Annotated Game #086: Jose Raul Capablanca - Emanuel Lasker, New York 1924 Adapted and Condensed from Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia Contents ++1. Jose Raul Capablanca y Graupera ++1.A Biography and career ++1.A1 Childhood ++1.A2 Early adult career ++1.A3 World title contender ++1.A4 During World War I ++1.A5 World Champion ++1.A6 Losing the title ++1.A7 Post-championship and partial retirement ++1.A8 Return to competitive chess ++1.A9 Final years ++1.B Assessment ++1.B1 Playing strength and style ++1.B2 Influence on the game ++1.B3 Personality ++1.C Capablanca chess ++1.D Notable chess games ++1.E Writings ++1.F Tournament results ++1.G Match results ++2. Emanuel Lasker ++2.A Life and career ++2.A1 Early years 1868-1894 ++2.A2 Chess competition 1894-1918 ++2.A2a Match against Steinitz ++2.A2b Successes in tournaments ++2.A2c Matches against Marshall and Tarrasch ++2.A2d Matches against Janowski ++2.A2e Match against Schlechter ++2.A2f Abortive challenges ++2.A3 Academic activities 1894-1918 ++2.A4 Other activities 1894-1918 ++2.A5 Match against Capablanca ++2.A6 1921 - end of life ++2.B Assessment ++2.B1 Chess strength and style ++2.B2 Influence on chess ++2.b3 Work in other fields ++2.C Friends and relatives ++2.D Publications ++2.D1 Chess ++2.D2 Mathematics ++2.D3 Other games ++2.D4 Philosophical ++2.E Quotations ++2.E1 By Lasker ++2.E2 About Lasker ++2.F Notable games ++2.G Tournament results ++2.H Match results ++3. Jose Raul Capablanca - Emanuel Lasker, New York 1924 ++1. Jose Raul Capablanca y Graupera Jose Raul Capablanca y Graupera (November 19, 1888 - March 8, 1942) was a Cuban chess player who was world chess champion from 1921 to 1927. One of the greatest players of all time, he was renowned for his exceptional endgame skill and speed of play. Due to his achievements in the chess world, mastery over the board and his relatively simple style of play he was nicknamed the "Human Chess Machine". ++1.A Biography and career ++1.A1 Childhood Jose Raul Capablanca, the second surviving son of a Spanish army officer, was born in Havana on November 19, 1888. According to Capablanca, he learned the rules of the game at the age of four by watching his father play, pointed out an illegal move by his father, and then beat his father twice. At the age of eight he was taken to Havana Chess Club, which had hosted many important contests, but on the advice of a doctor he was not allowed to play frequently. Between November and December 1901, he narrowly beat the Cuban Chess Champion, Juan Corzo, in a match. However in April 1902 he only came fourth out of six in the National Championship, losing both his games against Corzo. In 1905 Capablanca passed with ease the entrance examinations for Columbia University in New York City, where he wished to play for Columbia's strong baseball team, and soon was selected as shortstop on the freshman team. In the same year he joined the Manhattan Chess Club, and was soon recognized as the club's strongest player. He was particularly dominant in rapid chess, winning a tournament ahead of the reigning World Chess Champion, Emanuel Lasker, in 1906. In 1908 he left the university to concentrate on chess. According to Columbia University, Capablanca enrolled at Columbia's School of Mines, Engineering and Chemistry in September, 1910, to study chemical engineering. Later, his financial support was withdrawn because he preferred playing chess to studying engineering. He left Columbia after one semester to devote himself to chess full time. ++1.A2 Early adult career Capablanca's skill in rapid chess lent itself to simultaneous exhibitions, and his increasing reputation in these events led to a USA-wide tour in 1909. Playing 602 games in 27 cities, he scored 96.4% - a much higher percentage than those of, for example, Giza Marsczy's 88% and Frank Marshall's 86% in 1906. This performance gained him sponsorship for an exhibition match that year against Marshall, the U.S. champion, who had won the 1904 Cambridge Springs tournament ahead of World Champion Emanuel Lasker and Dawid Janowski, and whom Chessmetrics ranks as one of the world's top three players at his peak. Capablanca beat Marshall by 15-8 (8 wins, 1 loss, 14 draws) - a margin comparable to what Emanuel Lasker achieved against Marshall (8 wins, no losses, 7 draws) in winning his 1907 World Championship match. After the match, Capablanca said that he had never opened a book on chess openings. Following this match, Chessmetrics rates Capablanca the world's third strongest player for most of the period from 1909 through 1912. Capablanca won all seven games in the 1910 New York State Championship. After another gruelling series of simultaneous exhibitions, Capablanca placed second, with 9.5 out of 12, in the 1911 National Tournament at New York, half a point behind Marshall, and half a point ahead of Charles Jaffe and Oscar Chajes. Marshall, invited to play in a tournament at San Sebastian, Spain, in 1911, insisted that Capablanca also be allowed to play. According to David Hooper and Ken Whyld, San Sebastian 1911 was "one of the strongest five tournaments held up to that time", as all the world's leading players competed except the World Champion, Lasker. At the beginning of the tournament, Ossip Bernstein and Aron Nimzowitsch objected to Capablanca's presence because he had not fulfilled the entry condition of winning at least third prize in two master tournaments. Capablanca won brilliantly against Bernstein in the very first round, more simply against Nimzowitsch, and astounded the chess world by taking first place, with a score of six wins, one loss and seven draws, ahead of Akiba Rubinstein, Milan Vidmar, Marshall, Carl Schlechter and Siegbert Tarrasch, et al. His loss, against Rubinstein, was one of the most brilliant achievements of the latter's career. Some European critics grumbled that Capablanca's style was rather cautious, though he conceded fewer draws than any of the next six finishers in the event. Capablanca was now recognized as a serious contender for the world championship. ++1.A3 World title contender In 1911, Capablanca challenged Emanuel Lasker for the World Chess Championship. Lasker accepted his challenge while proposing seventeen conditions for the match. Capablanca objected to some of the conditions, which significantly favored Lasker, and the match did not take place. In 1913, Capablanca won a tournament in New York with 11/13, half a point ahead of Marshall. Capablanca then finished second to Marshall in Capablanca's hometown, Havana, scoring 10 out of 14, and losing one of their individual games. The 600 spectators naturally favored their native hero, but sportingly gave Marshall "thunderous applause". In a further tournament in New York in 1913, at the Rice Chess Club, Capablanca won all thirteen games. In September 1913, Capablanca secured a job in the Cuban Foreign Office, which made him financially secure for life. Hooper and Whyld write that, "He had no specific duties, but was expected to act as a kind of ambassador-at-large, a well-known figure who would put Cuba on the map wherever he travelled." His first instructions were to go to Saint Petersburg - where he was due to play in a major tournament. On his way he gave simultaneous exhibitions in London, Paris and Berlin, where he also played two-game matches against Richard Teichmann and Jacques Mieses, winning all his games. After arriving in Saint Petersburg, he played similar matches against Alexander Alekhine, Eugene Znosko-Borovsky and Fyodor Duz-Chotimirsky, losing one game to Znosko-Borovsky and winning the rest. The St. Petersburg 1914 chess tournament was the first in which Capablanca played World Champion Emanuel Lasker under normal tournament conditions. This event was arranged in an unusual way: after a preliminary single round-robin tournament involving eleven players, the top five were to play a second stage in double round- robin format, with scores from the preliminary tournament carried forward to the second contest. Capablanca placed first in the preliminary tournament, 1.5 points ahead of Lasker, who was out of practice and made a shaky start. Despite a determined effort by Lasker, Capablanca still seemed on course for ultimate victory. However, in their second game of the final, Lasker reduced Capablanca to a helpless position and Capablanca was so shaken by this that he blundered away his next game to Siegbert Tarrasch. Lasker thus finished half a point ahead of Capablanca and 3.5 ahead of Alekhine. Alekhine commented: His real, incomparable gifts first began to make themselves known at the time of St. Petersburg, 1914, when I too came to know him personally. Neither before nor afterwards have I seen - and I cannot imagine as well - such a flabbergasting quickness of chess comprehension as that possessed by the Capablanca of that epoch. Enough to say that he gave all the St. Petersburg masters the odds of 5-1 in quick games - and won! With all this he was always good- humoured, the darling of the ladies, and enjoyed wonderful good health - really a dazzling appearance. That he came second to Lasker must be entirely ascribed to his youthful levity - he was already playing as well as Lasker. After the breakdown of his attempt to negotiate a title match in 1911, Capablanca drafted rules for the conduct of future challenges, which were agreed by the other top players at the 1914 Saint Petersburg tournament, including Lasker, and approved at the Mannheim Congress later that year. The main points were: the champion must be prepared to defend his title once a year; the match should be won by the first player to win six or eight games, whichever the champion preferred; and the stake should be at least 1,000 pounds Sterling (worth about 347,000 pounds or $700,000 in 2006 terms. ++1.A4 During World War I World War I began in midsummer 1914, bringing international chess to a virtual halt for more than four years. Capablanca won tournaments in New York in 1914, 1915, 1916 (with preliminary and final round-robin stages) and 1918, losing only one game in this sequence. In the 1918 event Frank James Marshall, playing Black against Capablanca, unleashed a complicated counter-attack, later known as the Marshall Attack, against the Ruy Lopez opening. It is often said that Marshall had kept this secret for use against Capablanca since his defeat in their 1909 match; however, Edward Winter discovered several games between 1910 and 1918 where Marshall passed up opportunities to use the Marshall Attack against Capablanca; and an 1893 game that used a similar line. This gambit is so complex that Garry Kasparov used to avoid it, and Marshall had the advantage of using a prepared variation. Nevertheless, Capablanca found a way through the complications and won. Capablanca was challenged to a match in 1919 by Borislav Kostic, who had come through the 1918 tournament undefeated to take second place. The match was to go to the first player to win eight games, but Kostic resigned the match after losing five straight games. Capablanca considered that he was at his strongest around this time. ++1.A5 World Champion The Hastings