Emanuel Lasker: A Reader

Openings

Analytical Symbols

Frequently Used Abbreviations

CC: Chess Club

Ch: Championship

WCh: World Championship

ELDWS: Emanuel Lasker: Denker, Weltenbürger, Schachweltmeister

LCF: London Chess Fortnightly

LCM: Lasker’s Chess Magazine

WS: Wiener Schachzeitung

Editor’s Preface

The genesis of this project goes back about ten years. David Kaufman, professor of English literature at Tulane University and admirer of Emanuel Lasker, had long been collecting material written by and about the legendary chess world champion. His friend Hanon Russell suggested that he organize this into a book that would provide a broad survey of Lasker’s works. Kaufman worked on this intermittently until, alas, his untimely death in 2017.

In early 2018, I was asked if I would like to take over the project. As it was not possible to obtain whatever Kaufman had collected, it would mean starting over nearly from scratch. The prospect was more than a little daunting, but after some days of intense (and ambivalent!) deliberation, I accepted.

What made the project so challenging was the broad scope of Lasker’s intellectual output. Most chess champions have – at least during their active careers, some throughout their lives – been single-mindedly chess-obsessed, with few outside interests, examples being Steinitz, Alekhine, Tal, Fischer, Karpov, Kasparov and Carlsen. Lasker, however, was very much a polymath, with major contributions to mathematics and philosophy, plus writings in many other areas: science, politics, economics, sociology, drama, card games, and board games other than chess. Compounding the difficulty was the fact that some of these are quite rare, and some are available only in German.

As an experienced chess player and writer, I had no qualms about handling Lasker’s chess works. And I was reasonably confident that the philosophy, science, sociology and German I had studied in my youth would be useful. But some subjects, especially math, were beyond my competence, and so outside assistance had to be called in, as detailed further on.

More than a few books have been written on Lasker, ranging from bare-bones game collections to adoring hagiography, and ranging in quality from forgettable to formidable. However, in all of them you get mostly others’ writings about Lasker. Instead, here, you get a unique look at Lasker himself – both intellectually and emotionally – in a broad representative sample of his works, with an emphasis on chess but also including much from his other interests. The main sections:

•Much of what Lasker wrote for his magazine London Chess Fortnightly (1892-93), including the early stages of his long-running feud with Tarrasch, many annotated games, and full coverage of his 1893 match with Jackson Showalter, with notes by both players.

•Lasker’s and Steinitz’s annotations of their 1894 world championship match.

•Lasker’s annotations for the Hastings 1895 tournament book.

•An extensive excerpt from Lasker’s book Common Sense in Chess (1896).

•A great many of Lasker’s contributions to Lasker’s Chess Magazine (1904-1909), including editorials, commentary on current events, annotated games, instructive and historical articles, coverage of title match negotiations with Maróczy and Schlechter, obituary tributes, aphorisms, and even humor.

•Lasker’s memorial tribute to Pillsbury, from his short-lived magazine The Chess Player’s Scrapbook.

•Full coverage of the 1907 Lasker-Marshall World Championship match, with annotations by both players.

•Full coverage of the 1908 Lasker-Tarrasch title match, including the lengthy lead-up, negotiations and final terms, Lasker’s day-by-day accounts, and game annotations by Lasker, Tarrasch, Georg Marco (then considered the world’s best analyst), Leopold Hoffer and Adolf Zinkl, along with many computer-assisted corrections and additions.

•An excerpt from Lasker’s book of the St. Petersburg 1909 tournament.

•Extensive excerpts from both Lasker’s and Capablanca’s books on their 1921 title match, including their annotations to the four decisive games, and Capablanca’s irate rebuttal to Lasker’s account.

•Lasker’s discussion of the theory of Steinitz from Lasker’s Manual of Chess, and a fascinating critique of it by C.J.S. Purdy.

•An examination of Lasker’s endgame instruction and studies by GM Karsten Müller.

•A sampling of Lasker’s chess problem and study compositions.

•Summaries of and extensive excerpts from two of Lasker’s philosophical works, Struggle (1907) and Die Philosophie des Unvollendbar (The Philosophy of the Unattainable, 1919), and his forgotten sociological rarity, The Community of the Future (1940). The Unvollendbar excerpts include Lasker’s critique of Einstein’s theory of relativity, with which he disagreed strongly.

•A discussion of Lasker’s mathematical works by Dr. Ingo Althöfer of Jena University.

•A look at Lasca, a checkers-like game invented by Lasker.

This book is not a biography, nor a Lasker’s Greatest Games collection. Many of his great and important games are included, but also many of lesser stature, and some not involving him directly. The main criterion was that a game be annotated by Lasker, whether he played it or not.

Inevitably there were things we would have liked to include but could not. It seems no copies still exist of Lasker’s pro-German WWI apologia Die Selbsttäuschungen unserer Feinde (The Self-Deceptions of our Enemies, 1915). His philosophical work Das Begreifen der Welt (The Comprehension of the World, 1913) was available only at prohibitive cost. We could not obtain any of Lasker’s works on bridge or other card games. Of his writings on non-chess board games, we included only Lasca due to space limitations, which also forced some other omissions, e.g., his book on the 1934 Alekhine-Bogolyubow match, and his verse-drama Vom Menschen die Geschichte (The History of Mankind).

Still, what we present here is, to my knowledge, the broadest and most in-depth look into the mind of Lasker available in English.

Acknowledgements: In addition to Dr. Althöfer and GM Müller, whose contributions are mentioned above, I am grateful to Jared Becker, who translated most (and the more difficult!) Of the Unvollendbar excerpts, and to my friend Marilyn Piper, who helped with some complicated German idioms and phrases. Special thanks to Robert Jamieson and Ian Rogers for permission to use C.J.S. Purdy’s article The Great Steinitz Hoax. I should also mention Tiffany May of the UCLA Library, who helped me obtain a copy of The Community of the Future. And I would be remiss to omit my analysis partners Stockfish 8 and Komodo 11.2.2, which uncovered many improvements and corrections to game notes.

In closing, I should add that it was by turns stimulating, surprising, instructive, challenging, enlightening and fascinating to enter the mind of such a wide-ranging, insightful and outspoken intellect as Dr. Lasker. He was not always right, but he was always interesting. I hope the reader finds as much enjoyment and edification as I did.

Taylor Kingston

San Diego

February 2019

Foreword

Whenever I read Emanuel Lasker’s words I feel like I’m conversing with a contemporary. That’s a strange feeling because his era seems so far away.

It was a time when chess information traveled agonizingly slowly. As this book shows, Lasker didn’t get around to analyzing the games of his 1894 world championship match until 12(!) years later. That reminds me of Edward Lasker’s recollection, 50 years after the New York tournament of 1924: During one of their chats during that immortal round robin, Emanuel revealed that he was unaware of the Marshall Gambit in the Ruy Lopez. How could he? It became known after a Capablanca-Marshall game. Yes, that game has been celebrated around the world. But it was played a mere six years before 1924, during World War I when chess news circulated at a snail’s pace.

Many years ago I found copies of Lasker’s Chess Magazine in the archives of the Marshall Chess Club. I was deeply impressed by the quality. Was there another world champion – whose first language was not English – who wrote as well as Lasker? That magazine managed to take the dryness and stuffiness out of chess journalism. Lasker claimed a circulation of 15,000 for his magazine. That’s a remarkable figure. In the century since then there has been a long series of American chess magazines. Only one, Chess Life, has topped that number of readers.

Some of Lasker’s comments, found in this book, seem quaint today. For example, from his annotations of his match with Frank Marshall:

I believe the value of ‘pawn formations’ has come to be greatly exaggerated. In my opinion, the pawn formation is the best that interferes the least with the play of the pieces.

Surely, he changed his view on this matter when complex pawn structures became more common in the 1920s and 1930s.

In many other ways, Lasker’s opinions are the ones that resonate today. On the eve of his match with Siegbert Tarrasch he skewered the Tarrasch view that the world championship title can be claimed on the basis of reputation. This is a German view, or rather error, he wrote. In contrast, he said, an American or Englishman believes the champion is the one who wins a match in which the title is at stake.

Lasker’s personal reflections are revealing. The hardest thing for him to learn when he was an aspiring amateur was how to play simply, when neither side has an advantage. My last acquisition of chess knowledge was the handling of balanced positions, he wrote. They did not excite my fantasy. It took years to learn how to play them. I had exactly the same experience.

Much nonsense has been written about Lasker’s use of psychology at the board. He is reputed to have deliberately played questionable moves in order to throw his opponents off-balance. Thanks to computers we can now see that many of his allegedly dubious moves are, in fact, the best ones available. True, he also sought to play the move that would be most difficult for his opponent to answer. Today, every grandmaster seeks the same.

