The International Chess Congress St. Petersburg 1909: The Famous Tournament Book by The Second World Chess Champion

The

International

Chess Congress

St. Petersburg 1909

by

Emanuel Lasker

Foreword by

Tim Harding 2008

2008

Russell Enterprises, Inc.

Milford, CT USA

The International Chess Congress St. Petersburg 1909

© Copyright 2008

Russell Enterprises, Inc.

All Rights Reserved. No part of this book may be used, reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any manner or form whatsoever or by any means, electronic, electrostatic, magnetic tape, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the express written permission from the publisher except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles or reviews.

ISBN: 978-1-88690-46-0

Published by:

Russell Enterprises, Inc.

PO Box 3131

Milford, CT 06460 USA

http://www.russell-enterprises.com

info@russell-enterprises.com

Cover design by Janel Lowrance

Printed in the United States of America

Table of Contents

Foreword

Preface

Program of the Tournament

Games of the Tournament

Round One

Round Two

Round Three

Round Four

Round Five

Round Six

Round Seven

Round Eight

Round Nine

Round Ten

Round Eleven

Round Twelve

Round Thirteen

Round Fourteen

Round Fifteen

Round Sixteen

Round Seventeen

Round Eighteen

Round Nineteen

Index of Players

Index of Openings

List of Other eBooks

Foreword

The international chess congress at St. Petersburg, Russia, was played early in 1909 at the cusp between two generations in the chess world. Chigorin and Pillsbury were no more; the rise of Alekhine and Capablanca was just over the horizon. The importance of the tournament is increased by the fact that it was the only one Dr. Emanuel Lasker (then the world champion) contested between Cambridge Springs 1904 and the 1914 St. Petersburg event; he was concentrating on matches, exhibition tours, and non-chess activities. The tournament featured a duel between Lasker and the emerging talent, Akiva Rubinstein, which certainly made up for the absence of three men who challenged for the world title in the 1900s: Tarrasch, Janowski, and Marshall. The result encouraged Rubinstein to seek a title match himself, but unfortunately it never happened.

Several other masters of the new generation featured in the tournament but another future title challenger, Schlechter, failed in this event. There was no new generation of top-class British professionals, England being represented by Burn, the veteran amateur. Blackburne surprisingly only made his first visit to Russia for the 1914 event, at the age of 72. Richard Forster’s biography of Burn mentions that several of the westerners may have experienced difficulties with the food and accommodation provided and several masters were reported to have fallen ill during the three-week event.

The home contingent included players who lived in the Tsarist empire but were not really Russian (Salwe and Rubinstein) and the intended complement of ten was not fulfilled. Then Nenarokov withdrew after four rounds and his games were cancelled, creating a bye from round five onwards. His four games are, however, included in the book. Of the home contingent, Bernstein had the best result. Brilliancy prizes were awarded to Schlechter and Forgács respectively for their wins against Salwe and Tartakower, so you may like to turn to those games first.

There was a tight race throughout between Lasker and Rubinstein. The latter had started with two wins. Lasker, facing him with black in round three, adopted a sharp but dubious variation against the Queen’s Gambit, which was punished by Rubinstein’s brilliant conception at moves 16-18. After losing to his rival, Lasker had a lot of ground to make up, but did so by the half-way mark. It is best to follow the leaders’ progress through the event round by round in order to fully understand the tension. Rubinstein, because of the bye, was chasing through the second half until the penultimate round, when it was Lasker’s turn to sit it out. The world champion found himself half a point behind going into the final round.

It is also noteworthy that Alekhine won the All-Russian championship, played simultaneously, earning the master title. For the first time the future world champion met famous players from abroad and could see them in action. His score of 13/16, a point ahead of Rotlewi and well clear of most of the field, included just two losses and two draws. Although most of the players that he beat are not well known, it should be noted that Karl Rosenkrantz, who gave up his place in the international to accommodate Perlis, scored only 9/16 in the All-Russian event, so the depth of quality in Russian chess was high even then.

The book includes all 175 games of the international tournament. The Ruy Lopez and Queen’s Gambit were by far the most popular openings, as they would remain until after the Second World War. There were only six Sicilians. The depth of annotations by today’s standards may seem slight, but see Lasker’s explanation for this in his preface. For example, in his Rubinstein epic, Lasker does not comment on every critical moment. Readers should analyse for themselves, for example, the possible consequences of 8.Bxf6!, which is analysed in modern books that include this game. Indeed one of the values of this book, especially for a player hoping to improve their game, is that it will turn up many situations, either in the actual play or Lasker’s notes, where you can try to solve for yourself the unanswered questions that may arise when playing through a game.

