The American Chess Magazine of August 1899 announced that just after the London Congress, the French player David Janowsky has challenged Lasker for a match with stakes of $2,000 a side and the world’s championship and that Lasker has accepted the challenge. The Pall Mall Gazette of London wrote:“…The match as before said, will be quite exceptional an one. It is a vast number of years ago since a championship match has been played in this country between two young players in their prime…”
In its October –November issue, the same magazine quoted Steinitz who said that…it seemed to be generally understood that the negotiations between the two masters had been broken off.
After spending few months in an hospital William Steinitz, the first World Champion died on August 12, 1900 in New York.
No more serious offer came for the next seven years, but when the Hungarian Geza Maroczy (1870-1951) came with an unexpected possibility, the champion was quite pleased to answer positively. As usual both players exchanged letters and on 6th April rules were signed by both players. Fulfilling his obligation, Lasker deposit his forfeit on June 1st but Maroczy did not.
On June 11, 1906, from Ostend where he was playing, Maroczy wrote to Lasker:
Dear Friend Lasker
Exactly now I have a reply from Vienna, viz.: The Viennese gentlemen are ready to give five to six thousand crowns (about $1,000-$1,200). For this they want a match 5 points up where draws have to be counted. As we do not want count the draws I cannot give definite reply, please therefore inform me (of your views). It eventually more favorable to us, be cause we certainly have, not ‘to play at Vienna more than nine games Perhaps we would make this preparatory match as an exercise. I am very busy and have no time, to do anything by letter; must do everything later in person. I not know whether my forfeit has already arrived or not. If not, please have patience. I give you the guarantee that it will arrive, probably my friend is not in Hungary, but travels. I give as guarantee the part of our income due to me. You know that I want to play but it is difficult to order the matter by letter. Please reply what I shall begin with Vienna. To play every day is a little too much for me, but it would not be done differently here at Ostend. I play yet too “simultaneously,” but slowly I begin to warm up.
With cordial greeting
On June 23rd Lasker answered:
Dear Friend Maroczy : Your letter which arrived yester day has made me very glad- I see by it that in spite of your very bad start you, are now in good form. Your position today is better, not far from the top. I wish you much luck to the final spurt and hope that you will carry off first honors.
As to the proposal emanating from Vienna, it does not come up to my expectations. I should rather have adhered to the original stipulation, and six thousand crowns are not a very good remuneration. But in spite of that it is better that we accept the proposition than delay the decision. The Viennese games will simply be counted as match games, only, that for our arrangement with the club the draws count, but not for the match. If what is exceedingly improbable one of us should gain three points before four draws have been made, we must consider the other games that are still to be played at Vienna as not belonging to the match. But to prevent that, we; or the chess world do (or does) not take the latter games seriously, let us play the Vienna games for a small stake, say two hundred dollars. Please write whether you agree to this, and reveal, these conditions in your letter, so that I can publish this as soon as you have concluded the agreement with Vienna.
I have made the enclosed agreement with Messrs. Cassel and Helms (concerning the journal of the match). I expect also that a few New York journals will take an interest in the match and buy the right of first publication for a small sum.
There cannot be a match at Havana. The players there expected to see the finish of the match, but the Rice Chess Club insisted on that portion of it.
Yours with best wishes.
- LASKER
No reply came to this letter. Few months later, Georg Marco (1863-1923), a Austrian player close to Maroczy, send the following cable to Lasker:
“Maroczy ready to pay or to play next year under the same conditions. Cannot play on account of Politics.”
For the failure, Maroczy published on September 23rd a statement that money was not an issue but this one was conditional to a start of the match in Vienna and stay there until 5 till 10 games will be played. Lasker wanted also finished the match in Cuba but Maroczy stay they the political situation over there is very concerning. Maroczy finished: “I’m ready to play the mach in Vienna at this very moment under the condition proposed by Lasker…we could play next year in America, when peace will reign there…”
William Ewart Napier (1881-1952), an American player, published in the Puttsburg Dispatch a funny story on the world champions’ challenge to Lasker which was also reproduced in the LCM:
“Four times Lasker has had defiance cross his path and as often he has taken defiance into his confidence entertained it, made concessions to it, and always defiance has scuffled away home with his fervor grown fine by degrees and beautifully less. Challenges to Lasker have been got up by Janowski, Tarrasch, Marshall and Maroczy. Janowski, or his Frenchmen, stood out against all reason, for a ten-game match instead of eight, as proposed by the party of the other part.
