Emanuel Lasker (GER)– S. Tarrasch (GER) 10½-5½
Düsseldorf and Munich, 17 August till 20 September 1907
Dr. S. Tarrasch (1862-1934) was an adept of Steinitz chess theory but his character was very unpleasant. Arrogant and with a high opinion of himself he always underestimated his opponent to make him an unpopular player. Both players didn’t like each other and the German organizers had a big problem to settle the conditions of the match. Probably the relations between player were similar that the ones at the match between Karpov and Korchnoi in 1978. During the opening ceremony, Tarrasch which try to avoid speaking with Lasker had this sentence: “Mr. Lasker I have only two words to tell you: check and mate”.
In spring 1908 invitation have been issues on behalf of the municipality of Munich, Germany, to Lasker and Tarrasch to play a match for the championship of the world during the summer 1908. Tarrasch who announced he had accepted with enthusiasm declared in the a newspaper of Berlin that if there was a demand for such a match the chess public should provide a purse of which $1,000 will go to the winner and $500 to the loser.
On June 5th Dr. Gebhardt, Herr Schenzel, Herr Teller all official of the German Chess Federation, and Lasker met in Coburg to discuss the situation of the Tarrasch match. Exchange of letters had been done before the meeting. The German Chess Association conceded that the partners of a match are entitled to compensation, and 500 marks, about $125, was fixed as the honorary, per game, for either of the players. It was expected that Dr. Tarrasch will renounce his honorary, in view of the difficulty of raising the necessary amounts in Germany alone, and of his insistence that Germany should be the meeting ground. The match will consist of twenty games. The stakes will be $2,000 (8,000 marks) a side, with the alternative of a purse of $1,000. The match was expected to begin in the middle of August, and last two months. The final decision, whether the match will take place in the form agreed upon, will come in four weeks, after the officials of the German Chess Association have had time to judge of the support to be obtained.
Lasker Chess magazine published on September 1908 some exchanges of letters between Lasker and the German Chess Federation the problem was the honorarium of both players. Finally in July 8, 1908 both parties agreed…
DR GEBHARDT TO DR. LASKER.
Coburg, July 8, 1908. Highly honored Herr Doctor:— With great pleasure I gather from your letter just received that you have taken into account that impossible conditions would en danger the match. I may take it, therefore, that your present conditions are:
Six games up (draws not counting) or twenty fixed games.
The winner to receive 4.000 marks.
You to receive a fixed honorarium (eventually besides the prize for the winner of 7,500 marks)
Herr Dr. Tarrasch to receive in case of his defeat 2500 mark.
The beginning of the match, August 17, Düsseldorf, not being altered by the new conditions, need not be mentioned again. Therefore 3,000 marks more are to be obtained. If this be possible I don’t know. There is a somewhat increased probability, since you have modified your original conditions. I have in hand a mass of letters in which great indignation is expressed that I should have entered negotiations at all for an honorarium demand of 10-15,000 marks. From these letters (by well meaning and intimate persons), press-cuttings, etc.. I see that further efforts would be futile if you did not concede the following two conditions:
The match to be eight games up (the general opinion being that it will not extend to twenty or more than twenty games ( at an honorarium of 7,500 marks)
Without prejudice to your right to dispose of the games advantageously outside Germany as nothing has been contributed to the funds, the subscribers require seeing something of the games. Certainly by right! I propose, therefore, in fulfillment of this justifiable desire that half of the games shall be placed at our disposal according to our choice. Possible proceeds to be divided amongst the two players.
If you comply with these conditions I am readily willing to make a new attempt to procure the missing amount (3000 marks) if not, I consider it useless to try. I might add that in the former event (according to my own opinion) the coming off of the match may be considered assured…
And the New York Evening Sun to add: “What ever the outcome of this long-wished-for match, we are sure at all events, to see some fine chess.”
In September 1907 E. Lasker in his LCM gave some though on the world chess championship’ s future before the event: “ From the perusal of chess magazines and newspaper chess columns, as well as from personal communications from various sources, it is apparent that the chess world desires a match between Dr. Tarrasch and myself. If reports, as they have appeared in the press, are to be trusted, Dr. Tarrasch has expressed determinate views on the matter. I deem it opportune, therefore, to state my opinions as to how championship matches should be arranged so as to serve best the interests of chess as a cause. In defending his title, the champion should have the option of selecting time and place of meeting, or, at least, a challenger should in no way try to force his own preference in the ratter. It would be manifestly unfair to require one, who has won his title under normal and neutral conditions to play on other than neutral ground and tinder conditions other than are generally considered equal, fair and reasonable.
