have been evolved in every variation of every opening. Tedious trench warfare behind stonewall pawn formations is what one must expect in the coming battle of the giants There is likely to be a big cluster of drawn games.
“Who will win? Capablanca has certain advantages. He is playing in his home town; there he is idolized. He has confidence in his powers that makes swelled-headed ness seem like diff tie has youth. Dr. Lasker, for twenty-five years the champion, is in his fifties- The war disappointed him and left him enervated, for he was one of Kultur’s Own. He has lately talked in a despondent vein about chess and everything. If morale counts for much, the Cuban will conquer, and as a true-blue Ally most of us will wish him well. Gather your laurels while you may, Senor Capablanca, for little Sammy Reshevsky will fast be growing up.’’
The ACB introduced also the match under the tile: AT THE SCENE OF THE GREAT MATCH.
Many, no doubt, will remark upon the unusual time selected for playing the games, but, quite likely, this was done in order to utilize the coolest part of the day. According to the agreement, reached at a meeting of the principals at the Union Club on March 9, it was decided to play on five days of each week, leaving Sunday for rest and one other day for possibly unfinished games. Judge Alberto Ponce was selected as the referee and Dr. Rafael Fazes, former president of the Havana Chess Club, consented to act as second for Dr. Lasker, with Dr. Portela acting in a similar capacity in behalf of Capablanca. The time limit is fifteen moves an hour.
Outside of our muddled political condition,” writes our correspondent, “the chess match is the talk of the town.” According to a long interview printed a the Havana newspaper, El Mundo, Dr. Lasker, who has not been defeated for the championship since he acquired the title from William Steinitz on May 26, 1894, at Montreal, insists that his cession of the title to Capablanca at The Hague in June of last year, without playing, holds good and that he himself occupies the role of challenger, instead of his youthful rival. It follows that, unless Dr. Lasker should win the match, title to the championship will rest with Capablanca, at least so far as the ex-champion is concerned.
Asked his opinion of the chess masters of highest rank living today, Dr. Lasker naturally gave first place to Capablanca, after whom he placed Rubinstein, the great Russian exponent of the game, now living in Stockholm, who long ago challenged for the championship without being successful in arranging a match His own most “glorious” games, Dr Lasker thought, were those with Steinitz, and the tournament victories that gave him greatest satisfaction were St. Petersburg, 1895, Nuremburg, 1896, London, 1899, Paris, 1900, and St. Petersburg, 1914. The people of Holland he regarded as the most enthusiastic chess devotees.
It Is understood that the purse of $20,000, supplied by Havana through four subscriptions of $5,000 each, will be divided between the two masters on the basis of $11,000 to Dr. Lasker, whether the match be won, lost or drawn by him, and $9,090 to Capablanca. Inasmuch as the title has already been bestowed as n free gift and Dr. Lasker, in case of victory, will in all likelihood, not retain it, there is little left in the way of material incentive. Sufficient urge for the masters, however, should be their personal pride and the real joy of battle, which undoubtedly means so much to the happiness of both.
Originally, the beginning of the match had been planned for March 10, but because of the Cuban elections and late arrival of Dr. Lasker, a postponement of five days was deemed advisable.”
Dr. E. Lasker (GER) – J.R. Capablanca (CUB) 5-9
Game 1
Game 2
Game 3
Game 4
Game 5
Game 6
Game 7
Game 8
Game 9
Game 10
Game 11
Game 12
Game 13
Game 14
After round ninth,
That the continual drawing of games in the championship match gradually got on the nerves of the chess players of Havana is evident from a number of articles on the subject that have appeared in the local press—that safety valve for suppressed emotion.
Heraldo, a newspaper from Cuba said: “We are so accustomed to the drawn games arrived at by the two giants of the hoard, who in an airy room of the Playa Casino are struggling for the championship of the world, that, as soon as they started the Vienna variation of the Queen’s Gambit Declined, the onlookers at once rapped on the boards and their prophecy of a draw turned out as expected for on the twenty-four move the significant phrase was pronounced. With this eight out of the nine games have turned out drawn. If you don’t think that is enough, tell it to the Marines.
Some people think this is due to the fact that the pot of $20,000, obtained for the match, was agreed upon to be divided n stated sums of $11,000 for Lasker and $9,000 for Capablanca, win or lose, is practically responsible for so much ‘carpentry’ (draws), It lacks the lever of interest that moves the world. The forces are equalized, and with that unalterable equilibrium it is nothing but natural that the antagonists will not hurl themselves at each other, nor take any chances.
There is certainly an enormous difference between drawn games that are not counted and those which mark half a point in the score, for the final decision.