What you will find in these pages is a different use of psychology. Lasker was perhaps the first great player to think about how others think. David Janowski, he tells us, had an unjustified fear of having his king attacked, and this led to bad outcomes when he faced Marshall. Tarrasch made major mistakes but rarely minor ones. Marshall’s intuitive strength was revealed in the tempting combinations he did not make. His chess instinct shows nowhere to greater advantage than when he passes up flawed tactical chances, Lasker wrote.

If Lasker were alive today he would find that chess is a very different game. Tournaments and matches don’t have time limits of 12, 16 or 18 moves per hour. Games are instantly analyzed and new opening ideas fly around the globe in seconds. No one can claim a special advantage in understanding, the way Wilhelm Steinitz or Tarrasch could.

But in another way, Lasker would fit in beautifully with 21st century chess. No world champion is closer to the Lasker playing style than Magnus Carlsen. The emphasis on calculation – on finding the flaws in moves based on intuition or principle – is the Lasker quality that all elite players rely on today. When I look at games of the Carlsen-Fabiano Caruana match I can imagine that most of the moves of both players are Lasker moves.

Of course, that makes sense. Emanuel Lasker is still our contemporary.

Andy Soltis

New York

January 2019

Part I

Chess Writings

The London Chess Fortnightly

By mid-1892 Lasker was already well known in British chess circles, having won matches with Henry Bird and Nicholas Miniati in 1890, winning two London tournaments ahead of such greats as Mason, Blackburne and Gunsberg in March-April 1892, and decisively defeating the British champion Blackburne in a match May-June 1892. Prompted by the request of many amateurs, he began publishing the Fortnightly in August 1892, and despite Lasker relocating to the USA in October, issues of eight to thirty-two pages continued to appear on the first and fifteenth (or thereabouts) of each month through July 30, 1893.

Publication then suddenly ceased, perhaps because of Lasker’s need to prepare for his upcoming world title match with Steinitz. In retrospect, from late 1892 on, the LCF became practically a biweekly chronicle of how Lasker established himself in the USA as a worthy title challenger. We give here a representative sample of games and articles from the LCF, with an emphasis on matters relevant to the eventual title match. Any further text, unless italicized or in a game heading, is from its pages. All game notes, unless stated otherwise, are by Lasker.

The following are some games of the match played recently at the British Chess Club, between Messrs. Blackburne and Lasker.

Blackburne-Lasker, Match, London (1), 27.05.1892, Ruy Lopez [C65]

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nf6 4.d3 d6 5.Nbd2 g6 6.Nf1 h6 7.c3 Bg7 8.Be3 8.h3 a6 9.Ba4 b5 10.Bc2 d5 11.Qe2 Be6 12.Ne3 seems preferable. 8...a6 9.Ba4 0-0 10.h3 b5 11.Bc2 d5 12.g4 Qe7 13.Ng3 The right move. 13.g5 hxg5 14.Bxg5 Be6 15.Ne3 Rad8 16.Qe2 Qc5! gives Black the preferable game. 13...dxe4 14.dxe4 Rd8 15.Qc1 Played in attacking style. 15.Qe2 Be6 16.Nd2 Ne8 would equalize matters. 15...Kh7 16.g5 Ng8 17.gxh6 Bxh6 18.Ng5+ Bxg5 19.Bxg5 f6 20.Be3 Na5 Preparatory for move 25. 21.b3 Nc6 22.Ne2 Be6 23.f3 Rd7 24.h4 Rf8 25.Kf2 b4 26.c4 a5 27.Qg1 Qe8 28.Qg2 Nh6 29.Rad1 29.Rag1 would initiate an attack which could not successfully be carried out. 29...Rxd1 30.Rxd1 Rf7 31.Qg1 Bc8 32.Nc1 Qe6 33.Nd3 f5

Threatening 34...fxe4 or ...f4, followed by ...Qh3. 34.Nc5? A bad move which loses the game. White’s only chance here is: 34.Bxh6 Kxh6 35.Qg5+ Kg7 36.h5 Rf6 37.Rh1 whereupon a draw is the probable result. 34...Qe7 35.Qg5?? f4 36.Qxe7 fxe3+ 37.Kxe3 Rxe7 38.Rd5 Nf7 39.Nd3 Kg7 40.f4 Bb7 41.Nc5 Nd4 42.Nxb7 Nxc2+ 43.Kd3 c6 44.Rxa5 Rxb7 45.Kxc2 exf4 46.Kd3 Kf6 47.e5+ Nxe5+ 48.Ke4 f3 0-1 Resigns, for if 49.Rxe5 f2.

Lasker-Blackburne, Match, London (2), 28.05.1892, French Defense [C01]

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 exd5 4.Bd3 Nf6 5.Bg5 Be7 6.Nf3 0-0 7.0-0 Nc6 8.Re1 Bg4 9.c3 Re8 10.Nbd2 h6 11.Bxf6 Bxf6 12.Rxe8+ Qxe8 13.Qb3 Qd7 14.Qxb7 Rb8 15.Qa6

15...Rb6 An error, perhaps overlooking that after 15...Bxf3 16.Nxf3 Rxb2 17.Bb5 Nb8 18.Bxd7 Nxa6 19.Bc6 Rc2 20.Bb5 Nb8 21.Re1 Rb2! saves the game. 16.Qa3 Not 16.Qa4, because of 16...Nxd4! 16...Be7 17.Qa4 Qc8 18.Re1 Bd7 19.Qc2 Bf6 20.Nb3 Ne7 21.Nc5 Bf5 22.Bxf5 Nxf5 23.Ne5 Bxe5 24.Rxe5 Nh4 25.Qe2 Kh7

26.g3? An extremely bad move. After 26.Rxd5 Rg6 27.g3 Qh3 28.f3, the manoeuvre Nc5-d3-f4 could speedily win. The move in the text is intended to bring about this variation with the additional advantage of a move gained. 26...Qh3 27.gxh4? But now after 27.f3, Black could safely take the b-pawn, viz., 27...Rxb2 28.Qxb2 Nxf3+ 29.Kf2 Qxh2+, winning the queen. Yet, 27.f4 Rxb2 28.Qd3+ g6 29.Re2, is the only continuation which can save the game. 27...Rg6+ 28.Rg5 hxg5 29.h5 Rf6 30.Qd3+ Qxd3 31.Nxd3 Kh6 32.Kg2 Kxh5 33.Nb4 Rd6 34.Kg3 Kg6 Decisive would have been 34...g4 followed by 35...g5 and ...f5. 35.Kg4 f5+ 36.Kg3 Kf6 37.a4 c6 38.h3 Ke7 39.Nd3 Re6 40.Ne5 c5 41.b4 Forced; Black threatens 41...c4.

41...cxd4? 41...Rxe5 42.dxe5 d4! leave White without resource. 42.cxd4 Rh6 43.b5 a6 44.Nc6+ Kd6 45.Ne5 Kc7 46.Nf7 Rg6? And won. [sic] 46...axb5 47.axb5 Rg6 is much better play for Black. 47.bxa6 Kb6 48.Ne5 Rh6 49.Nf7 Rh4 50.Nd6 This move is very important; the knight attacks the f-pawn, at the same time threatening to take an excellent position at b5. 50...f4+ 51.Kg2 Kxa6 52.Nf5 f3+ 53.Kg3 Rf4 54.Nxg7 Rxd4 55.Ne6 Rd1 56.Kxf3 Rg1 57.Nc7+ Ka5 58.Nxd5 Kxa4 ½–½ Drawn game.

The following game was played in the National Masters’ Tournament, March 1892.

Van Vliet-Lasker, 7th British CA Congress, London (5), 11.03.1892, Queen Pawn Opening [D45]

1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.e3 e6 4.c4 c6 5.Nc3 Bd6 6.Bd2 Nbd7 7.Be2 Both players follow well approved lines of development; but here 7.Bd3 is the stronger move. 7...Ne4 8.Qc2 f5 9.0-0 0-0 10.Be1 Qf6 11.Nd2 Qh6 12.f4 Ndf6 13.Ndxe4 dxe4 14.Bg3 Bd7 15.Rad1 Kh8 In preparation for ...Rg8 and ...g7-g5; but White prevents this intention. 16.Rd2 Rfc8 If 16...Rg8 17.Bd1 g5? 18.fxg5. 17.c5 Be7 18.b4 a5 19.b5 cxb5 20.Bxb5 Bxb5 21.Nxb5 Ng4 The initiation of Black’s main attack and much stronger than 21...Nd5, which safely could be answered by 22.Bf2. 22.Re2 e5 The winning move.

