"Tobi Usher" wrote in message li.nl...
"Etj718" wrote

I think when Lasker played Capablanca he (Lasker) if I am correct was not
the
official World Champ.I believed Lasker had given up the World Championship
prior to that match.

You are correct. Lasker did resign his title to Capablanca in 1920, but when
in 1921 a match took place after all, Lasker was nevertheless regarded as
the incumbent champion and Capa as the challenger. As I see it, Lasker's
abdication was in fact nullified by the agreement to play the match.
It would be rather strange to regard Capa as the incumbent and Lasker as the
challeger trying to regain the title he had voluntarily resigned. However,
if you do take that view, that would make Lasker the fourth name on our list
(having played against the incumbent champions Steinitz in 1894 and
Capablanca in 1921).

Any historians out there who can shed more light on the legal status of
Lasker's 1920 abdication and the 1921 match?

Tobi

"Lasker, challenged again, resigned the title to Capablanca in 1920,
but the public wanted a match, It took place at Havana in 1921 for a
then record stake of $25,000, just over half of which was paid to
Lasker. Playing impeccably, Capablanca won +4=10, the most decisive
victory ever obtained by a challenger for the world championship"
--David Hooper and Kenneth Whyld

Etj718 wrote (2003-11-18 06:12:35 PST):
I think when Lasker played Capablanca he (Lasker)
if I am correct was not the official World Champ.
I believed Lasker had given up the World Championship
prior to that match.

Ed Seedhouse wrote (2003-11-18 17:07:37 PST):
You believe incorrectly.

It is true that Lasker attempted to "resign" his
title in favour of Capablanca. But both Capablanca
and the rest of the chess world rejected attempt.
Lasker was certainly universally recognized as the
only World Chess Champion at the start of the match
with Capablanca.


I wrote (2003-11-19 08:26:15 PST):

"Lasker surprised the chess world by resigning his
title in favour of [Capablanca]. ... the chess
world ... wanted a match. ... Lasker decided to
give the chess world what it wanted. He did,
however, insist that he had resigned the title in
Capablanca's favour, and he, Lasker must therefore
be considered the challenger. Both players issued
statements to that effect, which were promptly and
very reasonably ignored by all." - Hartston

I would imagine that details about what was written at
the time could be found in Edward Winter's book about
Capablanca.

_
As a follow-up to my previous note, it appears that, at
one point, Capablanca did go along with the notion that
Lasker had already given up the title before the 1921
match.

"In case the match with Dr. Lasker is played and I
REMAIN the champion, I shall insist in all future
championship matches that there be only one session
of play a day of either five or six hours, preferably
six." - Capablanca, August 20, 1920. (Emphasis added.)

Perhaps he was only going along with the Lasker notion
because he feared that otherwise, Lasker might decide
not to play.

..
If you look at the financial arrangements for the Lasker/Capablanca match, it
is plain that no matter who said what about which of them was the "challenger,"
Lasker was treated exactly as if he were still the official champion, and was
to be paid more than Capa -- even if he lost. I know of no (other) instance in
the history of chess where a "challenger" was treated quite this way.

Likewise, it is apparent that Capablanca felt he would be in a position to
*dictate* playing conditions only if he won, and thereby became the world
champion for real. Of course, a mere challenger does not dictate such
things.... :-)



Capablanca's match defeat -- without a single loss -- of the strongest chess
player in the world, astounded everyone, but no one could have been more
surprised than the world's chess elite, who "knew" that such a thing was, "of
course," impossible! :-)

(Louis Blair) wrote in message . com...
Etj718 wrote (2003-11-18 06:12:35 PST):
I think when Lasker played Capablanca he (Lasker)
if I am correct was not the official World Champ.
I believed Lasker had given up the World Championship
prior to that match.

Ed Seedhouse wrote (2003-11-18 17:07:37 PST):
You believe incorrectly.

It is true that Lasker attempted to "resign" his
title in favour of Capablanca. But both Capablanca
and the rest of the chess world rejected attempt.
Lasker was certainly universally recognized as the
only World Chess Champion at the start of the match
with Capablanca.


I wrote (2003-11-19 08:26:15 PST):

"Lasker surprised the chess world by resigning his
title in favour of [Capablanca]. ... the chess
world ... wanted a match. ... Lasker decided to
give the chess world what it wanted. He did,
however, insist that he had resigned the title in
Capablanca's favour, and he, Lasker must therefore
be considered the challenger. Both players issued
statements to that effect, which were promptly and
very reasonably ignored by all." - Hartston

I would imagine that details about what was written at
the time could be found in Edward Winter's book about
Capablanca.

_
As a follow-up to my previous note, it appears that, at
one point, Capablanca did go along with the notion that
Lasker had already given up the title before the 1921
match.

"In case the match with Dr. Lasker is played and I
REMAIN the champion, I shall insist in all future
championship matches that there be only one session
of play a day of either five or six hours, preferably
six." - Capablanca, August 20, 1920. (Emphasis added.)

Perhaps he was only going along with the Lasker notion
because he feared that otherwise, Lasker might decide
not to play.

What book did you get this from?

Lance Smith

NoMoreChess wrote (2003-11-30 12:51:46 PST):

If you look at the financial arrangements for the
Lasker/Capablanca match, it is plain that no matter
who said what about which of them was the "challenger,"
Lasker was treated exactly as if he were still the
official champion, and was to be paid more than Capa
-- even if he lost. I know of no (other) instance in
the history of chess where a "challenger" was treated
quite this way.

_
There is a reason for the unique quality of the
circumstances: Lasker no longer wished to claim
to be world champion. Apparently, Capablanca had
to be extra generous in order to persuade Lasker
to play.

Etj718 wrote (2003-11-18 06:12:35 PST):
I think when Lasker played Capablanca he (Lasker)
if I am correct was not the official World Champ.
I believed Lasker had given up the World Championship
prior to that match.

Ed Seedhouse wrote (2003-11-18 17:07:37 PST):
You believe incorrectly.

It is true that Lasker attempted to "resign" his
title in favour of Capablanca. But both Capablanca
and the rest of the chess world rejected attempt.
Lasker was certainly universally recognized as the
only World Chess Champion at the start of the match
with Capablanca.

I wrote (2003-11-19 08:26:15 PST):
"Lasker surprised the chess world by resigning his
title in favour of [Capablanca]. ... the chess
world ... wanted a match. ... Lasker decided to
give the chess world what it wanted. He did,
however, insist that he had resigned the title in
Capablanca's favour, and he, Lasker must therefore
be considered the challenger. Both players issued
statements to that effect, which were promptly and
very reasonably ignored by all." - Hartston

I would imagine that details about what was written at
the time could be found in Edward Winter's book about
Capablanca.

I wrote (2003-11-29 18:10:09 PST):
As a follow-up to my previous note, it appears that, at
one point, Capablanca did go along with the notion that
Lasker had already given up the title before the 1921
match.

"In case the match with Dr. Lasker is played and I
REMAIN the champion, I shall insist in all future
championship matches that there be only one session
of play a day of either five or six hours, preferably
six." - Capablanca, August 20, 1920. (Emphasis added.)

Perhaps he was only going along with the Lasker notion
because he feared that otherwise, Lasker might decide
not to play.


Lance Smith wrote (2003-12-01 07:38:19 PST):

What book did you get this from?

_
As I indicated before, Winter's book on Capablanca is
a natural place to look for details about what was
written at the time. There, the Capablanca quote is
given as coming from the September-October 1920 issue
of the American Chess Bulletin. The Hartston quote
comes from his 1985 book, The Kings of Chess.