Lasker’s little-known book first appeared in Berlin in 1909, a few months after the tournament it describes. This translation (mostly by Teichmann, who finished sixth) was published in New York in 1910. The English edition has never previously appeared in algebraic notation, so far as I am aware, so this is the first chance for most modern readers to appreciate a classic.

Tim Harding

Dublin

July 14, 2008

Preface

This is a book in which analysis is accurate.

The games in this book show the working of the mind of the master, and the commentary has been intended to guide the thought of him who plays over these games so that he may perceive weakness and merit. Notes have been made solely for that purpose. The glossary was meant to be both necessary and sufficient. Nowhere will it be found lacking in supplying explanation needed, but it has no superfluities.

The work has been translated from German, all but the early part, by Mr. R. Teichmann, and some valuable advice has been given to me by Mr. Teichmann, for which I beg to thank him here.

Emanuel Lasker

New York

May 10, 1910

Program of the Tournament

1. The number of participants in the tournament is limited to twenty, of whom one-half are Russian players. [It was actually less than half, as can be seen from the list of participants on the next page.]

2. Every participant meets every one of his competitors in one game. A game won counts Plus One, a game lost counts Naught, and a draw one-half a point.

3. No entrance fee is necessary, but a deposit of 10 rubles is demanded. It shall be paid before the commencement of the tournament and is repaid provided the participant has stayed in the tournament until the end.

4. Ten prizes: 1st - 1000 rubles (a little more than $500 or £100); 2nd - 750 rubles; 3rd - 550; 4th - 400; 5th - 280; 6th - 190; 7th - 120; 8th - 80; 9th - 50; 10th - 30.

5. All participants receive also an honorarium of 10 rubles for each game they win and 5 rubles for each game they draw.

6. Furthermore, each competitor receives a fixed compensation. Every Russian Master 50 rubles, and every foreign competitor 100 rubles.

7. If the scores are equal the prizes are equally divided, except that two participants compete for the two first prizes. The two competitors agreeing, they can decide the first prize by a match of four games. If the result should be equal the two prizes are divided.

8. Time for playing is five times a week, from 11 o’clock A.M. until 9 o’clock P.M., with an interval from 4 to 6 o’clock P.M. Before the adjournment the player whose turn it is to move must give his move in a closed envelope to the director of the tournament. The sixth day is reserved for the termination of adjourned games. Adjourned games may also be played, the two opponents agreeing, on any evening after the termination other games which they might have to play. One day a week is an off day.

9. There is a time limit of two and one-half hours for thirty-seven moves, after that one and one-half hours for twenty-three moves, and further on fifty moves an hour. A player transgressing on the time limit loses the game. At the commencement of the game the clock is set in motion. In case a player does not come before the control of time his game is counted as a loss to him. If a participant fails to appear for the playing of three consecutive games he is removed from the tournament. If such a player has finished less than one-half of his games they are not counted; but if he has played more than half of his games, those that he has played are counted and those that he has failed to play are credited to his opponent. Note to paragraphs 8 and 9: The time of adjournment and the moment of controlling the time can be changed if the majority of participants so desire. (As a matter of fact no change was requested.)

10. Either of the players has to carefully write his game and to deliver his manuscript immediately after the termination or adjournment of his game to the director of the tournament. All games of the tournament are the property of the St. Petersburg Chess Club.

11. The participants are forbidden to analyze the games in progress.

12. The tourney is played according to the Chess Year Book by Berger. None of the participants has a right to pardon transgression of these rules by his opponent. Players who do not obey the rules of the tournament, or those who do not complete the tournament, lose every claim to prize, compensation, and their deposit. All differences are settled by the Court of Referees. This Court is composed one-half by the participants and one-half by the members of the committee. In case the votes are evenly divided, that of the president decides.

13. On Sunday, the 14th of February, 1909, at 8 o’clock in the evening, the guests will be officially bidden welcome and lots will be drawn for the tournament. The commencement of the tournament is on Monday, the 15th of February, at 11 o’clock A.M.

14. Offers to participants have to be directed no later than the 28th of January, 1909, to the president of the committee of the St. Petersburg Chess Club, Mr. P. P. Saburov, St. Petersburg, Mochowaja 27.

15. Participants who desire to have board and lodging at moderate prices are asked to address themselves to the member of the committee, Mr. Julius Sossnitsky, St. Petersburg, Ertelew Perulok 2.

These were the Masters who competed and the countries which they represented:

America: Dr. E. Lasker

Germany: E. Cohn, J. Mieses, R. Spielmann, R. Teichmann

England: A. Burn

Holland: A. Speijer

Austria: Dr. J. Perlis, C. Schlechter, S. Tartakower, M. Vidmar

Russia: Dr. O. S. Bernstein, F. J. Dus-Chotimirsky, S. N. von Freiman, V. I. Nenarokov, A. K. Rubinstein, G. F. Salwe, Eugene A. Znosko-Borovsky (Carl Rosenkrantz retired from the tournament in order to enable Dr. Perlis, who was by chance in St. Petersburg, to participate.)