23.h3 If 23.fxe5 Bg5 24.Nd6 Rf8 25.Nxf5 Bxe3+ 26.Nxe3 (Or 26.Kh1 g6 and wins) 26...Qxe3+ 27.Bf2 (If 27.Rxe3 Rxf1+ 28.Kxf1 Nxe3+ and wins) 27...Qf4 28.g3 Qh6

29.h4 (Or 29.Be1 Rxf1+ 30.Kxf1 Qh3+ 31.Kg1 Rf8 32.Rg2 Nxh2 and wins) 29...e3 30.Be1 Qc6 31.Rxf8+ Rxf8 32.Rg2 Qf3 33.Qe2 Qe4 34.Qb2 (If 34.Bc3 Rf2 and wins) 34...Qd3 35.Qe2 Qxd4 36.e6 h5 and Black has a winning advantage. 23...Nxe3 24.Rxe3 exd4 25.Nxd4 Bxc5 Black must now regain the piece. 26.Qb2 Qf6 27.Rd1 Rd8 28.Bf2 Bxd4 29.Rxd4 Qxd4 30.Qxb7 Rab8 31.Qa6 Qd6 32.Qxa5 Qxf4 33.g3 Qg5 34.Rxe4 Qf6 35.Rf4 Rd1+ 36.Kh2 Qc6 37.g4 Qh1+ 0-1

Henry Edward Bird (1830-1908), who had played in the first international tournament, London 1851, and played Morphy in 1858, was by 1892 England’s grand old man of chess. Despite losing to Lasker +2 -7 =3 in Liverpool in 1890, Bird was always eager to play and agreed to a five-game set in 1892. The result was even more lopsided, a 5-0 Lasker sweep, yet even so the games were hard fought, and are interesting for featuring two openings named for Bird.

Lasker-Bird, Match, Newcastle on Tyne (1), 29.08.1892, Ruy Lopez (Bird’s Defense) [C61]

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nd4 This is Bird’s own defence against the Ruy Lopez, and we consider it quite as good as any other. 4.Bc4 4.Nxd4 exd4 5.0-0 Bc5 6.d3 c6 7.Bc4 d6 8.f4 Nf6 gives Black the pull. 4...Nxf3+ 5.Qxf3 Nf6 6.d4 d6 6...exd4 would be answered by 7.e5 d5 8.exf6 dxc4 9.Bg5 g6 10.0-0 with a strong attack for White. 7.Qb3 Qe7 8.dxe5 dxe5 9.0-0 c6 10.Qf3 Forced. If 10.Nc3 b5 11.Bd3 Be6 and wins. 10...h6 11.Nc3 g5 12.a4 Be6 13.Qe2 Nd7 14.Rd1 Qf6 15.Be3 Bb4 16.Na2 Be7 17.b4 Nb6 18.Bb3 0-0 19.a5 Nc8 20.Rab1 Nd6 21.Nc3 a6 White wants to play 22.b5, followed by 23.a6. Black eager to counteract this plan, overlooks that his defence creates a hole at b6. He ought instead to have pursued his attack on the kingside with 21...Qg6 and 22...f5. 22.Bb6 Ne8 23.Na4 Ng7 24.c3 Bxb3 25.Rxb3 Ne6 26.g3 Bd8 27.Rb2 Qg6 28.Rbd2 h5 Threatening 29...g4, and after the exchange of the bishops ...Ne6-g5. 29.Bxd8 Raxd8 30.Rxd8 Rxd8 31.Rxd8+ Nxd8 32.Nc5 g4 33.Qd3 Ne6

34.Nxe6 The intended sacrifice of the b-pawn is quite correct. 34.Nxb7 is met by 34...Ng5 35.Nc5 Nf3+ 36.Kf1 Qg5 37.Qd1 h4 threatening ...h3 a.s.o. 34...Qxe6 35.Qd8+ Kh7 36.Qg5 f6 He must lose the h-pawn or the e-pawn whatever he does. 37.Qxh5+ Kg7 38.Kg2 Qd7 39.h3 gxh3+ 40.Qxh3 Qd3 41.Qg4+ Kf7 42.Qf3 Qc4 43.Qe3 Ke6 44.f3 Kd6 (D)

45.Kf2 Of course, 45.Qc5+ would not do, because of 45...Qxc5 46.bxc5+ Kxc5 47.f4 exf4 48.gxf4 b5! 45...Qa2+ 46.Qe2 Qe6 47.Qd2+ Kc7 48.g4 Qc4 49.Qe3 Qa2+ 50.Kg3 Qa1 51.g5 This temporary sacrifice carries the day. 51...fxg5 52.Kg4 Qa2 53.Kxg5 Kd7 54.Kg4 Qg2+ 55.Kf5 Qg3 56.Kf6 c5 57.Qg5 The decisive stroke. 57...Qh2 If 57...Qxf3+ 58.Qf5+ Qxf5+ 59.Kxf5 cxb4 60.cxb4 Kd6 61.Kf6 and wins. 58.Qf5+ If 58.Qxe5 at once Black draws by

perpetual check, e.g., 58...Qh8+ 59.Kf5 Qh5+ 60.Kf4 Qh2+ a.s.o. 58...Kc6 59.Qc8+ Kb5 60.Qxc5+ Ka4 61.Qxe5 Qh8+ 62.Ke6 Qc8+ 63.Ke7 Qc4 64.f4 1-0

Bird-Lasker, Match, Newcastle on Tyne (2), 30.08.1892, From’s Gambit [A02]

1.f4 e5 2.fxe5 d6 3.exd6 Bxd6 4.Nf3 g5 5.d4 g4 6.Ne5

6...Bxe5 If instead 6...Nc6, White may safely reply 7.Nxc6 bxc6 8.e3 Qh4+ 9.Kd2 c5 10.c3. The attack of Black does not amount to much. 7.dxe5 Qxd1+ 8.Kxd1 Nc6 9.Bf4 Be6 10.e3 Nge7 11.Bb5 0-0-0+ 12.Kc1 Bd5 13.Rg1 a6 14.Be2 If 14.Bxc6 Bxc6 15.Nd2 Rhe8 16.Nc4 Ng6 and regains the pawn in a few moves. 14...Be6 15.Nc3 h6 A necessary precaution, as after 15...Ng6 16.Bg5 Rd7 (or ...Rde8) 17.Ne4 Ngxe5 18.Bf6 Rf8 White obtains the superior position. 16.Bd3 Ng6 17.Bxg6 fxg6 18.Rd1 Rde8 19.e4 g5 20.Bg3 Rhf8 The e5-pawn is lost anyhow. Black can wait. 21.b3 h5 22.Rd2 In order to play his bishop to f2 and e3. But 22.Kb2 was sounder. 22...h4 23.Bf2 Nxe5 24.Be3 h3 25.Bxg5 g3

26.hxg3 If 26.gxh3 Nf3 27.Bh6 gxh2 and wins. 26...Rf1+ 27.Kb2 27.Rd1 is followed by 27...hxg2 28.Be3 Bg4. 27...Rxa1 28.Kxa1 h2 29.Rd1 Ng4 30.Rh1 The only move, as Black threatened 30...Nf2. 30...Bf7 31.Kb2 c6 Not 31...Bg6 at once, because 32.Nd5 Bxe4 33.Nf6 would free White’s game. 32.Kc1 Bg6 33.Kd2 Rxe4 34.Nd1 Of course, after 34.Nxe4 Bxe4 Black forces the game by ...Bxg2 a.s.o. 34...Rd4+ 35.Ke2 Rxd1 36.Rxd1 Be4 37.Rd8+ White has no defence against the threatening ...Bxg2. 37...Kc7 38.Rd1 Bxg2 39.Bd8+ Kc8 40.Bb6 Bd5 41.c4 h1Q White resigned the hopeless struggle on the 63rd move. 0-1

Lasker-Bird, Match, Newcastle on Tyne (3), 31.08.1892, Sicilian Defense, Accelerated Dragon [B34]

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 g6 This line of development is very much favored by the veteran player, who very often used it in tournament and match play against the strongest opponents, and with much success. 5.Nxc6 bxc6 6.Qd4 f6 6...Nf6 would be answered by 7.e5 Nh5 8.Be2 Ng7 9.f4. 7.Nc3 Bg7 8.Bc4 Nh6 9.0-0 Nf7 10.Be3 0-0 11.Qd2 e6 12.Rfd1 Qa5 If 12...d5 at once, White could reply 13.exd5 cxd5 14.Nxd5 exd5 15.Bxd5 Ba6 16.Bxa8 a.s.o., remaining with rook and two pawns against the adverse two minor pieces. 13.Rab1 Re8 13...Qb4, in order to stop the advance of the b-pawn, would have been better. 14.b4 Qc7 15.Bf4 Ne5 The point of the game hereabout is to enable the advance of the d-pawn, whereas White is trying to prevent the same. Therefore Black does not reply with 15...e5. 16.Bb3 Bf8 17.b5 Rb8 18.a4 Be7 19.Bg3 Kg7 20.f4 Bc5+ 21.Kh1 Nf7 If 21...Ng4 22.f5 e5 23.h3 Nh6 24.Bh4 Rf8 25.g4 with a strong attack. 22.f5

22...e5 This move proves disastrous. Of course, if 22...d6 23.bxc6 Qxc6 24.fxe6 Bxe6 25.Nd5 would give White by far the better position. We fail to see anything better than 22...Ne5. 3.Bxf7 Kxf7 24.Qh6 g5 Black has not a sufficient reply. If 24...Rh8 25.fxg6+ Kg8? 26.g7. 25.Qxh7+ Kf8 26.Qh6+ Ke7 27.Qg7+ Kd8 28.Qxf6+ Be7 29.Qxe5 d6 Or 29...Qxe5 30.Bxe5 Rb6 31.a5 Rb7 32.bxc6 Rxb1? 33.c7#. 30.f6 Bf8 31.Qxg5 Qf7 32.Bxd6 Bxd6 33.Rxd6+ 1-0

Lasker and Tarrasch: The Seeds of Enmity

The antipathy between Lasker and Siegbert Tarrasch – which would eventually come to a head in their 1908 World Championship match – seems to have gotten off to a running start in 1892. In evidence, this verbatim excerpt from the October 15th issue of the LCF:

In the following we give two short games of Dr. Tarrasch’s, played in the Dresden tournament, which we think do not deserve any comment.