Victory tournament of 1919 was the first international competition on Allied soil since 1914. The field was not strong, and Capablanca won with 10.5 points out of 11, one point ahead of Kostic. In January 1920, Emanuel Lasker and Capablanca signed an agreement to play a World Championship match in 1921, noting that Capablanca was not free to play in 1920. Because of the delay, Lasker insisted that if he resigned the title, then Capablanca should become World Champion. Lasker had previously included in his agreement before World War I to play Akiba Rubinstein for the title a similar clause that if he resigned the title, it should become Rubinstein's. Lasker then resigned the title to Capablanca on June 27, 1920, saying, "You have earned the title not by the formality of a challenge, but by your brilliant mastery." When Cuban enthusiasts raised $20,000 to fund the match provided it was played in Havana, Lasker agreed in August 1920 to play there, but insisted that he was the challenger as Capablanca was now the champion. Capablanca signed an agreement that accepted this point, and soon afterwards published a letter confirming it. The match was played in March-April 1921; Lasker resigned it after just fourteen games, having lost four games and won none. Reuben Fine and Harry Golombek attributed the one-sided result to Lasker's being in mysteriously poor form. Fred Reinfeld mentioned speculations that Havana's humid climate weakened Lasker and that he was depressed about the outcome of World War I, especially as he had lost his life savings. On the other hand, Vladimir Kramnik thought that Lasker played quite well and the match was an "even and fascinating fight" until Lasker blundered in the last game. Kramnik explained that Capablanca was twenty years younger, a slightly stronger player, and had more recent competitive practice. Edward Winter, after a lengthy summary of the facts, concludes that, "The press was dismissive of Lasker's wish to confer the title on Capablanca, even questioning the legality of such an initiative, and in 1921 it regarded the Cuban as having become world champion by dint of defeating Lasker over the board." Reference works invariably give Capablanca's reign as titleholder as beginning in 1921, not 1920. The only challenger besides Capablanca to win the title without losing a game is Kramnik, in the Classical World Chess Championship 2000 against Garry Kasparov. The score sheet of Capablanca's defeat by Richard Riti in the New York 1924 chess tournament, his first loss in eight years Capablanca won the London tournament of 1922 with 13 points from 15 games with no losses, ahead of Alexander Alekhine on 11.5, Milan Vidmar (11), and Akiba Rubinstein (10.5). During this event, Capablanca proposed the "London Rules" to regulate future World Championship negotiations: the first player to win six games would win the match; playing sessions would be limited to 5 hours; the time limit would be 40 moves in 2.5 hours; the champion must defend his title within one year of receiving a challenge from a recognized master; the champion would decide the date of the match; the champion was not obliged to accept a challenge for a purse of less than US $10,000 (worth about $349,000 in 2006 terms; 20% of the purse was to be paid to the title holder and the remainder divided, 60% going to the winner of the match, and 40% to the loser; the highest purse bid must be accepted. Alekhine, Efim Bogoljubow, Giza Maroczy, Richard Reti, Rubinstein, Tartakower and Vidmar promptly signed them. Between 1921 and 1923 Alekhine, Rubinstein and Nimzowitsch all challenged Capablanca, but only Alekhine could raise the money, in 1927. In 1922, Capablanca also gave a simultaneous exhibition in Cleveland against 103 opponents, the largest in history up to that time, winning 102 and drawing one - setting a record for the best winning percentage ever in a large simultaneous exhibition. After beginning with four draws, followed by a loss, Capablanca placed second at the New York 1924 chess tournament with the score of 14/20 (+10 -1 =9), 1.5 points behind Emanuel Lasker, and 2 ahead of third-placed Alekhine. Capablanca's defeat at the hands of Richard Reti in the fifth round was his first in serious competition in eight years. He made another bad start at the Moscow 1925 chess tournament, and could only fight back to third place, two points behind Bogoljubow and .5 point behind Emanuel Lasker. Capablanca won at Lake Hopatcong, 1926 with 6 points out of 8, ahead of Abraham Kupchik (5) and Maroczy (4.5). A group of Argentinian businessmen, backed by a guarantee from the president of Argentina, promised the funds for a World Championship match between Capablanca and Alekhine in 1927. Since Nimzowitsch had challenged before Alekhine, Capablanca gave Nimzowitsch until January 1, 1927 to deposit a forfeit in order arrange a match. When this did not materialize, a Capablanca-Alekhine match was agreed, to begin in September 1927. In the New York 1927 chess tournament, played from February 19 to March 23, 1927, six of the world's strongest masters played a quadruple round robin, with the others being Alekhine, Rudolf Spielmann, Milan Vidmar, Nimzowitsch and Marshall, with Bogoljubow and Emanuel Lasker not present. Before the tournament, Capablanca wrote that he had "more experience but less power" than in 1911, that he had peaked in 1919 and that some of his competitors had become stronger in the meantime; however, he finished undefeated, winning the mini-matches with each of his rivals, 2.5 points ahead of second-place Alekhine, and won the "best game" prize for a win over Spielmann. In December 1921, shortly after becoming World Champion, Capablanca married Gloria Simoni Betancourt. They had a son, Jose Raul Jr., in 1923 and a daughter, Gloria, in 1925. According to Capablanca's second wife, Olga, his first marriage broke down fairly soon, and he and Gloria had affairs. Both his parents died during his reign, his father in 1923 and mother in 1926. ++1.A6 Losing the title Alekhine vs. Capablanca Since Capablanca had won the New York 1927 chess tournament overwhelmingly and had never lost a game to Alekhine, the Cuban was regarded by most pundits as the clear favorite in their World Chess Championship 1927 match. However, Alekhine won the match, played from September to November 1927 at Buenos Aires, by 6 wins, 3 losses, and 25 draws - the longest formal World Championship match until the contest in 1984-85 between Anatoly Karpov and Garry Kasparov. Alekhine's victory surprised almost the entire chess world. After Capablanca's death, Alekhine expressed surprise at his own victory, since in 1927 he had not thought he was superior to Capablanca, and he suggested that Capablanca had been over- confident. Capablanca entered the match with no technical or physical preparation, while Alekhine got himself into good physical condition, and had thoroughly studied Capablanca's play. According to Kasparov, Alekhine's research uncovered many small inaccuracies, which occurred because Capablanca was unwilling to concentrate intensely. Vladimir Kramnik commented that this was the first contest in which Capablanca had no easy wins. Ludek Pachman suggested that Capablanca, who was unused to losing games or to any other type of setback, became depressed over his unnecessary loss of the eleventh game, a long, gruelling endgame, featuring errors by both players. Immediately after winning the match, Alekhine announced that he was willing to give Capablanca a return match, on the same terms that Capablanca had required as champion - the challenger must provide a stake of US $10,000, of which more than half would go to the defending champion even if he was defeated. Alekhine had challenged Capablanca in the early 1920s but Alekhine could not raise the money until 1927. After Capablanca's death, Alekhine wrote that Capablanca's demand for a $10,000 stake was an attempt to avoid challenges. Negotiations dragged on for several years, often breaking down when agreement seemed in sight. Their relationship became bitter, and Alekhine demanded much higher appearance fees for tournaments in which Capablanca also played. ++1.A7 Post-championship and partial retirement Giving a simultaneous display on thirty boards in Berlin, June 1929 After losing the World Championship in late 1927, Capablanca played more often in tournaments, hoping to strengthen his claim for a rematch. From 1928 through 1931, he won six first prizes, also finishing second twice and one joint second. His competitors included rising stars such as Max Euwe and Isaac Kashdan, as well as players who had been established in the 1920s, but Capablanca and Alekhine never played in the same tournament during this period, and would next meet only at the Nottingham, 1936 tournament, after Alekhine had lost the world title to Euwe the preceding year. In late 1931, Capablanca also won a match (+2 -0 =8) against Euwe, whom Chessmetrics ranks sixth in the world at the time. Despite these excellent results, Capablanca's play showed signs of decline: his play slowed from the speed of his youth, with occasional time trouble; although he continued to produce many superb games, he also made some gross blunders. Chessmetrics nonetheless ranks Capablanca as the second strongest player in the world (after Alekhine) from his loss of the title through to autumn 1932, except for a brief appearance in the top place. After winning an event at New York in 1931, he withdrew from serious chess, perhaps disheartened by his inability to secure a return match against Alekhine, and played only less serious games at the Manhattan Chess Club and simultaneous displays. On 6 December 1933, Capablanca won all 9 of his games in one of the club's weekly rapid chess tournaments, finishing 2 points ahead of Samuel Reshevsky, Reuben Fine and Milton Hanauer. ++1.A8 Return to competitive chess At first Capablanca did not divorce his first wife, as he had not intended to re-marry. Olga, Capablanca's second wife, wrote that she met him in the late spring of 1934; by late October the pair were deeply in love, and Capablanca recovered his ambition to prove he was the world's best player. In 1938 he divorced his first wife and then married Olga on October 20, 1938, about a month before the AVRO tournament. Starting his comeback at the Hastings tournament of 1934-35, Capablanca finished fourth, although coming ahead of Mikhail Botvinnik and Andor Lilienthal. He placed second by .5 point in the Margate tournaments of 1935 and 1936. At Moscow in 1935 Capablanca finished fourth, 1 point behind the joint winners, while Emanuel Lasker's third place at the age of 66 was hailed as "a biological miracle." The following year, Capablanca won an even stronger tournament in Moscow, one point ahead of Botvinnik and 3.5 ahead of Salo Flohr, who took third place; A month later, he shared first place with Botvinnik at Nottingham, with a score of (+5 -1 =8), losing only to Flohr; Alekhine placed sixth, only one point behind the joint winners. These tournaments of 1936 were the last two that Lasker played, and the only ones in which Capablanca finished