“Tarrasch beat a melodramatic retreat out of a terrific close call. He fell on the ice and disabled his cheek, where after Lasker was warned, nay, that the match must be postponed, but not abandoned. Sacre! I go, but I shall return. The date for his second advent, however, was omitted. The learned doctor suffered long from what was diagnosed and classified as Tarrascholia. When it – comes to falling, a cake of ice is not the line of least resistance, and to be explicit we may say that Tarrascholia is only the scientific name for jarring the molecules of one’s cheek out of alignment on the ice. Marshall’s challenge was undoubtedly sincere; but five hundred paltry ducats was too thin a stake for a broil. It blew over. When a man’s defiance is accompanied by a measly half thousand it is treated, of course, like a letter demanding an answer but containing no return postage.
“And now Maroczy, the agreeable Geza himself, has acted the self-same farce. The match is off. Maroczy is said to have been ill. Possibly the Hungarian Diet doesn’t agree with him. Stakes again? Who knows. The tide is out. Lasker plays chess not wisely but too well. The best thing he can do is to resign the title and afterward challenge the man who picks it up and is found with the goods on him. Lasker came into recognition of his genius very late. The prophet hath no honor in his own land. Lasker quitted his own land and found elsewhere the honor his own people denied him. Now it seems that, so far as the supreme chess title is concerned, our champion must pitch his tent on that neutral ground between a profit without honor on the one hand and honor without profit on the other.”
In its issue of May 1906, the ACB wrote about some ideas to be presented during the International Chess Congress at Ostend regarding the creation of International Chess Association with the aims to promote International Chess Contests and Tournament, to issue a Charter for the Chess Championship, which will establish the holder of the title in his high place in a manner befitting the dignity of the noble game, and with proper pecuniary benefit for himself, to afford aid or small pensions to famous chess players, to form a Supreme Tribunal on all matter respecting the laws and practices of chess and chess contests. The proposal was not exclusively for national federations but also to all clubs and individual who which to contribute.
In his issue of August-September 1906, Lasker’s Chess Magazine mentioned Schlechter as a possible opponent:
“Schlechter, it appears, was about to challenge Dr. Lasker for the Championship; but was prevented by being headed off by Marshall. Schlechter by virtue of his great victory at Ostend this year would have been fully entitles to issue a challenge…”
Shortly after the defection of G. Maroczy had become established beyond doubt, the best American player winner of Cambridge Springs and Nuremberg speeded up to take the Hungarian’s place. In September, 11, 1906 he wrote to Lasker:
Dear Sir:
Information has reached me that your proposed match, with Mr. G. Maroczy, for -the championship of the world, has been postponed for a year. Considering the length of this period, I believe that I am entitled to, in the meantime, challenge you for the honour to which I aspire. I am willing to accept the essential conditions come to in your agreement with Mr. Maroczy, but as I am unable to guarantee my raising of the stakes of $2,000, I am ready in the event of my failure to do so to make such concessions as may seem fair to both parties concerned.
I shall be happy to draw up an agreement with you at your earliest convenience, and I beg to propose in the event of their acceptance, to nominate Messrs: Profs. I. L. Rice. W.P. Shipley and J. Herbert Watson, as umpires, to decide any question in which we should find difficulty in agreeing.
Please address your answer to one of the leading clubs.
Fraternally yours,
FRANK J. MARSHALL.
Lasker answered on September 11, 1906
Dear Sir:
In reply to your letter of to-day’s date, I beg to say that I shall be glad to break a lance with you for the championship of the world.
As to the framing of conditions, I do not anticipate any serious hitch, but in any event shall be glad, in the case of divergence of views, to the gentlemen you have named to constitute a tribunal for the decision of disputed points. Please call or send a duly empowered representative.