We do not wish to contradict those who think otherwise, but a report which was made public yesterday will probably put it to a test. “The Comision para el Tourismo” has voted a grant of $ 5,000 to the match, which is attracting so much attention all over the world. The amount will not he given in advance, or divined in equal shares, but will be distributed as follows: $ 3,000 to the winner and $2,000 to the loser. That $1,000 difference, together with the laurel of victory. should stimulate the aggressiveness of both players.”
The ACB of April 1921 described the first part of the match:” After ten games of the championship match between Dr. Emanuel Lasker and Jose R. Capablanca at Havana, the indications were that the Cuban master, with a score of 2-0 and 8 drawn in his favour, was destined to wear the laurel wreath emblematic of the world’s premiership by merit of actual performance rather than by virtue of the gift of the title made to him last summer by Dr. Lasker. This very gift, which, as between the two principals, placed Dr. Lasker in the role of challenger, tended- in some measure to detract from the keenest sporting interest in, the encounter. We do not believe, however, that it lessened by one iota the desire of Dr. Lasker to win, although unconsciously he may have been deprived of some of the zest, which usually possesses a participant in a struggle, wherein the fruits of victory are not known in advance.
Capablanca has accomplished what no chess master before him has been able to do in all the twenty-seven years that Dr. Lasker has held the championship—play ten match games with him in succession and not lose one. The late Carl Schlechter lived through nine such games without losing, having won one and drawn eight, and then lost the tenth. Capablanca not alone did not lose the tenth, but actually won it, thereby increasing his score to 2-0 with 8 drawn.
There remain to be contested fourteen more games, provided one of the players does not first attain a total of eight victories (draws not counting). What Capablanca will do In these fourteen games, whether he will maintain the pace he has set or whether his play will deteriorate, is a matter for speculation. Being the younger man by twenty years, it is not at all likely that he, before his opponent, will show signs of stress.
Rather is it to be expected that Dr. Lasker will be the first to feel the drag of demoralization. It is an entirely new sensation to him to be the “under dog” in a match of this sort, and whether his nerves can stand up under the possibly depressing influence of a two-point handicap and against so relentless an adversary as the Cuban remains to be seen.
Capablanca has shown himself to be complete master of the subtle art of defense and is -as nearly invulnerable as -a chess master can well be. It is extremely doubtful whether even Paul Morphy, greatest exponent of the old school of chess play, were he alive today, could, with all his genius, find any weak spot in the armor which has so successfully defied Dr. Lasker. –
However, the end is not yet, and Dr. Lasker, who obviously is not his former self; may yet bring about a change in the state of affairs, although the odds are all against him. The eight drawn games are quite explainable, against an opponent of Capablanca’ s calibre, but the two he lost are not so easily accounted for. There can be no criticism of the correctness of the Cuban play in the two games in question and the way he took advantage of his rival’s missteps, but what the world, had come to regard as the latter’s matchless skill was conspicuously absent.
The ACB continue with a general survey of the openings at Havana.
The masters have adhered pretty closely to the Queen’s Gambit Declined, which was adopted in eight of the games, excepting only the third and sixth. The third started as a Four Knights opening, but developed into a regular form of the Berlin defense to the Ruy Lopez, Dr. Lasker playing the black pieces. This lasted 63 moves and was drawn. Dr. Lasker in turn played the Ruy Lopez in the sixth game and Capablanca, barring a few transpositions, followed his adversary’s defense in the third game for 13 moves. This game, too, was drawn, in 43 moves.
Capablanca enjoyed the distinction of winning both sides of a Queen’s Gambit Declined from his rival in the fifth and tenth games, respectively, In the fifth game, Capablanca, as first player, went over part of the ground in the first game, hut, at his ninth move, made an important departure. Dr. Lasker consequently lost a pawn at the eleventh turn and, so far as known, unintentionally. That this could happen to the champion of so many years is almost inconceivable. Then, with grim determination, he came back at his youthful adversary and, after sacrificed the exchange, kept him busy for many moves. At the point when he seemed about to be rewarded for his extraordinary effort by drawing the game, Dr. Lasker broke down completely and committed a blunder which lost the game forthwith.
The fateful tenth game followed the lines of the seventh and in this Dr. Lasker’ s reverse was due, not In any serious blundering, but to very slight, almost imperceptible errors in judgment. Capablanca, for his part, played at his very best, and his work in this important encounter could not well have been improved upon.
The match finished with the adjournment of 14th game on April 21. In his issue of May-June 1921, ACB concluded with survey and report of the second part of the match:
“Capablanca won the eleventh, making his second victory in succession. With conditions reversed, it was much the same sort of turning point as at St. Petersburg, 1914, when Capablanca lost to Dr. Las and Dr. Tarrasch on succeeding days. It was practically the beginning of the end. Capablanca’ s stock went soaring far above par and the ex-champion’s forthwith became worthless. There followed an unexpectedly lively Ruy Lopez, prematurely drawn alter 31 moves, and yet another cut and dried Queen’s Gambit declined, paid for at the average price of $2,000 per game.