Concerned in a match of this character are three parties, the actual champion, the challenger or aspirant, and the public. Each has rights, privileges, and duties. As I view it, the champion has merely to defend his position. For refusing to do so, he is punished by the loss of his title. By doing more, he is in danger of overstepping the proprieties that he owes to possible challengers. Nothing could be more ludicrous than the sight of a champion continually brandishing the sword of his superiority.
In the assertion of his rights, a champion should proceed cautiously and with discretion. He might, if he chooses, abandon his prerogative, in order to meet the desires of an opponent. No rule is so hard and fast that ordinary laws of human nature could not prevail over it. Yet, no challenger ought persistently to demand something, to grant which would be a pure act of generosity.
It is the duty of an aspirant to issue a challenge. But before doing so, he should make his desire known to the chess world, which has to decide whether the match is to take place. This preparatory move of the would-be challenger is advisable for several reasons. Chess matches are arranged for their public interest and in laying, at the outset, the responsibility for further action at the door of chess society, the would- be challenger disproves any small egotistical motive that might be alleged against him and subjects the judgment of his own ability to the criticism of those who are privileged and capable of judging objectively.
If his claim is supported, the challenger places himself in a position where he can reasonably demand to be freed from the necessity of raising forfeit or stakes.
Those who consider themselves capable of winning the title are under a moral obligation to speak out frankly and to take such action as will culminate in a challenge. It is strange that aspirants to the title of the chess championship should be so reluctant to make their wishes public, merely because in some quarters they might be accused of a lack of modesty. On the contrary those who speak out frankly and boldly, are good types of men. In all other branches of activity, the capacity to create and do work is looked upon as a capital of which the individual takes care in the interest of society. Why not in chess ? Is it because chess is merely a game? But games have their uses. In the machinery of the social structure they are the oil that brings the waste by friction to a low point. Hence, chess is on a par, in this respect, with the arts that elevate and entertain.
In the arrangement of a championship match, it is the duty of the chess world to act as intermediary between the players and also to protect them from any ill effects that concentration on match play may bring on them.
It is clear that if two players of equal or nearly equal merit are op posed to each other, each will have supporters and sympathizers. Each group should form a committee to represent its favorite; and the large chess world should acknowledge its interest in the match by collecting a prize fund in the same way as is done now for international tournaments or cable matches.
This step would be unnecessary if the creative chess players were protected in the same way as the creative artist, by copyright etc.
Germany is the only country which is supposed to afford this protection, but the subject has never been tested in its courts.
Of all who devote themselves to artistic work, the chess master is the only one left to play the role of Schiller’s poet who came to the world after GOD had exhausted his gifts by presents to other professions.
The chess world is now in a flourishing state. Its resources enable it to hold several expensive tournament each year, and hence it may justly he required to do its share in the arrangement of championship matches in the future. Let the leading chess associations and clubs unite in forming an international committee that will have the prestige and power and be provided with the means of fulfilling the de sires and duties of the chess world as here described. ”
The Chess Amateur Magazine of 1907 published an important supplement on the championship match.
Game 1
Ruy Lopez
The first game forms a practical illustration of a theory concerning the Ruy-Lopes which Dr. Lasker has advocated for some considerable time. His idea is a very simple one namely, to play Bxc6 in reply to Black’s move of 4…a6. His contention is that if Black retakes with the QP, thereby doubling the pawns on the c-file, White’s three pawns on the queen’s wing are sufficient to arrest the advance of Black’s four pawns, owing to the doubled pawn; whereas White, having four pawns to three on the king’s side, is almost in a position of having a pawn more, and should therefore win. But if White does not win, which occasionally he might do, he is mostly sure of being able to draw, and the probabilities of his losing are very small. This form of the Ruy Lopez is therefore a very comfortable and safe debut to adopt for anyone excelling in endgame play.