The rules were established, agreed and signed by both players on October 26th (annex). A statement was issued by both of them a few days later:
In the absence of any organization to represent the opinion of the chess world, we had the task to frame practical rules for the playing of Championship matches, under which the support of chessdom might t be invoked, thrust upon us. In the past, matches have been made possible by the liberality of a few. We appeal to all who derive, enjoyment from the fruits of chessic art. The long duration of matches, that may easily extend under the traditional rules to three, four or more months, is a serious handicap to the chess master. The introduction of a short match of about two weeks’ duration should, in our opinion, be aimed at. But at the present moment, a step so revolutionary was deemed unwise.
In any other respect, we believe the conditions of our match to be just to the players and the chess world alike, and to enable us to put forth our best’ efforts. As the fruits of this effort will he enjoyed by many thousands all over the earth, we beg to appeal to the lovers of chess in all countries to contribute towards the purse of this match.
Emmanuel Lasker (GER) – Frank Marshall (USA) 11½-3½
New York, Philadelphia, Memphis, Chicago, Baltimore, 26 January till 6 April 1907
Lasker’s high financial requirement (2.000 US$, a fortune at this time) made a deal for the championship match impossible. Lasker had this answer to those who were asking him to reduce his financial demand: “I don’t want to finish my live in the misery like Steinitz…” For the upcoming match Lasker reduced his financial condition to 1000 US$ and agreed to play Marshall in five different American cities. F.J. Marshall was not the best player in the world at this time but had an impressive victory in Cambridge Spring (1906 front of Lasker and Chigorin) and also won the same year the American championship.
A BUFFALO Express view of the match:
The chess match which is just beginning in New York, will not only be one of the greatest which this country has seen, but also one of the greatest in the history of the noble pastime. The advance that has been made in the last 25 years in the theory of chess openings and in the principles of the game imparts to a contest at this then between two such masters as Lasker and Marshall a peculiar significance.
Lasker’s antagonist in the present contest has already had a brilliant career. At fourteen he was known as the “boy wonder” and since then has fulfilled his early promise in a way that s not always witnessed. He has defeated Janowski, the brilliant Parisian, in a set match and won the first prize at Cambridge Springs in 1904 without losing a single game, and repeated the performance at Nuremberg in 1906, though in both of those tournaments he was pitted against some of the best players of the time.
In as much as Lasker, born in Prussia but later living in England, now has his home in New York and has adopted this country for his native land, the sympathies of Americans may be supposed to be equally divided between these two famous masters of the most intellectual of games.
That the match will bring out some great chess is conceded by all. Chess fans are asking: “Will any new theories of the openings be developed? Will any new formations be brought forward, not now in common use? Will Marshall dare to play his pet defense, f5-pawn, against the Ruy Lopez? Will he -play the French defense against Lasker at all?’ After condemning the French defense in good plain English Marshall adopted it deliberately against Tarrasch. He maintains that the P-B4 defense to the Ruy is sound and good: Lasker dares him to adopt it, and see which of the two is better able to demonstrate his theories on the subject?
The Steinitz-Pillsbury-Lasker defense to the Ruy is sounded and good style of play has advanced so materially in the last half-century that it seems almost impossible any radically new theories should come of a match at this time. Yet there is evidence that shows Dr. Lasker at least believes such will be the case.
Marshall is not a coward and has advocated ideas called radical and even unsound by most other masters. Will he still have the courage of his convictions and try to ‘show” Lasker or will he stick to the hook. —Rochester Union and Advertiser.
MARSHALL AND LASKER by Rochester Democrat and Chronicle.
In the first two games of chess for the world’s championship, Frank Marshall has fallen a victim partly to what has been called Lasker’s “deadly accuracy.” and partly to a certain boldness of his own which has passed the bounds of prudence. Such, at least, is apparently the situation judged from comments of experts on the two contests. In each game, Marshall is declared to have obtained an advantage which he followed by erratic rather than safe play. Possibly Lasker counted on this. The skillful exponent of any game studies the methods and foibles of his opponent and works them for his own advantage. Lasker has had more experience than Marshall. His chess scholarship is probably more profound, even if he is not superior in talent and originality. But the contest has only begun, and Marshall may yet surprise his cool and long headed antagonist.
Game 1 commented by Dr. Lasker
The first game was opened after an address by Prof. I. L. Rice, declaring the match begun. Marshall won the toss, and the variation chosen by him was such as to leave Black no choice, practically all the black moves being forced until 11…Qh4. At this stage, instead of the apparently purposeless attack on the f-pawn as in the text move, the developing 11…f6 would naturally suggest itself. But White might reply with 12. f3 Ng5 13. b3 fe5 14. Ba3 and Black can in no way extricate the Knight and the Queen from the onerous pin.