ahead of Lasker, now 67. During these triumphs Capablanca began to suffer symptoms of high blood pressure. He tied for second place at Semmering in 1937, then could only finish seventh of the eight players at the 1938 AVRO tournament, an ilite contest designed to select a challenger for Alekhine's world title. Capablanca's high blood pressure was not correctly diagnosed and treated until after the AVRO tournament, and caused him to lose his train of thought towards the end of playing sessions. After winning at Paris in 1938 and placing second in a slightly stronger tournament at Margate in 1939, Capablanca played for Cuba in the 8th Chess Olympiad, held in Buenos Aires, and won the gold medal for the best performance on the top board. While Capablanca and Alekhine were both representing their countries in Buenos Aires, Capablanca made a final attempt to arrange a World Championship match. Alekhine declined, saying he was obliged to be available to defend his adopted homeland, France, as World War II had just broken out. Alekhine also sat out the match when the teams from Cuba and France faced each other in the Buenos Aires Olympiad, thus declining an opportunity to play Capablanca once more. ++1.A9 Final years On March 7, 1942, Capablanca was observing a skittles game and chatting with friends at the Manhattan Chess Club in New York City, when he asked for help removing his coat, and collapsed shortly afterwards. He was taken to Mount Sinai Hospital, where he died at 6 a.m. the next morning. The cause of death was given as "a cerebral haemorrhage provoked by hypertension". Capablanca's great rival Emanuel Lasker had died in the same hospital only a year earlier. Capablanca's body was given a public funeral in Havana's Colon Cemetery on March 15, 1942. His bitter rival Alekhine wrote in a tribute to Capablanca: ... Capablanca was snatched from the chess world much too soon. With his death, we have lost a very great chess genius whose like we shall never see again. Emanuel Lasker once said: "I have known many chess players, but only one chess genius: Capablanca." An annual Capablanca Memorial tournament has been held in Cuba, most often in Havana, since 1962. ++1.B Assessment ++1.B1 Playing strength and style As an adult, Capablanca lost only 34 serious games. He was undefeated from February 10, 1916, when he lost to Oscar Chajes in the New York 1916 tournament, to March 21, 1924, when he lost to Richard Reti in the New York International tournament. During this streak, which included his 1921 World Championship match against Lasker, Capablanca played 63 games, winning 40 and drawing 23. In fact, only Marshall, Lasker, Alekhine and Rudolf Spielmann won two or more serious games from the mature Capablanca, though in each case, their overall lifetime scores were minus (Capablanca beat Marshall +20 -2 =28, Lasker +6 -2 =16, Alekhine +9 -7 =33), except for Spielmann who was level (+2 -2 =8). Of top players, only Keres had a narrow plus score against him (+1 -0 =5). Keres' win was at the AVRO 1938 chess tournament, during which tournament Capablanca turned 50, while Keres was 22. Statistical ranking systems place Capablanca high among the greatest players of all time. Nathan Divinsky and Raymond Keene's book Warriors of the Mind (1989) ranks him fifth, behind Garry Kasparov, Anatoly Karpov, Bobby Fischer and Mikhail Botvinnik - and immediately ahead of Emanuel Lasker. In his 1978 book The Rating of Chessplayers, Past and Present, Arpad Elo gave retrospective ratings to players based on their performance over the best five- year span of their career. He concluded that Capablanca was the strongest of those surveyed, with Lasker and Botvinnik sharing second place. Chessmetrics (2006) is rather sensitive to the length of the periods being compared, and ranks Capablanca between third and fourth strongest of all time for peak periods ranging in length from one to fifteen years. Its author, the statistician Jeff Sonas, concluded that Capablanca had more years in the top three than anyone except Lasker, Anatoly Karpov and Garry Kasparov - although Alexander Alekhine had more years in the top two positions. A 2006 study claimed to show that Capablanca was the most accurate of all the World Champions when compared with computer analysis of World Championship match games. However, this analysis was criticized for using a second-rank chess program, Crafty, modified to limit its calculations to six moves by each side, and for favoring players whose style matched that of the program. Boris Spassky, World Champion from 1969 to 1972, considered Capablanca the best player of all time. Bobby Fischer, who held the title from 1972 to 1975, admired Capablanca's "light touch" and ability to see the right move very quickly. Fischer reported that in the 1950s, older members of the Manhattan Chess Club spoke of Capablanca's performances with awe. Capablanca excelled in simple positions and endgames, and his positional judgment was outstanding, so much so that most attempts to attack him came to grief without any apparent defensive efforts on his part. However, he could play great tactical chess when necessary - most famously in the 1918 Manhattan Chess Club Championship tournament (in New York) where Marshall sprang a deeply-analyzed prepared variation on him, which he refuted while playing under the normal time limit (although ways have since been found to strengthen the Marshall Attack). He was also capable of using aggressive tactical play to drive home a positional advantage, provided he considered it safe and the most efficient way to win, for example against Spielmann in the 1927 New York tournament. ++1.B2 Influence on the game Capablanca founded no school per se, but his style was very influential in the games of two world champions: Fischer and Anatoly Karpov. Botvinnik also wrote how much he learned from Capablanca, and pointed out that Alekhine had received much schooling from him in positional play, before their fight for the world title made them bitter enemies. As a chess writer, Capablanca did not present large amounts of detailed analysis, instead focusing on the critical moments in a game. His writing style was plain and easy to understand. Botvinnik regarded Capablanca's book Chess Fundamentals as the best chess book ever written. Capablanca in a lecture and in his book A Primer of Chess pointed out that while the bishop was usually stronger than the knight, queen and knight was usually better than queen and bishop, especially in endings -- the bishop merely mimics the queen's diagonal move, while the knight can immediately reach squares the queen cannot. Research is divided over Capablanca's conclusion: in 2007, Glenn Flear found little difference, while in 1999, Larry Kaufman, analysing a large database of games, concluded that results very slightly favored queen plus knight. John Watson wrote in 1998 that an unusually large proportion of queen and knight versus queen and bishop endings are drawn, and that most decisive games are characterized by the winning side having one or more obvious advantages in that specific game. ++1.B3 Personality Early in his chess career, Capablanca had received some criticism, mainly in Britain, for the allegedly conceited description of his accomplishments in his first book, My Chess Career. He therefore took the unprecedented step of including virtually all of his tournament and match defeats up to that time in Chess Fundamentals, together with an instructive group of his victories. Nevertheless his preface to the 1934 edition of Chess Fundamentals is confident that the "reader may therefore go over the contents of the book with the assurance that there is in it everything he needs." However Julius du Mont wrote that he knew Capablanca well and could vouch that he was not conceited. In du Mont's opinion critics should understand the difference between the merely gifted and the towering genius of Capablanca, and the contrast between the British tendency towards false modesty and the Latin and American tendency to say "I played this game as well as it could be played" if he honestly thought that it was correct. Fischer also admired this frankness. Du Mont also said that Capablanca was rather sensitive to criticism, and chess historian Edward Winter documented a number of examples of self-criticism in My Chess Career. Despite his achievements Capablanca appeared more interested in baseball than in chess, which he described as "not a difficult game to learn and it is an enjoyable game to play." His second wife, Olga, thought he resented the way in which chess had dominated his life, and wished he could have studied music or medicine. ++1.C Capablanca chess In an interview in 1925 Capablanca denied reports that he thought chess had already currently reached its limit because it was easy for top players to obtain a draw. However he was concerned that the accelerating development of chess technique and opening knowledge might cause such stagnation in 50 years' time. Hence he suggested the adoption of a 10x8 board with 2 extra pieces per side: * Chancellor - a chancellor that moves as both a rook and a knight; * Archbishop - an archbishop that moves as both a bishop and a knight. This piece would be able to deliver checkmate on its own, which none of the conventional pieces can do. He thought this would prevent technical knowledge from becoming such a dominant factor, at least for a few centuries. Capablanca and Edward Lasker experimented with 10x10 and 10x8 boards, using the same expanded set of pieces. They preferred the 8-rank version as it encouraged combat to start earlier, and their games typically lasted 20 to 25 moves. Contrary to the claims of some critics, Capablanca proposed this variant while he was world champion, not as sour grapes after losing his title. Similar 10x8 variants had previously been described in 1617 by Pietro Carrera and in 1874 by Henry Bird, differing only in how the new pieces were placed in each side's back row. Subsequent variants inspired by Capablanca's experimentation have been proposed, including Grand chess (which uses a 10x10 board and has pawns on the third rank), Gothic Chess (which used to be patented), and Embassy Chess (the Grand chess setup on a 10x8 board). ++1.D Notable chess games * Jose Raul Capablanca vs L. Molina, Buenos Aires 1911, Queen's Gambit Declined: Modern. Knight Defense (D52), 1-0 An impressive Greco's sacrifice along with deceptive simplicity and effortless endgame. * Jose Raul Capablanca vs Frank James Marshall, ch Manhattan CC, New York 1918, Spanish Game: Marshall Attack. Original Marshall Attack (C89), 1-0 One of the most famous games of Capablanca. It is on record that Marshall unveiled this attack after careful preparation. Perfect example of defending against an extremely aggressive attack. * Jose Raul Capablanca vs Professor Marc Fonaroff, New York 1918, Spanish Game: Berlin Defense. Hedgehog Variation (C62), 1-0 A freaky ending with amazing accuracy. * Emanuel Lasker vs Jose Raul Capablanca, Lasker-Capablanca World Championship Match, Havana 1921. Queen's Gambit Declined: Orthodox Defense. Rubinstein Variation (D61), 