Game 2
The second game like the first must be regarded as valuable contribution to the theory of the openings. Tarrasch, by the fine moves of 11. Ne2 and 15 Bxg7 obtained much the better game. It is true he lost, but that fact does not alter the merits of the play in the least. It is curious to note what both players have to say concerning this game. Lasker thinks that Tarrasch showed himself deficient in dash after he had obtained the better position. Tarrasch gives us quite different explanation of his loss. He alleges that he made a few indifferent moves after the 20th owing to his being in time difficulties, However that may be, the more one studies Lasher’s play from his 19th move, the more one becomes convinced of the great superiority which he showed over his opponent’s play by masterful attacking strategy of the highest order.
Game 3
Ruy Lopez
The champion thought it was not necessary to play 4. BxN as in the first game, but to play Ba4 instead. Perhaps he expected that Black would go in for the Riga defense, but if so he was disappointed. It is interesting to compare what both players say about the game. Lasker ascribes his defeat to a premature King’s side attack and his neglect to regain the QP, or, in his own words, “to an excess of enterprise.” Tarrasch delivers himself thus: “Lasker sacrificed the pawn on Q4, which apparently could have been easily regained, but Black succeeded in retaining the pawn in a complicated tug of war in the centre. White, however, obtained a very dangerous attack on the King’s wing, which cramped Black’s position in a threatening manner. Black repelled with great caution all attack, and by getting possession of the two open bishop’s files with his rooks he obtained a winning counter-attack.” We, on our part, think that Lasker’s play was based less on the safe and cautions judgment of a modern strategist and more (in the plucky and admirable but not always successful enterprise of a player who wins the first two game of a match.
Game 4
Game 5
Game 6
French Defense
Lasker, as second player in the sixth game, adopted the French Defense. He evidently seeks to avoid playing the same game twice so as not to fall into an improved variation of a previous game as Tarrasch did in the fifth game Tarrasch obtained a good opening development, Lasker playing with a large amount of indifference in the first stage of the game, trusting to attack in the middle game, The attack, however, did not come off, and Tarrasch obtained the better pawn position throughout. He, however, confined himself to very cautions endgame play, and never rose to a supreme effort, which he should have made with the score standing at four to one against him. Be missed at least one chance which a player less anxiously cautious and of a more heroic would have seized, the result, being that he lost the fruits of a very hard-fought game by a draw of 53 moves.
Game 7
French Defense
It would seem that both players tired of defending the Ruy Lopez. Tarrasch in the seventh game, like Lasker in the sixth game, updated the French Defense, Lasker risked obtaining tripled pawns for the sake of an open game. In this he succeeded completely, and Tarrasch, being pressed for time, gave Lasker further opportunities to win more material and finally the game.
Game 8
In the opening of the eighth game, Lasker scored another tactical success for the time being He followed the defense adopted by Pillsbury against Tarrasch in the Vienna tournament of about ten years ago, but of course it was his aim to improve on this defense. This he did with the moves of 13…c4 and 14 d5, known as the Rio de Janeiro defense, thus result being that Lasker got rid of his cramped position. From this point the champion outplayed his opponent- at almost every move; in fact, he seemed to be able to do as he pleased with him. At no single stage of the game did Tarrasch, as first player, become dangerous to his opponent. After sacrificing a pawn, Lasker obtained the better game towards the end, but owing to there being bishops of opposite colors a draw resulted.
Game 9
French Defense
In spite of an early exchange of Queens, Lasker as usual, was on a keen look out for attacking chances. An advance on the queen’s wing followed, but further ex changes brought about equality of position, and on the fiftieth move the game was adjourned in an even position Tarrasch refusing the draw which Lasker had offered. Either such refusal really meant that Tarrasch wanted to play a few more moves on the day following, in order to avoid beginning a fresh game on that day, but the play on resumption proved of a different, character. The endgame was obstinately contested for another three hours before a draw was agreed to on the 73rd move, which might have been conceded thirty moves earlier. It will be noticed that Tarrasch this time refused the chance of giving Lasker tripled Pawns, as he did in the seventh game. As a consequence of this he also retained his Bishop, and obtain altogether a much better game, especially in the ending, in which his two Bishops domineered the board.
Game 10
Ruy Lopez
In the tenth game, Tarrasch improved on big play in the same variation as in the eighth game. The improvement gave him much the better position. Black’s two centre pawns were weak, and White, with more spirit than he had hitherto shown, pressed the attack against these pawns in such clever fashion that finally they felt victims. Although bishops of opposite colors were left, the preponderance of pawns on the Queen’s wing in White’s favor did not admit of the slightest hope of a draw resulting, and Tarrasch scored his second win.