Had White after 11…Qh4, advanced with 12. f3, Black would immediately have retreated his Knight to g5, placed it later on e6, and opened the f-file with f6. The game would then have been slightly in favor of the defense, because of the part the Queen’s side Pawns would have played in the fight.
When Marshall played 12.Be3, instead, a difficult problem was presented for solution by Black. 12…f6, or 12…f5, were now alternatives of apparently equal value: 12…f6, implied the sacrifice of the Knight; 12…f5, would lead to a fairly even, somewhat blocked position, if White, also, replied with 13. f4. In the present instance, Lasker decided upon the former more uncertain course.
Marshall, with admirable judgment, played to win the Knight in spite of all threatening dangers; then he saw he would have to give back the piece. Had he tried, after 14 …d4, to save the Bishop by 15 Bd2, Black would have won by 15…Bg4 , forcing 16 Qc1, followed by 16…Rf7; 17.Bg5 Rg2…etc. Perhaps Marshall hoped to be able to retain his material advantage after 15.g3; but this move was an irretrievable mistake, 15.Qd2, instead, being the proper line of play. Where upon, Black would have been obliged to have captured the Bishop and, though his pieces were well developed he would have had a ragged Pawn position.
The process of winning was a logical deduction from this, although Marshall facilitated Black’s task by 24. Rf1 (ch). Instead, he should have proceeded with 24 a3 and b4 at all costs and operated with his Rook on the Queen’s side.
Game 2 commented by Dr. Lasker
The fourth move of White, as here played, is generally held to be inferior to 4 Bg5, or Steinitz’s move, 4. e5. But as the text- move develops a piece, it is not clear why White should suffer a disadvantage from the play. It is true that Black obtains an apparently harassing attack by the reply chosen by Marshall, 4..c5; but it is a question whether if the onslaught he rightly met, it is lasting. Further more, there is no doubt that, how ever Black may proceed, his Pawn position is weak. White’s strongest piece as the game proceeds is the Knight at d3, which proves a stumbling block to Black in the fierce attack initiated by his Pawn sacrifice, on the eighteenth move. There, moreover. Marshall missed the strongest continuation; after 18. Qg4 f5; 19.Qg7 Nd7 was in place. If then 20 NxN Rg8; 21. Nf4 Qd6; 22. Qf7, Qf4; 23 Rfd1, and Black’s attack is now more lasting than that resulting from the line of play actually chosen. Of the remainder of the game little needs to be said—the Knight at d3, defended all threats and White’s extra Pawn ultimately won.
Game 3 commented by Dr. Lasker
Black succeeded in obtaining air equal position against the Queen’s Pawn’s Opening with his chances for attack and defense undiminished, this feature of the game being note worthy. It was difficult for White to find a point of attack, whereas h Q B P required attention, these circumstances telling heavily against White all through the game. There— in lay the reason for White’s advancing by means of 21 f4 weakening his e-pawn, but avoiding an exchange of Queens. In the final combination, White made a mistake in playing 42 Rf1, instead of moving 42 Rc2 with drawing chances.
Game 4 Comments by F. J. Marshall:
“Dr. Lasker on his eighth move selected a line of play in the McCutcheon variation that had been thoroughly analyzed by Mr. McCutcheon with Harry N. Pillsbury. My opponent’s twelfth move, whereby he forfeited the right to castle, was of course forced; otherwise, his king’s pawn would have been lost. It was out of the question for me to castle on the kings-side of the board because of the weakness of my pawns there and the threatening position of the adverse queen and I was quite prepared to take chances with my king on the other side. As to white’s seventeenth move, which is said to have caused a good deal of discussion, it was rather better than Kt for in that case, I would have opened the king’s bishop’s file by means of f-pawn exposing his king to a violent onslaught.
