Chess Archeology's Excavations 1998-2001

Chess is a scientific game and its literature
ought to be placed on the basis of the strictest truthfulness, which is the foundation of all scientific
research. W._Steinitz
Previous
Excavations
Andy Ansel
Hilbert, John S.
Lissowski, Tomasz
McAlister, David
Phillips, John Paul
Pope, Nick
Ravilious & Denman
Savage, Allan
The Lazy Mans Guide to Chess Research
by Andy Ansel
Napier: The Search Continues
by John S. Hilbert
The Queen City: George Thornton and Early Buffalo Chess
by John S. Hilbert
To Checkmate the Kaiser
by John S. Hilbert
Capablanca in Cleveland
by John S. Hilbert
A Trap for the Historian
by Tomasz Lissowski
Alexey, Brother of Alekhine
by Tomasz Lissowski
Letter from the Lodz Ghetto: A Tribute to Dawid Daniuszewski
by Tomasz Lissowski
Unknown Games of Mikhail Tal
by Tomasz Lissowski
Adolf Albin: The Teacher of Nimzovich?
by Tomasz Lissowski
History of the Early Irish Championships
by David McAlister
The McConnell Family Notebooks, Part I
by John Paul Phillips
The Anderssen-Kolisch Match, London 1861
by Nick Pope
The Mackenzie-Reichhelm match, US Championship 1867
by Nick Pope
The Blackburne-Steinitz match, London 1876
by Nick Pope
The Rosenthal-Zukertort Match, London 1880
by Nick Pope
The Gunsberg-Steinitz match, World Championship 1890-91
by Nick Pope
The Lasker-Steinitz match, World Championship 1894
by Nick Pope
History and Literature of Chess
by Nick Pope
Gallery of Chess Portraits - No. II.
by Nick Pope
Have We A Traitor Among Us?
by Nick Pope
The Chess Detectives
by Chris Ravilious & Brian Denman
The Sculptors Daughter
Caissas Legacy: The Great Chess Libraries
by Allan Savage
[Excavations] [Library] [Museum] [Journal] [Market] [Openings]
1999-2001 Jacques N. Pope. All Rights Reserved.
The Lazy Mans Guide to Chess Research
by Andy Ansel
If you are like me, you have a keen
interest in chess history. You also probably
have a pretty good chess library, as well as a
database to store and play through games.
Unlike some of the contributors to this site
(such as Nick Pope and John Hilbert), you
have never visited your local library and
know absolutely nothing about chess
newspaper columns. But you enjoy reading
some of their research and decided to try
your hand at writing a chess article.
_
I admit that Emanuel Lasker is one of my favorite players. I admire his gutsy style
and fighting attitude. So I decided to look into his championship match versus
Wilhelm Steinitz, played in Moscow in 1896. I decided to play through all the games
which I already had in my database and add some notes. Games in my database have
either been commercially bought or downloaded from one of the chess Internet sites.
I started by looking at the new book on Lasker by
Ken Whyld. I played through the first game and
noticed that it only had forty-four moves while my
database had forty-five moves. I then decided to look
up the games in other books in my library. I started
with the German book in the Weltgeschichte series on
Steinitz, and noted that it had forty-five moves. I
moved on to the Weltgeschichte book on Lasker and
noted that it only had forty-four moves. I then pulled
out the Gelo book, Chess World Championships, and
checked out the game. It had the full forty-five
moves. Finally I looked at the German Biography on
Steinitz written by Bachmann. I do not have the
original, which was done in the early 1920s, but I do
have the Olms reprint. Finding the game, I noted that
it only had forty-four moves. Here is the game that started my research.
Steinitz,W Lasker,Em (1)
C54/02 Giuoco Piano: Greco (Steinitz)
1896.11.07 RUS Moscow
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.c3 Nf6 5.d4 exd4 6.cxd4 Bb4+ 7.Nc3
Nxe4 8.0-0 Bxc3 9.bxc3 d5 10.Ba3 dxc4 11.Re1 f5 12.Nd2 Kf7 13.Nxe4
fxe4 14.Rxe4 Qf6 15.Qe2 Bf5 16.Qxc4+ Kg6 17.Re3 Rae8 18.Rae1
Rxe3 19.Rxe3 h5 20.h3 h4 21.d5 Ne5 22.Qxc7 Nd3 23.Qxb7 Bc8 24.
Qc6 Qxc6 25.dxc6 Nf4 26.Re7 a6 27.c4 Kf6 28.Ra7 Nd3 29.Be7+ Ke6
30.Rc7 Ne5 31.Bg5 Rg8 32.Be7 g5 33.c5 Nf7 34.f3 Re8 35.Kf2 Rxe7 36.
Rxc8 Kd5 37.Ra8 Ne5 38.Ke3 Nxc6+ 39.Kd2 a5 40.Rf8 Re5 41.f4 gxf4
42.Rxf4 Rh5 43.Ke3 Ne5 44.Ra4 Nc4+
**
And here is the extra move.
45.Kf4 Kxc5 0-1.
**[This is also the conclusion from my earliest source, the Daily Tribune. - Pope]
New-York Daily Tribune, 1896.11.22
Weltgeschichte des Schachs, v11 Lasker, Wildhagen 1958, 11-185
Weltgeschichte des Schachs, v7 Steinitz, Wildhagen 1968, 7-435
Schachmeister Steinitz, v4, Olms 1980, p214-215
Chess World Championships, Gelo 1988, p312
The Games of Wilhem Steinitz, Pickard & Son 1995, p135
The Collected Games of Emanuel Lasker, Whyld 1998, p74
I was more than a little curious. I decided to play through game two and compare
my various sources. First I again used the new Lasker book by Ken Whyld and saw
the game ended at move forty-one. Whyld had listed as his source, Deutsches
Wochenschach 1896, which is a very obscure German magazine. But my database
version only had thirty-seven moves! I figured this was an easy problem to solve.
After all, this was a World Championship match. I then decided to look through
some of my books to see how many moves they had. I then checked Gelos book on
World Championships, but instead of resolving the discrepancy, Gelos book added to
it, giving forty-two moves.
In arguably one of the most important chess matches of the year, and using two
very reliable sources, plus my existing gamescore, I had found different versions of
the game. Perhaps my other sources would resolve this absurdity. I pulled out the
Weltgeschichte book on Lasker. In looking up the game, I found that it lists forty-two
moves or the same as Gelo. Feeling better, I opened up the Steinitz Weltgeschichte
by the same publisher, and what do I find, but thirty-seven moves, the same as my
database! Finally I looked up my last source, the Olms reprint on Steinitz. Now I cant
read German, but it appears that it has 37 moves with White announcing mate in 5.
Any way, here is the game for your enjoyment. At least, I think its the gameor maybe
it isnt. Ive added the various endings.
Lasker,Em Steinitz,W (2)
C64/04 Spanish: Classical
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Bc5 4.c3 Nge7 5.00 Ng6 6.d4 exd4 7.cxd4 Bb6
8.Nc3 00 9.a4 a6 10.Bc4 h6 11.h3 d6 12.Be3 Nce7 13.Re1 c6 14.Qb3
Bc7 15.Nd2 Rb8 16.Rac1 b5 17.axb5 axb5 18.Bd3 Kh8 19.Ne2 f5 20.
exf5 Bxf5 21.Bxf5 Rxf5 22.Ng3 Rf8 23.Qe6 Qc8 24.Qxc8 Rfxc8 25.Nb3
Kg8 26.Ne4 Kf7 27.g3 Ke8 28.Re2 Kd7 29.Rce1 Bb6 30.Bf4 Bc7 31.h4
h5 32.Bg5 Bd8 33.g4 hxg4 34.h5 Nf8 35.Nec5+ dxc5 36.Nxc5+
[The gamescore published by
Pickard terminates here. -
Pope]
36...Kd6 37.Bf4+
And White announced mate
in 5 according to Bachmann
in Schachmeister Steinitz; the
game also ends here in
Weltgeschichte Steinitz.
37...Kd5 38.Re5+ Kc4 39.Rc1+ Kxd4 40.Re4+ Kd5 41.Rd1+
Here the game ends according
to Whyld.
41...Kxc5 42.Be3# 10.
According to Weltgeschichte
Lasker and Gelo. [and Helms
in the Eagle.-Pope]
** The Brooklyn Daily Eagle, 1896.11.22
Chess World Championships, Gelo 1988, p312-313
The Collected Games of Emanuel Lasker, Whyld 1998, p74-75
Having been exhausted by this struggle, but not defeated, I decided to look at the
next game, game three of the same match. Here my database had the game lasting 39
moves. Well guess what, Whylds book, again citing Deutsches Wochenschach 1896,
had only thirty-four moves. Again, my curiosity piqued, I decided to look at the same
sources. Gelo listed thirty-nine moves as did Weltgeschichte Steinitz and they had a
different twenty fifth move; however, Weltgeschichte Lasker had thirty- four moves
as did the Olms Steinitz book. Again major controversy about a World Championship
game! Here is the third game along with the various conclusions.