Game 11
French Defense
In the game Tarrasch adopted again the move of 4. Bg5 with unsatisfactory results. Lasker, of course, did not allow himself to be drawn into any nonsensical complications, such as are to be found in the Mc Cutcheon variation, He simplifies matters by taking the pawn and then by a series of exceedingly clever tactical moves he loosened his opponent’s position to such an extent that after the 24th move another technical move with the Queen to f4, practically decided the game. Black had net lost a-pawn, and did not even seen hard pressed, beyond having an inferior position. Yet the game was over. Such a result against a player like Tarrasch can only be obtained by an application of an enormous combinative power of a much stronger and higher character than was formerly required to win a game by means of imaginative intuition, which occasionally resulted in brilliant victories being gained, but too frequently led to defeat. Modern players do not treat Chess as a lottery, but as a science.
Game 12
Ruy Lopez
The twelfth game of the match will rank for a long time to come as a specimen variation in the defense to the Ruy Lopez unfavorable to Black. Tarrasch obtained one of those analytical positions in which he delights. He had exchanged queens and weakened his opponent’s pawns very early in the game. He then simply devoted himself to exploiting this weakness, and he succeeded in doing this in flu admirable manner, for such play is his special forte, Lasker somewhat assisted his opponent in his task by a defense which he handled in a less active style than is his wont. The game gives one the impression that the champion must either have suffered from fatigue or else must have been surprised into falling into such an unfavorable variation. The game at the time of adjournment the 45th move was practically won for White.
Game 13
Tarrasch Defense
Before the thirteenth game, Lasker had taken a five days’ rest. In conformity with his practice Lasker varied his opening by producing a Queen Pawn game for the first time. Tarrasch allowed his Queen’s Pawn to be isolated, and further weakened his queen’s side pawns by an injudicious advance by means of a5. Lasker obtained the better position. Tarrasch was unable to prevent the gradual weakening of his position, which would lead to the loss of one of his weak pawns, and, as so often noticed before, he does not seem to possess the necessary courage of decision and aggressive force to defend a bad position by a counter attack. The result was that though Tarrasch at last made a dash by sacrificing a Knight with 26…Nxe3, his effort came too late. The champion’s defense was of the most admirable and instructive character and he soon obtained a wining advantage.
Game 14
The perusal of this game, which took three days to play, will create an impression the reverse of favorable in the minds of chess players willing, as they might be, to make all possible allowances for occasional want of success by either player. When the late champion of lost causes—the late Mr. Steinitz- obstinately clung to his own defenses to the Evans Gambit or Ruy Lopez, in spite of adverse comments and results, he at least defended, befriended and advocated an original line of play of his own invention. That much, however, cannot be said for Lasker, who in the 14th game again resorted to the old defense of the Ruy Lopez. It is a curious irony of fate that of six games in which Lasker defended the Ruy Lopez against Tarrasch, he won 2, lost 2, and drew 2, and that the two games which he won were those in which he adopted the identical and much maligned mode of defense of d3, advocated and practice by Steinitz. The inferiority of position arising out of Black’s opening play in the Kd7 defense is so manifest, and the lesson contained in the 10th game, which was lost by Lasker without his ever having had the ghost of a chance to be come dangerous to his opponent, is of such different character that one is really at a toss to account for Black again adopting the same line of play.
Game 15
In this game Lasker varied his opening. He played a different variation of the Queen’s Pawn game than in the 13th game. This apparently took his opponent by surprise, for he lost the QP early in the game. Lasker had to submit to having his own pawns doubled on the c-file Ultimately White remained with a passed pawn on the rook’s file, but a position with the rook in front of the pawn in which the draw is inevitable.
Game 16
Under the signature of H. Rosenblum, the Lasker Chess Magazine of October 1908 gave an interesting review of the match:
“It will be recollected that the match which commenced on August 17 was for the championship of the world to be decided as soon one of the players scored eight wins. In the sixteenth game, on September 30th, Dr. Lasker accomplished this feat, having lost three and drawn five in the process. The great honor of chess champion of the world, which Germany, his native land, had hitherto denied his tight to claim, is now acknowledged universally.