I did not resort to this line of play when attacking the white queen on my .seventeenth move, simply because I did not deem the situation wholly ripe for it. Moreover, the time limit was against hazardous play and I preferred to content my self by playing for Knight vs. Bishop ending. Wherein I thought I detected a slight chance to obtain the upper hand. Probably the most interesting stage of the game was at move 22, where Dr. Lasker had the choice of recapturing my bishop taking my knight with his bishop. The latter course would have involved some critical lines of play dangerous to both sides. Had the play run thusly: 22, BxNa6, Bg2; 23. f3 Rd7, 24. Rb3 Bf3 then 25. Bb5 would have won in good style for my opponent. Instead, however, 23, PxB. would lead to a draw.
I understand that in the ending I was expected to make a bid for a win by playing 36, a4 in place of retaking the pawn and thereby establishing a passed pawn on the Rook’s file. This pawn would have been stopped easily enough and in the meantime my row of king’s side
Pawns would have been demolished, leaving me actually playing an uphill game. As I played it left no question about my being able to command a draw at any stage of the ending. In conclusion, I feel that I am now in much better shape do myself justice and my friends can rest assured I will be seen to better advantage from now on
Game 5
Game 6 commented by Dr. E. Lasker.
Dr. Lasker, in reviewing the game, stated that his change of tactics from those of the previous French defense, were along lines of accepted analysis.
The sacrifice of his queen rook’s pawn was, he said, with the intention of drawing away the black queen from its central position and thereby gaining access for his own queen to the territory of Marshall’s king. This was successfully accomplished, but the seventeenth move of white was, according to the champion possibly a bit premature. Although he felt certain that in making it he kept a draw in hand. Instead, he might have adopted the more normal move of rook to Queen’s Knight square and the ensuing play would not have been to his disadvantage. Of course, as the game actually developed, he had to be content with a draw, as capturing the Bishop availed nothing. For instance: 22. Qc8 Qc3 ch; 23. Kf1 Qf4; 24 Kg1 Qd4!; 25. Rf1 Rxf2! etc.
Game 7 commented by Dr. E. Lasker.
In the opening, Black, as usual, had to contend against the initial difficulties Matters took an even course for some twenty moves. On his twenty-third move, Black ventured an advance of his king’s knight’s pawn. Instead of this, a preparatory move, like rook to queen second, should have been made. The immediate advantage was taken of this by Marshall, whose pretty rejoinder brought a melee, which resulted after thirty moves in a position not unfavorable to White. At this point, both contestants were somewhat pressed for time and Marshall missed the strongest continuation, viz: 30. Nf7 Kg8; 31. Nf5 h5 after which a complicated endgame would have ensued. As it was Black was enabled to cross the danger line with his king and gained a knight in return for three pawns. This gave him a slight pull.
Game 8 commented by Dr. E. Lasker.
Marshall deviated from his line of play in the sixth game on the ninth move, whereby he forced v king to move. This, however, proved no handicap to White, who soon recuperated and developed his pieces well. The latter’s points of attack were the doubled king’s bishop’s pawn and the isolated king’s Rooks’ pawn, which were Black’s legacy from the opening. Marshall, on the other hand, aimed at the White king.
He might have complicated matters on his seventeenth move by continuing as follows: 17… Bc4 18. c3 Na2; 19. Kc2 Qc6; 20. Rd2 e5; 21 dxe5 Bf3; 22,R1d1 Rd2; 23 RxR. As it was, Black did not venture to engage in this clash, and as a consequence, the game kept its even character. After further attempts to establish a decisive break, Black was finally frustrated. Whereupon the weakness of his pawns already referred to and upon which White had built his plan of the campaign became manifest.
Game 9 commented by Dr. E. Lasker.
With his fifth move, Black varied from his play in the seventh game, and Marshall forced the exchange of Queens by PK. The resulting endgame led to a balanced position where in neither could establish a lasting advantage. The attacks and counter-attacks were interesting, but, owing to the evenness of position, naturally ended indecisively.
Game 10
Game 11
Game 12 Comments by Dr. E. Lasker.
After the adjournment, which occurred at the end of White’s twenty- first move, Marshall protested the validity of this game because the time keeping by the seconds during the first nine moves had been erroneous. The mistake had, however, been verified after the ninth move, and the game had thenceforward proceeded under normal conditions. Judgment by the referees is awaited; Lasker having entered the plea that the proper moment for making the protest was immediately after the ninth move.