0-1 A strategic masterpiece and instructive endgame which should be on everybody's list. Capablanca out-playing the great Lasker in the endgame with simple and perfect maneuvering of pieces. A must-see game for chess endgame fans. * Jose Raul Capablanca vs Savielly Tartakower, New York 1924, Dutch Defense, Horwitz Variation: General (A80), 1-0 A brilliant endgame from the natural genius. Dubbed as "Rook Before you Leap". Demonstrates the exceptional endgame skills of Capablanca with flawless artistry. * Jose Raul Capablanca vs Rudolf Spielmann, New York 1927, Queen's Gambit Declined: Barmen Variation (D37), 1-0 A remarkable tactical game which earned the "Brilliancy Price" for Capablanca. This is a showcase of Capablanca's tactical skills complementing positional supremacy. * Jose Raul Capablanca vs Andor Lilienthal, Moscow 1936, Reti Opening: Anglo-Slav. Bogoljubow Variation (A12), 1-0 A perfect endgame and pawn play utilizing the space against material advantage. * Ilia Abramovich Kan vs Jose Raul Capablanca, Moscow 1936, Vienna Game: Anderssen Defense (C25), 0-1 Another demonstration of Caplabanca's endgame supremacy. This game seems a drawn game, but witness how Capablanca ekes out a win using his positional mastery. ++1.E Writings * Havana 1913, by Jose Raul Capablanca. This is the only tournament book he wrote. It was originally published in Spanish in 1913 in Havana. Edward Winter translated it into English, and it appeared as a British Chess Magazine reprint, Quarterly #18, in 1976. * A Primer of Chess by Jose Raul Capablanca (preface by Benjamin Anderson). Originally published in 1935. Republished in 2002 by Harvest Books, ISBN 0156028077. * Chess Fundamentals by Jose Raul Capablanca (Originally published in 1921. Republished by Everyman Chess, 1994, ISBN 1857440730. Revised and updated by Nick de Firmian in 2006, ISBN 0-8129-3681-7.) * My Chess Career by Jose Raul Capablanca (Originally published by Macmillan in 1921. Republished by Dover in 1966. Republished by Hardinge Simpole Limited, 2003, ISBN 1843820919.) * The World's Championship Chess Match between Jose Raul Capablanca and Dr. Emanuel Lasker, with an introduction, the scores of all the games annotated by the champion, together with statistical matter and the biographies of the two masters, 1921 by Jose Raul Capablanca. (Republished in 1977 by Dover, together with a book on the 1927 match with annotations by Frederick Yates and William Winter, as World's Championship Matches, 1921 and 1927 by Jose Raul Capablanca. ISBN 0486231895.) * Last Lectures by Jose Raul Capablanca (Simon and Schuster, January 1966, ASIN B0007DZW6W) ++1.F Tournament results The following table gives Capablanca's placings and scores in tournaments. 1910 New York State 1st 20/20 +20 -0 =0. 1911 New York 2nd 9.5/12 +8 -1 =3. 1911 San Sebastian (Spain) 1st 9.5/14 +6 -1 =7 Ahead of Akiba Rubinstein and Milan Vidmar (9), Frank James Marshall (8.5) and 11 other world- class players. His only loss was to Rubinstein, and his win against Ossip Bernstein was awarded the brilliancy prize. 1913 New York 1st 11/13 +10 -1 =2 Ahead of Marshall (10.5), Charles Jaffe (9.5) and Dawid Janowski (9). 1913 Havana 2nd 10/14 +8 -2 =4 Behind Marshall (10.5); ahead of Janowski (9) and five others. 1913 New York 1st 13/13 +13 -0 =0 Ahead of Oldrich Duras. 1914 St. Petersburg 2nd 13/18 +10 -2 =6 Behind Emanuel Lasker (13.5); ahead of Alexander Alekhine (10), Siegbert Tarrasch (8.5) and Marshall (8). This tournament had an unusual structure: there was a preliminary tournament in which eleven players played each other player once; the top five players then played a separate final tournament in which each player who made the "cut" played the other finalists twice; but their scores from the preliminary tournament were carried forward. Even the preliminary tournament would now be considered a "super-tournament". Capablanca "won" the preliminary tournament by 1= points without losing a game, but Lasker achieved a plus score against all his opponents in the final tournament and finished with a combined score = point ahead of Capablanca's. 1915 New York 1st 13/14 +12 -0 =2 Ahead of Marshall (12) and six others. 1916 New York 1st 14/17 +12 -1 =4 Ahead of Janowski (11) and 11 others. The structure was similar to that of St. Petersburg 1914. 1918 New York 1st 10.5/12 +9 -0 =3 Ahead of Boris Kostic (9), Marshall (7), and four others. 1919 Hastings 1st 10.5/11 +10 -0 =1 Ahead of Kostic (9.5), Sir George Thomas (7), Frederick Yates (7) and eight others. 1922 London 1st 13/15 +11 -0 =4 Ahead of Alekhine (11.5), Vidmar (11), Rubinstein (10.5), Efim Bogoljubow (9), and 11 other players, mostly very strong. 1924 New York 2nd 14.5/20 +10 -1 =9 Behind Lasker (16); ahead of Alekhine (12), Marshall (11), Richard Riti (10.5) and six others, mostly very strong. 1925 Moscow 3rd 13.5/20 +9 -2 =9 Behind Bogojubow (15.5) and Lasker (14); ahead of Marshall (12.5) and a mixture of strong international players and rising Soviet players. 1926 Lake Hopatcong 1st 6/8 +4 -0 =4 Ahead of Abraham Kupchik (5), Giza Maroczy (4.5), Marshall (3) and Edward Lasker (1.5). 1927 New York 1st 14/20 +8 -0 =12 Ahead of Alekhine (11.5), Aron Nimzowitsch (10.5), Vidmar (10), Rudolf Spielmann (8) and Marshall (6). 1928 Berlin 1st 8.5/12 +5 -0 =7 Ahead of Nimzowitsch (7), Spielmann (6.5) and four other very strong players. 1928 Bad Kissingen 2nd 7/11 +4 -1 =6 Behind Bogojubow (8); ahead of Max Euwe (6.5), Rubinstein (6.5), Nimzowitsch (6) and seven other strong masters. 1928 Budapest 1st 7/9 +5 -0 =4 Ahead of Marshall (6), Hans Kmoch (5), Spielmann (5) and six others. 1929 Ramsgate 1st 5.5/7 +4 -0 =3 Ahead of Vera Menchik (5), Rubinstein (5), and four others. 1929 Carlsbad 2nd= 14.5/21 +10 -2 =9 Behind Nimzowitsch (15); tied with Spielmann; ahead of Rubinstein (13.5) and 18 others, mostly very strong. 1929 Budapest 1st 10.5/13 +8 -0 =5 Ahead of Rubinstein (9.5), Savielly Tartakower (8) and 11 others. 1929 Barcelona 1st 13.5/14 +13 -0 =1 Ahead of Tartakower (11.5) and 13 others. 1929-30 Hastings 1st 6.5/9 +4 -0 =5. 1930-31 Hastings 2nd 6.5/9 +5 -1 =3 Behind Euwe (7); ahead of eight others. 1931 New York 1st 10/11 +9 -0 =2 Ahead of Isaac Kashdan (8.5) and 10 others. 1934-35 Hastings 4th 5.5/9 +4 -2 =3 Behind Thomas, (6.5), Euwe (6.5) and Salo Flohr (6.5); ahead Mikhail Botvinnik (5), Andor Lilienthal (5) and four others. 1935 Moscow 4th 12/19 +7 -2 =10 Behind Botvinnik (13), Flohr (13) and Lasker (12.5); ahead of Spielmann (11) and 15 others, mainly Soviet players. 1935 Margate 2nd 7/9 +6 -1 =2 Behind Samuel Reshevsky (7.5); ahead of eight others. 1936 Margate 2nd 7/9 +5 -0 =4 Behind Flohr (7.5); ahead of Gideon Stehlberg and eight others. 1936 Moscow 1st 13/18 +8 -0 =10 Ahead of Botvinnik (12), Flohr (9.5), Lilienthal (9), Viacheslav Ragozin (8.5), Lasker (8) and four others. 1936 Nottingham 1st= 10/14 +7 -1 =6 Tied with Botvinnik; ahead of Euwe (9.5), Reuben Fine (9.5), Reshevsky (9.5), Alekhine (9), Flohr (8.5), Lasker (8.5) and seven other strong opponents. 1937 Semmering 3rd= 7.5/14 +2 -1 =11 Behind Paul Keres (9), Fine (8); tied with Reshevsky; ahead of Flohr (7), Erich Eliskases (6), Ragozin (6) and Vladimir Petrov (5). 1938 Paris 1st= 8/10 +6 -0 =4 Ahead of Nicolas Rossolimo (7.5) and four others. 1938 AVRO tournament, at ten cities in the Netherlands 7th 6/14 +2 -4 =8 Behind Keres (8.5), Fine (8.5), Botvinnik (7.5), Alekhine (7), Euwe (7) and Reshevsky (7); ahead of Flohr (4.5). 1939 Margate 2nd= 6.5/9 +4 -0 =5 Behind Keres (7.5); tied with Flohr; ahead of seven others. At the 1939 Chess Olympiad in Buenos Aires, Capablanca took the medal for best performance on a country's first board. ++1.G Match results Here are Capablanca's results in matches. 1901 Juan Corzo Won Havana 7-6 +4 -3 =6 For the championship of Cuba; Corzo was the reigning champion. 1909 Frank James Marshall Won New York 15-8 +8 -1 =14. 1919 Boris Kostic Won USA 5-0 +5 -0 =0. 1921 Emanuel Lasker Won Havana 9-5 +4 -0 =10 For the World Chess Championship. 1927 Alexander Alekhine Lost Buenos Aires 15.5-18.5 +3 -6 =25 For the World Chess Championship. 1931 Max Euwe Won Netherlands 6-4 +2 -0 =8 Euwe became World Champion 1935-1937. ++2. Emanuel Lasker World Champion 1894-1921 Emanuel Lasker (December 24, 1868 - January 11, 1941) was a German chess player, mathematician, and philosopher who was World Chess Champion for 27 years. In his prime Lasker was one of the most dominant champions, and he is still generally regarded as one of the strongest players ever. His contemporaries used to say that Lasker used a "psychological" approach to the game, and even that he sometimes deliberately played inferior moves to confuse opponents. Recent analysis, however, indicates that he was ahead of his time and used a more flexible approach than his contemporaries, which mystified many of them. Lasker knew the openings well but disagreed with many contemporary analyses. He published chess magazines and five chess books, but later players and commentators found it difficult to draw lessons from his methods. He demanded high fees for playing matches and tournaments, which aroused criticism at the time but contributed to the development of chess as a professional career. The conditions which Lasker demanded for World Championship matches in the last ten years of his reign were controversial, and prompted attempts, particularly by his successor Jose Raul Capablanca, to define agreed rules for championship matches. Lasker made contributions to the development of other games. He was a first-class contract bridge player and wrote about this and other games, including Go and his own invention, Lasca. His books about games presented a problem which is still considered notable in the mathematical analysis of card games. Besides, Lasker was a research mathematician who was known for his contributions to commutative algebra, as he defined the primary decomposition property of the ideals of some commutative rings when he proved that polynomial rings have the primary decomposition property. On the other hand, his philosophical works and a drama that he co-authored received little attention. ++2.A Life and career ++2.a1 Early years 1868-1894 Emanuel Lasker was born on December 24, 1868 at Berlinchen in Neumark (now Barlinek in Poland), the son of a Jewish cantor. At the age of eleven he was sent to Berlin to study mathematics, where he lived with his brother Berthold, eight years his senior, who taught him how to play chess. According to the website Chessmetrics, Berthold was among the world's top ten players in the early 1890s. To supplement their income Emanuel Lasker played chess and card games for small stakes, especially at the Cafi Kaiserhof. Emanuel Lasker shot up through the chess rankings in 1889, when he won the Cafi Kaiserhof's annual Winter tournament 1888/89 and the Hauptturnier A ("second division" tournament) at the sixth DSB Congress (German Chess Federation's congress) held in Breslau. He also finished second in an international tournament at Amsterdam, ahead of some well-known masters, including Isidore Gunsberg (assessed as the second strongest player in the world at that time by