The last game witnessed another gross blunder on the part of Lasker. Time pressure, it is said, was to blame, It convinced him, at any rate, that his time bad come. His defeat was inevitable and he preferred not to continue a vain struggle when his brain refused to function as of old.
There followed a few days’ real. Hope would not revive. Next come the meeting between principals and committeemen, and, last of all, the smitten master’s abject resignation. Dr. Lasker was a changed man. For reasons of his own, ho does not wish to explain. Possibly Capablanca can, and may do so in his forthcoming hook.
Meantime the world still wonders. As has been well said by a noted European authority: “The match is a mystery to me. I can not understand Dr. Lasker’ s play, even after making allowances.”
Capablanca is Lasker’s logical successor. He well earned the distinction he now enjoys, free from all claim of captious critics. It is quite true he had everything in his favor—youth, climate and environment. Of Ins own free will Lasker gave him odds of the draw to boot! Against the ordinary opponent he might still have prevailed.
Capablanca is the player extraordinary. His skill, endurance and supreme general ship carried him to the heights. There he sits enthroned. “I will take a mighty man indeed to bring him down.”
Appraising the play at Havana was the title of the article published by the New York Evening Post at the conclusion of the match:
“Now that the championship match of 1921 has gone into history, with Jose R. Capablanca crowned and recognized as the king of chess, and Dr. Emanuel Lasker, the defeated champion of twenty-seven years. has sailed away to Spain, according to the latest reports from Havana, it is fitting that an appraisement should be taken of the contest which had been looked forward to as the chess struggle of a century, but in several respects, while it settled the question of supremacy, was nevertheless a real disappointment to many. As an exhibition of high-class chess it did not come up to expectations, as, for one reason and another, neither seemed inclined to indulge in the higher flights of the imagination, of which both are capable—against opponents of inferior caliber. Imaginative chess was conspicuous by its absence throughout. Instead there was in evidence the coldly calculating analytical style, of which both are past masters and in the acquirement of which both have taken leaves out of the Book of Steinitz, but carefully discarding all of the Austrian’s famous fault,
Capablanca, but for his keen appreciation of positional weakness and the alertness enabling him to take quick advantage, might be said in have developed into the drawing Master’’ par excellence, to judge by his fourteen drawn games with Marshall and now the ten with Lasker. This, it should be borne in mind, applies only to match chess and not altogether then, as witness the fiasco with Kostich (5- 0). In tournament play there is the ever-present incentive that some one who wins is inevitably gaining half a point upon another who draws. And that is why tournaments will always continue in popularity and matches between experts of the modern school decrease in interest, now that Morphy, Anderssen and Zukertort are no more.
In expect, with the rich literature of which chess can already boast, that knowledge in the openings was materially increased by the games at Havana is asking perhaps too much. And yet who hereafter will have a valid excuse for not knowing hot to defend the Queen’s Gambit declined; at any rate, against certain trunk lines, including especially the once greatly dreaded Pillsbury attack? The key move clearly is Nbd7 whether it is played by Black on the fourth, fifth, sixth or as late as the seventh moves, according to how a more or less whimsical transposition disposes of the other moves in the series. As to its efficacy, we have the testimony of both grand-masters, who adhered to if consistently in no less than nine of the ten games where in the opening under consideration was utilized. The exception was the ninth game, developed by Capablanca along the lines of the variation now generally accredited to Rubinstein. Another game individual in character was the eighth. In this one Capablanca, with the black pieces, deployed his Bishop at f5, Lasher, on the other hand, curtailed the activities of his Queen Bishop, as he had done also in the second. In all the remaining seven games, at this opening, it was Bg5 the Pillsbury attack.
If any particular link in the scheme of defense was discredited in a measure it was the move of pawn-b6 essayed by Lasker in the first game, which he drew, and again in the filth, which yielded the Cuban’s first victory after play partaking more of the flavor of adventure than all of the others…”
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | |
| E. Lasker GER | ½ | ½ | ½ | ½ | 0 | ½ | ½ | ½ | ½ | 0 | 0 | ½ | ½ | 0 |
| R. Capablanca CUB | ½ | ½ | ½ | ½ | 1 | ½ | ½ | ½ | ½ | 1 | 1 | ½ | ½ | 1 |
In the book the World Championship Match 1921 co-written by Capablanca, H. Cassel, a veteran chess journalist, gave a interesting picture on the venue of the match and its end: ‘ …As regards the venue of action, I found it the most ideal for a chess match. The players were situated in an absolutely private room, nobody but the referee and seconds being admitted. The room, with a ceiling over twenty feet high, had an exit to the gardens where the players could walk about when not engaged at the board and waiting for the adversary’s move. Refreshments of whatever sort were instantly furnished by a waiter, who was assigned to the players, referee, seconds and reporters exclusively. In short, there never was a chess match played under more ideal surroundings, free from tobacco smoke and noises; the Doctor was so much pleased as to specially refer the noiseless way in which the director of play, referee and umpires walked about, never a whisper disturbing either player in their studies on the board.
