Karl Schlechter

Default

Bad, Bad Karl Schlechter

	Picture this - Two men face each other across a chessboard. One is the World Champion of chess who has managed to retain his title for 16 years and is known as one of the most tenacious and fierce players who ever pushed a pawn. The other is an unassuming man about 36 years of age whose main claim to fame is his ability to wring a draw out of most situations and his willingness to accept a draw when offered. Two more opposite men never co-existed at a chessboard. This is the last game of the match and unbelievably, the older master is down by a game. Since the current champion retains his title in the case of a drawn match, he must win this game. His less noteworthy opponent only needs to draw to become the new World Champion...and drawing is what he does better than any man alive. It's 1910. Emmanuel Lasker is a breath away from losing his title to Karl Schlechter, the "Remiskoenig", the King of Draws !
Karl Schlechter	This one game, which spanned three days, created an enigma which has perplexed chess historians for over 90 years. To understand the mystery it's nesessary to know something about the man who almost became the World Champion of chess. Read on as I present the clues.	Emanuel Lasker

I know of three books written about Karl Schlechter:

Carl Schlechter!: Life & Times of the Austrian Chess Wizard
by Warren Goldman
Schlechter's Chess Games
by Tom Crain (1998)
Carl Haffner's Love of the Draw (a novel)
by Thomas Glavinic (1998)

some words of explanation
I haven't read any of the above books. I scoured the web to uncover the information presented here. There is precious little written about this great player and many of my sources were non-English sites. This led to one curious incident. While researching some German pages using machine translation, i came across such enigmatic statements as

"It is true that also the Austrian of bad possesses the ability, which would permit it to him to take up with good chances of success the fight but bad does not possess only the ability - far anything."

and

"bad led 10 years the German chess newspaper."

I was a little confused until I learned that 'Schlechter' means "worse' in German and it was translated as 'bad' by the automatic translator. "Karl" was spelled "Carl", making his name 'Carl bad' which futher confused me because I first took it to mean 'Carlsbad'.
Most machine translations must be taken with a grain of salt. Idioms and nuances inherent in all languages are ignored for the most part and words can have entirely different meanings depending on how they are used. What I could ascertain from the German pages, I was careful to cross-reference with what I had learned from the English language pages and I only extrapolated after much consideration.

Karl Schlechter was born into extreme poverty on March 2, 1874 in Vienna, Austria. He learned to play chess in 1890 and by 1892 he was one of the strongest players in Vienna. He played a match against Georg Garza Marco in 1893, drawing all 10 games. They matched up again in 1893 and though the match was again a draw, the score for Schlechter was 4 wins - 4 loses - 3 draws.
According to Divinsky's The Batsford Chess Encyclopedia (London, B.T.Batsford Ltd, 1990. Nathan Divinsky is Professor of Mathematics at the University of British Columbia and a noted chess historian)
"From Leipzig 1894, until the war in 1914, Schlechter played in almost all of the great chess tournaments and seldom came below 5th."
In Carl Schlechter!:Life and Times of the Austrian Chess Wizard, Warren Goldman writes
"Karl Schlechter's career spanned a quarter century, ...Schlechter played in some of the finest chess tournaments in history (this is the opinion of chess historians based upon the many prominent names gracing the scoresheets and their fighting spirit characterizing the players in these tournaments). In my mind Schlechter was the third best player in the world during the period 1906-1910."
Schlechter was a leading proponent and practioner of the Viennese school of chess which argued that safety and suppression of counter-play during the middle game was the top priority and that, with such consolidated positions, attacks could be prepared and ultimately accomplished.

