In our series ‘The Uncrowned Kings’, today we will see the achievements of Carl Schlechter, the great master who was the only player to draw the World Championship Match against legendary Dr. Emanuel Lasker, to make his name on the World Chess Map.

Schlechter- Lasker match

Carl Schlechter was on the verge of winning the World Chess Crown at one stage against Dr. Emanuel Lasker. Bt the crown eluded him due to one single crucial error. 

In 1910, Schlechter played a ten game match against Lasker for the World Championship title in Vienna and Berlin. Objective analysis of the game reveals that Schlechter was in a bad position most of the time. But he got into a slightly better position for a short time as Lasker avoided the perpetual check or simplification time and again. 

Schlechter led by one point going before the tenth and final game of the match. He could have drawn by perpetual check but lost his way in the maze of wild complications and was defeated by the defending champion with superb technique. The match ended in a tie at 5–5 (+1 −1 =8), thereby enabling Lasker to retain his title.

Carl Schlechter- How Chess Happened?

Carl Schlechter was born on 2 March 1874 in Vienna which was a part of German Kingdom. There are disputes whether he was a Jewish by origin or a Christian.

Schlechter  began playing chess at the age of 13. His first and only Chess teacher was an Austria-Hungarian Chess Problem Composer, Dr. Samuel Gold. 

From 1893 onwards, Schlechter played in over 50 International Chess Tournaments. He finished first at the 12th DSB Congress Munich 1900, the 14th DSB Congress Coburg 1904, Ostend International 1906, Stockholm International 1906, Vienna International 1908, Prague International 1908, the 17th DSB Congress Hamburg 1910 and Trebitsch Memorial Vienna in 1911, 1912, 1913.

Schlechter played several matches, most of which ended in draws. He drew with Georg Marco (+0−0=10) in 1893, Marco and Adolf Zinki both (+4−4=3) in 1894, Dawid Janowski (+2−2=3) in 1896, Simon Alapin (+1−1=4) in 1899, Richard Teichmann (+1−1=1) in 1904, and Siegbert Tarrasch (+3−3=10) in 1911. In the midst he defeated Janowski (+6−1=3) in 1902.

Due to his solid positional style, Schlechter was chosen to play the World Championship match against Dr. Emanuel Lasker in the year 1910.

Carl Schlechter- Later Life

While Dr Lasker and Dr Tarrasch had successful professional life as a Mathematician and a Doctor of Medicine respectively during World War I, Schlechter’s final years were extremely harsh. He died of pneumonia and starvation on 27 December 1918 and was buried in Budapest on 31 December 1918.

Carl Schlechter- ‘Kramnik of the last century’

Carl Schlechter was naturally an extremely solid player, like Vladimir Kramnik. Though Schlechter followed the principle  ‘Safety First’, his games did not revolve around the plans based on opening preparation at home. He simply had the knack of defusing the initiative of the opponent.

Though Schlechter did not write any articles on Chess, his play developed a new angle to Chess, that of a ‘Successful Defence’, which had not been looked at seriously by erstwhile masters.

Learn from the Master

Today we will see the most important game from the World Championship match between Lasker and Schlechter, the last game of the match, which has been projected incorrectly by most of the contemporary annotators.

True that Schlechter was better at times and missed an opportunity to force a draw by perpetual check at one stage but things were very unclear most of the time in the game after Schlechter got out of a bad position initially.

Emanuel Lasker – Carl Schlechter [D94]

1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.e3 g6

This system, originally developed by Schlechter and practiced by Bogoljubow later, is now known as the Smyslov system of the Slav Defence!

5.Nc3 Bg7 6.Bd3 0–0 7.Qc2 Na6 8.a3 dxc4?!

8…c5! Recommended by Huebner in the 1980s is the most popular alternative today.

9.Bxc4 b5?

9…Nc7!? 10.0–0 Be6= was recommended by Dr Euwe.

10.Bd3 b4?!

The modern way of playing Chess doesn’t recommend such rash & sharp play when one wants only a draw. 10…Qa5 was recommended by Huebner]

11.Na4! bxa3 12.bxa3 Bb7 13.Rb1 Qc7

Black is in a bad way. However, the defending champion (White) made the things easy for the challenger with a series of rash moves.

14.Ne5

Better was 14.0–0 followed by 15.Bd2 16.Rfc1 as suggested by Marco. Bxa6 followed by Qxc6 was recommended by Tarrasch

14…Nh5?!

An attempt to exchange the centralised Knight with 14…Nd7?? fails to 15.Rxb7 Qxb7 16.Nxd7.

14…Rac8 is refuted by 15.Bxa6! Bxa6 16.Nc5+–                                                                 

If 14…Nd5 then simply 15.0–0

14…c5! was the best option, intending to meet 15.Bxa6 Bxa6 16.Nxc5 with 16….Nd5.

15.g4?!

15.0–0!? Was a good option but 15.f4! Recommended by Marco, was strongest & would have led to a total bind / grip on the position.

15…Bxe5 16.gxh5?

A serious blunder of tactical judgement.

16.dxe5 Ng7 17.0–0 was called for.