A highly interesting feature must not be overlooked here, namely the exceedingly friendly intercourse between the principals. During my long experience in witnessing important matches and tournaments, I have never before seen a more courteous intercourse between players than on this occasion. There never was the slightest dispute over the rules or anything else and, whenever any doubtful matter arose, the players at once agreed one way or the other, never appealing to either referee or seconds. Even when Dr. Lasker decided to take his last day off, on Friday, March 22, and arrived at the Casino on the Saturday following and in an interview with the referee, Judge Alberto Ponce, stated that he was sick and could not possibly play that night, Capablanca said “Very well;” and so Dr. Lasker, with the permission of the referee and Capablanca, got leave of absence to the Tuesday evening following. Surely, more courtesy could not possibly have been expected.
The final scenes of the match can be briefly described as follows:
Instead of presenting himself for play on Tuesday, March 26, a letter from the Doctor was received by Mr. Ponce, in which he desired to resign the championship to Capablanca, have the match declared concluded, etc. In reply he was advised that the reasons given by him to abstain from further play in the match were not acceptable and that the referee would order play in the match to proceed, but if he would consent to send another letter, the committee in charge, the referee and Capablanca would be pleased to take matters again into consideration. Finally, Dr Lasker wrote the following letter:
‘Senor Alberto Ponce, Havana Chess Club:
“Dear Sir—In your capacity as referee of the match I beg to address this letter to you, proposing thereby to resign the match. Please advise me if this determination is acceptable to my adversary, the committee and yourself. Sincerely yours,
(Signed) EMANUEL LASKER.
“Havana, April 27th, 1921.”
To this letter Mr. Ponce made the following reply:
“Esteemed Dr. Lasker
“Replying to your letter, proposing to resign the match you were engaged in with Mr. Capablanca, I am pleased to inform you that, after informing Mr. Capablanca and the committee of your intention, and inasmuch as neither the committee nor Mr. Capablanca had any objections thereto, I have no hesitation in also accepting your proposition. I remain, sincerely yours,
(Signed) “AL PONCE.”
On Wednesday evening, April 27, in the small reception room of the Union Club, the principals, referee and seconds met and, after a brief discussion, declared the match officially at an end. It was then that Capablanca was declared to be the winner and the new world’s champion. ”
Mr. Cassel gave also an interview after match explaining Lasker’s performance:
“Under the circumstances It will be difficult to understand why Lasker was so badly beaten and why he thought fit to retire from further fighting when there were still ten additional games to be contested, according to the rules and regulations of the match. To begin with, he was not physically fit to play. The suffering he experienced during the war naturally weakened his faculties, and when he arrived at Havana early in March he did not by any means look like a healthy person. The rather warm weather also contributed toward his inability to acclimate himself properly and these were causes of his downfall. But there are many other reasons to be given.
‘When a case of accident is brought into court, the defendant’s lawyer will first set up as a defense contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff. The history of that match can not be properly written without showing such negligence on the part of Lasker. He stated at Havana that he came fully unprepared, that he had neither practiced with strong players, nor even studied at all. Was he underrating his opponent and did he not think it necessary to fully prepare himself for the struggle, which, he admitted would be a hard one? That
was certainly the case, for instead of resting before the beginning of play, he daily studied for hours in the morning of each day of play and thus, naturally, was rather tired when engaged at the board. Moreover, he made it a practice to come to the business part of the city for luncheon at a time when it is hottest in town, on the plea that the food given to him at the hotel was not palatable. Besides this practice, which could do him no possible good, he took in the sights of Havana. Besides attending luncheons and dinners give in his honor. Altogether there was too much rushing about and too little rest.
Another factor, which could not improve his play either, has also to be stated here. He actually saw fit to engage in news paper work, having contracted with two European papers to furnish the snores of the games, together with analytical work, and every Monday, when the players had an off day, he had to sit down for hours to come up to his contract, Will chess players, or, rather, masters, never learn the lesson that there is enough work to do, when having to play chess with strong opponents, that they should shun newspaper work and leave it to men who do that work exclusively?”
The BCM dated of June 1921 commented in its editorial on the withdrawal of Lasker:
“Dr. Lasker’s reason for his actions was given at the time as the effect of the heat of Havana on his health.