Bohemia: O. Duras

Hungary: L. Forgács

His Majesty the Czar Nikolaus deigned to give 1000 rubles to strengthen the means at the disposal of the Congress and to donate also a magnificent vase of the Imperial porcelain manufacture as a first prize for the all Russian Minor Tournament. The whole amount needed for the Congress, 10,500 rubles, was gotten together in the way of voluntary contributions.

St. Petersburg 1909: seated L-R, Vidmar, Bernstein, Lasker, Burn, Schlechter, Rubinstein, Mieses, Salwe and Speijer; Standing in the second row are Freiman, Duras, Levin, S.A. Znosko-Borovsky, Sosnitsky, Demidov San-Donato, P.P. Surbarov, Chudovsky, Perlis, Tartakower and Teichmann. In the back row are E. Cohn, Forgács, E.A. Znosko-Borovsky and Spielmann.

St. Petersburg 1909

February 22 - March 12

Games of the Tournament

Round One

(1) Dus-Chotimirsky – Mieses

Old Indian Defense [A53]

1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 d6 3 Nc3 Nbd7 4 e3

After 4 e4, the continuation might be 4...e5 5 Nf3 g6 6 Bg5 h6 7 Bh4 Bg7 8 Bg3.

4...e5 5 Bd3 g6 6 f4 Qe7 7 Nge2 e4

A premature attempt at attack. Instead 7...Bg7, followed by 8 0-0 and using the kingside rook on the e-file, was indicated.

8 Bb1 c6 9 Qc2 Nb6 10 b3 Bf5 11 a4

11 Ng3 would have been simply met by 11...0-0-0.

11...Rc8 12 a5 Na8 13 Ba3 Qe6 14 Qd2 d5 15 B×f8 K×f8 16 c×d5

This exchange was unnecessary. White ought to have continued at once with 16 Na4 and if 16...d×c4, then 17 Nc5 would follow with an excellent game. 16...c×d5 17 Na4 Kg7 18.0-0 Nc7 19 Nc5 Qc6 20 Rc1 Qb5 21 Nc3 Qc6 22 Ne2

White might very well have continued 22 b4, threatening to bring the Bb1 into action via c2-a4; a plausible continuation would have been 22...b6 23 a×b6 a×b6 24 N5a4 Nb5 25 Ne2 Qd6 26 h3 and White has a slight advantage.

22...Qb5 23 Nc3 Qc6 24 Ne2 Qb5 25 Nc3 Qc6 26 Na2 Qb5 27 Nc3 Qc6 28 Ne2 Qb5 ½-½

[1h. 15 – 1h. 15]

(2) Cohn – Burn

Vienna Opening [C26]

1 e4 e5 2 Nc3 Bc5 3 g3 Nf6 4 Bg2 d6

4...Nc6 appears to be preferable, with a view to saving the important Bc5 from being exchanged, by ...a6.

5 Na4 Nc6 6 Ne2 Be6 7 d3 Qe7 8 0-0 d5 9 N×c5 Q×c5 10 Be3 Qd6 11 e×d5 B×d5 12 Nc3 B×g2 13 K×g2 Nd5 14 Qd2

14 Qf3, taking possession of the diagonal, which the king bishop commanded before, seems more natural.

14...0-0

Black ought to castle queenside in order to attack on the kingside.

15 Ne4

15...N×e3+

15...Qg6 16 f4 f5 17 Nc3 Rad8, or 17 Nc5 N×e3+ 18 Q×e3 Nd4, would have created interesting complications, which would probably have turned out in Black’s favor.

16 Q×e3 Qd4 17 c3 Q×e3 18 f×e3 ½–½

[1h. 10 – 0h. 40]

(3) Nenarokov – Perlis

Queen’s Gambit Declined [D35]

1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 Nf3 Be7 5 Bf4 0-0 6 e3 c5 7 Bd3 Nc6 8 c×d5 e×d5 9 d×c5 B×c5 10 0-0 Be6 11 Rc1 Rc8

Better 11...a6 12 Bb1 d4 13 Na4 Ba7, as the bishop should continue to exert pressure on d4.

12 Bb1 Na5

There the knight is out of play. Instead 12...Qe7 13 Bg5 Rfd8 14 Qd3 h6 was a feasible line of play. The checks would have done Black no harm.