Chessmetrics). In 1890 he finished third in Graz, then shared first prize with his brother Berthold in a tournament in Berlin. In spring 1892, he won two tournaments in London, the second and stronger of these without losing a game. At New York 1893, he won all thirteen games, one of the few times in chess history that a player has achieved a perfect score in a significant tournament. His record in matches was equally impressive: at Berlin in 1890 he drew a short play-off match against his brother Berthold; and won all his other matches from 1889 to 1893, mostly against top-class opponents: Curt von Bardeleben (1889; ranked 9th best player in the world by Chessmetrics at that time, Jacques Mieses (1889; ranked 11th, Henry Edward Bird (1890; then 60 years old; ranked 29th, Berthold Englisch (1890; ranked 18th, Joseph Henry Blackburne (1892, without losing a game; Blackburne was aged 51 then, but still 9th in the world, Jackson Showalter (1892-1893; 22nd and Celso Golmayo Zupide (1893; 29th Chessmetrics calculates that Emanuel Lasker became the world's strongest player in mid-1890, and that he was in the top ten from the very beginning of his recorded career in 1889. The players and tournament officials at the New York 1893 tournament In 1892 Lasker founded the first of his chess magazines, The London Chess Fortnightly, which was published from August 15, 1892 to July 30, 1893. In the second quarter of 1893 there was a gap of ten weeks between issues, allegedly because of problems with the printer. Shortly after its last issue Lasker traveled to the USA, where he spent the next two years. Lasker challenged Siegbert Tarrasch, who had won three consecutive strong international tournaments (Breslau 1889, Manchester 1890, and Dresden 1892), to a match. Tarrasch haughtily declined, stating that Lasker should first prove his mettle by attempting to win one or two major international events. ++2.A2 Chess competition 1894-1918 ++2.A2a Match against Steinitz Wilhelm Steinitz, whom Lasker beat in World Championship matches in 1894 and 1896 Rebuffed by Tarrasch, Lasker challenged the reigning World Champion Wilhelm Steinitz to a match for the title. Initially Lasker wanted to play for US $5,000 a side and a match was agreed at stakes of $3,000 a side, but Steinitz agreed to a series of reductions when Lasker found it difficult to raise the money. The final figure was $2,000, which was less than for some of Steinitz' earlier matches (the final combined stake of $4,000 would be worth over $495,000 at 2006 values. Although this was publicly praised as an act of sportsmanship on Steinitz' part, Steinitz may have desperately needed the money. The match was played in 1894, at venues in New York, Philadelphia, and Montreal. Steinitz had previously declared he would win without doubt, so it came as a shock when Lasker won the first game. Steinitz responded by winning the second, and was able to maintain the balance through the sixth. However, Lasker won all the games from the seventh to the eleventh, and Steinitz asked for a week's rest. When the match resumed, Steinitz looked in better shape and won the 13th and 14th games. Lasker struck back in the 15th and 16th, and Steinitz was unable to compensate for his losses in the middle of the match. Hence Lasker won convincingly with ten wins, five losses and four draws. Lasker thus became the second formally-recognized World Chess Champion, and confirmed his title by beating Steinitz even more convincingly in their re-match in 1896-1897 (ten wins, five draws, and two losses). ++2.A2b Successes in tournaments Sketch of Lasker, ca. 1894 Influential players and journalists belittled the 1894 match both before and after it took place. Lasker's difficulty in getting backing may have been caused by hostile pre-match comments from Gunsberg and Leopold Hoffer, who had long been a bitter enemy of Steinitz. One of the complaints was that Lasker had never played the other two members of the top four, Siegbert Tarrasch and Mikhail Chigorin - although Tarrasch had rejected a challenge from Lasker in 1892, publicly telling him to go and win an international tournament first. After the match some commentators, notably Tarrasch, said Lasker had won mainly because Steinitz was old (58 in 1894). Emanuel Lasker answered these criticisms by creating an even more impressive playing record. Before World War I broke out his most serious "setbacks" were third place at Hastings 1895 (where he may have been suffering from the after-effects of typhoid), tie for second at Cambridge Springs 1904, and tie for first at the Chigorin Memorial in St. Petersburg 1909. He won first prizes at very strong tournaments in St. Petersburg (1895-1896, Quadrangular), Nuremberg (1896), London (1899), Paris (1900) and St. Petersburg (1914), where he overcame a 1= point deficit to finish ahead of the rising stars, Capablanca and Alexander Alekhine, who later became the next two World Champions. For decades chess writers have reported that Tsar Nicholas II of Russia conferred the title of "Grandmaster of Chess" upon each of the five finalists at St. Petersburg 1914 (Lasker, Capablanca, Alekhine, Tarrasch and Marshall), but chess historian Edward Winter has questioned this, stating that the earliest known sources supporting this story were published in 1940 and 1942. ++2.A2c Matches against Marshall and Tarrasch Lasker's match record was as impressive between his 1896-1897 re- match with Steinitz and 1914: he won all but one of his normal matches, and three of those were convincing defenses of his title. He first faced Marshall in the World Chess Championship 1907, when despite his aggressive style, Marshall could not win a single game, losing eight and drawing seven (final score: 11.5-3.5). He then played Tarrasch in the World Chess Championship 1908, first at Duesseldorf then at Munich. Tarrasch firmly believed the game of chess was governed by a precise set of principles. For him the strength of a chess move was in its logic, not in its efficiency. Because of his stubborn principles he considered Lasker as a coffeehouse player who won his games only thanks to dubious tricks, while Lasker mocked the arrogance of Tarrasch who, in his opinion, shone more in salons than at the chessboard. At the opening ceremony, Tarrasch refused to talk to Lasker, only saying: "Mr. Lasker, I have only three words to say to you: check and mate!" Lasker gave a brilliant answer on the chessboard, winning four of the first five games, and playing a type of chess Tarrasch could not understand. For example, in the second game after 19 moves arose a situation (see diagram) in which Lasker was a pawn down, with a bad bishop and doubled pawns. At this point it appeared Tarrasch was winning, but 20 moves later he was forced to resign. Lasker eventually won by 10= -5= (eight wins, five draws, and three losses). Tarrasch claimed the wet weather was the cause of his defeat. Diagram: White: King at f2, Queen at a7, Rooks at a1 and e1, Knight at f5, Pawns at a2, b3, c2, e4, g2, h2 Black: King at h8, Queen at d7, Rooks at d8 and e8, Bishop at e7, Pawns at c6, c7, d6, f6, h7 Tarrasch-Lasker Position after 19. Qxa7 ++2.A2d Matches against Janowski In 1909 Lasker drew a short match (two wins, two losses) against Dawid Janowski, an all-out attacking Polish expatriate. Several months later they played a longer match, and chess historians still debate whether this was for the World Chess Championship. Understanding Janowski's style, Lasker chose to defend solidly so that Janowski unleashed his attacks too soon and left himself vulnerable. Lasker easily won the match 8-2 (seven wins, two draws, one loss). This victory was convincing for everyone but Janowski, who asked for a revenge match. Lasker accepted and they played World Chess Championship match in Paris in November-December 1910. Lasker crushed his opponent, winning 9= -1= (eight wins, three draws, no losses). Janowski was not able to understand Lasker's moves, and after his first three losses he declared to Edward Lasker, "Your homonym plays so stupidly that I cannot even look at the chessboard when he thinks. I am afraid I will not do anything good in this match." ++2.A2E Match against Schlechter Between his two matches against Janowski, Lasker arranged another World Chess Championship in January-February 1910 against Carl Schlechter. Schlechter was a modest gentleman, who was generally unlikely to win the major chess tournaments by his peaceful inclination, his lack of aggressiveness and his willingness to accept most draw offers from his opponents (about 80% of his games finished by a draw). The conditions of the match against Lasker are still debated among chess historians, but it seems Schlechter accepted to play under very unfavourable conditions, notably that he would need to finish two points ahead of Lasker to be declared the winner of the match, and he would need to win a revenge match to be declared World Champion. The match was originally meant to consist of 30 games, but when it became obvious that there were insufficient funds (Lasker demanded a fee of 1,000 marks per game played), the number of games was reduced to ten, making the margin of two points all the more difficult. At the beginning, Lasker tried to attack but Schlechter had no difficulty defending, so that the first four games finished in draws. In the fifth game Lasker had a big advantage, but committed a blunder that cost him the game. Hence at the middle of the match Schlechter was one point ahead. The next four games were drawn, despite fierce play from both players. In the sixth Schlechter managed to draw a game being a pawn down. In the seventh Lasker nearly lost because of a beautiful exchange sacrifice from Schlechter. In the ninth only a blunder from Lasker allowed Schlechter to draw a lost ending. The score before the last game was thus 5-4 for Schlechter. In the tenth game Schlechter tried to win tactically and took a big advantage, but he missed a clear win at the 35th move, continued to take increasing risks and finished by losing. Hence the match was a draw and Lasker remained World Champion. ++2.A2f Abortive challenges Jose Raul Capablanca won the world title from Lasker in 1921. In 1911 Lasker received a challenge for a world title match against the rising star Jose Raul Capablanca. Lasker was unwilling to play the traditional "first to win ten games" type of match in the semi- tropical conditions of Havana, especially as drawn games were becoming more frequent and the match might last for over six months. He therefore made a counter-proposal: if neither player had a lead of at least two games by the end of the match, it should be considered a draw; the match should be limited to the best of thirty games, counting draws; except that if either player won six games and led by at least two games before thirty games were completed, he should be declared the winner; the champion should decide the venue and stakes, and should have the exclusive right to publish the games; the challenger should deposit a forfeit of US $2,000 (equivalent to over $194,000 in 2006 values; the time limit should be twelve moves per hour; play