First the photograph, original copyright O. Bulls, but assumed public domain now:
(Click on image to enlarge)
It’s from <The Christian Science Monitor – 1914-06-15 p16>, illustrating the article entitled <Chess Masters at St. Petersburg Tournament – Lasker Show Ability To Hold Chess Title>.
A much better quality reproduction of the photograph can be found here:
There are other versions available, which I’ve found but don’t have time to incorporate. Check back!
(Or do your own homework, starting here: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schachturnier_zu_Sankt_Petersburg_1914.)
The CSM article is well worth reading, and can be found at <Old Fulton>:
But I’ve saved you the trouble by reposting it here:
Chess Masters at St. Petersburg Tournament - Lasker Show Ability To Hold Chess Title (By the Monitor special correspondent) LONDON—The greatest international chess struggle of modern times, a tournament in which every competitor is a player of master rank who has taken the first place in an open contest at some time or another, has ended, as already reported by cable, in the victory of Dr. Emanuel Lasker, the holder of the world's championship, who wins by half a point from Jose Raoul Capablanca, the young Cuban. Lasker has thus shown that his refusal to meet Capablanca in a match for the title was not dictated by any doubt as to the result, and, now that this has been made clear, it is evident that the two must meet in combat if Lasker's championship is to be anything more than a name. The pair who have come out head and shoulders above all others in such a contest as that which has just concluded, are the two between whom the leadership of the chess world rests, and, the sooner they come to grips, the better for every one. In the series of 18 games at St. Petersburg, playing against the chosen representatives of both hemispheres, Lasker won 10, drew seven and lost but one, while Capablanca won 10, drew six and lost two, one of his losses being against Lasker himself. Set against this the fact that their nearest rival lost four games outright, and it is obvious that these two are in a class by themselves, and that a match between them will be the greatest event since the days of Paul Morphy. Eleven Competitors Start Play The arrangement of the tournament was that the 11 competitors played a preliminary round of 10 games and that the five leaders in this played a doubleround contest amongst themselves. Play began on April 21, and it was soon evident that the English representatives were not likely to qualify for the final. The veteran Blackburne had some compensation, however, for his low position on the score sheet, for his presence was welcomed with the utmost enthusiasm by the Russian public, and, after a simultaneous exhibition at the St. Petersburg Club, in which he lost only two games out of 26, he received a graceful Bouvenir of the occasion and a "letter of honour" from the club officials. Janowski, the French competitor, started well by scoring 2½ points in his first four games, but then fell right away, and only scored one draw out of the remaining six. Most of the representatives of other countries, found themselves handicapped by the tremendous enthusiasm of the spectators, for it is not easy to play chess in the midst of a swarming crowd of onlookers who are alternately climbing on chairs and falling off them! Rubinstein, the Russian player, whose challenge for the championship has been accepted by Lasker, entirely failed to do himself justice. Niemzowitch, a young Russian from whom great things were expected, also failed to do himself justice. He had been devoting too much time to analysis, and neglected what is more important, first class practise. The flimsy web of subtle analysis is apt to get badly torn in the rough and tumble of actual play; and Niemzowitch, found that paper theory was one thing and over-the-board play quite another. Bernstein, another of the brilliant modern Russian school, and the only player to beat Lasker, was distinctly unfortunate in failing to enter the final. In the last round, with an easy position against Tarrasch, he made a gross oversight and lost the game, with the result that his opponent entered the final instead of himself. The chosen five turned out to be two Germans, one Russian, one Cuban and one player from the United States. The latter, Frank J. Marshall, has done many brilliant things in his meteoric career, and it was confidently hoped that, having won his way into the final round, he would do well. But though he scored 1½ out of 2 against Tarrasch, he could make no headway against the other three. Dr. Tarrasch, who had played in his old stern, accurate manner throughout the preliminary rounds, lost his first four games in the final, and Alechin, the young Russian, while improving his position at the expense of Marshall and Tarrasch, could not impede the progress of the leaders. The keen interest of the last fortnight centered in the race between Lasker and Capablanca. The latter started on the final with a lead of 1½ points—would he keep it to the finish? His game with Lasker in the preliminary had been a draw, so was his first game with Lasker in the final. Lasker picked up half a point by beating Alechin, and when the remaining games numbered but four, Capablanca ha d still a point in hand. Lasker Won in Seventh Round In the seventh round they met again, and, for the first time, Lasker had the move. Somehow, the experts are still trying to find out how it was, but none of them can point to the losing move— somehow Lasker got his opponent in an iron grip which never relaxed, move after move remorselessly tightened the pressure, until the Cuban saw no further hope and resigned. Scores were equal, with three games to play. Then came the tragi-comedy of the tournament. Playing Tarrasch, with position superior and material gain in sight, Capablanca moved the wrong Rook! Instead of winning a Pawn, by that unfortunate incident he lost a piece, and though he struggled against odds for 83 moves, the burden was too great, and the game was scored against him. But for that, Lasker would have been, not first, but second, for winning his remaining games while Lasker drew one, Capablanca made up still another half point of his deficit. But the moral needs no pointing; in the public eye, these two great experts come out of the long ordeal on the same high pinnacle, and the question of priority ought to be settled once for all.
I like reading old articles like the above, it makes one feel as though right there, right then.