This is the first time that a responsible organization, like the German Chess Association, has under taken to decide such an important matter.
Those who are interested in the welfare of chess will be glad that the precedent has been set, and that the unpleasant negotiations that used to take place in connection with challenges and championship matches are now a thing of the past. The ugly detail of stakes seems also a matter of history, and for this all chess enthusiasts may congratulate themselves.
One of the most notable features of the games of this match is the remarkably few blunders that were made, and those few were all made by Tarrasch. By a blunder I mean a move that immediately and clearly loses half a point or more.
The first error of this kind occurred in the sixth game when on the 42nd move Dr. Tarrasch could have forced a win with d5 instead of procuring a draw only.
The next blunder occurred in the fourteenth game where the same player could have won by force with Ra3 on the 59th move.
There were, of course, instances where both players might have done better than they did, hut nothing so definite can be suggested as in the illustrations here made.
It was not anticipated that there would be many blunders in this match, but the chess world is surprised that Dr. Tarrasch should have been the sufferer from this malady. He has always been considered also safe in procuring the most out of a game where he had the upper hand.
The absence of a blunder in the thirteen games which Dr. Lasker won and drew, reflects the highest possible credit upon him, and shows such complete mastery over the board as to be in itself, even if everything else were equal, sufficient to be a determining factor.
There were several instances of mistaken judgment, a phase which many players confuse with blunders. For instance, in the first game, Tarrasch was in difficulties all through, but did not appear to realize it. When he ought to have been glad to draw, which he might have done by making an exchange just after the first adjournment, he tried to win and lost In the second game he was satisfied with winning a pawn instead of winning by direct pressure on the King, and fell to pieces in the process of trying to win in the roundabout way of letting the game win of its own momentum because he had a little pawn more..
Here, again, Dr. Tarrasch disappointed his supporters. His judgment was supposed to be infallible in these matters. He would not try to win a drawn game; he would not lose a game where he had distinct natural and positional advantages.
Dr. Lasker lost no games in this manner, and again the difference would be sufficient to determine the result. Some of the mistakes and blunders here pointed out have been ascribed to “time pressure.” If so, while sympathy may be extended towards the player who suffers on that account, credit should be given to the one who creates difficulties and complications difficult to fathom and surmount in the allotted time; and the luck which he may have is legitimate.
It must not be assumed that mistakes and blunders decided the match. The match was won by confidence, resourcefulness, initiative, versatility and superior judgment. From the very beginning Dr. Lasker held the whip hand, and there never was much danger of his losing it. On account of his versatility lie determined the character of nearly every game.
The first game, a Ruy Lopez, he exchanged pieces and von; in the second game he sacrificed a pawn to get out of a hole and won, in the third he sacrificed a pawn for position, and lost.
And here, en passant, I would like to say that one of the most remark able features of the match, and one which is most significant, was in the immediate revenge which Dr. Lasker obtained after failure. He lost the third and won the fourth on the very next day. He lost the tenth and won the eleventh on the very next day. He lost the twelfth and won the thirteenth on the very next day.
As I have already stated, Dr. Lasker lost the third game through sacrificing a pawn, but demonstrated so forcefully to his opponent that his judgment in sacrificing was sound, he played sixteen moves in the fifth game accordingly, varied his play then and won so cleanly that Dr. Tarrasch did not reply to 1.e4 with e5 in any later game in the match for fear of having to contend with the Ruy Lopez to which he tacitly admits he has no defense to offer.
Incidentally, it may be observed that with one solitary exception. Tarrasch made no headway with the Black indicating inability to outplay his opponent.
In the fourth game, Dr. Lasker set out to prove that the Steinitz defense which he had adopted in the second game was really not so bad, as that game looked, and won it in great and glorious style.
This will probably remain as the most master game of the match. In the Vienna Schachzeitung Marco goes into ecstasies over it and talks of Lasker as Blondin walking on a tight rope over the Niagara Falls. In order to institute an attack on the queen side, he also compromised a rook and knight that they had no other mission to perform but to effect that plan. Retreat was impossible, and there lay the beauty of it because it looked as though Tarrasch would either win the rook or obtain a tremendous at tack on Lasker’ s King position.