C54/02 Giuoco Piano: Greco (Steinitz)
Nxe4 8.00 Bxc3 9.bxc3 d5 10.Ba3 dxc4 11.Re1 Be6 12.Rxe4 Qd5 13.
Qe2 000 14.Ne5 Rhe8 15.Nxc6 Qxc6 16.Re1 Rg8 17.Re5 b6 18.Bc1 g5
19.Rxg5 Rxg5 20.Bxg5 Rg8 21.f4 Bd5 22.g3 Kb7 23.h3 Qb5 24.Kh2
Rg6 25.Qc2
**Here the different sources diverged with both Whyld and Weltgeschichte Lasker
giving the following continuation [as does the Evening Journal -Pope]: 25.Qf2 f6
26.Bh4 Bf7 27.g4 Qd5 28.Qc2 h5 29.g5 fxg5 30.Bxg5 h4 31.Rf1 Rg8 32.Qd2 a5
33.a4 Re8 34.f5 Rg8 0-1.
25...f6 26.Bh4 Bc6 27.g4 Qd5 28.Qf2 h5 29.g5 fxg5 30.Bxg5 h4 31.Rf1
Rg8 32.Qd2 a5 33.a4 Re8 34.f5 Rg8
Here the game ends according
to Bachmann.
35.Re1 Qxf5 36.Re5 Qf3 37.d5 Qg3+ 38.Kh1 Qxe5 39.dxc6+ Kxc6 0-1.
According to Gelo and
Weltgeschichte Steinitz. [and
Pickard. -Pope]
** The Albany Evening Journal, 1896.12.05
Chess World Championships, Gelo 1988, p313
The Collected Games of Emanuel Lasker, Whyld 1998, p75
So much for easy research! Looking at the first three games of a World
Championship match and finding many different continuations, what should I do?
Since I am not even sure where my local library is, and if they even have old
newspapers, or which ones to check, I was stumped. Then I did the next best thing. I
called my friend Tony Gillam who is a major chess researcher and asked him for his
advice. His answer after asking me the dates the games were played (and if that was
the old [Julian] or new [Gregorian] calendar) was that he would check the Russian
newspapers the next time he goes to London for research. Me, Im too lazy.
Napier: The Search Continues
by John S. Hilbert
When I first finished working on Napier: The Forgotten Chess Master (Caissa
Editions 1997), I was pleased to record some additional information that had come
my way through the kind and generous help of fellow researchers. Many by then had
known of my interest for the past two years in the English born, Brooklyn Boy
Wonder of the 1890s. That additional information appeared in an Addendumto the
book, at pages 352-354, and included one ending and another simultaneous game.
One of the beauties of writing and publishing material on historical chess figures is
that one quickly learns there is a small, but devoted, coterie of chess historians and
aficionados quite willing to help elucidate, and at times correct, details concerning the
great players of our game. Depending, I suppose, on the personality of the writer and
the spirit in which the readers respond, such communications can either be seen as the
irksome bother of flies around a dying water buffalo, or else the treasured sharing
between writer and readers that forms the best each has to offer. I am pleased to
count myself among the latter group, and am even more pleased to count in the latter
group the very kind readers who have taken the time to respond to Napier and offer
additional material and corrections. Thanks to their thoughtful communications, I am
able to offer here additional information about Napier, his opponents, and his games.
For those unfamiliar with the player, William Ewart Napier was born in England in
1881, though his family quickly moved to the United States. By the early 1890s,
when Napier was just entering his teenage years, his family moved to Brooklyn, New
York, then still an independent city and not a borough of New York City. He quickly
came under the wing of Hermann Helms, later known as the Dean of American chess,
and eventual publisher of the American Chess Bulletin. Napier had come to
American chess at a fascinating time. He joined the prestigious Brooklyn Chess
Club, with members including the likes of Showalter and Pillsbury, literally within
one week of another young man: Frank James Marshall, future United States
Champion.
Napier, though, rocketed into the public eye when
as a sixteen-year-old he crushed the somewhat older
Marshall in a match by a score of seven wins to one
loss and three draws. He soon won the Brooklyn
Chess Club champion, and as that clubs
representative at the 1897 annual midsummer
gatherings of the New York State Chess Association
defeated Wilhelm Steinitz, ex-champion of the world,
in a level game. Unfortunately for lovers of the
game, Napiers chess career was quite short. He
played at Monte Carlo 1902, his first international
tournament, winning a brilliancy prize for his game
against Chigorin. He finished better at Hanover
1902, competed at Cambridge Springs 1904, where
his loss to Emanuel Lasker is still considered one of
the finest games played in the early decades of this
century, and then won first prize at London 1904. A
few weeks later he became, thanks to his British
citizenship, the first British Chess Federation
Champion, after winning a short playoff match against the English player Atkins. He
played a drawn match with Mieses, lost badly to Teichmann, and defeated Marshall
in a short match limited to the Rice Gambit. Returning to the United States, Napier
gave up competitive chess for a career in insurance, though from time to time he
would play an occasional game. No doubt the world gained another merely
competent insurance executive at the expense of losing, potentially, one of its finest
chess talents of the period. There is no telling what heights Napier might have
climbed had he stayed with chess and had devoted all his energies to the game. He
finally died in September 1952, long forgotten by the chess world but for a few good
friends.
Although I brought together all the information I could concerning Napier in my
book, including over 320 of his games, many of them annotated by contemporary
sources, as well as extensive biographical information both about Napier as well as
about his adversaries, such a search was, of course, in the end impossible to
complete. All which leads me back to where I started in this article: my thanks to
those who have kindly given me more information about Napier, including additional
games.
Tony Gillam, of The Chess Player, and who throughout the production of Napier
was a tireless contributor of both background information and games played in
England, was the first to send along additional information. In January 1998, two
months after the book was published, Tony mailed in the following Napier game,
originally published in the Manchester Guardian for April 14, 1905, at page 8. The
most remarkable thing about this simultaneous game, and quite revealing of Napiers
character, was that despite the fact he lost it, he submitted it for publication.
Lawrence,P Napier,WE simul
C54/02 Giuoco Piano: Greco (Mller)
1905.[03] GBR Reading
Nxe4 8.0-0 Bxc3 9.d5 Ne5 10.bxc3 Nxc4 11.Qd4 0-0 12.Qxe4 Nd6 13.
Qd3 Ne8 14.Re1 d6 15.Rb1 a5 16.Bg5 f6 17.Bd2 g6 18.Nd4 Ng7 19.
Re4 Re8 20.Rbe1 Rxe4 21.Qxe4 Bd7 22.Qh4 Qf8 23.c4 b6 24.Bc3 Nf5
25.Nxf5 Bxf5 26.Bxf6 Re8 27.Rxe8 Qxe8 28.Bc3 h5 29.Qf6 Qd7 30.Qh8
+ Kf7 31.Bf6 1-0.
** Manchester Guardian, 1905.04.14
The next game includes some additional embarrassment for me, as I stupidly forgot
to include in my notes who was kind enough to send it in to me. If the contributor of
this game recognizes it, by all means, please contact me and help me correct my
error. The game did not appear in Napier despite the source, the American Chess
Bulletin, having largely been checked. I say largelyas it became clear early on that
Napier was inactive in chess for decades at a time, and it seemed unlikely he was
active at this time in the 1930s. The fact that this game exists, of course,
demonstrates the old adage that a researcher should never make such assumptions.
And of course, making such an assumption was the very mistake I made.
Napier,WE Winkler,L (3)
B26/05 Sicilian: Closed
1937 USA New York, NY (Metropolitan Chess League)
1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.d3 g6 4.Be3 d6 5.g3 Bg7 6.Bg2 e6 7.Qd2 Qb6 8.
Nd1 Nge7 9.Ne2 Bd7 10.c3 e5 11.b4 a5 12.bxc5 dxc5 13.Nb2 Nd8 14.0-
0 Ne6 15.f4 exf4 16.gxf4 f5 17.e5 Qc7 18.d4 Bc6
19.d5 Rd8 20.c4 b5 21.Qc2 Nxd5 22.cxd5 Bxd5 23.Bxd5 Rxd5 24.Nc3
Rxe5 25.fxe5 Qxe5 26.Ncd1 Nd4 27.Bxd4 Qxd4+ 28.Nf2 Qxb2 29.Rae1
+ Kf7 30.Qxc5 Bf8 31.Qc7+ Kf6 32.Ne4+ Ke6 33.Nd6+ Kf6 34.Qd8+
Kg7 35.Ne8+ 1-0.