We are bound to respect this reason and to admit that if he did not feel physically capable of continuing the contest he was justified in bringing the match to an end. Match chess requires good health on the part of a player, and the physically unfit can have little hope of success, but that the match was not started earlier was entirely due to himself.
Although this termination of the duel is very disappointing, we heartily congratulate Señor Capablanca on his victory. We do not think that any other master can now dispute his right to the champion ship title, even though Dr. Lasker was, by his own act, no longer titular World’s Champion when he went to Havana. The Cuban has done all that could be asked of him. After years of waiting, for which he was in no way responsible, he has beaten the man whose hold on the championship has been unshaken for twenty-seven years. Moreover, he has beaten him handsomely; for 4—0 is a handsome score, and we do not attach such importance as some of the critics to the fact that there were as many as to drawn games. There was bound to be, between two such remarkable chess geniuses, a considerable amount of “sparring for an opening” and there was nothing unresonable about the 4 draws with which the match started off.
Now that Señor Capablanca has established his claim to the World’s Championship, we venture to hope that the title will not be competed for again without the contest coming under the control of an International Chess Federation. Hitherto the championship has been mostly conducted after the style of the famous priesthood of Aricia— “the priest who slew the slayer and shall himself be slain.” Capablanca has done what Morphy, Steinitz and Lasker himself did before him and “slain his predecessor.”
After the match Lasker also published a book in which he criticized a lot the pre-match negotiations and the conditions of play. The ACB dated of May-June 1922 published couple of pages of it as introduction:
“This match, presenting as it did, greater difficulties than any previous one, was a classic treat for me. The outward conditions, to be sure, were unfavorable, but Capablanca’s chess proffered real lessons. His games are clear, logical and robust. There is nothing secretive, artificial or affected about them from his moves you glean his idea, even where he intends to be crafty. Whether he is playing for a draw or a win or is afraid of losing, his every move proclaims aloud what he feels. In spite of it his moves, while not inscrutable, are by no means obvious, and often deep. “Capablanca favors neither complication nor adventure. He desires to know where he steps. His is a depth of a mathematician, not of a poet. His mind is Roman, not Greek. The combinations of an Anderssen or Tchigorin were possible only at definite moments and extremely individual. Those of Capablanca do not depend on time. In almost every case he can, with impunity, delay them. He hardly needs to modify them, since they are the product of a general principle. Anderssen and Tchigorin were guided by incidental occurrences; Capablanca conforms to the permanent characteristics of the positive. He puts stock only in stability, such as the solidity of his position, the pressure upon a weak spot, and he distrusts the accidental, a problem mate, for instance.
“Mason and Schlechter were precursors of Capablanca. He excels them, however, because he possesses, in addition, the gift of devising subtle and keen combinations, a trait but rarely revealed by Mason and Schlechter. In the Fifth game of the match Capablanca, by such a combination, refutes an opening, the possibility of which had been problematical for many years. You cannot scare Capablanca with spurious or suspicious looking sacrifices. Given sufficient time for reflection, he minutely examines the combinations of his adversary and exposes its weakness. He plays as though he distrusts the style of Anderssen and Tchigorin; more than that, as though he detests and, fears it,
“To use his brand of chess was quite sympathetic. I was glad to find! in him an opponent of mettle, albeit circumstances did not permit me to play in accordance with my plans. Under the influence of climate and diet my powers diminished steadily. My position judgment, the accuracy of a combinations, in fact, the mere beholding of the position, were enfeebled, confused, and, as I became fatigued, nearly demolished. I simply could not get away from this predicament, though it failed to demoralize me, it had purely physical causes: Excessive perspiration, loss of weight, inability to sleep soundly and, hence, to concentrate for an extensive period. Although this effect extended to my mentality, it did not influence my disposition, determination and, self-respect.
“Realizing that my health was menaced with permanent injury I became alarmed. However, I would not rely upon my subjective impression, so I consulted a physician, a Cuban, the family doctor of mutual friends, He was quite learned and humanitarian and thoroughly familiar with his native island. I had to talk to him in Spanish, reinforced with bits of French and Latin, all of which I command but insufficiently. Nevertheless, we conversed at length and with interest.
“When I had explained the symptoms of my trouble to him, the doctor most urgently advised rest. He declared: ‘There is too much noise, light and heat for you here. The sunlight, with us, is a great deal more active than in the North. The result is that the human body radiates and consumes more energy than in darker and colder climates. Does that, then, account for my vehement and instinctive craving for rest, doctor? Is that the reason that my powers refuse to function, however hard I try? Certainly! You need rest. Your brain does not respond to the demands you impose upon it.” He entered into many details. His explanations confirmed my experiences. He analyzed my attacks of dizziness and showed me why I was unable, after several hours of playing, to employ position judgment or even accurately to see the pieces.