16…Bg7 17.hxg6 hxg6 18.Qc4 [ 19.g6, 19.b7]

18.f4!? c5 19.Rg1 was recommended by Tarrasch. Huebner followed up the continuation with 19…Rab8 20.Nxc5 Nxc5 21.Qxc5 Qxc5 22.dxc5 with initiative.

 18…Bc8?

Black decides to move the Bishop to a safer position but this gives White an upper hand once again. The game saw lots of ups and downs, with fortune changing sided more frequently than other games of the Match.

18…c5! was necessary. A possible continuation could be 19.Rg1 e6! 20.dxc5 Qxh2 21.Rf1 Nxc5! 22.Nxc5 Bg2 with an unclear position.

19.Rg1?

White loses the track. The Rook is well placed on ‘h1’! 19.h4! would have been the logical follow up of g2–g4?! and have probably resulted in a smoother win.

19.Bd2 Rb8 or  19.Be4 Rb8 were not so strong.

19…Qa5+?!

19…e6!? was better according to Huebner who gives the following continuation  19…Qxh2!? 20.Rxg6 Be6 21.Rxe6 fxe6 22.Qxe6+ Kh8 23.f4 Rf6 with wild complications.

20.Bd2 Qd5 21.Rc1 Bb7 22.Qc2?!

22.h4! and  22.Nc3! were better options.

22…Qh5 23.Bxg6?

Complicating the game for no reason.

23.Qb3! Rab8 24.Rxg6 would have won, as pointed out by Huebner decades later.; 23.Bc4!? recommended by contemporary German Masters Zak & Fritz, was also strong. 23…e6 24.Qe4 etc.

23…Qxh2 [23…fxg6? 24.Qb3+]

24.Rf1 fxg6 25.Qb3+ Rf7 26.Qxb7 Raf8 27.Qb3?!

Considering the situation in the Match, Dr Lasker refrains from settling down for a draw with 27.f4! Qh4+ 28.Ke2 Qh5+ 29.Kd3 Qf5+ 30.Ke2! 30…Qh5+ as 30.e4?? loses to 30…Qh3+ 31.Be3 Bxd4.

27…Kh8

Better was 27…Kh7 according to Huebner

28.f4 g5?!

28…Qg3+ 29.Kd1 Rxf4 30.Rxf4 Rxf4 31.Kc2 would have led to an unclear position according to Lasker after 31…Rf2.

29.Qd3!

29.Rxc6 is risky on account of 29….Qg3+ 30.Kd1 Rxf4 etc.

29…gxf4 30.exf4 Qh4+ 31.Ke2 Qh2+ 32.Rf2

32.Kd1!? was possible as well.

32…Qh5+ 33.Rf3 Nc7? 34.Rxc6?!

A mistake. 34.Rh1! Qxh1 35.Rh3+ Qxh3 36.Qxh3+ Kg8 37.Nc5 Bxd4 38.Ne4 would have led to slight advantage to White. Apparently Lasker was afraid of the game ending in a draw and chooses to play differently.

34.Nc5!? was also a good continuation.

34…Nb5!

Black seizes the initiative!  34…Nd5 35.Qg6 would have led to a drawish position.

35.Rc4 Rxf4!

Not the best, but forcing a draw by perpetual check.

35…Nd6! 36.Rc5 Nf5 or 35…Rd8! 36.Ke1 Qh4+! would have maintained advantage.

36.Bxf4 Rxf4 37.Rc8+ Bf8 38.Kf2 Qh2+

38…Qh4+? loses to 39.Kg2!+–

39.Ke1

Carl Schlechter

Emanuel Lasker

Here Black made the most decisive error of the game and the championship with  39….Qh1+??+–

39…Qh4+ would have ensured a draw and the World Chess Crown as White must repeat the position with 40. Kd2 as 40.Kd1?? fails to 40…Qh1+.

There followed 40.Rf1 !

There is no perpetual check and White is winning now though Black has dangerous threats.

40…Qh4+ 41.Kd2 Rxf1 42.Qxf1 Qxd4+ 43.Qd3 Qf2+ 44.Kd1 Nd6 45.Rc5?

45.Rb8! would have won more easily according to Huebner.

45…Bh6! 46.Rd5 Kg8 47.Nc5 Qg1+?!

47…Kf7 would have created some serious threats against the stranded White King.

48.Kc2 Qc1+?

48…Be3!? was the last chances, creating some threats against enemy King.

49.Kb3

The White King is safer here than on ‘d1’.

49…Bg7 50.Ne6 Qb2+ 51.Ka4 Kf7? 52.Nxg7!

Schlechter was hoping for52.Ng5+ Ke8 53.Qg6+ Kd7 54.Qf5+ Kc6 with some chances.

52…Qxg7

[52…Kxg7 loses to 53.Qd4++–]

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?! 65.Qc2+! Qxc2+ 66.Rxc2+ Kb6 67.Re2 Nc8 68.Kb3 Kc6 69.Rc2+ Kb7 70.Kb4 Na7 71.Kc5                                             1–0

Black resigned.