Lasker-Janowski (1910)

On its issue of February 1910, the French chess magazine La Stategie published (in French) the agreement for the match between Emmanuel Lasker and David Janowski which were signed by both players in November 1909. One year later in November 1910, the ACB wrote about negotiations for a world championship match between Lasker and Janowski. :”The masters have decided to adopt the old conditions and to play a series of “eight games up” draw games not counting. The match is announced to be played in Germany, England, and Austria starting middle of November…” 

Lasker (GER)– Janowski (FRA) 9½-1½

Berlin, 8 November until 8 December 1910

The Russian Akiba Rubinstein (1882-1961) was probably the best challenger at the time to play Lasker but he didn’t consider him for the moment for such event. Lasker was more interested in an immediate cash and accept the Janowsky’ s offer when he asked him to give his second chance. Two friendly short matches were already organized during the previous year of 1909 between Lasker and  Janowski. The first one finished with a draw 2-2. For the second one, the French painter, Leon Nardus, a friend of Janowski, was the main sponsor (FF 7,000). Lasker won the match easily with a score of +7-1=2.

David Janowsky (1868-1927) was born in Poland but lived most all his life in France. From 1895 till 1910 he became the strongest French chess player. Gambler when he was not playing chess, his chess style was very aggressive, fighting for a win and always refusing a proposal of a draw. His opening knowledge was remarkable as Lasker said: “Give me a Janowsky’s game at move 10^th, and I will win all of them”. The match was resumed by attacks against defenses. Here the defense was just too solid.  The final result was even worst than in the second match.

ACB commented the match in his issue dated of January 1911.

On December 8, exactly one month after the beginning of the match at the Kerkau Palace in Berlin, a cable dispatch received in New York announced that Dr. Emanuel Lasker had retained the world’s chess championship by defeating his challenger, D, Janowski of Paris. In the eleventh game of the series, with the final score of 8 to 0 and three drawn.

While Dr. Lasker fulfilled general expectations as to the outcome, it would be an injustice to the loser to say that his chess strength has waned to an extent where he can make no showing even against a master of the champion’s profundity and all around excellence. Through his friends will insist and rightly that the Parisian measures up to a higher standard than the figures would seem to indicate, the defeat must rank with those Marshall sustained at the hands of Dr. Lasker and Dr. Tarrasch.

Janowski and Marshall are much alike in that neither knows what fear means. This is well enough in so far as it compels those in high places to remain active and defend their laurels. But the temperament which aches for constant conflict in the open arena does in the case of  the masters named conduce to consistent success at a time when steadiness or precipitation with make or mar a game, and is apt to exhaust itself in dashing against the stone wall of cold-blooded circulation of which the present champion is the master mind.

In view of Dr. Lasker’ s latest performance, one cannot but regard the greatness of Carl Schlechter, from whose clutch the champion escaped at the eleventh hours by means of a superhuman effort in their memorable tie match of 1910. In he one just ended, Janowski drew the second, third and sixth games and lost the rest.

Game 1

Lasker played 1.d4, Janowsky replied with the Tarrasch defense. Black made an inaccuracy when he let his f6 knight pinned. Later White set up the usual pressure against the isolated d5 pawn. The challenger decided to simplify. 15…Ne7 was possible a better try to hold the position. The d5 weakness disappeared, but c6 emerged in Black’s pawn structure. When the champion started to put up his long lasting pressure on it, Janowsky blundered a piece and the game.

Game 2

In a Queen’s pawn opening Janowsky went for a kingside attack. That held back by the world champion. Lasker won a pawn. However, his opponent was able to create counterattack and won back the pawn, with a slightly worse position in four rooks ending. That was easily held to a draw by the challenger.

Game 3

In the Orthodox Queens Gambit Janowski got an equal position with Black. He did not play it the most precious way. Lasker managed to separate Black’ c-Pawn. Black gave it up for the getting rid of the pawns. White got a four against 3 pawns on the same side ending with a rook and queen against rook and queen. In move 51 they exchange the rooks, White tried to squeeze the win, but Janowsky held it firmly. The draw was agreed in the 101st move.