“However, as I defined previously, these facts do not clear up everything. They were supplemented by an inherent defect in my chess play. For years I did not do a thing to improve my playing strength. On the contrary, I actually hindered the development of my style. I stood in need of my mental powers, most compellingly and unrestrictedly, for other purposes. Furthermore, I was unwilling to aid the speedy progress of chess, since I held that this speedy progress imperils the very life of the game. I beheld how chess was losing its charm of adventure arid sport. I saw its problematical nature changing, more and more, into certainty, and, thereby, the game sinking to the level of mechanics and mnemonics. My heart grew sad because of the swift advance of this evolution which appeared to me needlessly rapid. I would not keep pace with it, comprehending all the while that, ultimately, it was inevitable as it is inevitable that man must die. This loss of years I could not retrieve during the match; for the time was scant and the extrinsic conditions unfavorable.
“Capablanca, on the other hand, seems to personify the automatic style. And now, that I have battled against it and thus felt its vitality, I am reconciled. I see now that this style, likewise is destined to run its course of development and, withal, to offer problems. That reconciles me, because I cherish whatever is still unexplored.
“Of course, chess is not going to remain problematical much longer. The old game approaches its hour of destiny. Chess in its present form will die soon of ‘the draws.’ The victory of certainty and mechanism, inevitable as it is, is going to seal the fate of chess. Then you will have to invent new rules. Perhaps you will have to change the setting of the pieces and modify the gradations of ‘win’ or ‘lose,’ In order to increase difficulties and create new mysteries. For you cannot afford to let the old game die.
“Is Capablanca the ideal, the consummate chess master? I do not think so. All the same he deserves to be the world’s champion. His is a style of an original stamp, accurate, inventive, logical, energetic. Out of every combat he will emerge with honours. “Capablanca’ s style astounds by its logic. It is a style begotten of sheer self exertion. It is appropriateness hammered down. Picture to yourself a very young man, endowed with tremendous will power, who fails to hit upon the domain of politics or business, where he rightfully belongs, but accidentally happens into the realm of chess and displays a considerable, if not towering fantasy for this game. Such a young man, spurred by youthful ambition, is going to labour enormously to overpower a—to him incomprehensible—material resistance. Heedless of didactic comment he is bound to investigate the intrinsic nature of this matter. Such, then, was Capablanca’s evolution. The result is a style still exhibiting the calluses of creative toil, a style shaped by its goal. Capablanca, true son of a race directed toward the practical, allots to himself the task to win against the proper opponent at the proper time; neither more nor less. Well, there are other aims worthy of pains. For instance: To delve profoundly into the ever lastingly valid explorations of chessic reflection. For all that, though, the goal before Capablanca’s eyes, legitimately pursued, is deserving of respect and its attainment in a masterly fashion is of interest. –
“Purely tactical is the machinery of which Capablanca avails himself most generally:
Deployment of his pieces in the centre of the board; tediously prepared exchange of pawns. In that manner be effects an alteration of the situation which he can utilize fully owing to the central grouping of his pieces.
“Capablanca’ s fantasy is bridled. He wants to understand. Let his opponent grope, he is going to see just where he steps. We are accustomed to imagine that all great geniuses are gropers, who, seer-like, behold the things hidden from the view of others. Probably Capablanca suppressed this trait of clairvoyance in himself—for the perils of failure are exceedingly great. Again it is possible that, his acumen being of a practical and logical mold, he does not desire to be a seer except in that one respect (his practical goal.—Transl.). For all that it seems to me Capablanca’ s fantasy lacks the ‘pinions magnificent and unshackled.’
Regarding the match’s book and its critics on the new World Champion, Capablanca published in the BCM dated of October 1922 a long reply to the author:” Dr. Lasker in his recent book of the championship match at Havana makes such misrepresentations of facts that they cannot he allowed to pass unchallenged. He distorts the truth and at times suppresses it. Of his opinion as to the games I shall say nothing, save that he is unable to show a single instance where he could have won a game. That in itself is sufficient. The same could not be said of any other match ever played. That he made some blunders is evident, but he did so also against his other opponents in previous marches, only they made more than he did. That he played weakly at times is also true; had he played always the best he would not have lost. That is also evident, but such is the natural course of events in every match: the one who plays better always wins. The one understanding feature of the match and the one that most critics overlook is that nor once did he have a won game. A feat to be very proud of, as up to the present it is unique in the annals of championship matches. Dr. Lasker goes too far when he claims that I spread false reports about Havana having made an offer of $20,000. His insinuations on the subject are clearly an attack against my honesty and good faith. Such charges without proofs, as in this case, are contemptible. I have had infinite patience in all my dealings with Dr. Lasker, and put up with a good many things our of respect to his age and his many years as world’s champion, but such insinuations are absolutely inexcusable.