** American Chess Bulletin, 1938.01-02, p10
Quite recently, thanks to the magic of email, I received from English chess
historian Chris Ravilious some quite useful information concerning Napier. The first
correction is quite entertaining, at least to me. Mr. Ravilious writes that on page 279
of Napier, in my brief summary of Horace Cheshires career, I mention his analytic
skills, adding that he was referred to as the public analystof Hastings, and was kindly
thought of for his ready willingness to help elucidate any position. As Ravilious
tellingly writes, I get the impression from this that you believe Cheshires title of
public analystwas a semi-jocular reference to his chessboard skills. In fact, though
everything you say about his kindly disposition and readiness to share his strategic
insights is true, the title of Public Analystrefers simply to his job. He was a chemist
employed by the local council to conduct analysis of substances in, for example,
cases of food adulteration. I cant decide whether you knew this and were consciously
pointing up the resemblance between the two sides of Cheshires career, or whether
you assumed public analystto be quite simply a tribute to his chess skills. I dont
suppose Mr. Ravilious can see how red my face is, but I freely admit here that at the
time of writing I was firmly committed to believing that public analystwas a kind of
Johnny-Appleseed-of-chess reference, accenting Cheshires good nature and
willingness to cultivate appreciation of the game with whomever showed interest My
thanks to Mr. Ravilious.
Mr. Ravilious also notes that my reference to Napiers partner in Game Number
267, a consultation game against Blackburne and Cheshire, was not, in fact, William
Henry Watts, future editor of the London 1922 tournament book , but rather J. A.
Watt. J. A. Watt, it now appears likely, was also one of Napiers opponents in Game
Number 273. According to Mr. Ravilious, William Henry Watts had no known
association with the Hastings Club, which had hosted the series of consultation games
Napier and Blackburne conducted. Mr. Ravilious has also provided some interesting
details about this otherWatt With his permission, I quote Mr. Ravilious at length:
Who then was the confusingly-named Watt? Theres a brief mention
of him in the Book of the Hastings International MastersChess
Tournament, 1922, which - just to complicate things further - was edited
by W. H. Watts! On p.9 of the book we learn that Mr. J. A. Watt, of the
Waverley Hotel, accommodated some of the players. This may possibly
be J. A. Watts only appearance in formal chess literature, but he is
mentioned a good few times in Sussex chess records and in the chess
column of the Hastings & St. Leonards Observer.
Watt played for Sussex as early as November 1901 (possibly earlier -
there are some gaps in the record around the turn of the century). From
much the same date he was a regular in the Hastings Clubs first team,
and while never one of its strongest players gained something of a
reputation as a giant-killer. In September of 1912 he had the honour of
encountering the great Frank Marshall when playing board 1 for
Hastings in a friendly match against Tunbridge Wells (unsurprisingly, he
lost). He played (with F. D. Yates, G. A. Thomas and others) in the First
Class Tournament at the Kent & Sussex Congress of 1913, defeating
Thomas in their individual game. And in March 1920 he defeated
Kostich in a simul held at the Hastings Club. Watts remained active
through the 1920s, taking part in the Hastings Clubs tour of Belgium and
Holland in the summer of 1923. The last time I find his name mentioned
is in 1929, when he played on board 14 for Sussex in a match against
Surrey.
Watt was a keen correspondence player, and represented the South (on
board 40) in the North v South correspondence match of 1900-1901. In
1925 he won the Sussex Correspondence Championship.
Of J. A. Watt as a person I know almost nothing, but in E. J.
Ackroyds chess column in the Hastings & St. Leonards Observer in
1922 theres a satirical reference to Watt with a long Corona-Corona
cigar, ... busy putting up a smoke barrage in the hopes of obscuring his
own game, and subsequently exchang[ing] his Corona for a Calabash
and eventually succeed[ing] in asphyxiating his opponent, from which
we may deduce that he was a heavy smoker (maybe it went with the
profession of hotelier!).
Mr. Raviliouss account of J. A. Watt shows what wonderful detail can be gleaned
from local chess sources. The bungling with the Watts versus Watt name confusion
is, of course, my own fault, though original sources have proven quite difficult at
times to read and even at times inaccurate. In this instance, my sources are
unfortunately squirreled away in a particularly difficult area to locate, and so I will
simply take the blame for assuming Wattin fact meant Watts,thus by default, as it
were, exonerating the Nottingham Guardian, my original source, from generating the
confusion.
While the error is of course unfortunate, its correction is interesting as well.
Certainly the information Mr. Ravilious provides concerning J. A. Watt is every bit as
fascinating, down to the use of tobacco smoke as a tactical device over the board, as
anything in Napier about William Henry Watts. I am exceedingly grateful to Mr.
Ravilious, and should another edition of Napier ever become feasible, his corrections
and contributions shall be noted, with pleasure.
One final game can be added to the Napier canon. It is rather a sad note to end this
article on, but it cannot be avoided. Napier began play in the Washington Chess
Divans 1942 championship, thirty-eight years after his last appearance in a chess
tournament. Playing along with Reuben Fine, Albert Fox (another aging veteran,
who shared with Napier the distinction of playing at the great Cambridge Springs
1904 gathering), Martin Stark, Oscar Shapiro, Vincent Eaton and others, Napier
completed a few rounds before two car accidents and a move to Philadelphia forced
him to abandon the tournament. It was the only time I could find in his career that he
did not finish an event. Two of his encounters appeared in Napier, and now a third
has been recovered, though this latest addition is hardly a jewel among Napiers
collected games.
Eaton,V Napier,WE (3)
B27/03 Sicilian: Hungarian
1942 USA Washington, DC (Divan Championship)
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 g6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Qxd4 Nf6 5.c4 Bg7 6.Nc3 d6 7.Be2 0-0 8.0-
0 Bg4 9.Bg5 Bxf3 10.Bxf3 Nbd7 11.Rac1 Nc5 12.Qe3 a5 13.e5 Ng4? 14.
Bxg4 Bxe5 15.Nd5 f6 16.Bh6 Rf7 17.f4 Bxb2 18.Rb1 f5 19.Bxf5 [0:45-
1:13] 1-0.
** Washington Star, [date unknown]
Martin Stark of Washington (who also played in this event, fifty-seven years ago!)
sent along a copy of this score to me in a letter dated June 28, 1998. In that letter he
wrote that in Eaton - Napier, Blacks thirteenth move is an incomprehensible blunder
giving up a knight for practically nothing, except an insignificant pawn. The score
was published in Donald Mugridges Washington Star chess column, but the date is
uncertain. Eaton, a problemist of some reputation, was then champion of the District
of Columbia.
The loss is undoubtedly one of Napiers worst among his published games. But
truthfulness demands its inclusion. And so the search for Napier games and
information continues, a process never fully complete, and thus, with many thanks to
others, a process never ending.
John S. Hilbert 1999
The Queen City: George Thornton
and Early Buffalo Chess
by John S. Hilbert
Every story begins in the middle. The history of a town begs the history of those
who came to build it. The history of a club begs the history of those who chose to
found it. And the history of chess in any metropolis of the United States, certainly
through the course of the nineteenth century, is also the story of those who helped
foster love of the game, both before and after city clubs were officially organized and
tournaments begun.
Indeed, chess in Buffalo, New York, the Queen City as it is known, took a dramatic
turn for the better through the efforts of a man born some miles away, in Watertown,
New York, on April 28, 1851. Watertown, just to the east of Lake Ontario and due
north of Syracuse, sits closer to that city than it does to Buffalo. But when George
Howard Thornton was ready for college, he headed southwest, past Syracuse and on
to the University of Rochester, where he graduated in 1872. Thornton had decided
while at university to earn his living as a stenographer. As his obituary in the January
31, 1920 issue of the Buffalo Express would state, he earned nearly $2,000 during his
senior year in this manner, and on his graduation decided to follow stenography as a
vocation. No wonder. Many college students today would be content to earn $2,000
during their senior year in school, much less earn such money in 1872. At that time, a
mere seven years after the end of the Civil War and decades before Henry Ford would
offer his autoworkers the princely sum of five dollars a day for their labor, such pay
would have been difficult to reject. Even more so would it have been difficult to
reject such a promising career.
Following graduation from college in Rochester, Thornton moved to Buffalo, New
York, where he quickly became the junior named partner in a stenography firm,
Slocum Thornton, a concern that Whos Who in New York, Third Edition (1907),
informs us continued at least for eight years, until 1880, when Thornton was twenty-
nine. Thornton also immediately secured a position as assistant stenographer to the
supreme court in the city, a decision that was to have significant consequences for his
later career. Thornton, it was said, was pre-eminently successful in his chosen field,
and as time went on and improved systems of shorthand were developed, he made it a
practice to change his methods to maintain the highest standards. It was said of him
that his notes are so perfect any stenographer who uses the same system could read
them. And of course, of paramount interest to us, George H. Thornton also loved
chess.