The present game is noteworthy because of its opening, the fifth move of White being novel, at least in master play. Apparently, Black threatens c4 but neither of the opponents as the game shows regards the threat as serious. White’s tenth move exerted strong pressure on black, doing away with the latter’s menace of NxN, followed by c3, and itself threatening to isolate the two Black Queen’s side Pawns by NxN. Marshall strove hard to obtain an attack and to that end offered his a-pawn as a sacrifice. But the central position of the white pieces was too strong, the black King in the center too unsafe— wherefore, Black’s attack was quickly broken down.
Game 13 commented by Dr. E. Lasker.
This opening is one played first by Tchigorin, but its treatment in the present game is novel. The black Queen has to stand for a long time in the thick of the light and Marshall comes dangerously near forcing the win of a Pawn: in fact on the fifteenth move. White could have captured the c-pawn, but he evidently did not wish to invite the attack. Black’s seventeenth, eighteenth and nineteenth moves are the only ones case of maintaining the balance of position. Then a reaction sets in; White had overshot the mark. He could not now continue 20 BxN because of 20 ..QxQ; 21 RxQd2 gxf6; 22 Nf3 Bf3. The fact is, he should have played 19 e4, or 19 Qf5, whereupon a somewhat difficult, but approximately even, end-game would have ensued. After his nineteenth move, White studied the variation for about thirty-three minutes, leaving himself only one and one-half minutes in which to make the remaining ten moves of his second hour of deliberation. He succeeded in doing this but allowed the black Rook to establish it self upon the seventh row. White’s thirty-third move lost a Pawn and, later, the game, but it was a difficult position for him.
Game 14 commented by Dr. E. Lasker.
A game with an original opening that promised well in the beginning, but was marred by a blunder on Marshall’s part at his eleventh move. It is difficult to explain this blunder in any way maybe by the theory of a brain storm. For, that Marshall should have overlooked, if 12 Kh2, Qc7(ch), the reply of 13 Ne5 requires a lot of explanation.
Game 15 commented by Dr. E. Lasker.
If White had played 13 Qc3 QxQch; 14 RxQc3, Black would then have continued with 14…Be6; 15. c5 b5 and Black has secured the attack. As the game proceeded Black, obtained an attack by sacrificing a Pawn. It was a difficult matter to decide whether 16…Re8 (ch), or Nf6 was preferable; in the second eventuality, 17 Re3 Bf5 is the most probable continuation. In any case, White’s twentieth move should have been Qb5 then Black might have continued: 20…Qa2; 21 Bf3 Bf5; 22 0-0 Re8. In any event, Black retains a slight advantage, which, however, was probably not sufficient to force a win.
On the twenty-ninth move, White made an additional error; in the weakened condition of his forces, the mistake proved fatal.
The ACB introduced the match in February 1907:
“With the world’s championship match definitely fixed to begin on January 26, Caissa’s devotees everywhere are on the tiptoe of expectation in anticipation of a rare treat. Just what this means to them will readily be appreciated when it is remembered that, although there have been international tournaments for the leading players of the day without number, not one contest for the world’s individual supremacy has taken place since Dr. Lasker, the present title holder, defeated William Steinitz at Moscow in 1897 for the second time. The supremacy of Steinitz extended over a period of twenty-eight years. In the meantime, since this last transfer of the title took place, many things happened in the chess world. Steinitz is dead, and Pillsbury, who was generally credited with the genius necessary to overcome Lasker, has passed away after a phenomenal career that has left an indelible impression upon the game.
His successor, Frank J. Marshall, now matched against Lasker, has won first prizes in two great international masters’ tournaments, in addition to many achievements of lesser magnitude. Other famous players have arisen like Geza Maroczy, of Hungary; Carl Schlechter, the Austrian; David Janowski, the best player of France; and Rudolph Charousek, another extraordinary Hungarian expert, now dead. All of them have met Lasker in tournament play, but never in a set match. Neither has Dr. Tarrasch, credited with four successful tournaments, and who since then has achieved even higher honors, been successful in meeting Dr. Lasker for the world’s championship, although repeated efforts have been made to match the champion against one or either of these leading fights.
