Chess Was Dull In 1909

     ….or, there is nothing new under the sun. 
     Back in 1909, staring on April 19th and finishing in late June, Capablanca crushed Marshall by a score of 8 wins, one loss and fourteen draws. Capablanca wrote In My Chess Career that his victory put him in the foremost rank among the great masters of the game. 

     The match was not without controversy. It was sanctioned by the New York State Chess Association as being for the U.S. Championship. Since the death of Pillsbury in 1906, many had assumed that the titlw should revert to Marshall due to his great tournament successes. And, in this match Marshall was defending his title. But after losing Marshall declared that Capablanca could not be US Champion because he was not a US citizen. 
     Lawyer Walter Penn Shipley was asked to settle the dispute. Shipley ruled that neither Marshall nor Capablanca was the US Champion because when Pillsbury died the title had reverted to the last person to hold it, the retired Jackson W. Showalter. Shipley stated that until Showalter declined a challenge nobody had a valid claim to the title. Shipley also concluded that Capablanca could not become US Champion without becoming a citizen. At this time, the New York State Chess Association withdrew their support for Capablanca's claim, effectively stripping him of the title. 
     Prior to leaving for Havana, Capablanca was reported as intending to apply for U. citizenship once he became eligible. After his return to the US, Capablanca made a public statement with a somewhat modified position. In the American Chess Bulletin he wanted to make his position clear. He was the undisputed champion of Cuba, and even though he had won their match, Marshall had the greatest reputation and the best score in tournaments of any living player in the United States and is therefore considered everywhere as the strongest representative of the United States. 
     By his victory over Marshall, Capa stated he was the strongest player on this side of the Atlantic and considered himself “Champion of America.” He stood ready to defend his title within a year against any American (Player from the United States) or anywhere else, for a side bet of at least $1000. He added, “Under these circumstances the question whether I am a citizen of the U.S.A. or not has nothing to do with the matter under consideration." 
     The American Chess Bulletin's interpretation of this statement was that Capablanca was claiming to be the strongest player in the Western Hemisphere, not the US champion. The whole incident sounds like the forerunner of the 1952 Reshevsky-Najdorf match which was billed as the “Match for the Championship of the Free World.” 
     Marshall challenged and beat Showalter for the US title in late 1909 and even endorsed Capa’s entry into the 1911 San Sebastian tournament, though Capablanca did not meet the qualifications for entry. 
     Another interesting aspect of the Capablanca-Marshall match was the considerable criticism it received both in the US and abroad. The problem was the financial arrangement…players would receive a certain sum for every game of the match. 
     Capablanca jumped out to an early lead in the first 13 games: +7 -0 =5. Then after that came a six week stretch in which nine draws were played and Capa was unable to score the final point. To many it looked like they were playing for the gate money. 
     The magazine Chess Weekly also complained (remember this was in 1909) of the ever increasing dullness of modern chess contests and this match was a prime example. 
     According to Chess Weekly the culprit was what the magazine called “the ultra modern school.” The school had the policy of accumulating small advantages, risking nothing and leaving nothing to chance or uncertainty. And, to make matters worse, such play had thoroughly established respectability. The magazine stated that unfortunately as the play was becoming sounder, it was also becoming “deficient in the qualities which make chess an entertaining game.” 
     According to the editorial it was difficult to become enthusiastic over a subtle ten-move combination involving nothing more than the doubling of a Pawn. Another disadvantage was the tendency of the modern players to specialize in only about four openings; ninety per cent of the games were Queen Pawn openings or the Ruy Lopez. This tendency accounted “for the hackneyed repetitions of modern masters' games as well as the ever increasing number of draws.” 
     The magazine claimed the Capa-Marshall match was a “vivid example of how this tendency, while perhaps ensuring soundness of play because so little is ventured, subverts chess genius and robs the game of its former attractiveness.” The magazine further opined that both Marshall and Capablanca possessed the tactical talent that was capable of producing games that “sparkled with originality and vigor.” The magazine claimed the remedy lay with the chess public, especially the promoters and managers of future chess contests. Stipulated sums should be paid respectively to the winner and the loser of a match. In tournaments a draw should count only a quarter of a point.
     Additionally, the magazine pointed out that “present conditions absolutely require some provision guarding against the systematic repetitions of certain lines of play.” The editorial pointed out that there are are at least twenty theoretically sound openings and it seems reasonable enough that, following the lead of checkers, a player would not be allowed to adopt the same opening more than once or twice during a contest. Their final conclusion: Chess as a science is an abnormity (an abnormal condition or quality).