While working as a stenographer in Buffalo with his own firm, the twenty-four
year old Thornton played the following game. And he did so, as the Dubuque Chess
Journal for June 1875 (at pages 266-267) informs us, blindfolded. His opponent was
a Rochester player. Blacks king is chased around the boards center in merry fashion,
with repeated pins along the e-file until, driven to distraction (and to the edge of the
board), he succumbs to a piece sacrifice and mate by rook and knight.
Thornton,GH(bf) Kimball offhand
C54/04 Giuoco Piano: Greco
1875 USA Rochester, NY
Annotations by O. A. Brownson Jr.
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.c3 Nf6 5.d4 exd4 6.cxd4 Bb4+ 7.Bd2
Nxe4 8.Bxb4 Nxb4 9.Bxf7+ Kxf7 10.Qb3+ d5 11.Qxb4 Re8 12.0-0 c6
13.Ne5+ Ke6
**So far Black has played irreproachably, but now plays unaccountably.
14.Nc3 Nf6 15.Rae1 Qc7 16.Nxc6+ Kd7 17.Ne5+ Kd8 18.Qb3 Qb6 19.
Qxb6+
**19.Nf7+ wins off hand, but White was blindfolded, and could not be expected to
see everything.
19...axb6 20.Nf7+ Kd7 21.Rxe8 Nxe8 22.Ne5+ Ke6 23.a3 Ra5 24.Re1
Kf6 25.b4
**The termination is admirably played by White.
25...Rxa3 26.Nxd5+ Kg5 27.f4+ Kh6 28.g4 b5 29.Nf7+ Kg6 30.Nh8+
Kh6
31.Re5 Bxg4 32.Rg5 Be6 33.Ne7 Re3
** Black seems to be in the dark here, 33...g6 was safe; 33...Ra1+ draws easily and
might have won.
34.Nf5+ Bxf5 35.Nf7# 1-0.
Dubuque Chess Journal, 1875.06, p266-267
Thornton, of course, also played chess in his new home city, Buffalo, and was
successful there as well. The following game, also from the pages of the Dubuque
Chess Journal, though slightly later (December 1875, page 548) shows the young
stenographer at work in his own city.
Thornton,GH Ensor,AW
C51/02 Evans Gambit: Anderssen
1875 USA Buffalo, NY
Annotations by O. A. Brownson Jr.
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Bc5 6.0-0 d6 7.d4 exd4 8.
cxd4 Bb6 9.d5 Na5 10.Bb2 Nxc4 11.Qa4+
**11.Bxg7 wins rook and pawn for bishop, giving White an easy victory.
11...Qd7
**As this shuts in the bishop, the move 11...Bd7 seems preferable.
12.Qxc4 Ne7 13.Nc3
**13.Bxg7 at this juncture would be hazardous. Black would answer 13...Rg8 and if
White plays the bishop at the fourteenth move, 14...Rxg2+. If 15.Kxg2 checkmate
follows in a few moves, while if 14.Qc3, protecting the bishop at g7, Black plays
14...Qg4 winning the bishop.
13...0-0 14.Na4 f5
**
Not so good as 14...f6 holding Whites e-pawn in check, and neutralizing the
contemplated attack [by way of] c3.
15.e5 f4
**Apparently to make room for the knight.
16.e6
**First rate; effectively shutting up bishop and rook, which are useless as though off
the board.
16...Qe8 17.Nxb6 cxb6
**If 17...axb6, then 18.Qxc7.
18.Qc3 Nf5 19.Nh4 Qe7 20.Nxf5 Rxf5 21.Rac1 f3
**Compelled to move somewhere.
22.g4 Qg5 23.Kh1 Rxd5
**23...Rf8 is better, but the game is desperate.
24.h3
**24.Qxc8+ Qd8 25.Qxb7 Rg5 26.Rc7 Qf8 27.Rf7 [and resignation might be his best
moveAuthor].
24...h5 25.Rg1 Qe5
**Demoralized. 25...Rc5 would now equalize the game.
26.Qxc8+ (...), 1-0.
Dubuque Chess Journal, 1875.12, p548
The Buffalo player also played correspondence chess to keep himself active. Here
is an encounter with a Niagara Falls player in which Thornton misses his best
chances. The game made the pages of the May 1881 issue of Brentanos Chess
Monthly.
Lamont,WL Thornton,GH corr.
C25/02 Vienna: Steinitz
188[0] USA; Buffalo, NY & Niagra Falls, NY
Annotations by Alfred P. Barnes
1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.f4 exf4 4.d4 Qh4+ 5.Ke2 Qh5+ 6.Nf3 g5
**Staunton seems to be in favor of this line of play as he remarks that Black will have
a dangerous power of attack in few more moves.
7.Nd5 Kd8 8.Ke1
**
We have not found any reply to Whites last move that has given us entire
satisfaction, and hence arrive at the conclusion that the variation is not favorable to
the second player; at this point however, we think White should play 8.Kf2.
8...Bg7 9.c3 Nge7
**We prefer the other knight to this square because, if White should neither exchange
nor retreat, the knight can be dislodged by the c-pawn.
10.g3
**White makes an error here of which, however, Black does not avail himself. The
text move is an ingenious one, although faulty. The proper move seems to be 10.
Be2.
10...Nxd5 11.exd5 Re8+ 12.Kf2 fxg3+
**Very badly played; there was nothing for it but 12...g4, which ought to result
favorably to Black. We see no better move than 13.dxc6 for White, and give a few
variations: 12...g4: A) 13.Bxf4 Qxd5 14.Ng5 Qxh1 15.Nxf7+ Ke7 16.Qxg4 and
Black can save himself by 16...Kf8. B) 13.Ng5 Qxg5 14.dxc6 fxg3+ 15.hxg3 (15.
Kxg3 Re3+ 16.Bxe3 Qxe3+ 17.Kg2 Qe4+ 18.Kg1 Bh6 and wins) 15...Qf5+. C) 13.
dxc6 fxg3+ 14.Kg2 (14.Kg1 is clearly ruinous) 14...gxf3+ 15.Qxf3 Qxf3+ 16.Kxf3
dxc6 17.hxg3 Bf5 and Black retains the pawn.
13.Kg2 g4
**Too late now.
14.Ng5 h6 15.Bd3
**Well played; if the knight be taken the queen is lost.
15...f5 16.Bxf5 Rf8
**He might as well risked 16.hxg5.
17.hxg3 Qe8 18.Re1 Ne7 19.Bxg4 Qg6
**If now 19...hxg5 20.Bxg5 Bf6 21.Bh5 etc.
20.Qe2 Bf6 21.Ne4 Rh8 22.Nxf6 Qxf6 23.Rf1 Qg7 24.Bh5 Rf8 25.Qe5
**White terminates the game in good style. Of course neither queen nor rook can be
taken.
25...Qh8 26.Rf7 Nxd5 27.Qxd5 1-0.
Brentanos Chess Monthly, 1881.05, p23
But as for most of us, chess was not Thorntons main occupation. In 1882 his work
as assistant stenographer for the court paid off handsomely when he was named
official stenographer of the Supreme Court, Eighth Judicial District, a position he
held for the next thirty-eight years. And 1882 was not merely the date of his career
advancement: In order to fulfill his duties more efficiently, he studied law and was
admitted to the bar in 1882. In that year, he was elected president of the New York
State StenographersAssociation. Yet in that same year, 1882, Thornton won the New
York State Championship, as listed in Chess in New York State, December 1971 (then
the name of the official publication for the New York State Chess Association). But
his work was paramount. By the next year Thornton was editor of the Modern
Stenographic Journal, a Buffalo publication. And he was already the author of one
book, Modern Stenography. He would also author another work, entitled
Phonographic Copy Books, in 1884.
Thorntons successful career as a stenographer did not prevent him from being an
active member of many clubs, and indeed, no doubt with his growing social position
in the city, his membership in various clubs became all the more important for the
contacts they helped him maintain. As was told much later, he became a member of
the Buffalo, University, Acacia, Yacht, Whist and Chess clubs. Yet his active club
life and career in stenography did not entirely prevent him from playing some very
interesting chess, and against some very interesting opponents.
In 1884 Thornton traveled to New York City, then and now the heart of chess in
the state as well as the country. Some of his travels were reported by Charles Tutton
in his fledgling chess column in the Buffalo Sunday Times. Tutton, in the course of
slightly over two years (1884 through 1886), for example, would publish no fewer
than twenty-nine of Thorntons chess games. The column itself was indicative of the
growth of interest in chess in Buffalo. And the extent of coverage offered Thornton
was an even clearer indication of his dominance over the local chess scene.