Blackburne-Tarrasch, Dresden 1892, Ruy Lopez [C66]

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nf6 4.d3 d6 5.0-0 g6 6.Nc3 h6 7.h3 Bg7 8.Be3 0-0 9.Qe2 Be6 10.Rad1 Qe7 11.Nh2 ½-½

Dr. Tarrasch proposed a draw at this stage of the game, which Blackburne accepted. Blackburne was not well on the day of play, and Tarrasch, it is said, proposed the draw, not willing to take advantage of that. Some papers say this was very generous upon Tarrasch’s part. We are not of this opinion, especially as a draw was wholly in Tarrasch’s favour and could not do Blackburne any good.

Walbrodt-Tarrasch, Dresden 1892, French Defense [C01]

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 exd5 4.Nf3 Bd6 5.Bd3 Nf6 6.0-0 0-0 7.c3 c6 8.Bg5 Bg4 9.Nbd2 Nbd7 10.Qc2 Qc7 ½–½

Here the players agreed upon a draw. Such a miserable game we scarcely ever have seen played by masters.

Tarrasch won the Dresden tournament impressively, scoring 12-4 (+9 -1 =6) to finish 1½ points ahead of 16 others, his third major first prize in row (Breslau 1889 and Manchester 1890 were the others). Around that time Lasker challenged him to a match, but he declined, saying The young man should first prove his worth by attempting to win one or two major international events; he is not yet entitled to play a match against someone like me! (Hannak, p. 31) Thus it is not surprising that Tarrasch should receive special (and uncomplimentary) scrutiny in Lasker’s magazine. He was targeted again in the issue of January 14 1893:

Mr. Lasker made an attempt to lay the foundation for a match with Dr. Tarrasch some days before the conclusion of the Dresden Tournament. Mr. Lasker wrote a letter to the Chess Editor of the Standard, asking him to communicate privately with the first-prize winner (already likely to be Dr. Tarrasch) relative to a match, to be played in England, in 1893, for a stake of £500. As was expected, Dr. Tarrasch did come in first, and therefore to him the communication was made. To this communication Dr. Tarrasch gave no direct reply to Lasker, neither did the Chess Editor of the Standard. Both, however, made public statements on the matter, and the singular thing is that these statements do not agree; Mr. Lasker is, therefore, still in doubt why the pour parlers for the match terminated so abruptly. Pressure of other avocations and want of time may be the Doctor’s reasons for declining the idea of a match, or he may yet be waiting for Lasker to win first prize in an International Master Tournament before he counts him worthy of engaging in a match. We may point out that had Lasker taken part in the Dresden Tournament, a match between him and Tarrasch would still have been a remote contingency, according to Dr. Tarrasch’s idea. Thus, if Lasker had played and come in anywhere below first, the Doctor, on his own showing, would not have entertained a challenge, for Lasker would remain without a first prize. On the other hand, if Lasker had won the first prize, clearly in that case it would have been the Doctor, and not Lasker, who would have had to issue a challenge.

Earlier, in the October 1 1892 issue, Lasker had floated another idea:

Some people are beginning to wonder whether an International Master Tournament will form part of this season’s programme. The last one [in England] was held at Manchester in 1890 ... and many people are of opinion that a similar tournament should be played in 1893. No international tournament has taken place in London since 1886. Many changes have taken place since then; players like Capt. Mackenzie and Dr. Zukertort have, alas! passed over to the majority, whilst younger players like Dr. Tarrasch and Herr Lasker have come to the front, and surely the great Metropolis ought to have its 1893 International Master Tournament.¹

However, even before any of these statements appeared in the LCF, Lasker had already decided his greenest pastures lay elsewhere, as evinced by this report in the October 15th issue:

Mr. Lasker arrived at New York by the steamer Spree on the 6th October, in good health, after a somewhat rough passage. In the evening he had a very cordial reception at the Manhattan Chess Club where speeches were made by Dr. Fred. Mintz, Prof. Isaac Rice, and others. The following is an extract from the New York Tribune:

"Herr Lasker ... will play short matches with the experts of New York and Brooklyn. These contests will be three games with each player, and the club will furnish a prize for each match. It is expected that the contestants will include A.B. Hodges, champion of the state ... Major J.W. [sic] Hanham, Eugene Delmar, D.G. Baird, and other members of the club.

Mr. Lasker has issued a challenge to all chess players in the United States, offering to play matches with any chessist who wishes to meet him, naming the stakes at $75 a side, first winner of five games, draws not to count, to be the victor.

Historian Ken Whyld records that Lasker was engaged by the Manhattan CC to play a series of three serious games against each of eight leading members. The 24 games were crucial in establishing his standing in the USA. Whyld’s term series is carefully chosen. Rather than three games in a row against a given player, Lasker played one game against each of the eight opponents – J.M. Hanham (historical Elo rating 2360), G. Simonson, D.G. Baird (2350), C.B. Isaacson, A.B. Hodges (2450), E. Delmar (2420), J.W. Baird, and J.S. Ryan² – and then the same cycle was repeated twice more. This campaign by Lasker, to prove himself against America’s best, would be so successful that it would lead to a title match with World Champion Wilhelm Steinitz, then living in New Jersey. We present the games with Lasker’s LCF annotations:

Hanham-Lasker, exhibition series, Manhattan CC, New York, 10.10.1892, Anderssen’s Opening [A00]: 1.a3 e6 2.e4 d5 3.exd5 exd5 4.d4 This is, apart from the difference of colour and the almost inessential move a2-a3, a French Defence. [It is remarkable how little Lasker comments on this and other unorthodox openings he encountered in this series.] 4...Nf6 5.Nf3 Bd6 6.Bd3 0-0 7.0-0 Bg4 Perhaps 7...Be6 is the stronger move here. 8.Be3 Nbd7 9.Nbd2 Re8 10.c3 c6 11.Qc2 Qc7 12.Rae1 h6 The only way to prevent an exchange of the active forces, which White could inaugurate with Be3-g5. 13.h3 Be6 Now the position is about even, but Black has a slight advantage that his King’s side has more liberty of motion. 14.Bf5 b6 As a preparation for ...c6-c5, which never followed nor ever had a chance, quite superfluous. 14...Re7 and doubling rooks was better play. 15.Re2 Bxf5 16.Qxf5 g6 17.Qd3 Kg7 18.Rfe1 Re6 19.Nh4 Threatening 20.Bxh6+ followed by 21.Rxe6. 19...Ne4 20.Nf1 Nf8 White threatened 21.f3 and 22.Bxh6+, &c. 21.g3 Rae8 22.Ng2 R6e7 23.Bf4 Ne6 24.Bxd6 Qxd6 25.h4 This move is forced, to prevent the black knights from entering at g5. A lively skirmish follows now, where White sacrifices a pawn to ensure the attack. 25...f5 26.h5 The only reply, as Black threatens 26...f4, and should equalize matters. 26...gxh5 27.Nh4 Kf6

28.Qf3 Here Steinitz showed the best continuation. 28.f3 Nxg3 29.Re5! Rg7 (best) 30.Nxg3 Rxg3+ 31.Kf2 Rg5 with about an even game. Against the text move Black gets the best of it. 28...Ng7 29.Ne3 Ng5 Decisive. 30.Qg2 f4 31.gxf4 Qxf4 32.Qg3 Re4 33.Qxf4+ Rxf4 34.Neg2 Rxe2 35.Rxe2 Rg4 36.f3 Rg3 37.Kf2 Nf5 38.Nxf5 This loses a pawn; but the ending was lost for him anyhow. 38...Rxf3+ 39.Kg1 Rxf5 40.Re8 Nf3+ 41.Kh1 Kf7 42.Rc8 h4 A superfluous move, but which does no harm, 42...Rg5 at once was stronger. 43.Rc7+ Kf8 44.Rxc6 Ke7 45.Rxh6 Rg5 46.a4 He has got no defence. 46...Rg3 Forcing mate or winning a clear rook. 47.Rh7+ Kf8 48.Rh5 Rh3#