My answer is nor in the order of a controversy. The object is to put once for all before the public the true facts concerning this often debated affair. Thus Chess historians will have true premises from which to draw their conclusions.
Now as to the facts themselves: — At the end of 1911, I challenged Dr. Lasker for the championship and asked for his conditions. Dr. Lasker replied, sending a set of rules, which can be found in any of the chess periodicals of the time. I replied by letter directly to Dr. Lasker, calling his attention to the fact that one of the conditions was “obviously unfair.” Dr. Lasker claimed that he had been insulted by my using this expression and did not have the courtesy to reply to me by letter. Instead, he replied through the press and said he would nor play with the man who had insulted him. It was, therefore, Dr. Lasker and not I who used the press to answer his opponent. He stated in the same press that if I was not satisfied with his decision he would leave the matter to Mr. W.P. Shipley for arbitration. (This fact Dr. Lasker suppresses in his story of the match.) Although Dr. Lasker had not answered my letter, but merely used the press to give vent to his humour, I submitted the case to Mr. Shipley, who wrote to Dr. Lasker: ‘That he saw no reason why the negotiations should not be continued and an agreement reached between us.” A very diplomatic way to tell Dr. Lasker that he was wrong. Dr. Lasker’ s answer was characteristic. He wrote again another press article, saying that Mr. Shipley might think what he liked, but that he (Dr. Lasker) thought differently and that he would not in any case play with me after what had occurred. Thus, Dr. Lasker named his own arbitrator, and when this arbitrator did nor agree with him he put him aside. Later on Dr. Lasker wrote several more press articles, in which disparaging remarks were made about me. Meanwhile I never wrote anything for the press. It is evident, therefore, that whatever insults there were came all from Dr. Lasker. Now as to the second negotiations.
In 1919, while in London, I received a letter from the Netherlands Chess Association, asking me whether I would be willing to play Dr. Lasker, and if so, under what conditions. I replied immediately that I would be very glad to play for the championship and suggested that a meeting should be arranged in Holland to discuss the matter personally. After a long delay, when I had practically given up all hope, I received word that Dr. Lasker would meet me at The Hague. There an agreement was reached in January, 1920, whereby besides the return travelling expenses and living expense of both players, no purse below $8,000 could be considered. It was also agreed that we would play where the best offer was made. I went immediately to Spain, where an offer was made to me. From Spain I went to New York City, where I took up the matter with some of my friends. Then I finally went to Havana, where I had heard that my countrymen wanted the match to be played. I obtained from Havana a much better offer than I had been tendered anywhere else, and just as I was on the point of communicating with Dr. Lasker about it, the cable brought the news that Dr. Lasker had resigned the championship, which, according to one of the clauses of our agreement, made me the world’s champion. This same clause existed in the agreement entered into in 1913 between Dr. Lasker and Rubinstein for a match for the world’s championship. There is no other fair way to arrange this matter; if the champion accepts a challenge and afterwards does not play, although his challenger has meanwhile stood by the letter of the agreement, the title of champion must go to the challenger. Any other arrangement would be most unfair to the challenger. Nevertheless, I preferred to play rather than to come to championship honors without actually winning them over the board. To that effect! made a second journey to Holland (this time all the way from Cuba), to put the matter before Dr. Lasker, to whom, meanwhile, I had written about Havana’s offer, and asked him at the same time to meet me at The Hague. There, in August, a second agreement was reached, pending the receipt by Dr. Lasker before 10 September of a letter guaranteeing the purse. I left for Paris, where I had the good fortune to meet Señor R. Truffin, president of the Union Club, one of the contributors to the purse and accidentally the treasurer of the funds. Immediately, a duplicate letter was sent to Dr. Lasker (one to Berlin and the other to The Hague), guaranteeing the purse. This letter was signed by Mr. Truffin. The existence of this letter is suppressed entirely by Dr. Lasker in his book, probably because, as in the case of the first negotiations of 1911 regarding Mr. Shipley’s letter, its mere mention would overthrow his whole case, which is built on very little fact and a great deal of imagination, to say nothing else. That he considered Mr. Truflin’s letter sufficient guarantee was shown by the fact that he immediately wrote me a letter to that effect. Unfortunately in this letter he also wrote that he wanted a number of things that were nothing in fact but a lot of new demands, for which there were no grounds whatever in the articles which he had just signed. These demands were of a totally absurd character and might have been considered insulting. Although the match was only to start January 1921, he demanded that $3,000 should be put at his disposal in Amsterdam some time in October 1920. Then that $4,000 more should be paid to him 24 hours before the match started. The reader can draw his own conclusions about this matter. Such demands could certainly be construed as an insult to the good faith of the generous contributors to the purse. Dr. Lasker in return offered no guarantee whatever except his word. Dr. Lasker wrote a similar letter to judge Ponce, which elicited the reply given by Dr. Lasker in his book of the match. Since Judge Ponce had nothing to do with the financial arrangements of the match, he could not, of course, satisfy Dr. Lasker’ s demands, Besides, at the time, Judge Ponce was not aware of Mr. Truflin’s letter, else he probably would have told Dr. Lasker to address himself to Mr. Truflin.
