Schlechter vs Duras, San Sebastian, 1911

[Jean-Pierre Rhéaume]

Link for the tournament (San Sebastian, 1911) :

http://www.worldchesslinks.net/ezqa6.html

Lasker's Manual of Chess, page 76.

I will talk about a game you can see here :

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1039850

After 8 BXP Q-K2, we have the following two paragraphs :

If 8 ... Kt-K2; 9 Kt-R4, White easily succeeds in advancing P-KB4 and obtains a lasting attack. A celebrated game, Schlechter versus Duras, played at the San Sebastian tournament ran the following course: 7 ... Kt-K2; 8 Kt-KR4 P-B3; 9 B-QB4 Kt-K1; 10 P-B4 BxKt; 11 PxB P-Q4; 12 B-Kt3 P-B3; 13 PxKP PxB; 14 RxRch. KxR; 15 Q-B3ch. K-Kt1; 16 R-KB1 Kt-B2; 17 Q-B7ch. K-R1.

Schlechter here gave his opponent a chance with 18 PxP, so changing the order of the moves. 18 Q-B8ch. QxQC 19 RxQch. Kt-Kt1; 20 PxP PxP; 21 Kt-B3. White threatens to throttle Black: 21 ... B-K3; 22 RxR KtxR; 23 KtxP Kt-B2; 24 KtxB KtxKt; 25 BxP, and White won the Ending.

Here is the position at the end of the first paragraph :



One of my problems is that the actual 18th move by White was 18.PxP (18.exd5), but Lasker continue after the first sentence with 18 Q-B-8ch., and he concudes ''and White won the Ending''. But the move 18.Q-B8+ IS NOT the game. In othe words, White DID NOT win the game as given in the series of moves 18 Q-B8ch. QxQC 19 RxQch. Kt-Kt1; 20 PxP PxP (etc.)

The other, problem (more important) is : what chance was Black given by the actual 18th move (18.cxd5) ?

Your help would be very much appreciated :)

Also :

Moves played (see the link above for chessgame.com) :

18.exd5 cxd5
19.Qf8+ Qxf8
20.Rxf8+ Ng8

Moves given in the Manual :
18.Qf8+ Qxf8
19.Rxf8+ Ng8
20.exd5 cxd5

Of course, in both cases we reach the same position after move 20.

The winner of the tournament was...



Thank you for your help.

Jean-Pierre Rhéaume, alias JPR

[Stephen Wright]

Re: Schlechter vs Duras, San Sebastian, 1911

Lasker: "Schlechter here gave his opponent a chance with 18 PxP, so changing the order of the moves. 18 Q-B8ch, QxQ; 19 RxQch, Kt-Kt1; 20 PxP PxP; 21 Kt-B3."

Looks like a poor translation, I suspect the intent was "Schlechter here gave his opponent a chance with 18 PxP, so a more accurate move order was 18 Q-B8ch, QxQ; 19 RxQch, Kt-Kt1; 20 PxP PxP; 21 Kt-B3., reaching the game continuation."

18 PxP allows 18 ..., B-K3, keeping the major pieces on the board.

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

Re: Schlechter vs Duras, San Sebastian, 1911

Lasker: "Schlechter here gave his opponent a chance with 18 PxP, so changing the order of the moves. 18 Q-B8ch, QxQ; 19 RxQch, Kt-Kt1; 20 PxP PxP; 21 Kt-B3."

Looks like a poor translation, I suspect the intent was "Schlechter here gave his opponent a chance with 18 PxP, so a more accurate move order was 18 Q-B8ch, QxQ; 19 RxQch, Kt-Kt1; 20 PxP PxP; 21 Kt-B3., reaching the game continuation."

18 PxP allows 18 ..., B-K3, keeping the major pieces on the board.

Russian edition writes after 17...Kh8: "We are presenting the game with a changed moves order, as White has made a mistake here"

[Jean-Pierre Rhéaume]

Re: Schlechter vs Duras, San Sebastian, 1911

Lasker: "Schlechter here gave his opponent a chance with 18 PxP, so changing the order of the moves. 18 Q-B8ch, QxQ; 19 RxQch, Kt-Kt1; 20 PxP PxP; 21 Kt-B3."

Looks like a poor translation, I suspect the intent was "Schlechter here gave his opponent a chance with 18 PxP, so a more accurate move order was 18 Q-B8ch, QxQ; 19 RxQch, Kt-Kt1; 20 PxP PxP; 21 Kt-B3., reaching the game continuation."

18 PxP allows 18 ..., B-K3, keeping the major pieces on the board.

Hi ! Mister Wright.

The book is not a translation, it was written in nglish by Lasker himself. He used his original Manual (in German), and a previous English edition (done by someone else) that he did not like.

From the preface written by Lasker, page XXXVII :

That I wrote this book, yea, that I wrote it with joy, will require, I trust, no more explanation than is supplied by its own content and meaning. That having written in my mother tongue I should myself have re-written in English does require explanation, even apology. Such, at least, is my sentiment, for I am by no means blind to the shortcomings of my diction, and I admire all languages in their purity and their noble life and love to see them used with the utmost art and sincerity and veneration.

I appreciate your help, Mister Wright, and the one of Mister Egidijus Zeromskis.

Thank you very very much to both of you.

Jean-Pierre Rhéaume