Now thirty-four years old, and well established in his field (he would shortly
become president of the International StenographersAssociation), Thornton could
indulge his interest in chess when on trips, at least to the extent of playing a series of
offhand games at the Manhattan Chess Club. One of his games appeared in the
Buffalo Sunday Times for July 27, 1884, and featured his play against a rather well-
known opponent. The game was said to have been played recently at the Manhattan
Chess Club.
Thornton,GH Steinitz,W offhand
C39/03 KGA: Kieseritzky (Paulsen)
1884.07 USA New York, NY (Manhattan CC)
Annotations by Charles Tutton
1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 g5 4.h4 g4 5.Ne5 Bg7 6.d4 Nf6 7.Bc4 d5 8.exd5
0-0 9.Bxf4
**Not considered as good as 9.0-0.
9...Nxd5 10.Bg3? Ne3 11.Qe2 Qxd4 12.c3 Qb6 13.Bb3 Be6 14.Nd2 Nc6
15.Nxc6 Bxb3 16.Ne7+ Kh8 17.axb3 Rfe8 18.Nc4 Nxc4 19.bxc4 Bf6
20.0-0-0 Rxe7 21.Qxg4 Bg7 22.Rhf1 Qb3 23.Rf2 Rf8 24.Rd3 Re6 25.
Rxf7 Rxf7 26.Qxe6 Rf1+ 27.Be1 Qb6 28.Qxb6 axb6 29.Kd2 Kg8 30.
Rd8+ Bf8
31.Rd7
**But for this move White would have stood a good show to win.
31...Bd6 32.Ke2 Rg1 33.Kf2 Rh1 34.Ke2 Rg1 -.
Buffalo Sunday Times, 1884.07.27
Clearly Thornton could play a decent game of chess. In 1884 Wilhelm Steinitz,
world chess champion, was only forty-eight years old, and not past his prime.
Steinitz had left England the year before to come to America, where he would
eventually take United States citizenship. He had won Vienna 1882, placed second at
the great London 1883 event, and two years after the game above was played would
crush Zukertort by a score of ten wins to five, with five games drawn. Other
successful defenses of his title were still further ahead, against Gunsberg and
Chigorin, before he would lose his title to Emanuel Lasker in 1894.
Thornton did not play only Steinitz at the Manhattan Chess Club on this trip.
Tutton published another game of his on August 10, 1884, against another New York
player of some stature, John S. Ryan. The brief notes are again by Tutton. His note
after Thorntons thirty-seventh move reveals the world champion was watching the
game as play unfolded.
Thornton,GH Ryan,JS offhand
B06/02 Robatsch
1884.0[7] USA New York, NY (Manhattan CC)
1.e4 g6
**
No author known to us looks favorably upon this opening, preferring the queens
fianchetto, 1...b6.
2.d4 Bg7
**
Mr. Potter prefers 2...d6, while others contend that 2...f5 is Blacks best reply.
3.Be3 c5 4.Nf3 Nc6 5.c3 cxd4 6.cxd4 Nf6 7.Bd3 Ng4 8.Nc3 Nb4 9.Bc4 0-
0 10.h3 Nf6 11.Nh2 d6 12.f4 e6 13.a3 Nc6 14.Nf3 Nd7 15.Qd2 a6 16.0-
0 b5 17.Ba2 b4 18.axb4 Nxb4 19.Bb3 Bb7 20.d5 exd5 21.Nxd5 Nxd5
22.Bxd5 Bxd5 23.exd5 Nf6 24.Rab1 Ne4 25.Qd3 Re8 26.b4 Qe7 27.
Rfe1 Bc3 28.Bd2 Qa7+ 29.Kh2 Nxd2 30.Nxd2
**30.Rxe8+ would have saved the pawn.
30...Rxe1 31.Rxe1 Bxb4 32.Re2 a5 33.Ne4 f5 34.Ng5 Rc8 35.Ne6 Rc1
36.Nd4 Rc3
37.Qb5!
**Mr. Ryan thought that had he made some other reply to the one actually made to
this move he might have escaped the force of the attack, but Mr. Steinitz, who was
watching the game, pointed out that White had a forced won game after this move,
and that Blacks game could hardly be saved after his thirty-second move.
37...Kg7 38.Ne6+ Kf6 39.Qe8 g5 40.fxg5# 1-0.
John S. Ryan was not an easy man to beat. Thirty-five at the time he faced
Thornton, Ryan would be chosen eight years later, in the fall of 1892, as one of the
eight strongest New York City players to face a young Emanuel Lasker for one of a
series of three game exhibition matches arranged on Laskers first trip to the United
States. The New York Tribune for October 18, 1892, for instance, would refer to
Ryan as the brilliant and popular amateur. Although Ryan could not put a dent in
Laskers chess armor when they battled, the very fact that he was selected at all as one
of the eight players to face the German phenomenon is itself a testimony to his
strength in the city.
At least one additional game has survived from the Buffalo players time at the
Manhattan Chess Club. Here he faces a young man, then only twenty-one years of
age, who would later face, and defeat, Jackson Whipps Showalter for the chess
championship of the United States. The game, and notes, appeared in the pages of the
Buffalo Sunday Times, this time on August 17, 1884.
Lipschtz,S Thornton,GH offhand
C38/03 KGA: Classical Knight (Hanstein)
1884.0[7] USA New York, NY (Manhattan CC)
1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 g5 4.Bc4 Bg7 5.d4 d6 6.0-0 h6 7.c3 Ne7
**The Handbuch gives 7...Qe7 as best here.
8.g3 g4 9.Bxf4
**9.Nh4 we think preferable here, although the Handbuch prefers the text move.
9...gxf3 10.Qxf3 Be6 11.d5 Bh3 12.Rf2 Qd7 13.Be3
**We would suggest 13.Bxd6 as a substitute for the text move.
13...Ng6 14.Bd4 Be5 15.Na3 a6 16.b4 Bg4 17.Qe3 b5 18.Bb3 Qe7 19.
Raf1 Rh7 20.c4 bxc4 21.Nxc4 Bxd4 22.Qxd4 Nd7 23.Ba4 Kd8 24.Bc6
Rb8 25.Na5 Rb6 26.a3 Bh3 27.Rc1 Qe5 28.Qc4 Nb8 29.Ba4 f6 30.b5
axb5 31.Bxb5 h5 32.Qe2 Bg4 33.Qf1
33.h4
**Beautifully conceived and White falls into the trap.
34.Nc4 Qd4 35.Nxb6 hxg3 36.hxg3 Bf3
**And now wishes he had not done it.
0-1.
Later in the year Thornton traveled north of Buffalo into Canada, stopping in
November in Toronto. While at a club there, he played an offhand game that Steinitz
found commendable enough to include in his inaugural number, January 1885, of his
International Chess Magazine, at pages 22-23. Steinitzs notes are included below.
Interestingly enough, Thorntons opponent, C. W. Phillips, may well have been the
same C. W. Phillips who near the end of the century would win the Continental
Correspondence Chess Tournament, organized by a group of Philadelphia players,
including one of that citys finest, Walter Penn Shipley.
Thornton,GH Phillips,CW offhand
C39/02 KGA: Kieseritzky (Stockwhip)
1884.11.08 CAN Toronton, ON (Athenaeum Club)
Annotations by Wilhelm Steinitz
1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 g5 4.h4 g4 5.Ne5 h5
**
Paulsens defense 5...Bg7 at this point is now generally acknowledged the
strongest. It was first adopted by its author against Dubois in 1862, and its merit
has been tested since in various important match games as well as in analytical
treatises. The answer 6.Nxg4 subjects White to a strong attack, e.g. 5...Bg7 6.Nxg4
d5 7.exd5 Qe7+ 8.Kf2 best, for if he interposes bishop or queen, Black captures the
knight. 8...Bd4+ 9.Kf3 h5 10.Nf2 Bg4+ 11.Nxg4 hxg4+ 12.Kxg4 Nf6+ 13.Kh3
Rxh4+ 14.Kxh4 Ne4+ and wins.
6.Bc4 Rh7 7.d4 d6 8.Nd3 f3 9.gxf3 Be7 10.Be3 Bxh4+ 11.Kd2 gxf3 12.
Qxf3 Bg4 13.Qf1
**Here Steinitz gave as superior for White 13.Qf4, offering as a likely continuation
13.Qf4 Nc6 14.Nc3 Nxd4 15.Bxd4 Bg5, but then continuing with 16.Bxh8,
apparently in formulating his analysis having placed Blacks rook on its original
square, rather than the square it actually occupied, h7. His note continued 16.Bxf4
+ 17.Nxf4, claiming White would then have three pieces for the queen and a fine
game. The continuation no doubt is the product of the world champion incorrectly
setting up the board.Author
13...Bg5 14.Nf4 Qe7
**A weak move; the queen is badly posted here. He ought to have first developed
14...Nc6 and then brought out the queen to d7.