The first tournament he played was 1895 Hastings. At 21 he was the youngest of the 22 participants . Although he only finished 9th,he scored a win against Harry Nelson Pillsbury, the eventual winner of the tournament. While Schlechter almost always placed well in tournaments, the ease with which he accepted draws kept him form outright winning many of them. Once during a tournament Tarrasch, with a very inferior position, complained to Schlechter that he was feeling ill. Schlechter readily agreed a draw allowing Tarrasch to win the tournament by half a point.
It's been determined that Schlechter drew about 50% of all his games and was sometimes fondly, sometimes critically, referred to as 'the King of Draws'. Not only would he easily accept draws, but he had the talent to suck the life out of positions, making draws inevitable. An article in the British Chess Magazine (1912) observed "Schlechter deserves to be regarded as the invincible knight of chess - invincible and ineffectual. ...He is the spirit of denial in chess - the ingenious upholder of inconclusiveness, the protagonist of inaction."
But this is only one side to Schlechter. One source claimed that he was also referred to as "The Sleeping Lion" because he could suddenly transform a quiet position into a ferocious attack. Though his chess style was prophylactic, it was by no means passive and often contained brilliant combinations. 500 MASTER GAMES OF CHESS (Dr. S. Tartakower and J. Du Mont, Dover Publications, New York, 1975) praises the game of Schlechter vs. Salwe (St Petersburg, 1909) in which Schlechter received a brilliancy prize: "The fireworks which White produces are most remarkable, in that they result from purely positional play, after a quiet and uneventful development."

Some other acheivements of Schlechter Schlechter wrote a chess column for Allgemeine Sportzeitung in the late 1880's.
Around 1900 he wrote one for Wiener Hausfrauen-Zeitung.
He edited the eighth edition of the Handbuch des Schachspiels
[published in 11 parts between 1912 and 1916, begun in 1839 by Bilguer, continued after his death by Von der Lasa who edited 4 editions -in 1852, 1858, 1864 and 1874. Constantin Schwede edited the 6^th in 1880, while in 1891 Emil Schallopp edited the 7^th edition. It is most commonly called Der Bilguer and shorter editions are called Der kleine Bilguer.]
During his life Schlechter had a positive score against the Steinitz, Janowski, Chigorin, Vidmar, Nimzovitch and Alekhine.

So, it seems that Schlechter, a man with great natural chess talent who focused his skills toward a steady, positional type game but was capable of combinational brilliance, was one of the best players of his time. Yet, winning, the thing that seems to drive almost all chess players, didn't seem to be of paramount importance to him. We know someting about Schlechter the chess player, but what do we know about Schlechter the man?

Karl Schlechter was a humble man - a gentleman and a gentle man. While some people weren't fond of his chess style (in fact, Lasker once referred to Schlechter as 'the man without style'.), it seemed apparent from all my reading that he was well liked both as a person and as an opponent. According to Divinsky, "...much of this peaceableness, was due to Schlechter's unusually amiable character..he was modest, amiable, extremely friendly...Schlecter was liked by all who knew him." According to Goldman, "He happily broke a lance against younger rivals in smaller chess tournaments." He lived in the country and loved nature. As one person explained: he was not looking for the extraordinary but was content with a simple life. Another element of his personality was either an inability to ask others for help, or the disinclination to intrude on others good graces. Schlechter seemed unable to ask for favors and didn't covet that which belonged to others. To the best of my understanding, and it's far from clear, Schlechter possibly caught pneumonia or some wasting away disease while in Berlin at the end of WWI. Some say he died of starvation, but it was also pointed out that he had won some prize money in a tournament on his way home which would likely rule out starvation. Whichever way it was, he mostly withdrew into himself and, without seeking any outside help, died in Budapest, Hungary on December 27, 1918.

Karl Schlechter vs. Emanuel Lasker ...herein lies the mystery...

The height of Schlechter's chess career was his match for the World Championship title with Emanuel Lasker. Lasker, a brilliant scientist and chess player, had been the World Champion for 16 years at this time and seemed indestructible. The first four games were drawn. Game 5, Lasker faltered and Schlechter drove home the point. Games 6 through 9 were drawn. Going into Game 10, Schlechter led by a full point. In order to be the chess champion of the world, all he had to do was what he did better than anyone else - draw the final game!
Inexplicably, Schlechter decided to go for a win - and lost.