Now it has fallen to the lot of the young American to break this long spell of inactivity, and the good wishes of a host of enthusiasts are with him. Lasker, however, has made many friends during his sojourn of three years in this country, and moreover, he now lays claim to United States citizenship and to the sympathy of Americans. In the serious judgment of most of those qualified to judge, Lasker is a favorite, notwithstanding that he ran second to Marshall in the international tournament at Cambridge Springs, Pa., in 1904, in which contest the individual encounter between the two masters resulted in a draw. Dr. Lasker is 38 years old. Marshall is 29”.
ACB continued to report games and their stories for the next two months:
“According to the program, title match for the championship of the world and a purse of $1,000 between Dr. Emanuel Lasker and Frank J. Marshall, opened in Brooklyn on the afternoon of Saturday, January 26, the first game being contested in the Auditorium of the Thomas Jefferson Building 4 Court Square. A large audience was in attendance to encourage the masters, including many notables in various walks of life. Professor Issac L. Rice was acting as master of ceremony. The country seemed to be on the tip-toe of expectation. For that matter, the entire chess world was. The seconds chosen by the players were E. W. Libaire and E. J. Clarke, the former winning the toss on behalf of Marshall, The challenger thereby was given the white pieces in all the odd numbered games of the match.
By previous agreement, none of the games in the Metropolis was played under club auspices, the masters preferring to play in public. The management of the New York series was entirely in the bands of Dr. Lasker. Signs were conspicuously hung in the play hall admonishing visitors not to take away copies of the games for publication purposes. The sale of the scores to the New York papers proved fairly successful and from this source, the players derive a not inconsiderable revenue. Those not purchasing the privilege did not receive the moves. Moreover, each game, as soon as played, is cabled to London, where the leading English journals appear willing to buy them. This has not been done since Pillsbury and Showalter- played their second match for tile United States championship.
The opening game of the, pending match, proved quite spectacular, thanks to vigorous tactics adopted by the champion, but which, however, netted him more than could rightly have been expected from the course pursued. Marshall was plainly unnerved during this game, as well as during the second encounter, but subsequently steadied down and made a better showing. After the first game in Brooklyn, the scene of the match shifted to the Everett House on Union Square, in Manhattan Borough New York, where the next five games were played. As on the opening day, large demonstration boards were furnished for the convenience of the onlookers and, in addition, tables and sets of chessmen with which visitors might analyze or play games of their own were provided.
Beyond mentioning that Marshall, by correct play, need not have lost the first game as consequence of the champion’s sacrifice; that he missed.
Since our last issue, eight more games have been played by Emanuel Lasher and Frank J. Marshall in their match for the chess championship of the world. The net result of these to Dr. Lasker was four victories, the other four having been drawn. The champion thus maintained his ratio of wins in New York, where he made a score of three wins out of six without losing one. When, however, it is taken into consideration that Marshall began the match with three successive defeats and made a similar record at the close of the tour in Memphis, his record for the intervening period covering the fourth to the eleventh games, inclusive, is one of which he has every reason to be proud. In these eight games, he lost but one and drew the rest. From this, it is fair to suppose that, had Marshall been able to command such steadiness indefinitely, the match might well have assumed a totally different aspect from that presented at this writing, when Dr. Lasker leads by 7 to 0, with 7 drawn. Yet it is plain that the challenger, consistent with his record of the past, is subject to spells of comparative helplessness, during which he is fortunate to do no worse than remain at a standstill. The champion, on the other hand, keeps the even tenor of his way, and, of course, success is a great tonic to one’s nerve.
Of the games played away from New York, the seventh and eighth took place at the Franklin Chess Club in Philadelphia; No. 9, at the Hotel Arlington in Washington; No. 10, in Beethoven Hall, Baltimore; No. 11, at the Sherman House, Chicago; and Nos. 12 to 14, at the Business Men’s Club, Memphis.
The seventh game was the most exciting of the series and, while Marshall missed a promising continuation at one stage, the honors were fairly divided. In the eighth game, Marshall again failed to do the most with the critical position, and later he succumbed to the champion’s deadly accuracy in end game tactics. The ninth game, though skilfully conducted, was devoid of special features. The play in the tenth game was of a more stirring character, and the result hung long in the balance. Marshall boasted the advantage of a pawn in the ending, but Dr. Lasker easily drew. Conditions were reversed in the following game, but here, too, the extra pawn could not win, and this time victory eluded the champion.