Game 4

Janowsky played the Queens pawn opening again, but the game transposed to a Queen’s gambit accepted with a tempo down. The challenger developed his bishop on b2, which gave him no real future. Lasker isolated the d pawn and carefully brought his pieces into the game. 18.Re1 gave away a big tempo. Move 21 Janowsky tried to attack, but probably the champion’s great resource 21….h5!!, White should have settled to play with a pawn down, but gave the exchange. He hoped to attack successfully. His attack leads nowhere; he resigned in 31 move.

Game 5

Janowsky played the Tarrasch again, this time he did not allow the pin, and he went for 5.-Fe6. It is strange looking, Lasker felt it deserves punishment, instead of long time pressure he played the very aggressive 6.e4. He wanted to out develop his opponent 8.Be3 was self-dangerous as well, 8.dxc was safer. Probably he missed Black imaginative long castle. After 10….0-0-0 White needed cool blood not panic. White was in danger of losing the game fast. 11…Nd4 was an option followed by  Bc5. In the hair-raising complications, Black was the one who lost his way. 18…Bf6 was better and 19….Bg5 still kept Black in the game. Janowski missed them and lost quickly.

Game 6

Lasker again equalized quickly, with the subtle move 16…Qd5 he fixed the b3 pawn. Janowsky instead of defending it just sacrificed it. It was hard to judge the consequences, but the way he played not much he got. On the move 21, he sacrificed another pawn, which was a mistake for sure. Lasker had several chances to consolidate his material advantage, but move 27 he gave back the pawn, when he had a5 or e5, both looked better for him. By giving back the pawn he got rid of the attack, but his pawn was on many islands, it was hard to convert it with all heavy pieces on the board. Black was able to get away with a draw.

Game 7

Janowsky made an awful mistake with the early  8…Bg4 which just dropped a pawn. After White exchanged Queens, he could not expect anything against a player like Lasker. He fought well, but in vain, and finally on the move 46 the challenger resigned. This game no way lived up to the expectation of a world championship final.

Game 8

Janowsky again did not bother to try to get an opening advantage. In an equal position, Lasker played less carefully than he usually does. 23…Rad8 allowed White’s bishop was becoming strong. White soon had a completely winning position. 31.Bxg7 was a win for example. Till move 40 it looked like the Black King would be checkmated, but White played 40.Ne8, instead Bf6 was still promising. Thanks to Bishop f2 sacrifice Lasker obtained a pawn up ending, but the challenger could have kept a perpetual till moving 66. That move Qc8 was the last draw. After that Black just won the game. It was remarkable how the champion changed queens. After that, he won easily.

Game 9

With a lead of 5 points, Lasker switched to 1.e4. He got some space advantage, at the cost of the two bishops. The position was closed; with 15 the champion could get a clearly better game. However, he allowed opening the position. Black had some weak pawn but had a nice piece development to compensate it. He put his rook to h5, that was playing with fire, though, it was not clear, how White would attack it, but the retreat was not seen as well. 31…Bh3 was a losing mistake, 32 g4 finally caught the misplaced rook and went on winning the game.

Game 10

Janowski changed Queens on the move 4, he was a bit better, but gradually Lasker equalized completely. Move 18 Bd3 lost a tempo and allowed b5, but the position was still equal. Black improved his f7 knight maneuvering it to d4. But still, it was equal. White just moved without much intention. Finally Black carried out f5. Still was not frightening, but the very poor play from Janowsky lead to a pawn down ending.

Game 11

Lasker seemed wanting to make his opponent win a game, but he did not manage. He played the extremely dubious way the King’s Gambit, walking with the king and first developing move from him was Na3. Black was so demoralized; he missed to open the position with 9.-exd and few more times. Gradually Lasker came back to the game. Actually, he was already better, 18.Bf3 would have given a clear edge as the b6 bishop was out of play. 19.-Qb2 was a perpetual. However, the challenger wanted to win. Some strange reasons the champion opened up his own king again. Black got a promising attacking game when he blundered dreadfully. A strange and a miserable game.

 

 

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	Total
E. Lasker GER	1	1	0	1	1	=	1	=	=	0	1
D. Janowsky FRA	0	0	1	0	0	=	0	=	=	1	0