here is a description from a great page on Jewish Chess Champions

The Great Jewish Chess Champions by Harold U. Ribalow and Meir Z. Ribalow In 1910, Lasker won from Carl Schlechter in a match that offered one of the most unusual games in chess history. This match proved more than any other the remarkable chess powers of Emanuel Lasker. He always won the game he had to win, which is the mark of the true champion. Schlechter was also Jewish, a Viennese and a man with limited physical stamina. He played excellent chess and was extraordinarily hard to beat because his knowledge of the game was enormous and he had a tendency to play draw games rather than games to a decision. Perhaps he lacked a "killer" instinct. But if he wished, he could go through tournament after tournament without losing. Perhaps not winning, but surely not losing. Lasker and Schlechter were to play a ten-game match, five in Vienna and five in Berlin. Victory was to be decided by the number of wins in the ten games, with draws not counting. With Schlechter's ability to draw, it was possible that the match could be determined by one or two clear-cut victories.
Lasker, who was not a fast starter, found himself struggling from the outset and he was lucky to get draws in the first two games. In the next two games, Lasker played much better but now Schlechter managed to hold on and earn draws. Thus of the first four games played, the two masters had played to a standstill and the decision would depend on the turn of events in only six more matches.
In the fifth game, Lasker managed very well and by the fiftieth move it appeared that he held the upper hand and that finally he would obtain a victory. But he made one careless move. Schlechter pounced on him, and upset Lasker. Instead of the champion holding the upper hand, it was the challenger who now was one game to the good. The sixth, seventh and eighth games were drawn. In the ninth, and semi-final game, Lasker held a winning position, but Schlechter escaped to earn another draw.
Lasker had been champion sixteen years and now he was on the verge of losing his crown. All Schlechter had to do was play another even game and he would be the new champion. It was not enough for Lasker to work for a draw. He had to win. Schlechter had his own sense of pride and even though he was on the edge of triumph, he refused to play for a draw. He wanted to win the title outright. The opening itself was uncommon and, at the start, it looked like Lasker would win. Then Schlechter fought back to a positional advantage. With these ups and downs, it was clear Schlechter could have his draw. Both men made mistakes. Both came close to winning during the course of the game, which lasted three days. Ultimately, Lasker escaped from a Schlechter trap and took the offensive. He won in seventy-one moves. A defending champion wins if his opponent does not beat him; so the drawn match after ten games was enough for Lasker to retain his title.

Could Schlechter have won the last game?
One analysis claims if instead of 35...Rxf4, he had played 35...Rfd8 black would have won.
and later, in place of 39...Qh1+, the move 39...Qh4+ would force a draw.
So, yes, the championship was in the palm of his hand.
But he let it go.

Different explanation have been presented explaining how this could happen. Some hold that Schlechter was too honorable to win the title through winning from a lost position in game 5 due to Lasker's error and so he had to prove himself by winning the last game. Some hold that Schlechter thought he could win but simply miscalculated and then couldn't find the correct continuum. Still others claim (Garry Kasparov, according to Raymond Keene, is one) that there was some "secret agreement" which superceded the original terms and Schlechter had to win by two games to secure the title - meaning he had to try for a win. However, Larker had written, while behind 1 game, "The match is nearing its conclusion, and it appears likely that I shall be defeated. If that happens, a good man will have won the world's championship." This statement seems to be evidence against the secret agreement theory. Nobody knows anything for certain.

There are three more intersting asides I like to mention here:

1. In his infamous contributions to the Deutsche Schachzeitung, Alexander Alekhine wrote, "Then there was the "short match" against Schlechter (Vienna 1910); the drawn result of this match was intended, of course, to serve as "decoy-bird" for the chess public to arrange a much larger - and appropriately remunerated - return match."

2. The Indonesian book, Kejuaraan Catur Dunia (World Chess Championship),1979, by by Ds.F.K.N.Harahap, former president of Indonesian Chess Federation says, ""Against this opponent Lasker had to defend his title in a match, limited to 10 games, 5 games would be played in Vienna and the other 5 in Berlin. Lasker was soon to regret that he didn't preserve the usual match terms as in the previous matches, in which the victor was determined by the number of wins, draws weren't counted. The main reason for this was financial problems. Such a match with an uncertain schedule could not be held at that time. With a drawmaster such as Schlechter the match with 8 or 10 wins (as the Tarrasch or Steinitz matches) could lasts dozens of games. Even with sponsors like Baron Rothschild of Vienna (the richest man in the world at that time) there wasn't any money to finance a long and limitless match. That's the reason for limiting the number of games, although there's little doubt that the point difference would be minimal. Such a prediction would soon proved to be not far from the truth, but no one could foretell that the limitation would produce one of the biggest sensation in the history of chess...The game lasted three days and in the 71st move Schlechter sportively resigned the game. Lasker offered to continue the match until one of them won a game, but Schlechter refused the offer because he was already exhausted and his health wasn't so good."