should be limited to two sessions of 2= hours each per day, five days a week. Capablanca objected to the time limit, the short playing times, the thirty- game limit, and especially the requirement that he must win by two games to claim the title, which he regarded as unfair. Lasker took offence at the terms in which Capablanca criticized the two-game lead condition and broke off negotiations, and until 1914 Lasker and Capablanca were not on speaking terms. However, at the 1914 St. Petersburg tournament, Capablanca proposed a set of rules for the conduct of World Championship matches, which were accepted by all the leading players including Lasker. Late in 1912 Lasker entered into negotiations for a world title match with Akiba Rubinstein, whose tournament record for the previous few years had been on a par with Lasker's and a little ahead of Capablanca's. The two players agreed to play a match if Rubinstein could raise the funds, but Rubinstein had few rich friends to back him and the match was never played. The start of World War I put an end to hopes that Lasker would play either Rubinstein or Capablanca for the World Championship in the near future. Throughout World War I (1914-1918) Lasker played in only two serious chess events. He convincingly won (5= -=) a non-title match against Tarrasch in 1916. In September-October 1918, shortly before the armistice, he won a quadrangular (four-player) tournament, half a point ahead of Rubinstein. ++2.A3 Academic activities 1894-1918 David Hilbert encouraged Lasker to obtain a Ph.D in mathematics. Despite his superb playing results, chess was not Lasker's only interest. His parents recognized his intellectual talents, especially for mathematics, and sent the adolescent Emanuel to study in Berlin (where he found he also had a talent for chess). Lasker gained his abitur (high school graduation certificate) at Landsberg an der Warthe, now a Polish town named Gorzsw Wielkopolski but then part of Prussia. He then studied mathematics and philosophy at the universities in Berlin, Gottingen and Heidelberg. In 1895 Lasker published two mathematical articles in Nature. On the advice of David Hilbert he registered for doctoral studies at Erlangen during 1900-1902. In 1901 he presented his doctoral thesis \ber Reihen auf der Convergenzgrenze ("On Series at Convergence Boundaries") at Erlangen and in the same year it was published by the Royal Society. He was awarded a doctorate in mathematics in 1902. His most significant mathematical article, in 1905, published a theorem of which Emmy Noether developed a more generalized form, which is now regarded as of fundamental importance to modern algebra and algebraic geometry. Lasker held short-term positions as a mathematics lecturer at Tulane University in New Orleans (1893) and Victoria University in Manchester (1901; Victoria University was one of the "parents" of the current University of Manchester). However he was unable to secure a longer-term position, and pursued his scholarly interests independently. In 1906 Lasker published a booklet titled Kampf (Struggle), in which he attempted to create a general theory of all competitive activities, including chess, business and war. He produced two other books which are generally categorized as philosophy, Das Begreifen der Welt (Comprehending the World; 1913) and Die Philosophie des Unvollendbar (The Philosophy of the Unattainable; 1918). ++2.A4 Other activities 1894-1918 In 1896-1897 Lasker published his book Common Sense in Chess, based on lectures he had given in London in 1895. Rice Gambit Position after 1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 g5 4. h4 g4 5. Ne5 Nf6 6. Bc4 d5 7. exd5 Bd6 8. 0-0 -- White sacrifices the Knight on e5, in order to get his King to safety and enable a Rook to join the attack against the under-developed Black position. In 1903, Lasker played in Ostend against Mikhail Chigorin, a six- game match that was sponsored by the wealthy lawyer and industrialist Isaac Rice in order to test the Rice Gambit. Lasker narrowly lost the match. Three years later Lasker became secretary of the Rice Gambit Association, founded by Rice in order to promote the Rice Gambit, and in 1907 Lasker quoted with approval Rice's views on the convergence of chess and military strategy. In November 1904, Lasker founded Lasker's Chess Magazine, which ran until 1909. For a short time in 1906 Emanuel Lasker was interested in the strategy game Go, but soon returned to chess. Curiously he was introduced to the game by his namesake Edward Lasker, who wrote a successful book Go and Go-Moku in 1934. At the age of 42, in July 1911, Lasker married Martha Cohn (nie Bamberger), a rich widow who was a year older than Lasker and already a grandmother. They lived in Berlin. Martha Cohn wrote popular stories under the pseudonym "L. Marco". During World War I, Lasker invested all of his savings in German war bonds. Since Germany lost the war, Lasker lost all his money. During the war, he wrote a book which claimed that civilization would be in danger if Germany lost the war. ++2.A5 Match against Capablanca In January 1920 Lasker and Jose Raul Capablanca signed an agreement to play a World Championship match in 1921, noting that Capablanca was not free to play in 1920. Because of the delay Lasker insisted on a final clause that: allowed him to play anyone else for the championship in 1920; nullified the contract with Capablanca if Lasker lost a title match in 1920; and stipulated that if Lasker resigned the title Capablanca should become World Champion. Lasker had previously included in his agreement before World War I to play Akiba Rubinstein for the title a similar clause that if he resigned the title, it should become Rubinstein's. A report in the American Chess Bulletin (July-August 1920 issue) said that Lasker had resigned the world title in favor of Capablanca because the conditions of the match were unpopular in the chess world. The American Chess Bulletin speculated that the conditions were not sufficiently unpopular to warrant resignation of the title, and that Lasker's real concern was that there was not enough financial backing to justify his devoting nine months to the match. When Lasker resigned the title in favor of Capablanca he was unaware that enthusiasts in Havana had just raised $20,000 to fund the match provided it was played there. When Capablanca learned of Lasker's resignation he went to Holland, where Lasker was living at the time, to inform him that Havana would finance the match. In August 1920 Lasker agreed to play in Havana, but insisted that he was the challenger as Capablanca was now the champion. Capablanca signed an agreement that accepted this point, and soon afterwards published a letter confirming this. Lasker also stated that, if he beat Capablanca, he would resign the title so that younger masters could compete for it. The match was played in March-April 1921. After four draws, the fifth game saw Lasker blunder with Black in an equal ending. Capablanca's solid style allowed him to easily draw the next four games, without taking any risks. In the tenth game, Lasker as White played a position with an isolated queen pawn but failed to create the necessary activity and Capablanca reached a superior ending, which he duly won. The eleventh and fourteenth games were also won by Capablanca, and Lasker resigned the match. Reuben Fine and Harry Golombek attributed this to Lasker's being in mysteriously poor form. On the other hand Vladimir Kramnik thought that Lasker played quite well and the match was an "even and fascinating fight" until Lasker blundered in the last game, and explained that Capablanca was twenty years younger, a slightly stronger player, and had more recent competitive practice. ++2.A6 1921 - end of life By this time Lasker was nearly 53 years old, and he never played another serious match; his only other match was a short exhibition against Frank James Marshall in 1940, which he won. After winning the New York 1924 chess tournament (1.5 points ahead of Capablanca) and finishing second at Moscow in 1925 (1.5 points behind Efim Bogoljubow, .5 point ahead of Capablanca), he effectively retired from serious chess. During the Moscow 1925 chess tournament, Emanuel Lasker received a telegram informing him that the drama written by himself and his brother Berthold, Vom Menschen die Geschichte ("History of Mankind"), had been accepted for performance at the Lessing theatre in Berlin. Emanuel Lasker was so distracted by this news that he lost badly to Carlos Torre the same day. The play, however, was not a success. In 1926 Lasker wrote Lehrbuch des Schachspiels, which he re-wrote in English in 1927 as Lasker's Manual of Chess. He also wrote books on other games of mental skill: Encyclopedia of Games (1929) and Das verstdndige Kartenspiel (means "Sensible Card Play"; 1929; English translation in the same year), both of which posed a problem in the mathematical analysis of card games; Brettspiele der Vvlker ("Board Games of the Nations"; 1931), which includes 30 pages about Go and a section about a game he had invented in 1911, Lasca; and Das Bridgespiel ("The Game of Bridge"; 1931). Lasker became an expert bridge player, representing Germany at international events in the early 1930s, and a registered teacher of the Culbertson system. In October 1928 Emanuel Lasker's brother Berthold died. In spring 1933 Adolf Hitler started a campaign of discrimination and intimidation against Jews, depriving them of their property and citizenship. Lasker and his wife Martha, who were both Jewish, were forced to leave Germany in the same year. After a short stay in England, in 1935 they were invited to live in the USSR by Nikolai Krylenko, the Commissar of Justice who was responsible for the Moscow show trials and, in his other capacity as Sports Minister, was an enthusiastic supporter of chess. In the USSR, Lasker renounced his German citizenship and received Soviet citizenship. He took permanent residence in Moscow, and was given a post at Moscow's Institute for Mathematics and a post of trainer of the USSR national team. Lasker returned to competitive chess to make some money, finishing fifth in Zurich 1934 and third in Moscow 1935 (undefeated, .5 point behind Mikhail Botvinnik and Salo Flohr; ahead of Capablanca, Rudolf Spielmann and several Soviet masters), sixth in Moscow 1936 and seventh equal in Nottingham 1936. His performance in Moscow 1935 at age 66 was hailed as "a biological miracle." Unfortunately Stalin's Great Purge started at about the same time the Laskers arrived in the USSR. In August 1937, Martha and Emanuel Lasker decided to leave the Soviet Union, and they moved, via the Netherlands, to the United States (first Chicago, next New York) in October 1937. In the following year Emanuel Lasker's patron, Krylenko, was purged. Lasker tried to support himself by giving chess and bridge lectures and exhibitions, as he was now too old for serious competition. In 1940 he published his last book, The Community of the Future, in which he proposed solutions for serious political problems, including anti-Semitism and unemployment. He died of a kidney