15.Nc3 Nf6 16.Re1
**Excellent for offensive and defensive purposes.
16...c6
**He obviously could not play 16...Nxe4+, for White after retaking would have
withdrawn the bishop to g1, and if then Black answered ...Bxf4+, White would
simply play Qxf4, since Blacks queen remained pinned.
17.Nfd5
**We give a diagram of this interesting position.
**White conducts the attack vigorously.
17...Bxe3+
**Ruinous. The proper play was 17...Nxd5, and if then 18.exd5, he could remove the
king to d8 with a fairly defensible game and a pawn ahead.
18.Rxe3 cxd5 19.exd5 Be6 20.dxe6 Kf8 21.exf7 Qd8 22.Rxh5
**Pretty and leading to an attractive termination. He could also have won by 22.Qxf6
followed by Re8+, Rg8+, and queening the f-pawn.
22...Rxh5
**22...Nxh5 would have prolonged the struggle, but only for a little while, for White
after winning the queen by Re8+, would ultimately play Qf5, attacking the rook
and also threatening Qc8+.
23.Re8+ Nxe8 24.fxe8Q+ 1-0.
International Chess Magazine, 1885.01, p22-23
Thornton traveled the following year to Hamburg, participating that July in the
Fourth German Chess Federation Congress, held in that city. There he played in the
fourth preliminary section in hopes of qualifying for the final of the hauptturnier, the
winner of which would be recognized as having achieved the title of master. His
hopes, however, were not to be satisfied. And his play, no doubt, was highly
disappointing, both to him and his friends. Thornton finished last in his section,
managing only a third round win against the seventh place finisher in his preliminary
group. Here is his loss to his sections winner, the player who finished second in the
finals of that years competition. The brief comments are my own translation from
Der Vierte Kongress des Deutschen Schachbundes, Hamburg, 1885, published in
Leipzig the following year.
Bauer,W Thornton,GH (1)
C51/01 Evans Gambit: Declined
1885.07.13 GER Hamburg (Hauptturnier, Section 4)
Annotations by Curt von Bardeleben
(Translated by John Hilbert)
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bb6 5.a4 a6 6.0-0
**Preferable is first 6.c3.
6...d6 7.c3 Be6
**
Far stronger was 7...Bg4. Blacks play lacks energy.
8.Na3 Nf6 9.Qe2 0-0 10.d3 Nd7? 11.Bg5 Ne7? 12.Bxe6 fxe6 13.Qa2
Kf7 14.Be3 h6 15.a5 Ba7 16.Bxa7 Rxa7 17.Nh4 g5 18.Nf5 Nxf5 19.exf5
d5
**Better is 19...Qf6.
20.d4 c6
**Wrong would be 20...e4 because of 21.fxe6+ Kxe6 22.Rae1 Nf6 23.f3.
21.fxe6+ Kxe6 22.Rae1 Kd6 23.dxe5+ Nxe5 24.Qe2 Qf6 25.Qe3 Raa8
26.Qc5+ Kd7 27.Rd1 Qd6 28.Qb6 Qc7 29.Qe3 Rf6 30.c4 Ke6 31.Qc5
Qd6 32.Qb6 Rb8 33.Rfe1 Rf5 34.Nc2 Rf4 35.cxd5+ cxd5 36.Rxd5
**A pretty offer of the rook.
36...Qxb6 37.Rdxe5+ Kf6 38.axb6 Rc4 39.Ne3 1-0.
Der Vierte Kongress des Deutschen Schachbundes, Leipzig 1886, p222
Returning to Buffalo he continued to expand his contacts and responsibilities. He
reported the proceedings of many notable cases and gatherings. In 1889, he was
official stenographer of the assembly and the following year was elected to the same
position in the state senate.
By 1891 Thornton, as reported many years later in the Buffalo Courier Express for
January 16, 1938, had also become involved in chess organization in Buffalo. Prior
to 1891 Buffalo chess enthusiasts played the game in small informal groups. In the
fall of that year 80 players, under the leadership of Harry Richmond and George
Thornton, formed the local chess center which a year later became the Buffalo Chess
Club. The first clubrooms were located in the Hermitage Building at Court and
Franklin Streets. The next year Thornton was official stenographer for the New York
State Constitutional Convention. And other Herculean efforts filled his time: Among
his monumental works was the reporting of the proceedings of the Fassett Committee
of the legislature which filled 4,600 printed pages. For several years he also reported
the meetings of the Chautauqua assemblies, under contract to provide at least twenty-
six newspaper columns of matter daily.
And yet chess could still draw him from his labors, though not as readily, nor as
consistently. The midsummer meeting of the New York State Chess Association in
1894 was held in Buffalo, under the auspices of the very club Thornton had helped
create. Showalter won a small, double round robin event over Pillsbury, Albin, and
George Farnsworth, the latter Buffalos own representative. Walter Penn Shipley, the
well-known Philadelphia player, finished first in that meetings first class tournament,
but no mention of Thornton was made. No doubt his professional obligations
prevented his participation.
During the fall of 1895, and in all likelihood into the early weeks of 1896,
Thornton conducted a correspondence game against Lieutenant F. L. Palmer, then of
the 21st Infantry, United States Army, located in Plattsburg, New York. The Albany
Evening Journal for February 8, 1896, from which the game and notes are taken,
announced the game as taking place between Palmer and Thornton, the well-known
Buffalo player. However well known to readers Thornton might have been, he found
himself up against stiff competition when he faced the Lieutenant.
Palmer,FL Thornton,GH corr.
C52/05 Evans Gambit
1895-96 USA; Buffalo, NY & Plattsburg, NY
Annotations by W. H. K. Pollock
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 6.d4 exd4 7.0-0 Nf6 8.
Ba3 d6 9.e5
**A comparison of the opening of this game with that in the famous recent
encounters between Chigorin and Steinitz will go far to help the student how to
discover the very best moves in this branch of the Evans Gambit. The games
referred to diverge as follows: 6.0-0 d6 7.d4 exd4 8.cxd4 Nf6 9.e5 dxe5 10.Ba3
(we believe 10.Qb3 to be stronger) 10...Be6 11.Bb5 Qd5 12.Qa4, where Black has
a choice of three moves, 12...0-0, 12...Nd7, and 12...Bd7, of which the latter is
probably the best.
9...d5
**9...dxe5 would have given White a terrible attack by 10.Qb3.
10.Bb5 Ne4 11.cxd4
**Much stronger seems 11.Qa4 Bxc3 (11...Bb6 12.Bxc6+ bxc6 13.Qxc6+ Bd7 14.
Qxd5 Nxc3 15.Nxc3 dxc3 16.Ng5 Be6 17.Qc6+ Bd7 18.Qf3 Be6 19.Rad1 and
White wins) 12.Bxc6+ bxc6 13.Nxc3 Nxc3 14.Qxc6+ Bd7 15.Qc5 Nb5 16.Bb4 and
if 16...a5 17.a4 axb4 18.axb5 with a strong attack.
11...Bb6
**The bishop should generally be left at a5 as long as safe, as it prevents the
development of Whites b1-knight. We agree with Lieut. Palmer that here 11...Bd7
is much better.
12.Bxc6+ bxc6 13.Qc2
**This evinces care and is well played.
13...Bb7 14.Nbd2 Nxd2
**
Mr. Palmer says 14...Ng5 was much better. If then 14...Ng5 15.Nxg5 Qxg5 16.Nf3
Qg6 and then castles with a pawn ahead. Or if 14...Ng5 15.Rac1 Ne6 16.Nb3 and
Black still has a good game. After 14...Nxd2 it would seem as if White must win.
15.Qxd2 h6
**Fearing 16.Qg5, if 15...Qd7. But as White breaks in another way, it proves but lost
time. 15...h5 might be suggested but there is really no good move.
16.Rac1 Qd7 17.e6 fxe6 18.Ne5 Qd8 19.Rxc6 Qf6
**White presses his attack skillfully; if 19...Bxc6, 20.Qc2 wins instantly.
20.Qc2 Kd8 21.Qa4 Kc8
**White announces mate in 14 moves. The longest variation is as follows: 21...Kc8
22.Rxc7+ Bxc7 23.Qd7+ Kb8 24.Rb1! Qxe5 25.dxe5 Rd8 26.Qc6 Bb6 27.Bd6+
Rxd6 28.Qxd6+ Kc8 29.Rc1+ Bc6 30.Qxc6+ Kd8 31.Qxa8+ Kd7 32.Qb7+ Ke8 33.
Rc8+ Bd8 34.Qc7 and mates next move.
1-0.