D.G. Baird-Lasker, exhibition series, Manhattan CC, 12.10.1892, Sicilian Defense, Accelerated Dragon [B34]

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 g6 5.Nxc6 dxc6 This move perhaps is better than 5...bxc6, which Mr. Bird favoured in his match with Mr. Lasker, on account of the reply 6.Qd4. 6.Qxd8+ Kxd8 7.Bc4 Nf6

8.f3 He dare not take the f-pawn, or he would lose a piece. 8.Bxf7? e6 9.Bg5 Be7 10.Bh6 Nxe4 11.Bg7 Bf6 12.Bxh8 Bxh8 a.s.o. 8...Ke8 9.Nc3 Bg7 10.Bd2 Nd7 11.0-0-0 11.0-0 was preferable. 11...b5 12.Be2 Nb6 Black now gets the best of the ending; he threatens ...b5-b4, followed up with ...Nb6-a4 and eventually ...Ra8-b8. 13.f4 e5 14.Bf3 Nc4 15.f5 Nxd2 16.Kxd2 Of course not 16.Rxd2, as 16...Bh6 would win the exchange. 16...Ke7 17.g4 Bh6+ 18.Ke2 Bb7 19.Rhg1 Bf4 20.h3 Rhd8 21.Rxd8 Rxd8 22.Rd1 Rxd1 23.Nxd1 Bc1 An essential move, as will be seen shortly afterwards. 24.b3 Kd6 25.Nf2 b4 26.Nd3 Ba6 27.Kd1 He had to do this move former [sic] or later, to somewhat free his pieces. 27...Bxd3

28.Kxc1 If 28.cxd3 Bg5 29.Ke2/Kf2 Kc5, and the black king entering the white camp at d4, c6 or e6 decides the battle easily. 28...Bf1 29.h4 Kc5 30.Kd2 Kd4 31.fxg6 fxg6 32.g5 c5 33.Bg4 c4 34.Be6 His only chance is the counter attack on the kingside. 34...c3+ 35.Ke1 Bg2 36.Bg8 Ke3 37.Bxh7 Bxe4 38.Kd1 Should he advance 38.h5 Bxc2 39.h6 Bxb3 40.Bxg6 c2 and wins. 38...Kf2 39.Kc1 Bf5 40.h5 e4 41.Bg8 0-1 As 41.Bxg6 might be answered by 41...Bxg6 42.hxg6 e3 and mate in a few moves.

Lasker-Isaacson, exhibition series, Manhattan CC, New York, 13.10.1892, Owen’s Defense [C10]

1.e4 b6 2.d4 Bb7 3.Nc3 e6 4.Nf3 Be7 5.Bd3 Nf6 6.Qe2 This move is of doubtful value, leading, as the game went, to an early exchange of queens. 6...d5 7.0-0 dxe4 8.Nxe4 Qd5 9.Nc3 White cannot retire his knight to g3, on account of the answer 9...h5, which would give Black a strong attack. 9...Qh5 10.Ne5 Qxe2 11.Nxe2 0-0 12.Rd1 Rd8 13.a4 Nc6 14.Nxc6 Bxc6 15.f3 a5 16.Bg5 Rac8 17.Bh4 Bb7 18.Bf2

Black tries to bring his c-pawn forward to his 4th square, but in this moment White need not be afraid of 18...c5; after 19.dxc5 Bxc5 20.Bxc5 Black is compelled to take back with the pawn, as 20...Rxc5 would be answered by 21.Bxh7+. 18...Bd6 19.Nc3 g6 Now Black wants to push his c-pawn. 20.Bh4 Be7 21.Ne4 Kg7 22.c3 Nd5 23.Bf2 f5

The knight, of course, is much embarrassing on e4; still Black had to consider his last move, as later on it allows White to put his knight at e5 into a commanding position. 24.Nd2 Bf6 25.Re1 Re8 26.Bg3 h5 To get rid of the dangerous bishop. 27.Nc4 h4 28.Be5 Rh8 29.h3 Rhe8 Back again! As he had nothing more to do on the kingside. 30.Kf2 Rcd8 31.Bxf6+ Nxf6 32.Ne5 Nd5 33.Bb5 Re7 34.Bc6 Ba6 Of course, if Black exchanges bishops, he loses the exchange. 35.Bxd5 Rxd5 36.Rad1 Rd6 37.b3 Kf6 38.f4 White threatens now Ne5-f3; with this commences the final attack, which wins the game for White. 38...Bb7 39.Rd3 Re8 40.Rde3 Bd5 Black probably thought to force White to play 41.c4, when after 41...Be4 the white d-pawn is very weak. 41.g3 Bxb3 42.gxh4 Bxa4 43.Rg3 Rg8 44.h5 Be8 45.hxg6 a4 46.h4 b5 Black cannot play 46...Bxg6 as 47.Reg1 would immediately force the game. 47.h5 Rd8 48.Reg1

48...c5 Nor does 48...Kg7 any good. After 49.h6+ Kxh6 50.g7 Bh5 51.Rh3 any 52.Rxh5+ Kxh5 53.Rh1#. 49.h6 cxd4 50.h7 Kg7 51.hxg8Q+ Kxg8 52.g7 dxc3 53.Rh1 1-0

Lasker-Ryan, exhibition series, Manhattan CC, New York, 17.10.1892, King’s Fianchetto Defense [B06]

1.d4 g6 2.c3 Bg7 3.e4 d6 4.Be3 Nf6 5.f3 White’s strategy is to establish a firm position in the centre. 5...Nbd7 6.Bd3 Nb6 7.Ne2 d5 8.e5 Nfd7 9.h4 Here White assumes an attack against Black’s kingside, with a good prospect of success, as Black was incautious enough to bring his knight over to the queenside. 9...Nc4 Though leading to the loss of a pawn, the only expedient in his difficult position. 10.Bxc4 dxc4 11.Na3 Nb6 12.Nxc4 Nd5 13.Qd2 Nxe3 He exchanges too early; he should rather bring his QB into play, with 13...Be6. 14.Nxe3 c6 15.h5 Be6 16.Nf4 Bd7 17.hxg6 hxg6 18.Rxh8+ Bxh8 19.Qd3 Qb6 20.e6 Bxe6 21.Nxe6 fxe6 22.Qxg6+ Kd7 23.0-0-0 Qa6 24.a3 Rf8 25.Ng4 Bf6 26.Ne5+ Kc8 27.Nd3 Qc4 28.Nc5 Rd8 29.Re1

This move immediately decides the game in White’s favour. 29...b6 29...Rd6 would not help, as White would answer 30.Rxe6 Rxd4 31.Qe8+ Kc7 32.Rxe7+ Bxe7 33.Qxe7+ Kb6 34.Qxb7+ Kxc5 35.Qxa7+ Kb5 36.Qxd4 winning easily. 30.Nxe6 Rh8 If 30...Rd6 31.Qg8+ and wins Black’s queen next move. 31.Qg3 Kb7 31...Kd7 was a little better, but could not hold the game long. 32.Qc7+ Ka6 33.Nc5+ 1-0 For he must lose his queen in a few moves.

From the November 1 1892 issue: Mr. Lasker has had a very busy time of it since his arrival in New York. He has played 12 games against first-class players, winning 10, drawing 1, and losing 1 – Mr. Hodges securing the win, and Mr. Delmar the draw ... Mr. Lasker, by special invitation, visited the Manhattan, Brooklyn, and City Clubs, and was received with great cordiality by the élite of the New York chess world, including Messrs. Lipschütz, Steinitz, and other leading chessists. Mr. Lasker’s advent has caused no small excitement in American chess circles ... Mr. Lasker has entered into various extra engagements since his arrival in New York, and this will prolong his visit to the States, but he expects to return to [Britain] about the end of January. [Actually he would not return until June 1894.]