I was still in Europe when I received another letter from Dr. Lasker, and fearing that the match might not take place, I made a third journey to The Hague, where at a final meeting I told Dr. Lasker that if he warned to play the match I thought I might be able to arrange the whole matter, that the money was fully subscribed and would be there when the match started, but that I doubted if the Cubans would put up with all of his demands, that the only thing that could be done was for Dr. Lasker (since he insisted on his new demands) to wait until I reached Havana, in December, and could personally take up the affair. Once in Havana, I arranged a meeting where l obtained, “in order to give Dr. Lasker no chance to evade the match,” that Mr. Truffin should send the cable-message mentioned in Dr. Lasker’ s story. The cable was sent 24 December 1920, yet Dr. Lasker replied that the match would commence 10 March! Why such a delay? He does nor say it in his book, but the fact is that he attempted to go to the United States of America first (probably in order to make money to pay his way over), and only when he failed in that did he take the direct line.
For what follows it must be borne in mind that Dr. Lasker had been in Havana twice, in previous years, giving exhibitions at the Havana Chess Club. Thus, it is only fair to assume that he knew the climate he was going to encounter. At any rate, it was not entirely unknown to him. In his letter of April 11th page 21, after he lost the tenth game, Dr. Lasker complains of the sun. The games were played at night, between 9:00 and 1:00; the sun had been down for over two hours when play started! If during the day the sun bothered him, all he had to do was to stay at home and rest and wait for the late afternoon and early evening to go out.
Again in his letter of 18 April, page 24, he complains of the sun, and this time of the heat also. He claims for that afternoon a temperature of 32°C in the shade. What a wonderful imagination! Such temperatures do not exist in Cuba except in midsummer, in August, the hottest month of the year He claims 29°C. at night, with fresh north wind. Again absurd. When the north wind blows in Cuba at that time of year at night the temperature cannot be more than 20°C., and the probabilities are that the temperature would be below 20°C. In such cases one feels chilly. I remember that on two occasions we had to close the windows because the air was too cool, yet he claims it was too hot. It might be well to state right here that far from being used to hot weather, as most people think, I cannot stand it. The only two summers I have spent in Cuba since 1904 caused me serious illness. I have spent most of my life in very cold climates, and while I enjoy cold weather, hot weather makes me ill. The truth is that we played under the most ideal conditions imaginable. We played at the Casino, which is situated next to the country club and about three-quarters of a mile from the beach. We had a separate room with windows in three sides and gardens at the back, where we often walked while the other was thinking. A waiter was put solely for our use. We could have anything quickly and free of charge. We played only at night one session off our hours, from 9:00 to 1:00. The weather was excellent, not for a man of the tropics only, but for a European as well. I refer the reader to the introduction to my book of the march written by Mr. H. Cassel, a German by birth, who has lived all his life in Germany, England and the United States of America. But enough of this; as stated before, Dr. Lasker had been twice before in Cuba, knew perfectly well what he was doing, and if he did not begin the match before he cannot blame anybody but himself. Had he abided by his own signature as per out agreement of August 1920, the match would have started on January 1921. If Dr. Lasker wants an excuse for his defeat, he should look for it where the facts are not against him.
Dr. Lasker says in his book that he refused to have the total number of games reduced and clearly gives the impression that such a thing was proposed to him. The truth is that he was the first who spoke to me about it. Since I was ahead, I could not propose such a thing. Such an offer could only come from him who had a zero score. I do not remember the details of this affair, hence I shall say no more. I also talks of food and loss of weight and claims I am tireless. I lost ten pounds and ate very very little, nor because the food was bad, but because of the natural nervous strain attached to such a hard contest.
As to his illness, nor being an M.D., I cannot say; all I know is that two or three days after the match was over, Dr. Lasker sailed for Europe looking very well and cheerful, far, very far, from the sick man one would imagine after reading his book.”
Many years later, the Chess magazine of May 1936 published an interview with some answer to this letter: “I lost in perfectly good humor, in fact I had resign the title before the match in his favor, because the chess world, although it wanted the match, refused to arrange it properly. …I was always an admirer of his genius, which has enduringly enriched chess, and I reminder cognizant of his many fine human qualities.”