The first non Ruy Lopez was the sixth game where Lasker adopted the French Defense. He admits having played bad and should have lost, but he has made a very interesting observation in reference to this game: “I saw how I could lose surely and slowly I therefore adopted a way of losing quickly with a bare possibility of drawing.” And that is just what happened. This was the only occasion upon which Lasker did not reply to e4 with e5 so that it is extremely probable that he tried it more as relief which comes from change than from any high regard for it.
But – in the seventh game Dr. Tarrasch played it and played it at every subsequent opportunity. Out of three games he lost two and drew one. In the first of them, Dr. Lasker, against all orthodox, notions of the game, permitted isolated triple pawns in order to remain one ahead. Dr. Tarrasch seems to have been unnerved by this heterodox play and soon got a lost game. In the ninth game, where the same thing occurred he played better, even got a slight advantage in position, but never enough to win. The result was a draw, and the players themselves have expressed the opinion that this was time most perfectly played game of the match. All Tarrasch’s French Defenses were forerunners of the ‘Mac Cutcheon variations.
In the eleventh game, Dr. Lasker claims to have demolished this continuation of the French defense. It is a pity he did not offer Tarrasch a further opportunity to see what he could do after having studied it. But that is in Dr. Lasker’ s style. He looks for variety, and in avoiding prepared play he sometimes gets very had openings, and does not utilize to the limit what he knows to be best.
Tarrasch, on the other hand, always played that which he thought was best. There is no doubt that every move he makes, Dr Tarrasch considers to be the very best at his disposal within his knowledge. But it is not so with Dr. Lasker. I mean, in the opening. His style is to make a move good enough for the occasion, according to how he feels; militant, defensive, philosophic, reflective, or experimental.
In pinning his faith to the Rio de Janeiro defense after his success in the Steinitz continuation, I believe Dr. Lasker was simple experimenting. In the first of these three games, where the players were left to their own resources in the middle game, the play was very fine and correct. By a well timed temporary sacrifice. Dr. Lasker almost completely turned the tables. In the end the game was drawn, in the second, Dr. Tarrasch came prepared with a new move, and won in characteristic and fine style. Here Dr. Tarrasch showed his fine powers of combination when he had the tipper hand, and his King safe. The fourteenth game was the third Rio de Janeiro variation where Dr. Lasker escaped by the skin of his teeth. It is remarkable in that for about 90 moves Dr. Lasker played with unequal material and strew. It is not unfair to Tarrasch to say that Lasker appeared to be rather “frisky” in this game, or that the win which lies missed was very difficult to see across the board. Indeed, that is peculiar of all the “wins’’ that are found in games where Dr. Lasker is concerned.
I heard one of the best known American players once declare that Dr. Lasker had a remarkable instinct which enabled him to forecast what each of the well known masters would do in certain complicated positions. If this is so, it is easy to account for the failures of his opponents when by the substitute of cold analysis they ought to he successful.
The twelfth game was a Four Knight, which Dr. Lasker defended very weakly and soon got into troubled waters from which he could not extricate himself. The thirteenth was the first Queen Gambit. Tarrasch defended according to his own recommendations. He very soon was in difficulties, and after some fine maneuvering in the middle of the game, Dr. Lasker was getting very ready to win a pawn. Tarrasch made a combination. but was thoroughly outplayed in a counter combination which Lasker made. The fifteenth was another queen’s pawn game. and here again Dr. Lasker upset all the calculations of the theorists, and quickly established a substantial superiority.
He seems to have played rather loosely, however, mid only got a draw out of the game. If he was really hungry for a win in this game, it is very probable that he could have secured it.
The lesson of the match is very encouraging. It is that the small things about winch there has been so much prating are really only small things. The isolated, the doubled or the trebled pawn do not in themselves determine the result of the game. The particular opening adopted, the attainment of a minute and infinitesimal ad vantage do not of their own volition win games. originality or deviation from the books do not necessarily spell failure. Knowledge of the principles are beneficial: but it is not essential for success to be a slave to them.”
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | |
| E. Lasker GER | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | ½ | 1 | ½ | ½ | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | ½ | ½ | 1 |
| S. Tarrasch GER | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | ½ | 0 | ½ | ½ | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | ½ | ½ | 0 |
The press in general recognized the superiority of the Lasker and in general made some very positive comments on the world champion’s play.