Then come the disastrous series in Memphis. Marshall was outgeneraled in the twelfth game, which he curtailed by an unsound sacrifice in the hope of stemming the tide. Owing to the employment of stop watches, in place of the regular clocks, Marshall protested this game, and his claim is under consideration by the committee of judges. Time difficulties operated against Marshall in the thirteenth game. Ten moves were made by him in 61 seconds at the end of the second hour, in consequence of which a fairly good outlook dwindled to a downright lost position. The fourteenth game was a complete fiasco owing to an attack of “chess blindness” experienced by Marshall. Finally, Lasker won the fifteenth and thus the match with a score of 8 to 0 and 7 drawn.
The encounter was not a success, for, to judge by the actual score, the players were in no sense matched. The intrepid young challenger suffered the worst defeat of his career, so far as figures are concerned; but it must be remembered that he for the first time met a Lasker day in and day out an ordeal no one has been subjected to since Steinitz, in 1897, abandoned the effort to recover the scepter wrested from him by the present incumbent. Marshall himself asserts his belief that a second trial would not result quite so disastrously for him, and who shall say that the experience just gained might not serve him well on a subsequent occasion? In view of the fact that Marshall has blazed the championship trail, no one will envy him the satisfaction he feels, to quote his statement after the conclusion of play, over “having been instrumental in effecting the resumption of the matches for the world’s championship.”
As for the winner, speculate as we will concerning the chances of other aspirants, there is, after all, but one Lasker.”
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | Total | |
| E. Lasker GER | 1 | 1 | 1 | = | = | = | 1 | = | = | = | = | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 11.5 |
| F Marshall USA | 0 | 0 | 0 | = | = | = | 0 | = | = | = | = | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3.5 |
Interviewed after the match, Dr. Lasker said:
“Of course. I am very glad to have retained the title of champion. but I cannot say that I am elated, for I had expected that Mr. Marshall would give me a much better fight. His bril liant games and his well-earned vic tories, above all those at Cambridge Springs and Nuremberg, are not in unison with the record he has made in this match. However, I have enjoyed the match socially very much, as my personal relations with Mr. Marshall throughout the contest were o-f the most pleasant nature. Furthermore, I beg to thank the judges the patrons and the many who in the metropolis and on our visits to Philadelphia, Washington, Baltimore. Chicago and Memphis have shown us their hospitality and evinced an enthusiastic in terest. I do not think I shall be able to participate in the forthcoming championship tournament at Ostend, as I am very much in need of rest and as the business will scarcely allow me to make the trip this year.”
Marshall had the following to say regarding his defeat:
“I confess I do not relish the decisiveness of my defeat even at the hands of so great a player as my opponent has again proved himself to be. I firmly believe that I am able to do much better under favoring circumstances, else how many performances at Paris. Cambridge Springs and Nuremberg be accounted for? Surely, if I do say it, I did not play my real chess this time, but I hope that within a period of two years another opportunity will be given me to meet the champion in a return – match. It fact, should I succeed in winning the Ostend Tournament. I shall challenge him forthwith. To in part justify myself. I must say that had the games all been played in one place and could we have avoided journeying about the country, the chances of holding my own would have been much improved. Again, the privacy would have suited me better than playing in public, as we did on most occasions. However, I feel some satisfaction in having been instrumental in effecting the resumption of the matches for the world’s chess championship, which, in my opinion, should be played at least once in every two years”.
LASKER HOLDS TITLE. By New York Sun
“The thrilling struggle for the chess championship of the world between Dr. Emanuel Lasker, the champion, and Frank J. Marshall, the challenger, is ended, and Lasker retains his title. He won his eighth game yesterday. Fifteen games were played, seven of which were draws, and the champion scored in the other eight.
The contest began in Brooklyn some months ago and wound up in this city.
In the interval, Marshall valorously pursued his opponent to all the points of the compass. They bobbed up in unexpected places every few days, while the world looked on in amazement at the awful carnage. No particular set of rules was laid down, but Lasker seems to have used the strangle hold to perfection; at least, he had that kind of a grip on the series. Marshall, according to reports from the various seats of war, used the French defense but it availed him not. With this affair settled there remains no obstacle to the opening of the local baseball season on Thursday and the racing game next Monday.”