3. Mark Weeks mentioned a gold watch that was to be presented to the winner of the match. When the watch was presented to Lasker, Schlechter objected, claiming that Lasker did not win, that the match was drawn. The gold watch was returned and then it disappeared forever.

some notable quotes on Schlechter
Schlechter was the one competitor who accepted all things and all arrangements with equanimity amounting almost to indifference. Everything was right for him and nothing amiss, and this man, who apparently paid such little regard to his interests, was the winner of the first prize. Schlechter also showed us the generous side of his nature by declining to compete for any of the brilliancy prizes, for which he undoubtedly would have had the best chance. "I have won enough", he said. "Let others get something too." � Isidor Gunsberg

He carries out operations, apparently not concerted, on different parts of the board, so that one has the impression that a game with no clear preconceived objective is in progress. And it is only at the end that one perceives for the first time the connection of things seemingly disconnected, with the result that the game is rounded off into one great homogenous whole. � Richard Reti

Vienna has an old chess tradition, because chess is particularly the game of the underappreciated, who seek in play that success which life has denied them ... The most noted representative of the Viennese in chess was Schlechter ... His games stand out through their breadth of scheme - just as in the forest the trunks of trees and their branches stretch themselves out on all sides wherever there are open spaces: thus did Schlechter develop his forces; forcibly and, like Nature as it were, objectless. � Richard Reti

If the two players meant to solve the problem how to exchange as many pieces as possible in the shortest number of moves they certainly could not have played better. It is time that such games, if games they can be called, should no longer make their appearance in tournaments. In this case the onus lies with [Schlechter], who during the first part of the Tournament tried to force a draw whenever he possibly could. - Richard Teichmann

The World Championship� It wasn't that he didn't value the title, but the burdens associated with that rank in the chess hierarchy filled him with trepidation. Not only because of the hungry challengers he would have to face, foremost among them the dreaded Lasker, but also because his obligations towards patrons, organizers, and other masters - towards every chess enthusiast in the world in a sense - would be overwhelmingly great. The World Champion was an example to thousands. He was simultaneously revered and hunted. His opinion counted. Every word he wrote, perused with care. In every tournament, he was the measure of all things. His victories were taken for granted; his defeats were humiliations. The World Champion had to prove himself again and again. � Thomas Glavinic (on Schlechter's lack of desire to win the title)

Stalemate

Karl Schlechter, 1874-1918

I want to stroll with Karl Schlechter
in nineteen-hundred, down a street of stone

the sun's turned to honey. From some window
a piano's playing slow, and Karl's sad eyes

kindle a little. I ask about his chess,
why he always offers a draw,

and he shrugs. White pigeons gurr
on the sills. "I hate that look in men's eyes

when they lose." I love him. We buy cherries
from a stall, morellos, dark, half-bitter,

and feed them to each other. I kiss him,
tasting them in his mouth. I want to tell him

"Karl, you die starving, at forty-four,
and you could be world champion. Play to win."

But then he wouldn't be who he is,
and I wouldn't come all the way

from the next century to hold hands
with the drawing master, watching

the light slant, hearing pigeons hush,
one by one, into sleep. Gentleman; gentle man.

Sheenagh Pugh

is an award winning poet and novelist from Wales.
She also teaches creative writing at the University of Glamorgan.

Her published books include:

Prisoners of Transience
Selected Poems
Folk Music
Earth studies, and other voyages
Sing for the Taxman
Id's Hospit
Beware Falling Tortoises
Stonelight
What a place to grow flowers : poems
The Beautiful Lie

and are available here

You can read Stalemate and other poems by her here.

or learn more about her here.

Ms.Pugh explains, "Karl Schlechter...he is my ideal man."