Hodges-Lasker, exhibition series, Manhattan CC, New York, 4.11.1892, Queen’s Gambit Declined [D52]

1.Nf3 d5 2.d4 Nf6 3.c4 e6 4.Bg5 Nbd7 5.e3 c6 5...Be7 would have been sounder play and more in accordance with modern views, but it leads to a dull and drawing game. 5...g6 in place of the move in the text may also be recommended. 6.Nc3 Qa5 [The first Cambridge Springs in master play. – Whyld] 7.Bxf6 Forced, as he cannot allow this knight to go to e4. 7...gxf6 8.a3 dxc4 9.Bxc4 Qh5 10.Be2 Qh6 11.g3 Be7 12.Qc2 b6 13.h4 Bb7 14.Rg1 a6 Preparing ...c6-c5. 15.Rd1 Rc8 16.Qd2 He ought to have played here 16.g4 Rg8 17.Bd3 Nf8 18.Qe2 &c. 16...Rg8 17.e4 This move was harshly criticised, but anything else would have allowed Black to play ...f6-f5, followed by ...Nd7-f6-d5, with an excellent game. 17...Qxd2+ 18.Rxd2 Rd8 19.Kf1 Bd6 20.g4 Too late now. 20.Kg2 with a view of continuing with 21.Re1 or Rgd1 was more to the point. 20...Bf4 21.Rd1 Ke7 22.Bd3 Nf8 23.Ne2 Bb8 24.h5 h6 25.Nh4 b5 26.Bc2 Nd7 27.f4 27.f3, though more cautious, was hardly better. Black would have proceeded with 27...c5, and if then 28.d5 Ne5 with the superior position. 27...Nb6 28.Bb3 Ba7 29.Kf2 c5 30.Kf3 cxd4

31.Rxd4 His best plan would have been 31.Nxd4 Nc4 32.Ndf5+ exf5 33.Nxf5+ Ke6 34.Bxc4+ bxc4 35.Nxh6 Bxg1 36.f5+ Ke7 37.Nxg8+ Rxg8 38.Rxg1 and White, with two pawns against a piece, would have fair fighting chances. 31...Nc4 32.Rgd1 32.Rxd8 loses likewise the exchange; 32...Rxd8 (threatening ...Rd3+) 33.Rd1 Nd2+ &c. 32...Bxd4 33.Nxd4 Nd6 34.Bc2 Rd7 35.Ng2 f5 36.gxf5 exf5 37.Ne3 fxe4+ 38.Kf2 Rgd8 39.Rg1 Kf8 40.Rg3 Nc4 41.Ndf5 Rd2+ 42.Ke1 Nxe3 43.Nxe3 Rh2 44.Bd1 Rd3 45.Be2 Rb3 46.f5 Rxb2 1-0 If, for instance, 47.Bd1 Rh1+ 48.Nf1 Rb1 wins a piece.

Lasker-Delmar, exhibition series, Manhattan CC, New York, 9.11.1892, Irregular Queen Pawn Opening [D02]

1.d4 e6 2.Nf3 d5 3.Bg5 f6 3...Be7 or 3...Nf6 were better. 4.Bf4 Bd6 5.Bg3 Ne7 6.Nbd2 Bxg3 There is no reason for this exchange; 6...c5 is preferable. 7.hxg3 Qd6 8.e4 dxe4 9.Nxe4 Qb4+ With a view of winning a pawn. The scheme is faulty, as will be seen. 10.c3 Qxb2 11.Nfd2

11...0-0 He had nothing else; for instance 11...Qb6 12.Nc4 Qc6 13.Ncd6+ cxd6 (best under the circumstances) 14.Bb5 and wins. 12.Rb1 Qxa2 13.Nc4 Threatening 14.Ra1. 13...Qa6 14.Ncd6

14...Qxd6 Black has no choice. In reply to 14...Qa5 15.Rb5 Qa3 16.Nc4 Qa6 17.Ra5 with an overpowering attack. If 14...Qc6, White also wins the queen by 15.Bb5 Qd5 16.c4. 15.Nxd6 cxd6 16.Bd3 h6 17.Bc2 Nbc6 18.g4 Kf7 19.Bb3 He threatens 20.d5. 19...d5 20.f4 Bd7 21.Bc2 Inasmuch as f4-f5 and Rxb7 threaten, Black cannot defer defeat much longer. 21...Rfb8 22.g5 fxg5 23.Qh5+ Kg8 24.fxg5 Be8 25.Qe2 h5 26.g6 Nxg6 27.Qxh5 Nce7 28.Qh7+ Kf8 29.Rf1+ Nf5 30.Bxf5 exf5 31.Rxf5+ Ke7 32.Qxg7+ Kd8 33.Rxb7 Rxb7 34.Qxb7 1-0

From the November 15th 1892 issue: Mr. Lasker concluded his engagement at the Manhattan Chess club on the 9th Nov. Out of the series of 24 match games, he won 21, drew one, and lost two. His total for all games was 51½ out of 59 played.

The members of the Havana Chess Club are anxious to get up a match between Steinitz and Lasker, and offered $500 expenses, besides free return passage to each player, to play the match in Havana, and it is understood the stakes would have been easily provided. Mr. Lasker, however, had previously announced that it was not his intention to play for the world’s championship with Mr. Steinitz, who, on his part, is too busy at his forthcoming book to enter on any match play for the present; the handsome offer, therefore, of the Havana Club has to be declined.

De Visser-Lasker, exhibition game, New York, 13.11.1892, Sicilian Defense, Classical Dragon [B73]

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 g6 5.Be3 Bg7 6.Nc3 d6 7.Be2 Nf6 8.Qd2 Bd7 9.0-0 0-0 10.Rad1 14 min. Both parties are well developed. 10...a6 11 min. 11.h3 Rc8 12.f4 This advance gives fair prospects of an attack, although it weakens the e-pawn. 12...Qc7 13.Bf3 A wasted move, as will be seen immediately. 13...Na5 14.Be2 Nc4 15.Bxc4 Qxc4 16.Qd3 Rfd8

17.Nb3 If here 17.e5, then 17...Ne8 18.Qxc4 Rxc4 19.Nd5 dxe5 20.fxe5 Bxe5 21.Nxe7+ Kf8 22.Nd5 Bxd4 23.Bxd4 Be6 &c. 17...Bb5 18.Nxb5 axb5 19.Nd4 Qxa2 20.Ra1 58 min. 20.Qxb5 would have been better. 20...Qc4 54 min. 21.Nxb5 Qxc2 22.Qxc2 Rxc2 23.Bb6 Rdc8 24.e5 dxe5 25.fxe5 Nd7 26.Bd4 Bxe5 This virtually ends the game. 27.Rfe1 f6 28.Ra7 Bg3 29.Rd1 1 h. 18 min. 29...Rc1 30.Ra1 Rxa1 1 h. 16 min. 31.Rxa1 Kf7 32.Bc3 Rc5 33.Nd4 Be5 34.Ra7 Rd5 35.Ne2 Nc5 36.b4 Rd1+ 37.Kf2 Ne4+ 38.Ke3 Nxc3 0-1

Lasker-De Visser, exhibition game, Brooklyn CC, New York, 18.11.1892, Ruy Lopez [C62]

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 d6 4.d4 Bd7 5.Nc3 Nxd4 Here, 5...Nf6 is generally played. 6.Bxd7+ Qxd7 7.Nxd4 exd4 8.Qxd4 Nf6 9.b3 Be7 10.Bb2 2 min. 10...Ng4 10 min. 11.Nd5 Bh4 12.g3 Ne5

A pretty looking move, which however loses the game. 13.0-0-0 Bg5+ If here 13...Bf6, then follow 14.Nxf6+ gxf6 15.f4. 14.f4 Bh6 15.Kb1 Nc6 16.Nf6+

From the December 14th 1892 issue: Mr. Lasker, after completing his various engagements in New York, has been on a visit to Canada. He spent some days in Montreal, playing in all 56 games with only the loss of one or two games in simultaneous play. In Quebec, he won another game with Mr. McLeod, the Canadian champion ... On the 28th November he entered upon an engagement with the Baltimore Club, and it is hoped he will meet Mr. Pollock³ over the board ... Lasker’s visit to America will last yet for some weeks.

The LCF published only three games from those trips, an unannotated blindfold game with Pollock, and two consultation games. All three have points of interest.

Played at the Montreal Chess Club. Each side has three players to conduct the game:

Lasker/Marler/Liddel-Babson/Henderson/Fleming, consultation, Montreal, 23.11.1892, Ruy Lopez, Steinitz Defense [C62]

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 d6 4.d4 This is the strongest available move for White in this variation of the Ruy Lopez. 4...exd4 5.Nxd4 Bd7 6.Nc3 g6 7.Be3 Bg7 8.Be2 To support an eventual attack with g2-g4, but also otherwise a good move. 8...Nf6 9.Qd2 h6 10.f3 a6 Waiting for White to castle. 11.Rb1 Forcing Black to activity. 11...Qe7 12.b4 Nxd4 13.Bxd4 0-0 14.0-0 Rfe8 15.Rbd1 Bc6 16.Bc4 White now has a superior game. 16...Nh7 17.Be3 Another good movement of the white allies. 17...Qe5 18.Nd5 Winning at least a pawn. 18...Bxd5 19.Bxd5 c6 20.Bb3 Qh5 If 20...d5 instead, White answers with 21.Bf4, with a winning attack. 21.g4 Qh3 22.Qxd6 Be5 23.Qxg6+ Kh8 24.Qxh6 Bxh2+ 25.Kh1 Qxh6 26.Bxh6 Be5 27.Rd7 Red8 28.Rfd1 1-0

We give the following fine game, which was played at the Maryland State Chess Association, Baltimore, between Messrs. E. Lasker and W.H.K. Pollock, the Maryland State champion. Both players played without sight of the board or men. Mr. Pollock’s numerous English friends will be glad of this specimen of his skill as a blindfold player.

