A Century of Chess: Monte Carlo 1901
David Janowski had such a falling-off at the end of his career that it can be difficult to remember what a formidable, world-class player he truly was - one of the great chess optimists, a very similar player to Geller and Bogoljubow. His real peak was around 1901, a full decade before his misguided challenge of Lasker for the world championship, and it’s fitting for the action-loving Janowski that his peak coincided with the Monte Carlo series, a brief moment in which chess was connected with a high-rolling European gambling class.
The tournaments were sponsored by the controversial Prince Dadian, of the fictional-sounding Mingrelia, who coerced various masters into publishing games in which Dadian won brilliancies against them and was sort of blacklisted himself by the chess world when he prevented Chigorin from playing in the 1903 incarnation of the series.
But, before the chess world soured on Dadian, his patronage produced a lively event. Janowski was particularly dangerous in this sort of mixed-quality tournament with very strong players as well as locals and he overcame two losses to take first place with the rarely-to-be-repeated score of ten and one quarter. (The scoring was the result of a bizarre innovation in which draws were replayed with the first draw scoring a quarter of a point.)
Janowski has come to be remembered as a one-sided attacking player who loved bishops and hated endgames. It's better to understand him in the context of the Steinitz revolution of which he was an enthusiastic early adapter. He played the opening carefully and correctly in the modern style - it was very rare for him to attack in the first few moves in the way that Marshall or Mieses did. Around move 10, he started maneuvering - looking for every possible opportunity to secure the two bishops (which came to be known as the 'two Jans' in his honor) - and then to systematically open the position. I don't think it's much of an exaggeration to say that Janowski was one of the first great practitioners of initiative in the modern sense of the term (although with pride of place probably going to Pillsbury). He had a reputation for being weak in technical endings but he had great ability in the hard-to-classify phase of the game that's sometimes called complex endgames or the transition from the middlegame in the endgame when dynamic energy is the most important quality. Two of the games here really showcase his flair for the initiative. In particular, the game with Didier could easily be imagined as one of Botvinnik's games or would feature in John Watson's description of the 'modern exchange sacrifice' - with a slightly inferior position out of the opening, Janowski immediately sacrifices material for long-term compensation and dynamic chances.
Schlechter, the second-place finisher, had finally shown that he was capable of fighting tournament chess, winning at the very strong Munich tournament the year before. Here, he overcame a slow start, played surprisingly scrappy chess to catch Janowski but lost atrociously in their head-to-head game (see game above).
The all-but-forgotten Theodor Von Scheve, a Prussian artillery major and mainstay of German chess in the late 19th century, had the tournament of his career, finishing shared third with Chigorin. "His steadiness and vigorous style surprised everybody," wrote Leopold Hoffer.
A disappointment was the disastrous showing of Frank Marshall, who played wildly and unsteadily and took a significant step backwards after his breakthrough at Paris 1900.
In this series, by the way, I'm generally trying to show two or three games of the winner, including a 'decisive game' and a couple of games that showcase their style, at least a game each of the second and third place finisher, and then any other games that are particularly fun or beautiful. For these old tournaments that usually includes the Brilliancy Prize game as shown here.
