♡ 44 ( +1 | -1 ) Karl SchlechterOther great player who didn't get attention was Karl Schlechter (1874 - 1918). He was very strong universal player, who gived a great contribution in opening theory. He's skills of playing endgame were fantastic. Also he was a good match player - even Lasker could'n win him. But, as he made meny draws, most of his conteporarie's regarded him as boring positional player and his reputation in chess world was lower his strength.
♡ 43 ( +1 | -1 ) You're right,werwolf......Schlecter was one of the greats who never got his due. He's one of my favorites,and I always enjoy re-playing the games of his match with Lasker,whom I consider to be the greatest player of all time. That's the way the World Championship should be contested! Lasker could consider himself lucky to escape with his title. Sadly,tho,it was pretty much all downhill for Karl after that,and his death from malnutrition in 1918,is one of chess' saddest stories.
<Provoking black to play 6...Bxf4 to strenghten his control over e5, and leaving e6 pawn weak on semi-open file.>
6...Nf6 7.Bd3 Qc7 8.g3! 0-0 9.0-0 Ne4 10.Qb3!
<Threatening 11.cxd5 exd5 12.Nxe4 fxe4 13.Bxe4>
<Threatening 12.cxd5 exd5 13.Nxd5>
<Causing chronical dark-square weaknesses. Better was 11...Qe7>
12.exf4 Qf7 13.Ne5 Qe7 14.Bxe4!
<Schechter wants to exploit the dark-square weaknesses with his knights (the position is too closed to really favour a bishop pair) Now black has lost an important defender. His own light squares are not a problem since Bc8 is bad and black cant really exploit the absence of Bd3.>
<Getting rid of doubled pawn.>
<I suppose nowadays people call this Karpovian move - no rush to recapture!>
<Preventing 17...Nd7 (18.Qe7!)>
17...Kg8 18.Rxf3 Na6
<Again 18...Nd7? Qe7!>
19.b3 Qd8 20.c5!
<Black was threatening 20...dxc4, so Schlechter strenghtens his control over dark squares. Now 20...b6 is bad in the view of 21.b4, for example 21...Bb7 22.b5! cxb5 23.c6 Bc8 24.Rxb5 or 21...bxc5 22.bxc5>
A positional masterpiece and one of my all-time favourite games.
Indeed Lasker - Schlechter match was more than unfair. Before the last game Schlechter was leading 5-4, but he still had to win the last game! The game was a complex struggle but he got a promising position and even after throwing his advantage away, had a forced draw. It is not know whether he missed it or decided to gamble. Lasker played very agressively, propably because "winning" the match 41/2 - 51/2 would have been humiliating.
♡ 52 ( +1 | -1 ) peppe_la wonderful game by Schlechter!! A little old fashion but still a good example of Steintzian theory put into practice. 6.e3 is required for the rapid completion of whites developement in the case of 6...Bxf4 white will have gained an important tempo (according to classical theory). The accumulation of small advantages and using these advantages to force your opponet to make additional weaknesess all very clasical and Schlechter was a technician of the first order. But, I think Karpov could show him a thing or three!
♡ 86 ( +1 | -1 ) Schlechter-John is a great game. An important point is that the recapture g3xf4, while it looks good on the face of it (controlling e5 and retaining the e-pawn for blasting the center with f3 and e3-e4), actually suffers from weakening the King's position too much.
The Lasker-Schlechter match is something of a mystery. After all, winning by two points seems like a very serious handicap to accept in a 10-game match. On another account I've heard that this was not actually a Wolrd Championship match at all (by contract), and that the public merely began calling it that at some point during or after the match. At any rate, Schlechter claimed he saw the draw after the game, so it seems doubtful that he missed it. More likely he either calculated ...Qh1+ in his favor or he had to win the last game in order to win the match, so a draw would not have sufficed.
♡ 21 ( +1 | -1 ) baselineThe Lasker-Schlecter match was only for 10 games.Going into the last game,Schlecter was ahead +1-0=8.There has been an unresolved debate on Lasker's conditions for that match,and whether or not Schlecter had to win by 2 pts.
♡ 108 ( +1 | -1 ) myway316You are ofcourse right, a slip on my part (some would call fischerphycosis) Hannank's book does not give the details of the match rules but you get the impression that it was a title match. He talks about the wealthy patrons would only finance a short match because If Schlechter payed for a draw he was impossible to beat. They had no desire to finance 30 Grandmaster draws and a short match was the best way to force a decision. A short match was really unfair to both Lasker and Schlechter. Lasker who was a notoriously slow starter in both match an tournament play had a dear friend on his death bed during the match and Schlechter who may have felt honor bound to step out of character in the last game ( It was believed that in the game Lasker lost he had managed to reach a position that was a theoritical win only to let his guard down, making a careless move that led to the loss). whatever else may be said Lasker and Schlecter were on friendly terms before and after the match, and had a healthy respect for each other as chess players.
♡ 99 ( +1 | -1 ) Information about SchlechterCan be found by going to MSN search engine and typing "Carl Schlechter" (actually is name in German was Karl). You will find all his 10 games against Lasker, the annonated famous 10th game, and a review of a book about him "The love of the Draw of Karl Hofmann". Very interesting stuff. Schlechter made the mistake of his life in the 10th game. He should have played for a draw and die famous and not of malnutrition at the end of world war one. With all my attacking temperament, and being a lover of the attack, as the name desertfox suggests, I don't take unnecessary risks. Some people say Schlechter needed 2 pointd to win the match. What rubbish! who would agree to have to lead the great Lasker with 2 points after only 10 games. Maybe Schlechter was just satisfied in showing that he is equal to the world champion. For his unassuming character that was more than enough. Not winning that match sealed the fate of a player who deserved a better end to his career.
♡ 48 ( +1 | -1 ) desertfoxa few days ago I ran a search on google, but most of the refferences were in German but I got the impression that the book "Love of the draw... wass a work of fiction. I also recall reading somewhere that Schlechter was too proud to accept charity. I also remember a remark by Ruben Fine that during his time in Europe he could not recall anyone mentioning Schlechter even though he had heard stories about all the other famous masters from his time.
♡ 56 ( +1 | -1 ) BaselineI said MSN not Google, but you can try Alta Vista and other search engines. In MSN they had two in Portuguese and two in Spanish. The Portuguese claim that in order to win the match Karl needed a margin of 2 points. They also claim he was Jewish. Its the first time I hear that. Schlecht means "bad" in German and Schlechter means "worse". What a irony. In fact there are Jews called Schlechter and in Israel we have in parliament someone called Yuval Steinitz. Regarding the book, if you read the review of it you would know that not all of it is fiction.
♡ 26 ( +1 | -1 ) desertfoxI had read somewhere long ago that Schlecter was a Jew, not suprising since most of the really good players in chess history have been Jews.
The problem with historical novels based on fact is what is fact and what is fiction?