Lasker-Pollock, blindfold exhibition, Baltimore, 29.11.1892, Ruy Lopez, Exchange variation [C68]

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Bxc6 dxc6 5.d4 Bg4 6.dxe5 Qxd1+ 7.Kxd1 Bc5 8.Ke2 0-0-0 9.Be3 Be7 10.h3 Bh5 11.Nbd2 f6 12.Rhd1 fxe5 13.g4 Be8 14.Nxe5 Nf6 15.f3 h5 16.Nf1 hxg4 17.hxg4 Nd7 18.Nxd7 Bxd7 19.Kf2 Rdf8 20.Kg2 Bd6 21.Ng3 Rf7 22.Nf5 Bxf5 23.exf5 Rh2+

24.Kg1 Rxc2 25.Rd2 Rxd2 26.Bxd2 Rd7 27.Bc3 Bc5+ 28.Kg2 Bd4 29.Bxd4 Rxd4 30.Rh1 b5 31.Rh7 c5 32.Rxg7 c4 33.Kg3 b4 34.f6 c3 35.bxc3 bxc3 36.f7 Rd8 37.Rg8 c2 38.Rxd8+ Kb7 39.f8Q c1Q 40.Qb4+ Kc6 41.Qd6+

41...Kb7 42.Qd5+ 1-0

Played at Baltimore and conducted by Lasker simultaneously with five others:

Lasker-Pollock + allies, consultation simul, Baltimore, 30.11.1892, Ruy Lopez [C60]

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Na5 This is Pollock’s own defence. 4.0-0 White prefers a quiet development to exposing himself to an attack by 4.Nxe5. 4...c6 5.Be2 Qc7 6.d4 f6 7.a3 Threatening to win the adverse QKt. 7...b6 8.Be3 d6 9.Nc3 Ne7 10.Qd2 Ng6 11.Ne1 With this move, which prepares the advance of the f-pawn, White assumes the attack on the kingside. 11...Be7 12.b4 Nb7 13.f4 exf4 14.Bxf4 Nxf4 15.Qxf4 0-0 16.Bg4 With this move White obtains the key to the situation, for after the exchange of bishops he obtains command of three important squares, viz., d5, e6, and f5. 16...Bxg4 17.Qxg4 Rfc8 An ineffective attempt to shift the scene of battle. 18.Nd3 a5 19.b5 Nd8 20.bxc6 Nxc6 21.Nd5 Qd8 22.c3 Kh8 23.N3f4 Bf8 24.Rf3 Threatening mate in three moves by: 25.Ng6+ hxg6 26.Rh3+ Kg8 27.Qe6#. 24...Ra7 25.Qe6 g5 26.Nxf6 Rg7 27.Rh3

27...Qxf6 He has nothing else to escape 28.Ng6#. If, for instance, 27...Ne7 White still plays 28.Ng6+ and after 28...Nxg6 has a choice at mating in two moves by either Rxh7+ or Qg8+. 28.Qxf6 gxf4 29.Rxh7+ Kxh7 30.Qf5+ Kg8 31.Qxc8 1-0

The January 14th 1893 issue had an extensive summary of 1892’s important chess events, and presented various items both serious and amusing. An example of the latter is the problem below, which was titled The Sacrifice of the Missionaries of Uganda, with the terms White to play and compel Black to mate in 15 moves. The solution is given in the footnote below.⁴

That issue also reported: In all, Mr. Lasker played 54 games at Baltimore, winning 53 and losing one only ... At Logansport (Indiana), Mr. Lasker won one game and lost another to Showalter. A match of five games up between these two players has been arranged for stakes of $750.⁵

Coverage of the Lasker-Showalter match began in the January 30 1893 issue: The first game between Lasker and Showalter was a very stubborn contest indeed, lasting over eleven hours ... it was not until the 68th move that Lasker scored the game. On the following day the second game was started, and resulted in a brilliant victory for Showalter, Lasker playing in somewhat indifferent form owing to the fatigue of the previous day’s sitting. All the same the gallant Kentuckian is to be congratulated for his splendid play.

Lasker-Showalter, Logansport, 14.12.1892, Ruy Lopez, Wormald Attack [C65]

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nf6 4.Qe2 An old-fashioned continuation which is seldom played in modern match or tournament games. 4...Bc5 This move which gives up a pawn for the sake of a lively attack by Black’s two combined bishops,

Jackson Showalter

occurred first in a game between Neumann and Anderssen. 5.Bxc6 bxc6 6.Nxe5 0-0 6...Qe7 would be met with 7.f4. 7.c3 a5 8.d4 Ba6 9.Qf3 Re8 10.Bg5 Be7 11.Nd2 Rb8 12.b3 Qc8 13.c4 Bd8 Excellent play and definitely superior to the tempting 13...c5 which would be answered by 14.d5. 14.0-0 White is forced to castle, for Black threatens ...Ba6-b7; if, for instance 14.Nd3, Black can safely reply 14...Nxe4. 14...c5 15.Qh3 Re6 16.Nef3 Nxe4 17.Nxe4 Rxe4 18.Bxd8 If 18.Qf5 at once, Black would reply 18...d5 with the identical attack as in actual play. 18...Qxd8 19.Qf5 Qe7 20.Rae1 If 20.Ng5 then 20...Rh4 with no apparent advantage for either side. 20...Re6 21.d5 Apparently stronger than 21.dxc5 but for Showalter’s excellent resources. 21...g6 22.Qf4 Qd6 23.Qxd6 Rxd6 24.Ng5 a4

If 24...Rdb6 25.Ne4 d6 26.Nf6+ Kg7 (the only move to get out). 25.Ne4 After 25.Re7 White cannot force a mate, Black answering 25...axb3 26.axb3 Rxb3 27.Nxf7 Bxc4, which would only lead to a draw. 25...axb3 26.axb3 Rxb3 If 26...Rdb6 27.Nxc5 Bc8 28.Re7 and wins. 27.Nxd6 cxd6 28.Rc1 Rb4 29.Rb1 Bxc4 The only move to avoid speedy loss. If 29...Rxc4 then 30.Rb6; or if 29...Ra4 then 30.Rb8+ Kg7 31.Ra8. 30.Rxb4 cxb4 31.Rd1 Ba2 32.Rd2 b3 33.Rb2 Kg7 34.f4 Kf6 35.Kf2 g5 36.Kf3 h6 37.Ke4 37.g4 would immediately draw because of 37...gxf4, and when White plays h2-h4, Black also replies ...h5. 37...Kg6 38.f5+

38...Kf6 If 38...Kh5 39.Kf3 Kh4 40.h3 f6 41.g3+ Kxh3 42.g4 and wins. Or 38...Kh5 39.Kf3 g4+ 40.Kf4 Kh4 41.h3 gxh3 42.g3+ Kh5 43.Rh2 and 44.Rxh3#. 39.g4 Ke7 40.Kd4 Kf6 41.Ke4 If 41.h3 h5 draws as afterwards the pawn at h3 is without the support of the rook. 41...Ke7 42.Kd3 Kf6 43.Kd4 Kg7 44.Kc3 h5 His only resource. If 44...Kf6 45.Rd2 Ke5 46.Kb2 Kf4 47.h3 Kg3 48.Rd3+ Kf2 49.Rc3 Kg2 50.Rc7 Kxh3 51.Rxd7 Kxg4 52.Rxd6 Kxf5 &c. 45.gxh5 Kh6 46.Re2 b2 Best. If 46...Kxh5 47.Kb2 Kg4 48.Re7 Kxf5 49.Rxf7+ Ke4 50.Rxd7 Kxd5 51.Rg7 and wins. 47.Rxb2 Bxd5 48.Rd2 Be4 49.Rxd6+ Kxh5 50.f6 Bf5 51.Kd4 Be6 52.Ke5 g4 53.Rd3 Kg6 Here he ought to go on to h4 to tie the rook. 54.Rd2 Kg5 55.Rf2 Kg6 56.Kd6 Kg5 57.Ke7 Kh5 58.Re2 Threatening 59.Rxe6. 58...Kg6 59.Re5 Bb3 60.Rb5 Be6 61.Rb6 Bf5 62.Rb8 Be6 63.Rh8 The winning move to draw the black king to g5. 63...Kg5 64.Rh7 d5 65.Rxf7 Bxf7 66.Kxf7 d4 67.Kg7 d3 68.f7 1-0 After 68...d2 69.f8Q d1Q White mates in two moves.