Albany Evening Journal, 1896.02.08
Appearances in the chess press became rarer for the Buffalo stenographer as his
professional obligations became more pronounced. Five years later, early in 1901,
however, there is record of Thornton participating
as team captain for his city against rival Rochester
in an eight board team match played by telegraph,
thus obviating the need for either team to travel
the sixty-some miles between cities through
Western New Yorks Snow Belt in January. The
Chicago Tribune on February 10, 1901 published
the short draw played at board one between team
captains Luce and Thornton, concluding the game
represented a species of Vienna draws. Lasker or
Pillsbury would now begin to try to find a win.
Theres lots of fight left. Why Thornton offered a
draw at this point is unclear, though the match did
finally concluded in a draw, 4-4. The game is
given here, for the record. Why the columnist for
The Chicago Tribune decided to include it, if only
a Vienna draw,is left to the conjecture of the
readers.
Luce,ND Thornton,GH Bd 1
D35/01 Queens Gambit Declined
1901.01.05 USA; Rochester, NY & Chicago, IL (telegraph)
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.e3 Nc6 5.a3 Be7 6.Nf3 0-0 7.Bd3 dxc4 8.
Bxc4 a6 9.h4 Nd5 10.Ne4 f5 11.Nc5 b5 12.Ba2 Bxc5 13.dxc5 h6 14.Nd4
Nxd4 15.Qxd4 Qf6 16.Bd2 Qxd4 17.exd4 Bd7 18.0-0-0 c6 -.
The Chicago Tribune, 1901.02.10
A fifty year old Thornton also played in the 1901 midsummer meeting of the same
association, once again held in Buffalo. Buffalo that summer was once more a
natural choice, as the cool Lake Erie breezes and the presence of the Pan American
Exposition of 1901 gave both players and their spouses added incentive to travel by
train to the western reaches of New York. Thornton did not disappoint this time,
winning the first class tournament with a score of 7-1. Indeed, the Buffalo
Morning Express for August 13, 1901, wrote with obvious hometown pride that
Thornton was probably the strongest player above the Bronx,and one who could
always be distinguished by the characteristic right hand twirl of a luxuriant mustache.
Two Thornton games from the nine round, 1901 first class tournament held in
Buffalo have survived, one of which is given below. The Buffalo Express for August
14, 1901, from which the score is taken, mentioned as well that Thornton was forced
to surrender the exchange, but obtained for it a strong combination of pawns well up
on the kingside which he forced into a beautiful win, in spite of all his opponent could
do. The game merits consideration by chessplayers.
Thornton,GH Dixon (2)
C50/03 Italian: Four Knights (Pianissimo)
1901 USA Buffalo, NY (First Class)
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.d3 Bc5 5.Nc3 0-0 6.Bg5 d6 7.Nd5 B g4 8.
c3 Na5 9.Nxf6+ gxf6 10.Bh6 Re8 11.Bb5 c6 12.Ba4 b5 13.Bc2 Bb6 14.
h3 Bd7 15.g4 Kh8 16.Qe2 Rg8 17.Nh4 f5 18.Nxf5 Bxf5 19.exf5 Qh4 20.
Bd2 f6 21.b4 Nb7 22.Qf3 h5 23.Ke2 d5 24.Qg3 Qxg3 25.fxg3 Nd6 26.
Kf3 Rae8 27.Rae1 Rg7 28.Re2 Bc7
29.gxh5 Nxf5 30.g4 e4+ 31.dxe4 Ng3 32.Rhe1 Nxe2 33.Rxe2 Rge7 34.
Bd3 dxe4+ 35.Rxe4 Be5 36.Re2 Rd8 37.Bf5 Rde8 38.h4 Bd6 39.Rxe7
Bxe7 40.g5 Rd8 41.Bf4 Rd5 42.Be4 Rd1 43.g6 f5 44.Be5+ Kg8 45.Bxf5
Rf1+ 46.Kg4 Rg1+ 47.Kh3 Bd8 48.h6 Rh1+ 49.Kg2 Rxh4 50.Be6+ Kf8
51.g7+ 1-0.
Buffalo Express, 1901.08.14
But time stands still for no one. Though every story in a sense does begin in the
middle, as the opening of this article suggests, for each of us, individually, the end is
very clear cut. Thornton continued his work as official stenographer to the Buffalo
courts until late in 1919, when, while working in Judge Browns courtroom in the city,
he was stricken by complications associated with heart disease. After an illness of
eleven weeks during which he did not leave his bed, he succumbed to heart failure at
his home early on the morning of January 30, 1920. He was buried a few days later
in Forest Lawn Cemetery in Buffalo, New York, last resting place of the Thirteenth
President of the United States, Millard Fillmore. From his obituary we also learn that
Thornton was survived by his wife and three grown daughters. A personal tragedy in
his life clearly was the death of his son, William L. Thornton, a physician, several
years before his own passing. No one wants to bury a child.
Buffalo had lost one of its distinguished citizens, and its chess community had lost
one of its founding fathers. Though George Howard Thornton hardly played chess
internationally, or even nationally, he remained throughout his life a valued member
of the Buffalo chess community, one who helped western New York chess flourish.
A solid club player, as we have seen, he could at times give a fight to the best of
players. In a sense every city has its George Thornton, and for their contributions to
chess on the local level, they deserve better than to be totally forgotten. And with
Thorntons passing, the Queen City had indeed, for a time, lost its King.
The author wishes to thank Nick Pope and Andy Ansel for their help with sources for this
article.
To Checkmate the Kaiser:
American Correspondence Chess at the Conclusion of the Great War
by John Hilbert
Chess players and their families are as patriotic as anyone else. Just because we
prefer to fight our battles within the confines of sixty-four squares doesnt mean we
forget the larger playing board of world history. The brilliant tactician, Albert
Whiting Fox, who played so well against the foreign contingent assembled at
Cambridge Springs 1904, defeating Janowski, Schlechter, Chigorin, Teichmann and
Lawrence in the process, learned of the death of his younger brother, Franklin Fox, a
soldier during the Great War. At the time Albert Fox was a special correspondent
with the Washington Post, as he had been since 1916 (personal communication to the
author by Isabel Fox, daughter of Albert Fox). Sergeant Benjamin H. Marshall, a
younger brother of Frank James Marshall, United States chess champion, was with
the Quartermasters Corps in Bordeaux in September 1918, two months before
Armistice (Brooklyn Daily Eagle, September 26, 1918). Even Newell W. Banks, of
Detroit, American checker champion and noted chess player, was reported to have
left recently for the front with the 310th Ammunition Train, Company C.
Though America avoided entry in the conflict until April 1917, when President
Wilson, in asking Congress to declare war on Germany, declared that the world must
be made safe for democracy,the response then was certain and swift. American
soldiers landed in France on June 24, 1917 under General John J. Pershing,
commander of the American Expeditionary Force. By July 4, 1917 Colonel Charles
E. Stanton, speaking at the tomb of Lafayette, French hero of the American
Revolutionary War, could announce with feeling, Lafayette, we are here. Into the
next year Americans both at home and abroad would become familiar, all too
familiar, with sites of fearsome carnage: Cantigny, Bouresche, Belleau Wood, and St.
Mihiel, to name but a few.
And obviously it wasnt just well-known chess players and their family members
who responded to the call to duty during World War I. Judge Isaac Franklin Russell
of Brooklyn may have held a record for his familys interconnectedness of chess and
the war effort. His oldest son, William M., had been drafted in the fifth class,as it
was called, and was sitting on the Local Advisory Board of District No. 62. William
was known in the city as a player and organizer. Franklin F., another son, who also
happened to be a Rhodes scholar, and was known too to be an avid fan of chess, was
in London serving with the Railway Transportation Corps. George, the judges third
son, arrived in Europe at the start of August as a soldier serving in the 315th Infantry.
And his youngest boy, Austin A., was in training school for electrical engineers.
Helms wrote in his August 15, 1918 column that the family clearly was doing their bit
in this crisis of the worlds history.
Members of the Ocean Hill Chess Club of Brooklyn, New York, would also be
written up in Hermann Helmss Brooklyn Daily Eagle column for August 29, 1918,
under the heading To Checkmate the Kasier. In addition to writing of the club
officers being elected, Helms noted that four of the members are at the front,
including George Sims, who has been with the Canadian forces for a year, and H.
Blanchard, J. J. Curtin and E. Taylor Jr., who left six months ago with the American
Expeditionary Forces as part of the 77th Division from Yaphank.