The ACB : “It is a natural thing to attribute godlike qualities to a hero, and we are wilting to believe that our champion is beyond the reach of present day masters. Just how far Dr. Lasker has extended himself in this match it is not easy to judge. In the games before us we possess evidence which tends to show that he had a considerable margin of reserve with Dr. Tarrasch, that he yielded to some weaknesses recognizable as quite human, and that his armour was not at all times impenetrable to mortal thrusts. But a tangible advantage was never wasted! Whether his frailties were genuine or merely incidental to the whim of the moment is something the champion alone can tell. But Dr. Lasker is by nature deep, and we imagine that there lurks beneath the surface an unsuspected fount of power ready to engulf the man who places reliance upon rash premises.
Carl Schlechter, of Vienna, who has been in harness for the past fifteen years and whose tournament successes of late have been astounding, is now the favourite as a possible opponent in the next championship match.”
Dr. Tarrasch loss made it known through his organ, the Berlin Lokal Anzeiger, that it is his intention next year to challenge Dr. Lasker to a return match. The time and conditions will be published as soon as the principals have agreed upon terms. The Field, of London, expresses doubts. that Dr. Tarrasch will be successful in raising such high stakes as were found by the German Chess Association for the match so recently concluded.
The Wochenschach from Germany commented: “The reasons for the defeat of Dr. Tarrasch are set forth at considerable length. It is quite erroneous to suppose, says this journal, that the climate had anything to do with the result, notwithstanding that the German master himself had advanced this argument. What is really at the bottom of his failure is the lack of practice and proper preparation for the great conflict. Herr Ranneforth says that Dr. Tarrasch was not aware that the match would actually take place until a fortnight previous to the date set for the start. Moreover, his search for a training partner had been in vain, as the masters he relied upon for this purpose had disappointed him. Consequently, Dr. Tarrasch got his practice as he went along, in doing which he enabled the champion, reputed to have been at full strength and in the pink of condition, to establish a decisive lead. From this he did not recover. If Dr. Tarrasch had displayed the same strength and resourcefulness in the first portion of the match and had profited by all his opportunities, the score, after twelve games, would have been 6 to 4 in his favour, with 2 games drawn. Curiously, this might have been the outcome of a match of “six games up,” the sort which the champion prefers and to which both Dr. Tarrasch is opposed.”
The London Morning Post: “Tarrasch is not to be convinced of his inferiority by the mere accident of losing games… he has had his chance, and, according to his own showing, conspicuously failed to turn it to advantage…Tarrasch’ s play indicated extreme nervousness throughout sometimes timidity, occasionally desperate resolve, and for a little while, when the situation was practically irretrievable, something of that dogged perseverance which has usually been his mainstay.
The Daily Mail of London: “Dr. Tarrasch, known to be one of the most eminent of living chess masters, has played throughout as if dominated by fear of his adversary.”
The Field of London: “The fact that Dr. Tarrasch was so imbued in his infallibility may account for the monotony of the repertory. ‘if he cannot play better than he writes, I can beat him,’ Dr. Lasker must have thought; and he is undoubtedly the deeper analyst of the two.”
The Chess weekly dated of October 10, 1908: “…it is worthy of note that at least one of Lasker’ s losses (12th game) was due to very indifferent play in the opening, but that he defended so skillfully that it took his opponent over sixty moves to win. On the other hand, very slight slips almost invariably cost Tarrasch a game in quick order. Lasker’ s play in such cases being relentless, and directly to the point. The match has aroused a great deal of interest and it is to be hoped that Lasker’s decisive victory will not deter other possible challengers, although Schlechter appears to be said to have holding his own with the present champion.”
The Suddeutsche Schachblatter: “Lasker himself can hardly have expected that his victory would have been so decisive, and the chess press is exerting itself to find reasons for Tarrasch’ s failure.. Of course, opinions differ considerably. While some profess to see in the result a correct measure—foreseen, of course, by themselves—of the relative strength of the players, the majority, and, above all, Dr. Tarrasch himself, ascribes the event to various external circumstances, and in especial to the in calculable factor of luck.”