infection in New York on January 11, 1941, at the age of 72, as a charity patient at the Mount Sinai Hospital. He was buried in the Beth Olom Cemetery, Queens, New York. His was survived by his wife Martha and his sister, Mrs. Lotta Hirschberg. ++2.B Assessment ++2.B1 Chess strength and style Lasker was considered to have a "psychological" method of play in which he considered the subjective qualities of his opponent, in addition to the objective requirements of his position on the board. Richard Reti published a lengthy analysis of Lasker's play in which he concluded that Lasker deliberately played inferior moves that he knew would make his opponent uncomfortable. W. H. K. Pollock commented, "It is no easy matter to reply correctly to Lasker's bad moves." Lasker himself denied the claim that he deliberately played bad moves, and most modern writers agree. According to Grandmaster Andrew Soltis and International Master John L. Watson, the features that made his play mysterious to contemporaries now appear regularly in modern play: the g2-g4 "Spike" attack against the Dragon Sicilian; sacrifices to gain positional advantage; playing the "practical" move rather than trying to find the best move; counterattacking and complicating the game before a disadvantage became serious. Former World Champion Vladimir Kramnik writes, "He realized that different types of advantage could be interchangeable: tactical edge could be converted into strategic advantage and vice versa", which mystified contemporaries who were just becoming used to the theories of Steinitz as codified by Siegbert Tarrasch. The famous win against Jose Raul Capablanca at St. Petersburg in 1914, which Lasker needed in order to retain any chance of catching up with Capablanca, is sometimes offered as evidence of his "psychological" approach. Reuben Fine describes Lasker's choice of opening, the Exchange Variation of the Ruy Lopez, as "innocuous but psychologically potent." However, an analysis of Lasker's use of this variation throughout his career concludes that he had excellent results with it as White against top-class opponents, and sometimes used it in "must-win" situations. Ludek Pachman writes that Lasker's choice presented his opponent with a dilemma: with only a = point lead, Capablanca would have wanted to play safe; but the Exchange Variation's pawn structure gives White an endgame advantage, and Black must use his bishop pair aggressively in the middle game to nullify this. In Kramnik's opinion, Lasker's play in this game demonstrated deep positional understanding, rather than psychology. Fine reckoned Lasker paid little attention to the openings., but Capablanca thought Lasker knew the openings very well, but disagreed with a lot of contemporary opening analysis. In fact before the 1894 world title match Lasker studied the openings thoroughly, especially Steinitz' favorite lines. In Capablanca's opinion, no player surpassed Lasker in the ability to assess a position quickly and accurately, in terms of who had the better prospects of winning and what strategy each side should adopt. Capablanca also wrote that Lasker was so adaptable that he played in no definite style, and that he was both a tenacious defender and a very efficient finisher of his own attacks. In addition to his enormous chess skill Lasker had an excellent competitive temperament: his bitter rival Siegbert Tarrasch once said, "Lasker occasionally loses a game, but he never loses his head." Lasker enjoyed the need to adapt to varying styles and to the shifting fortunes of tournaments. Although very strong in matches, he was even stronger in tournaments. For over twenty years, he always finished ahead of the younger Capablanca: at St. Petersburg 1914, New York 1924, Moscow 1925, and Moscow 1935. Only in 1936 (15 years after their match), when Lasker was 67, was Capablanca able to finish ahead of him. In 1964, Chessworld magazine published an article in which future World Champion Bobby Fischer listed the ten greatest players in history. Fischer did not include Lasker in the list, deriding him as a "coffee-house player (who) knew nothing about openings and didn't understand positional chess." In a poll of the world's leading players taken sometime after Fischer's list appeared, Tal, Korchnoi, and Robert Byrne all said that Lasker was the greatest player ever. Both Pal Benko and Byrne said that Fischer later reconsidered and admitted that Lasker was a great player. Statistical ranking systems place Lasker high among the greatest players of all time. The book Warriors of the Mind places him sixth, behind Garry Kasparov, Anatoly Karpov, Fischer, Mikhail Botvinnik and Capablanca. In his 1978 book The Rating of Chessplayers, Past and Present, Arpad Elo gave retrospective ratings to players based on their performance over the best five- year span of their career. He concluded that Lasker was the joint second strongest player of those surveyed (tied with Botvinnik and behind Capablanca). The most up-to-date system, Chessmetrics, is rather sensitive to the length of the periods being compared, and ranks Lasker between fifth and second strongest of all time for peak periods ranging in length from one to twenty years. Its author, the statistician Jeff Sonas, concluded that only Kasparov and Karpov surpassed Lasker's long-term dominance of the game. By Chessmetrics' reckoning, Lasker was the number 1 player in 292 different months - a total of over 24 years. His first No. 1 rank was in June 1890, and his last in December 1926 - a span of 36= years. Chessmetrics also considers him the strongest 67-year-old in history: in December 1935, at age 67 years and 0 months, his rating was 2691 (number 7 in the world), well above second-place Viktor Korchnoi's rating at that age (2660, number 39 in the world, in March 1998). ++2.B2 Influence on chess Lasker at home in Berlin, in 1933 Lasker founded no school of players who played in a similar style. Max Euwe, World Champion 1935-37 and a prolific writer of chess manuals, who had a lifetime 0-3 score against Lasker, said, "It is not possible to learn much from him. One can only stand and wonder." However Lasker's pragmative, combative approach had a great influence on Soviet players like Mikhail Tal and Viktor Korchnoi. There are several "Lasker Variations" in the chess openings, including Lasker's Defense to the Queen's Gambit, Lasker's Defense to the Evans Gambit (which effectively ended the use of this gambit in tournament play until a revival in the 1990s), and the Lasker Variation in the McCutcheon Variation of the French Defense. One of Lasker's most famous games is Lasker - Bauer, Amsterdam 1889, in which he sacrificed both bishops in a maneuver later repeated in a number of games. Similar sacrifices had already been played by Cecil Valentine De Vere and John Owen, but these were not in major events and Lasker probably had not seen them. Lasker was shocked by the poverty in which Wilhelm Steinitz died and did not intend to die in similar circumstances. He became notorious for demanding high fees for playing matches and tournaments, and he argued that players should own the copyright in their games rather than let publishers get all the profits. These demands initially angered editors and other players, but helped to pave the way for the rise of full-time chess professionals who earn most of their living from playing, writing and teaching. Copyright in chess games had been contentious at least as far back as the mid-1840s, and Steinitz and Lasker vigorously asserted that players should own the copyright and wrote copyright clauses into their match contracts. However Lasker's demands that challengers should raise large purses prevented or delayed some eagerly-awaited World Championship matches -- for example Frank James Marshall challenged him in 1904 to a match for the World Championship but could not raise the stakes demanded by Lasker until 1907. This problem continued throughout the reign of his successor Capablanca. Some of the controversial conditions that Lasker insisted on for championship matches led Capablanca to attempt twice (1914 and 1922) to publish rules for such matches, to which other top players readily agreed. ++2.B3 Work in other fields Lasker was also a mathematician. In his 1905 article on commutative algebra, Lasker introduced the theory of primary decomposition of ideals, which has influence in the theory of Noetherian rings. Rings having the primary decomposition property are called "Laskerian rings" in his honor. His attempt to create a general theory of all competitive activities were followed by more consistent efforts from von Neumann on game theory, and his later writings about card games presented a significant issue in the mathematical analysis of card games. However, his dramatic and philosophical works have never been highly regarded. ++2.C Friends and relatives Lasker was a good friend of Albert Einstein, who wrote the introduction to the posthumous biography Emanuel Lasker, The Life of a Chess Master from Dr. Jacques Hannak (1952). In this preface Einstein express his satisfaction at having met Lasker, writing: Emanuel Lasker was undoubtedly one of the most interesting people I came to know in my later years. We must be thankful to those who have penned the story of his life for this and succeeding generations. For there are few men who have had a warm interest in all the great human problems and at the same time kept their personality so uniquely independent. Poetess Else Lasker-Schueler was his sister-in-law. Edward Lasker, born in Kempen (Kepno), Greater Poland (then Prussia), the German- American chess master, engineer, and author, claimed that he was distantly related to Emanuel Lasker. They both played in the great New York 1924 chess tournament. ++2.D Publications ++2.D1 Chess * The London Chess Fortnightly, 1892-1893 * Common Sense in Chess, 1896 (an abstract of 12 lectures delivered to a London audience in 1895) * Lasker's How to Play Chess: An Elementary Text Book for Beginners, Which Teaches Chess By a New, Easy and Comprehensive Method, 1900 * Lasker's Chess Magazine, OCLC 5002324, 1904-1907. * The International Chess Congress, St. Petersburg, 1909, 1910 * Lasker's Manual of Chess, 1925, is as famous in chess circles for its philosophical tone as for its content. * Lehrbuch des Schachspiels, 1926 - English version Lasker's Manual of Chess published in 1927. * Lasker's Chess Primer, 1934. ++2.D2 Mathematics * Lasker, Emanuel (August 1895). "Metrical Relations of Plane Spaces of n Manifoldness". Nature 52 (1345): 340-343. * Lasker, Emanuel (October 1895). "About a certain Class of Curved Lines in Space of n Manifoldness". Nature 52 (1355): 596. ++2.F Notable games * Emanuel Lasker vs Johann Hermann Bauer, Amsterdam 1889. Although this was not the earliest known game with a successful two bishops sacrifice, this combination is now known as a "Lasker-Bauer combination" or "Lasker sacrifice". * Harry Nelson Pillsbury vs Emanuel Lasker, St. Petersburg 1895. A brilliant sacrifice in the seventeenth move leads to a victorious attack. * Wilhelm Steinitz vs Emanuel Lasker, London 1899. The old champion and the new one really go for it. * Frank James Marshall vs Emanuel Lasker, World Championship Match 1907, game 1. Lasker's attack is insufficient for a quick win, so he trades it in for an endgame in which he quickly ties Marshall in knots. * Emanuel Lasker vs Carl Schlechter, match 1910, game 10. Not a great game, but the one that saved Emanuel Lasker from losing his world title in 1910. * Emanuel Lasker vs Jose Raul Capablanca, St. Petersburg 1914. Lasker, who needed a win here, surprisingly used a quiet opening, allowing Capablanca to simplify the game early. There has been much debate about whether Lasker's approach represented subtle psychology or deep positional understanding. * Max Euwe vs Emanuel Lasker, Zurich 1934. 