JON LEVITT's analysis of game 10
Queen's Gambit Declined, Slav Defence [D94]
Berlin, game 10, 1910

1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.e3 g6 5.Nc3 Bg7 6.Bd3 0-0 7.Qc2 Na6 8.a3 dxc4 9.Bxc4 b5
Lasker switched to 1.d4 for this game, having had little success with 1.e4 earlier in the match. He must have been feeling well satisfied with his choice of opening around here since Black now depends on active counterplay to compensate him for the weakeness of his c-pawn. If Schlechter had been more inclined to hold tight for the draw, he probably would not have played his eigth move, but would have kept his d-pawn where it was.
10.Bd3 b4 11.Na4 bxa3 12.bxa3 Bb7 13.Rb1 Qc7
Now White could try to play positionally with 14.0-0, intending 15.Bd2 and 16.Rfc1 with pressure against c6 and control over the c5 square. Black would have countered this with 14...Nd7, aimingfor the freeing move ...c5. Instead, Lasker starts to play on the kingside.
14.Ne5 Nh5
14...Nd7 would have failed tactically to 15.Rxb7 Qxb7 16.Bxa6.
15.g4
Lasker needed to win this game and plays without compromise. Going for material with 15.Bxa6 Bxa6 16.Qxc6 Bxe5 17.Qxa6 was possible but not appealing. Under less critical circumstances, I suspect Lasker might have played 15.f4 with a pleasant position. Now the game gets very sharp.
15...Bxe5 16.gxh5 Bg7 17.hxg6 hxg6 18.Qc4
Threatening both Bxg6 and Rxb7.
18...Bc8! 19.Rg1
Still playing for the initiative (sometimes defined as 'the ability to create threats') rather than for material. After 19.Bxg6 Be6 20.Bxf7 Bxf7 21.Qxa6 Bd5 Black would have got compensation, especially with the e7-e5 break to come.
19...Qa5+ 20.Bd2 Qd5 21.Rc1 Bb7 22.Qc2 Qh5 23.Bxg6 Qxh2!
The point of this deep move is revealed a few moves later...
24.Rf1 fxg6 25.Qb3+ Rf7 26.Qxb7 Raf8!
27.Qb3
Here we see why Schlechter played 23...Qxh2. If instead 27.Qxa6? Rxf2 28.Rxf2 Rxf2! and Black wins.
27...Kh8 28.f4 g5!
Trying to break up the White position.
29.Qd3 gxf4 30.exf4
Not 30.Qxa6?? fxe3, winning for Black.
30...Qh4+ 31.Ke2 Qh2+ 32.Rf2 Qh5+ 33.Rf3 Nc7! 34.Rxc6 Nb5 35.Rc4
Reaching a critical point of the game. Black now sacrifices when both 35...Nd6 and 35...Rd8 were very promising. The latter is not quite as strong as many analysts have claimed since White can reply 36 Ke1. Still, either of these moves might well have lead to Schlechter becoming World Champion and saved him from a pauper's death.
35...Rxf4? 36.Bxf4 Rxf4 37.Rc8+ Bf8 38.Kf2
38.Rd8!?, as suggested by Fritz (the program) seems to have been overlooked by the annotators and looks good for White.
38...Qh2+
It is believed that Schlechter's earlier decision was based on the fact he missed that after 38...Qh4+ 39.Kg2! Qg4+ 40.Rg3! Qxc8 White has 41.Qg6!, winning.
39.Ke1 Qh1+?
After this Schlechter faces an uphill struggle to draw. He does have chances but Lasker plays the rest of the game well and remorselessly presses home his material advantage, despite having a slightly loose king position. He should have played 39...Qh4+ which would have drawn.
40.Rf1 Qh4+ 41.Kd2 Rxf1 42.Qxf1 Qxd4+ 43.Qd3 Qf2+ 44.Kd1 Nd6 45.Rc5 Bh6 46.Rd5 Kg8
46...Qa2 would have been better according to Schlechter, but White is still winning probably.
47.Nc5 Qg1+ 48.Kc2 Qf2+ 49.Kb3 Bg7 50.Ne6 Qb2+ 51.Ka4 Kf7 52.Nxg7 Qxg7 53.Qb3 Ke8 54.Qb8+ Kf7 55.Qxa7 Qg4+ 56.Qd4 Qd7+ 57.Kb3 Qb7+ 58.Ka2 Qc6 59.Qd3 Ke6 60.Rg5 Kd7 61.Re5 Qg2+ 62.Re2 Qg4 63.Rd2 Qa4 64.Qf5+ Kc7
Allowing the exchange of queens makes his opponent's task easier.
65.Qc2+ Qxc2+ 66.Rxc2+ Kb7 67.Re2 Nc8 68.Kb3 Kc6 69.Rc2+ Kb7 70.Kb4 Na7 71.Kc5
Schlechter resigned.