Showalter-Lasker, Logansport, 16.12.1892, Ruy Lopez [C66]

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nf6 4.0-0 d6 A better defence is 4...Nxe4. 5.d4 Bd7 6.Nc3 Be7 6...exd4 would have been preferable. 7.Bxc6 Bxc6 8.Qe2 exd4 9.Nxd4 Bd7 10.b3 0-0 11.Bb2 Re8 12.Rad1 Bf8 13.Qd3 Kh8 Loss of time at least. 13...c6 should have been played here. 14.f4 c6 15.Nf3 Bg4 16.Rd2 Qc7 17.h3 Bxf3 18.Qxf3 Rad8 19.g4 Kg8 20.g5 Nd7 21.Ne2 d5 22.e5 Much better than 22.exd5. 22...Qa5 A bad move, as will be seen. 23.Bc3 Bb4 24.Bxb4 Qxb4 25.c3 Qb6+ 26.Kh2 Nc5 27.Ng3 Rd7 Bad again. He ought to have broken the adverse attack by 27...Ne4. 28.Nh5 A beautiful move, which forces a speedy win. 28...Ne4 29.Rg2 Kh8 30.Nf6

30...gxf6 31.gxf6 Rdd8 32.Rg7 1-0 Black cannot guard against the threatened 33.Rxh7+, which would lead to mate in a few moves.

A planned third game in Logansport was canceled due to Lasker’s commitments in Philadelphia. There he played two simuls, and two serious games each against five of the Franklin CC’s best: W.P. Shipley, G. Reichhelm, A.K. Robinson, H.G. Voigt and D.M. Martínez. Yet few of those appeared in the Fortnightly. The one below is remarkable for the fact that Lasker was dead lost after just ten moves. Yet he won, showing his resiliency in difficult circumstances. We take the liberty of adding some computer analysis (in italics) to Lasker’s notes.

Martínez, D.M.-Lasker, Franklin CC, Philadelphia, 21.12.1892, Scotch Game [C45]: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.Nxd4 Bc5 5.Be3 Qf6 6.c3 Nge7 7.Bc4 7.Be2 is the usual continuation here. 7.Nf3 is also often played. 7...d6 8.0-0 Ne5 A good reply. 9.Be2 h5 A premature attack, as will be seen. 10.Nb5 (D)

10...Bxe3 The only move. Of course not 10...Kd8 on account of 11.Bxc5. [The text was a blunder. Best was 10...0-0 11.Nxc7 Rb8, losing only a pawn.] 11.Nxc7+ 11.fxe3 at once would have been safer.

The probable continuation would have been 11...Qg5 12.Nxc7+ followed by 13.Nxa8. The move in the text gives Black an opportunity to give up the queen for rook and piece and an interesting attack. [11.fxe3 is not only safer, but crushing; White wins a rook and Black’s attacking prospects are illusory.] 11...Kd7 12.fxe3 Kxc7 13.Rxf6 gxf6 14.Na3 a6

Stockfish 8 rates this at +4.65, and sees 15.Nc4 Nxc4 16.Bxc4 Bd7 17.Qf3 as best. 15.h3 Be6 16.c4 Rag8 17.Kf2 Probably 17.Kh2 would have been superior. 17...Rg5 18.Rc1 Rhg8 19.Bf1 f5 Probably the best move at Black’s disposal. The position bristles with difficulty. 20.c5 dxc5 21.Rxc5+ N7c6 22.exf5 Rxf5+ 23.Ke2 Rfg5 24.Qd4 Well played. Black threatened 24...Rxg2+. 24...Kb8 25.Qd6+ Ka8 26.Rc3 Rd8 27.Qc7 Rc8 28.Qd6 Rd8 29.Qc7 Rgg8 30.Qb6 Nd7 31.Qc7 Nde5 32.Qb6 Nd7 33.Qc7 Nde5 34.Qb6 Bd5 (D)

35.Ke1 If 35.Kf2 then likewise 35...Bxg2 followed by ...Rd2+ if 36.Bxg2. 35...Bxg2 36.Bxa6 White has hardly anything else than this tempting sacrifice. 36...bxa6 Nothing would be gained by 36...Nf3+ 37.Kf2 Rd2+, for White would simply interpose the bishop. The remainder of the game tells its own story. 37.Qxa6+ Kb8 38.Qb6+ Stockfish says 38.Qb5+ would still win, though with difficulty.

38...Kc8 39.e4 39.Nc4 would still draw. 39...Bxe4 40.Nb5 Kd7 41.Qc7+ Ke6 42.Qb6 Rg2 43.Re3 Nd3+ 44.Rxd3 Rxd3 45.Qc5 Ne5 46.Nc7+ Kf5 47.Nb5 Kf4 48.Qc7 Rxh3 49.Qc1+ Kg4 50.Qc8+ f5 0-1

Lasker had a much easier time in this game the next day. A.K. Robinson-Lasker, Franklin CC, Philadelphia, 22.12.1892, Sicilian Dragon [B34]: 1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.Nf3 g6 4.d4 cxd4 5.Nxd4 Bg7 6.Nxc6 Dangerous at this juncture. 6...bxc6 7.Bd2 To avert the double pawn. 7...d6 8.Bc4 Nf6 9.0-0 0-0 10.Kh1 A lost move; there is, however, no time for f2-f4. 10...d5 11.exd5 cxd5 12.Bb3 d4 13.Ne2 No better was 13.Na4. Black answers 13...Qd6, and White’s game is hampered in development. 13...Ba6 Black has now a decided advantage. 14.f3 e5 15.Bg5 h6 16.Bh4 g5 17.Bg3 Nd5 18.Bxd5 Qxd5 19.Re1 f5 20.Nc1 e4 21.fxe4 fxe4 22.Nb3 Rac8 23.Rc1 e3 24.Qg4 Bb7 25.Rg1 d3

26.c3 If 26.cxd3 Black mates in three moves beginning with 26...Qxg2+. 26...Rc4 27.Qh5 Rf2 28.Qe8+ Kh7 0-1

The January 30 issue reported It is announced that Mr. Lasker has engaged to play a match with Mr. [Carl August] Walbrodt in Havana. While Lasker did visit Havana Jan-Feb 1893, no such match took place, and the February 28 issue reported an acrimonious end to the matter:

Mr. Lasker and the Havana Chess Club.

— x —

We quote the following from the New Orleans Times Democrat February 26th, 1893 :—

During the present visit of Mr. Lasker to the New Orleans Chess, Checkers and Whist Club, on being shown the letter from our Havana correspondent in the Times-Democrat chess column of the 12th and extracts from some of the Havana papers, notably the Diana de la Marina of Feb. 13th 1893, stating that his alleged lack of complacency had caused a bad effect among the members of the Havana Chess Club. Mr. Lasker expressed himself quite positively with regard to the matter and claimed that he was done a grave injustice in this connection.

He said in so many words:—

"I was invited to the Havana Chess Club by two letters: the first, addressed to Dr. F. Miutz, the vice president of the Manhattan Chess Club, of New York, dated in the beginning of December, and containing all the conditions of the engagement; and upon my answering to accept the same, by a second one, dated 28th of December. Neither of these letters contain a word of an intended or already tendered invitation to any other master player. The conditions state clearly that my performance would be to play with members of the club and to contest matches with local players, for which I was to receive a certain amount. Further, to give simultaneous and blind-fold performances, in which each contestant would pay $5 as an entrance fee. In addition, mention was made of the probability of short matches with Señors Celso Golmayo and André C. Vasquez, each for a stake of $50.

"I left New York on Jan. 11th and arrived in Havana on the 16th of the same month, when I was first informed of the invitation extended to Walbrodt. After a few days, I was further informed that the condition that I should receive $5 from each contestant in simultaneous games had crept into the letter by a mistake, and I was offered $100 as a substitute;—which compromise I could not help but accept. No match with Scñor Golmayo or Señor Vazquez could be arranged. I played, principally, one consultation game against Golmayo, Ostalaza and Lopez, three games with Golmayo, three with Vasquez, two with Ponce, and some other performances, when, after the arrival of Walbrodt on Feb. 2, in an official letter the following offer was made to me. To play a match with Walbrodt for a stake of $750, for which amount the club would back Walbrodt, during the month of February. Nothing of any purse or my expenses was mentioned. I regarded and still regard this offer as unbusinesslike and as unfair to me in every respect. I might add, too, that inasmuch as they did not offer me anything, they had no right to prescribe conditions as to time and the like in declining it I stated that I did not wish to run such a risk of impairing my health as would necessarily result from the strain of a match undertaken without any preparation.

"Afterwards, in an official letter, they offered for a match of six games a purse of $150 to go to the winner. I again declined stating that I was opposed to any match consisting of a