The Bohemia of Prague: “There can be no doubt that Tarrasch was out of luck. It must be conceded that he can hardly beat Lasker; but 8:3:5 is far from representing the true proportion of their respective strengths. The truth of this emerges from the games themselves. Tarrasch threw- away no fewer than four games. Of his play at times he has cause, as he confesses himself, to feel ashamed…one. It cannot seriously be disputed that Lasker won his victory in an exemplary fashion. One can but ask wherein his striking superiority lay, and the first thing one remarks is the abnormally developed technical knowledge he displayed, the brilliant training, the amazing ease and high level of his play, which are qualities that a professional must always have more readily at disposal than an amateur. It was not in the opening of the games but in the subsequent conduct of them that Tarrasch showed inferiority. The greater tactician has beaten the great strategist. That which we have hitherto so esteemed in Tarrasch is again evidenced in this match. In the choke and treatment of the opening, and the first part of the middle game. There is no doubt that Tarrasch evinced superiority. Whether it be that Lasker attaches less importance to this part of the game. and therefore handles it more carelessly, or whether it pleased him to give his opponent chances that he might betray an inkling of his plans an be tempted to premature attack; or whether again, he is open to the reproach of want of theoretic knowledge. the fact remains indisputable that in the majority of games (2, 4, 6, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 16) Tarrasch had attained a winning or at least a superior position. It was not till then that Lasker’ s terrible strength was called forth: he defended his position with great delicacy and stubbornness, appeared inexhaustibly resourceful of measures of help and traps, and refused obstinately to make the tempting, decisive mistake. That irritates his opponent, robs him of aplomb, and when excitement or time pressure supervenes the anticipated win turns into a loss, whose smart is on that account the keener. Such losses have a depressing influence, and cause a load of oppression that explains such oversights as that occurring in the last game.
When we draw conclusions from these considerations, we find that victory lay, not in Lasker’ s style of play—I still consider Tarrasch’ s the better of the two—but as Tarrasch himself once expressed it, in his moral qualities, his stronger character, his superior individuality, as a whole.
Chess is no work of art that the player creates, and, having completed, carries into the market; but is in its essence, as Lasker was the first to point out, a dispute—a dispute in artistic form and on scientific lines; and it is not alone the more logical brain, nor the more artistic nature, that determines the victory, but also the stronger will. Had Lasker then, no luck? Certainly; luck is always present when, in a losing position, one clues not lose. But this luck has been ever present in his chess career: it is his own—almost his proverbial lurk and inseparable from his individuality: it is that luck which, according to Moltke, belongs consistently only to the capable.”
In an article in the Moskauer Deutschen Zeitung, Dr. Falk reviews the character of the play on each side in the recent match between Lasker and Tarrasch, and sums up thus: “The conclusion of all the foregoing is easily drawn. Lasker has no cause to be proud of his victory. A champion should conduct his games so that he may not and cannot be beaten, whereas in this match his fate was constantly in Tarrasch’s hands. If the latter’s brain had been but a shade more nimble at the decisive moment, the result of the match would have been different. This shows that Lasker’s strength has considerably diminished in the last few years, as well as that even a champion must take his part industriously in international play like any other mortal, or his mental mechanism will begin to rust.
“We do not hesitate to assert that Lasker played considerably better in his matches against Steinitz, and that the quality of his play on this occasion, taking it all round, will not stand comparison with his performance in. those matches.
“Tarrasch, on the other hand, seems to have greatly aged. There have been signs of failing powers some years now. We recall, for example, Nuremberg, 1906, where he only won one or two games. We did not expect he would make so good a stand against Lasker as to hold the victory in his hands in most games. This relative success has been a great surprise to us, but it speaks rather against Lasker than in favor of Tarrasch. The latter played with all the force of which he is now capable. He put into his play all the powers—perhaps for the last time—that a kindly chess genius had endowed him; whereas Lasker evidently took the matter less seriously, especially after the first easy victories, and even ventured on weak openings, often escaping from their straits only by the kind assistance of his opponent, or by the help of his own astonishing resourcefulness, of which he still remains sovereign master.”
On October 1, in the Museum Building in Munich, at which were present the two principals, several Municipal officials and representatives of the German and Bavarian Chess Associations. Dr. Lasker expressed himself as greatly delighted with Munich and its people and hinted that some day he might return and take up his residence there. Dr. Tarrasch, in a brief address, stated that he did not regret having played the match and announced his intention to stay in harness just as long as his inclination and ability to play good chess remained with him.
After the match Dr. Tarrasch issued a book on the match. He ascribed his lost to lack of practice and climate (Düsseldorf where the weather was rainy and foggy) and ask the chess world and particular the German chess players, to aid him in arranging a return match.