13 Bg5 Be7 14 Nd4 g6 15 Qe2 White might have played 15 f4, followed by f4-f5, e.g. 15...Bg4 16 Qe1 Nc4 17 f5 N×b2 18 h3 and White would have an irresistible attack.

15...Nc6 16 Nf3 Qb6 17 h3 Rfd8 18 Rfd1 Kg7 19 Nd4 N×d4 20 e×d4 Rc4 21 Be3 Rdc8 22 Bd3 Rb4 23 b3 Qd8 24 Na4 R×c1 25 R×c1 Bd7 26 Nc5 Rb6 27 Bf4 B×c5 28 d×c5 Re6 29 Qb2 Qe7 30 Bd6 Qe8 31 Qd2 Bc6 32 Bf4 Ng8 33 Qc3+ f6 34 Kh2 Kf7 35 Qd2 a6 36 Bd6 Kg7 37 Bf4 Qe7

Adjourned.

38 Bd6 Qe8 39 Bf4 Qe7 40 b4 Qe8 41 a3 Kf7 42 Rb1 f5 43 Rb2 Nf6 44 Bb1 Qe7 45 f3 Nh5 46 Bd6 Qh4 47 g3

Both parties have taken care not to alter the position to any considerable extent. Black here lays a trap. If 47 Qh6, Black would have answered 47...R×d6.

47...Qd8 48 Ba2 Nf6 49 Kg2 Qe8 50 Kf2 Kg7 51 Bf4 Bb5

An altogether faulty maneuver; the attack thus initiated is easily parried, whilst the d-pawn is left without support.

52 Bh6+ Kh8 53 Qd1 Ng8

Somewhat better would have been 53...Bc6.

54 Qd4+ Nf6 55 h4

This move was calculated to a nicety.

55...Re2+ 56 Kg1 Re1+ 57 Kh2 Re2+ 58 Kh3 Qe6 59 Bg5 f4+ 60 g4 Re5 1-0

Black here lost the game by exceeding the time limit. The game might have gone on as follows: 60...Re5 61 Q×f4 Bf1+ 62 Kh2 Nd7 63 Qd4 to White’s advantage.

(4) Teichmann – Vidmar

Ruy Lopez [C66]

1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 Nf6 4 0-0 d6 5 d4 Bd7 6 Nc3 Be7 7 Re1 e×d4 8 N×d4 0-0 9 Nde2

9 Bg5 looks to be the natural move.

9...Re8 10 Ng3 Bf8 11 b3 g6 12

Bb2 Bg7 13 Nd5 a6 14 B×c6

To 14 Bf1 Black would have replied 14...Ne5 and if 15 f4?, he would have played 15...N×d5, followed by 16...Nf3+ or 16...Nf4 according to circumstances, with a good game.

14...B×c6 15 N×f6+ B×f6 16 B×f6 Q×f6 17 Qd3 Re6 18 f3 Rae8 19 c4 Qe7 ½–½

[1h. 7 – 1h.]

19...Qe7 threatens 20...f5; White would probably reply 20 Red1. After that it appears for both players an almost hopeless undertaking, to drive the opponent from his position.

(5) Schlechter – Lasker

Ruy Lopez [C66]

1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 Nf6 4 0-0 d6 5 d4 Bd7 6 Nc3 Be7 7 Re1 e×d4 8 N×d4 0-0 9 Nde2 a6 10 Ba4

The retreat 10 Bd3 appears stronger. It is true that Black can then exchange the king bishop for a knight by playing, say, 10...Ne5, but in that case White would retake with the c-pawn and would have two strong pawns in the center as compensation for Black’s two bishops.

10...Re8 11 f3 h6

If Black played 11...Bf8 at once, White would reply 12 Bg5 threatening 13 Nd5. After this Black would have nothing better than 12...h6 13 Bh4 Be7.

12 Be3 Bf8 13 Qd2 Ne5

By this move Black frees his game.

14 Bb3

It was not good to retire this bishop. White ought to have exchanged 14 B×d7 and developed his game further by Ra1-d1.

14...c5 15 Bd5 Rb8 16 Nf4 b5 17 a3 N×d5 18 Nc×d5 f5

The point of Black’s strategy. After the exchange of the e-pawn, the weakness of his d-pawn is not significant.

19 e×f5 B×f5 20 Bf2 Qd7 21 Ne3 Bh7 22 Nfd5 Qf7 23 Rad1 Nc6 24 Bg3 Rbd8 25 Bh4 Rd7 26 Ng4 R×e1+ 27 R×e1 Nd4

Decisive. White dare not reply 28 Nde3, as 28...g5 29 Bg3 h5 would get him into difficulties.

28 Nge3 B×c2 29 N×c2 N×c2 30 Nf6+ g×f6 31 Q×c2

Intending to take up a strong position by