Karl Schlechter's Games

Schlechter's Matches

Opponent Place Year won lost Remis

G.Marco Vienna 1893
0
0
10

G.Marco Vienna 1894
4
4
3

A.Zinkl Vienna 1894
4
4
3

D.Janowski Vienna 1896
2
2
3

S.Alapin Vienna 1899
1
1
4

D.Janowski Karl bath 1902
6
1
3

J.Mieses Duesseldorf 1909
0
2
1

E.Lasker Vienna 1910
1
1
8

S.Tarrasch Cologne 1911
3
3
10

A.Rubinstein Berlin 1918
1
2
3

total
games =
90
+ 22
- 20
= 48

Opponent	Place	Year	won	lost	Remis
G.Marco	Vienna	1893	0	0	10
G.Marco	Vienna	1894	4	4	3
A.Zinkl	Vienna	1894	4	4	3
D.Janowski	Vienna	1896	2	2	3
S.Alapin	Vienna	1899	1	1	4
D.Janowski	Karl bath	1902	6	1	3
J.Mieses	Duesseldorf	1909	0	2	1
E.Lasker	Vienna	1910	1	1	8
S.Tarrasch	Cologne	1911	3	3	10
A.Rubinstein	Berlin	1918	1	2	3
total	games =	90	+ 22	- 20	= 48

Schlechter's Tournaments

Year	Tournament	Place	Points
1894	Leipzig	11	8
1895	Vienna	3	10
1895	Hastings	9	11
1896	Nuernberg	7 - 8	10,5
1896	Budapest	4 - 5	7
1896	Vienna	2	6,5
1897	Berlin	6 - 8	11,5
1897	Vienna	1	6,5
1898	Vienna	5	21,5
1898	Cologne	6 - 7	9
1899	London	5	18
1899	Vienna	2 - 3	7,5
1900	Munich	1 - 3	12
1900	Paris	9	10
1901	Monte Carlo	2	9,5
1901	Vienna	1	9
1902	Monte Carlo	5 - 7	12
1903	Monte Carlo	4	17
1903	Vienna	9	7
1904	Cambridge jump	6 - 7	7,5
1904	Monte Carlo	2	7
1904	Coburg	1 - 3	7,5
1905	East end	4	15,5
1905	Barmen	4 - 5	9
1905	Vienna	1	13
1906	East end	1	21
1906	Nuernberg	3 - 4	10,5
1906	Stockholm	1 - 2	9
1907	Karl bath	4 - 5	12,5
1907	East end	2	12
1907	Vienna	6	7,5
1907	Copenhagen	2 - 3	4,5
1908	Vienna	1 - 3	14
1908	Prague	1 - 2	13,5
1909	Pc. Petersburg	8 - 10	9
1910	Hamburg	1	11,5
1910/11	Vienna	1 - 2	10
1911	San Sebastian	5 - 7	7,5
1911	Karl bath	2 - 3	17
1912	Budapest	1 - 2	3
1912	Vienna	1	7
1912	San Sebastian	8 - 9	8
1912	Breslau	4 - 5	11
1912	Pystian	4 - 6	10
1913	Vienna	4	8
1913	Vienna	1	14
1914	Bathe	3	11
1915	Vienna	1	11,5
1915	Vienna	1	10
1917	Vienna 8.Trebitsch	3	5,5
1917	Vienna	1	6,5
1918	Berlin	2	3,5
1918	Berlin	3	2
1918	Kaschau	3 - 4	7,5
1918	Budapest	5	1,5

Games Page