66-year old Lasker beats a future World Champion, sacrificing his Queen to turn defense into attack. ++2.G Tournament results 1888/89 Berlin (Cafe Kaiserhof) 1st 20/20 +20 -0 =0 1889 Breslau "B" Equal 1st 12/15 +11 -2 =2 Tied with von Feyerfeil and won the playoff. This was Hauptturnier A of the sixth DSB Congress, i.e. the "second-division" tournament. 1889 Amsterdam "A" tournament 2nd 6/8 +5 -1 =2 Behind Amos Burn; ahead of James Mason, Isidor Gunsberg and others. This was the stronger of the two Amsterdam tournaments held at that time. 1890 Berlin 1-2 6.5/8 +6 -1 =1 Tied with his brother Berthold Lasker. 1890 Graz 3rd 4/6 +3 -1 =2 Behind Gyula Makovetz and Johann Hermann Bauer. 1892 London 1st 9/11 +8 -1 =2 Ahead of Mason and Rudolf Loman. 1892 London 1st 6.5/8 +5 -0 =3 Ahead of Joseph Henry Blackburne, Mason, Gunsberg and Henry Edward Bird. 1893 New York City 1st 13/13 +13 -0 =0 Ahead of Adolf Albin, Jackson Showalter and a newcomer called Harry Nelson Pillsbury. 1895 Hastings 3rd 15.5/21 +14 -4 =3 Behind Pillsbury and Mikhail Chigorin; ahead of Siegbert Tarrasch, Wilhelm Steinitz and the rest of a strong field. 1895/96 St. Petersburg 1st 11.5/18 +8 -3 =7 A Quadrangular tournament; ahead of Steinitz (by two points), Pillsbury and Chigorin. 1896 Nuremberg 1st 13.5/18 +12 -3 =3 Ahead of Giza Marsczy, Pillsbury, Tarrasch, Dawid Janowski, Steinitz and the rest of a strong field. 1899 London 1st 23=/28 +20 -1 =7 Ahead of Janowski, Pillsbury, Marsczy, Carl Schlechter, Blackburne, Chigorin and several other strong players. 1900 Paris 1st 14.5/16 +14 -1 =1 Ahead of Pillsbury (by two points), Frank James Marshall, Marsczy, Burn, Chigorin and several others. 1904 Cambridge Springs 2nd = 11/15 +9 -2 =4 Tied with Janowski; two points behind Marshall; ahead of Georg Marco, Showalter, Schlechter, Chigorin, Jacques Mieses, Pillsbury and others. 1906 Trenton Falls 1st 5/6 +4 -0 =2 A Quadrangular tournament; ahead of Curt, Albert Fox and Raubitschek. 1909 St. Petersburg Equal 1st 14.5/18 +13 -2 =3 Tied with Akiba Rubinstein; ahead of Oldrich Duras and Rudolf Spielmann (by 3.5 points), Ossip Bernstein, Richard Teichmann and several other strong players. 1914 St. Petersburg 1st 13.5/18 +10 -1 =7 Ahead of Jose Raul Capablanca, Alexander Alekhine, Tarrasch and Marshall. This tournament had an unusual structure: there was a preliminary tournament in which eleven players played each other player once; the top five players then played a separate final tournament in which each player who made the "cut" played the other finalists twice; but their scores from the preliminary tournament were carried forward. Even the preliminary tournament would now be considered a "super- tournament". Capablanca "won" the preliminary tournament by 1.5 points without losing a game, but Lasker achieved a plus score against all his opponents in the final tournament and finished with a combined score .5 point ahead of Capablanca's. 1918 Berlin 1st 4.5/6 +3 -0 =3 Quadrangular tournament. Ahead of Rubinstein, Schlechter and Tarrasch. 1923 Moravska Ostrava 1st 10.5/13 +8 -0 =5 Ahead of Richard Reti, Ernst Gruenfeld, Alexey Selezniev, Savielly Tartakower, Max Euwe and other strong players. 1924 New York City 1st 16/20 +13 -1 =6 Ahead of Capablanca (by 1.5 points), Alekhine, Marshall, and the rest of a very strong field. 1925 Moscow 2nd 14/20 +10 -2 =8 Behind Efim Bogoljubow; ahead of Capablanca, Marshall, Tartakower, Carlos Torre, other strong non-Soviet players and the leading Soviet players. 1934 Zurich 5th 10/15 +9 -4 =2 Behind Alekhine, Euwe, Salo Flohr and Bogoljubow; ahead of Bernstein, Aron Nimzowitsch, Gideon Stahlberg and various others. 1935 Moscow 3rd 12.5/19 +6 -0 =13 half a point behind Mikhail Botvinnik and Flohr; ahead of Capablanca, Spielmann, Ilya Kan, Grigory Levenfish, Andor Lilienthal, Viacheslav Ragozin and others. Emanuel Lasker was about 67 years old at the time. 1936 Moscow 6th 8/18 +3 -5 =10 Capablanca won. 1936 Nottingham 7-8th 8.5/14 +6 -3 =5 Capablanca and Botvinnik tied for first place. ++2.H Match results Here are Lasker's results in matches. 1889 E.R. von Feyerfeil Won Breslau 1-0 +1 -0 =0 Play-off match 1889/90 Curt von Bardeleben Won Berlin 2.5-1.5 +2 -1 =1 1889/90 Jacques Mieses Won Leipzig 6.5-1.5 +5 -0 =3 1890 Berthold Lasker Drew Berlin .5-.5 +0 -0 =1 Play-off match 1890 Henry Edward Bird Won Liverpool 8.5-3.5 +7 -2 =3 1890 N.T. Miniati Won Manchester 4-1 +3 -0 =2 1890 Berthold Englisch Won Vienna 3.5-1.5 +2 -0 =3 1891 Francis Joseph Lee Won London 1.5-.5 +1 -0 =1 1892 Joseph Henry Blackburne Won London 8-2 +6 -0 =4 1892 Bird Won Newcastle upon Tyne 5 -0 +5 -0 =0 1892/93 Jackson Showalter Won Logansport and Kokomo, Indiana 7-3 +6 -2 =2 1893 Celso Golmayo Zupide Won Havana 2.5-.5 +2 -0 =1 1893 Andres Clemente Vazquez Won Havana 3-0 +3 -0 =0 1893 A. Ponce Won Havana 2-0 +2 -0 =0 1893 Alfred Ettlinger Won New York City 5-0 +5 -0 =0 1894 Wilhelm Steinitz Won New York, Philadelphia, Montreal 12-7 +10 -5 =4 World Championship match 1896/97 Wilhelm Steinitz Won Moscow 12.5-4.5 +10 -2 =5 World Championship match 1901 Dawid Janowski Won Manchester 1.5-.5 +1 -0 =1 1903 Mikhail Chigorin Lost Brighton 2.5-3.5 +1 -2 =3 Rice Gambit match 1907 Frank James Marshall Won New York, Philadelphia, Washington, D.C., Baltimore, Chicago, Memphis 11.5-3.5 +8 -0 =7 World Championship match 1908 Siegbert Tarrasch Won Duesseldorf, Munich 10.5-5.5 +8 -3 =5 World Championship match 1908 Abraham Speijer Won Amsterdam 2.5-.5 +2 -0 =1 1909 Dawid Janowski Drew Paris 2-2 +2 -2 =0 Exhibition match 1909 Dawid Janowski Won Paris 8-2 +7 -1 =2 1910 Carl Schlechter Drew Vienna-Berlin 5-5 +1 -1 =8 World Championship match 1910 Dawid Janowski Won Berlin 9.5-1.5 +8 -0 =3 World Championship match 1914 Ossip Bernstein Drew Moscow 1-1 +1 -1 =0 Exhibition match 1916 Tarrasch Won Berlin 5.5-.5 +5 -0 =1 1921 Jose Raul Capablanca Lost Havana 5-9 +0 -4 =10 lost World Championship 1940 Frank James Marshall Lost New York .5-1.5 +0 -1 =1 exhibition match ++3. Jose Raul Capablanca - Emanuel Lasker, New York 1924 New York 1924, Round 14 White: Jose Raul Capablanca Black: Emanuel Lasker Result: 1-0 ECO: D13 - Queen's Gambit Declined, Slav Defense, Exchange Variation Notes by R.J. Macdonald 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 c6 3. Nc3 d5 (Transposing into the Queen's Gambit Declined, Slav Defense.) 4. cxd5 (The Exchange Variation.) 4. ... cxd5 5. Nf3 Nc6 6. Bf4 e6 7. e3 Be7 8. Bd3 0-0 9. 0-0 Nh5 10. Be5 f5 11. Rc1 Nf6 12. Bxf6 (12. a3 Bd7 13. Bf4 Ne4 14. h3 Rc8 15. Bb1 Na5 16. Nxe4 fxe4 17. Ne5 Bb5 18. Re1 Nc4 19. Qb3 Qa5 20. Nxc4 Rxc4 21. Qd1 Rfc8 22. Rxc4 Rxc4 23. Kh2 Qd8 24. Qg4 Bd7 25. Be5 Bf6 26. Qg3 Bxe5 0-1 in 54 moves, as in the game L. Kuchynka - P. Mlynek (2190), Brno 2004.) 12. ... gxf6 13. Nh4 Kh8!? (13. ... Bd7 14. a3 gives white a slight edge.) 14. f4 (14. a3 Bd7 is slightly better for white.) 14. ... Rg8 (14. ... Bd7 15. Nf3 offers equal chances.) 15. Rf3 (15. a3 Bd7 gives white a slight advantage.) 15. ... Bd7 (The position is now even.) 16. Rh3 Be8 (16. ... Rg7 17. Qh5 maintains equality.) 17. a3 (White now has a slight edge. The text move Consolidates b4.) 17. ... Rg7 (17. ... Na5 18. Nxf5 exf5 19. Bxf5 gives white a slight advantage.) 18. Rg3 (18. Na4!? is interesting and appears to give white a slight advantage.) 18. ... Rxg3 (Both sides now have equal chances.) 19. hxg3 Rc8 (19. ... Bf7 20. Kf2 offers equal chances.) 20. Kf2 Na5 (20. ... Rc7 21. Nb5 Rd7 22. g4 gives white a slight edge.) 21. Qf3 (21. g4!? fxg4 22. Qxg4 gives white a slight advantage.) 21. ... Nc4 (Black threatens to win material: Nc4xb2. The position is now even.) 22. Qe2 Nd6 23. Rh1 Ne4+ (23. ... a5 24. g4 Ne4+ 25. Bxe4 fxe4 26. f5 leads to equality.) 24. Bxe4 fxe4 (Black has a new doubled pawn: e6. 24. ... dxe4 25. g4 fxg4 26. Qxg4 leads to equality.) 25. Qg4 f5 (25. ... Bxa3!? should be investigated more closely. 26. Qxe6 Bxb2 27. Nxd5 Rc2+ 28. Kg1 Rc6 29. Qxe4 Rc1+ 30. Kh2 Rxh1+ 31. Kxh1 Bc6 seems to give equal chances.) 26. Nxf5 (White now has a solid advantage.) 26. ... exf5 27. Qxf5 h5 28. g4 (28. Nxd5?! Rc2+ 29. Kg1 Qd6 leads to equality.) 28. ... Rc6 (Perhaps a better try is 28. ... Kg8 29. gxh5 Bc6, but white still has a solid position.) 29. g5 (White has a new protected passed pawn: g5. 29. Nxd5 Bh4+ 30. g3 Rc2+ 31. Kg1 Rc1+ 32. Kg2 Rc2+ 33. Kh3 hxg4+ 34. Kxg4 should be decisive for white.) 29. ... Kg8 30. Nxd5 (30. g4 Rd6 31. gxh5 Qd7 32. Qxd7 Bxd7 offers equal chances. 32. ... Rxd7? 33. Kg3 is very strong for white.) 30. ... Bf7 31. Nxe7+ Qxe7 32. g4 hxg4 (32. ... Bg6!? should not be overlooked: 33. Qd5+ Bf7 leads to equality.) 33. Qh7+ (White now has a solid advantage.) 33. ... Kf8 34. Rh6 (34. Kg3 Bg8 35. Qf5+ Kg7 36. Kxg4 a6 gives white a solid advantage.) 34. ... Bg8 (White now has a slight edge.) 35. Qf5+ (White forks: g4+f8.) 35. ... Kg7 36. Rxc6 bxc6 37. Kg3 (White threatens to win material: Kg3xg4. Better is 37. Qxg4 Be6 38. f5, giving white a slight advantage.) Key Move Diagram: 6b1/ p3q1k1/ 2p5/ 5QP1/ 3PpPp1/ P3P1K1/ 1P6/ 8 Position after white's 37th move. 37. ... Qe6?? (37. ... Bd5 would bring relief, with equal chances.) 38. Kxg4 (This move gives white a decisive advantage.) Key Move Diagram: 6b1/ p5k1/ 2p1q3/ 5QP1/ 3PpPK1/ P3P3/ 1P6/ 8 Position after white's 38th move. 38. ... Qxf5+?? (38. ... Bf7 39. Qxe6 Bxe6+ 40. f5 Bb3 gives white a very strong position.) 39. Kxf5 Bd5 40. b4 a6 (40. ... Kf7 cannot change destiny: 41. Ke5 Bc4 42. Kxe4 is very strong for white.) 41. Kg4 Bc4 42. f5 Bb3 (42. ... Kf8 doesn't change anything either: 43. Kf4 Bd5 44. Ke5 is very strong for white.) 43. Kf4 Bc2 (43. ... Bd5 cannot change what is in store for black: 44. Ke5 is just too strong.) 44. Ke5 Kf7 Key Move Diagram: 8/ 5k2/ p1p5/ 4KPP1/ 1P1Pp3/ P3P3/ 2b5/ 8 Position after black's 44th move. 45. a4! (Deflection to a4.) 45. ... Kg7 (45. ... Bxa4 46. g6+ Double attack!) 46. d5 Bxa4 (46. ... cxd5 47. b5 Bxa4 48. bxa6 d4 49. Kxe4 Bc6+ 50. Kxd4 Kh8 51. Ke5 Bg2 52. f6 Ba8 53. f7 Kg7 54. f8=Q+ Kxf8 55. g6 Bc6 56. e4 Ke7 57. Kf5 Bd7+ 58. Kg5 Bc6 59. e5 Bd5 60. g7 Kf7 61. Kh6 Be4 62. e6+ Kxe6 63. g8=Q+ Kd6 64. a7 Ke5 65. Kg5 Kd4 66. Kf4 Bd5 67. Qxd5+ Kxd5 68. a8=Q+ Kd4 69. Qc6 Kd3 70. Qc5 Kd2 71. Ke4 Ke1 72. Ke3 Kd1 73. Qc4 Ke1 74. Qe2#.) 47. d6 c5 48. bxc5 Bc6 49. Ke6 a5 50. f6+ (Black resigned in view of 50. f6+ Kg6 51. f7 Bb5 52. f8=Q Kh5 53. g6 Kg4 54. d7 Be2 55. d8=Q Kg3 56. Qf4+ Kg2 57. Qdg5+ Bg4+ 58. Qgxg4+ Kh1 59. Qh6#.) 1-0