Yet here, across the water from the fighting, chess continued, though in somewhat
limited fashion. The Eagle for September 19, 1918 informed its readers that Frank
Marshall had faced seventeen opponents at the opening exhibition of Marshalls Chess
Divan. Though the champion won fourteen, he lost two, including one to forty-three-
year-old Harold M. Phillips, who thirty-three years later, and at the robust age of
seventy-seven, would be elected president of the United States Chess Federation. But
perhaps even more tantalizing for chess history readers of today is the remark by
Helms that a draw game was also scored by Abe Landis of Memphis, the originator of
Trench,the new war game. Apparently even the tragedy of war was not immune
from appropriation by gamesters of imaginative turn of mind.
For indeed, Americas position far from the center of conflict allowed her the luxury
of continuing the small pleasures of a free and peaceful nation in addition to assuming
her role in the war. Chess clubs did not close. And even postal chess continued to
flourish.
William P. Hickok of Mount Vernon, New York, was looking to retire from the
duties of secretary of the Correspondence Chess League of America. He had been
secretary of the older Greater New York League, and it was he who Helms reported
was largely instrumental in amalgamating that organization with the National
Association, the Correspondence Chess Bureau and the Canadian Branch of the
Amateur League. And J. Howard Longacre, a Philadelphia resident and also the new
tournament director of the CCLA, proudly announced early in September 1918 that
Pennsylvania had defeated New York 34 to 16 in a twenty-five board, two round
interstate postal match. The result was impressive, though the match itself was but a
pale reflection of the gargantuan, 254 board (!) match won by Pennsylvania against
the same neighbor to the north fourteen years earlier. Helmss column for September
5, 1918 included this postal effort by the new CCLA tournament director. In its own
small way the game was as hard fought as any fighting taking place.
Longacre,JH Stevens,P Corr.
C64/04 Spanish: Classical (Cordel)
1918
Preliminary Round, Class A, Leadership Group, Sixteenth Tournament,
CCLA
Annotations by J. Franklin Campbell
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Bc5 4.c3 f5 5.Bxc6 dxc6 6.Nxe5 Bd6 7.Qh5+
g6 8.Nxg6 Nf6 9.Qh4 Rg8 10.e5 Rxg6 11.exf6 Be6 12.d4 Qd7 13.Bg5 0-
0-0 14.Nd2 h6 15.Be3 f4 16.Bxf4 Rg4 17.Qxh6 Bxf4 18.Qh5 Bxd2+ 19.
Kxd2 Rxd4+
**
Whites position is destroyed, with his king about to be mated. How does he
survive...and even win this game?
20.Ke3 Rd2 21.f3 Qd3+?
**21...Re2+ leads to mate.
22.Kf4 Rxg2?
**22...Qc4+ also leads to mate.
23.Rae1 Qd2+ 24.Re3 Re2 25.Qe5 Re8 26.Qd4 Qxd4+ 27.cxd4 Rxb2
28.h4 Kd7 29.Rg1 Rf8 30.Rg6 Rh2 31.Rh6 Kd6 32.Kg3 Rh3+ 33.Kf2
Bc8 34.f7+ Kd7
**How depressing...Black used his last two moves to place his bishop on c8 and king
on d7 throwing away his advantage. Longacre does not allow this opportunity to
escape him! He quickly picks up a rook and then the game.
35.Kg2 Kd8 36.Rg6 Rxf3 37.Rxf3 Ke7 38.Rg8 Be6 39.Rxf8 Kxf8 40.
Kg3 Bxf7 41.a3 Kg7 42.Kf4 b5 43.Kg5 Bd5 44.Re3 Kf8 45.h5 a5 46.h6
1-0.
** Brooklyn Daily Eagle, 1918.09.05
The CCLA was not just handling its main business of correspondence chess
tournaments. On September 19, 1918 Helms announced that Jose R. Capablanca is
scheduled to make his second public appearance since his return from Havana, next
Saturday afternoon at 2 oclock, under the auspices of the Correspondence Chess
League of America. The Cuban champion on that occasion will be pitted against
forty opponents in the rooms of the National Tuberculosis Association, 381 Fourth
Ave., Manhattan, with which William P. Hickok, secretary of the league, is
associated. Z. Leslie Hoover, president of the league, will make the preliminary
remarks and introduce the young master to the audience, which, it is expected, will
include quite a number of women players. Among the other members of the
reception committee would be Stanley H. Chadwick, a prominent Brooklyn chess
player long associated with the Brooklyn Chess Club, which only a generation before
had been the home of the likes of Napier, Marshall, and Pillsbury.
Of course, the CCLA continued to sponsor a host of correspondence events. Here
is a game won by a Richmond, Virginia resident over a player from Tampa, Florida.
McClure,J Hernandez,N Corr.
C82/05 Spanish: Open (Motzko)
1918 Preliminary Round, Fifth National Championship, CCLA
Annotations by J. Franklin Campbell
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Nxe4 6.d4 b5 7.Bb3 d5 8.
dxe5 Be6 9.c3 Bc5 10.Qd3 Bb6 11.Be3 Nc5 12.Bxc5 Bxc5 13.Nbd2 Ne7
14.Nd4 Qd7 15.N2f3 c6 16.Bc2 Ng6 17.Nxe6 Qxe6 18.Nd4 Bxd4 19.
Qxd4 Ne7 20.f4 g6 21.Rf3 0-0 22.Raf1 f6 23.exf6 Rxf6 24.Re3 Qd6 25.
Re5 Raf8 26.b4 Qc7 27.g3 Nc8 28.Kg2 Qd7 29.f5 Qg7 30.g4 Nd6 31.
Kh1 gxf5 32.gxf5 Rg6 33.Rf4 Rg2
**With his next, White starts a nice little combination.
34.f6 Rxf6 35.Bxh7+ Kxh7 36.Rxf6 Ne4
**36...Qxf6 37.Rh5+ wins immediately.
37.Rxe4 dxe4 38.Qxe4+ Kh8 39.Qh4+ Kg8 40.Rf1 c5 41.Rd1 Rg4
**Now White follows the age-old custom of simplifying to an easy endgame win.
42.Qxg4 Qxg4 43.Rg1 Qxg1+ 44.Kxg1 1-0.
Though Nestor Hernandez lost the game above, he clearly played some very
interesting chess at other times. Two weeks later Helms would write the following:
When the fourth annual championship of the National Correspondence Chess
Association, now a part of the Correspondence Chess League of America, was
started, in 1917, the Muskogee Chess Club of Muskogee, Oklahoma, represented by
some players, made a unique offer of twenty-five dollars, to be divided as special
brilliancy prizes. Nestor Hernandez of Tampa, Florida, who is one of a quartet, with
Edward Lasker, playing in the final round, has submitted the following game, won
from D. R. Wyeth of Philadelphia, for consideration in the distribution of those
prizes. The win over Wyeth certainly places the melodiously named Nestor
Hernandez in a finer light:
Hernandez,N Wyeth,DR Corr.
C47/05 Four Knights: Scotch (Paulsen)
1917-1918 Fourth Annual Championship Tournament, NCCA
Annotations by Hermann Helms
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nxc6 bxc6 6.Nc3 Bb4 7.Qd4
Qe7 8.f3 d5 9.Bg5 c5 10.Bb5+ Kf8 11.Qd3 dxe4 12.fxe4 Bxc3+ 13.bxc3
Bb7 14.0-0 Qxe4 15.Qh3 Qg4 16.Qxg4 Nxg4 17.Rae1 Nf6 18.Rxf6
18...h6
**If 18...gxf6 19.Bh6+ Kg8 20.Re3, forcing checkmate.
19.Rc6 hxg5 20.Rxc7 Bd5 21.Rxa7 g6 22.Rxa8+ Bxa8 23.Re5 Kg7 24.
Rxc5 Rd8 25.Bd3 Rd5 26.Rxd5 Bxd5 27.a4 f5 28.a5 Kf6 29.Be2 Ke5
30.a6 Kd6 31.c4 Bc6 32.Bf3 g4 33.Bxc6 Kxc6 34.c5 1-0.
And so from Brooklyn, New York, to Muskogee, Oklahoma, Americans continued
their passion for correspondence chess. At only a penny a postcard, even family
members on the home front could enjoy a break from the terrible mayhem and
tragedy of war. And tragedy there was enough. In the brief time America was
actively fighting during World War I, from June 1917 through November 1918, over
130,000 Americans would die and another 200,000 would be wounded. Yet such
terrible figures are but a small portion of the crushing loss of life suffered in Europe
as a whole during that time. What a horrible pity that conflict cannot be confined to
the chessboard.
Simultaneously published at The Campbell Report
Capablanca in Cleveland:
Six Newly Discovered Simultaneous Exhibition Games
and the Process of Their Recovery
by John S. Hilbert
When a player of Jos Ral Capablancas stature and ability came to town for a
simultaneous exhibition, even early in his career, people took notice. At least,
sometimes people took notice. As interested as chess players were in such events, the
general population, as reflected in contemporary newspaper accounts, were less than
enthralled. Unless a newspaper at the scene of such an exhibition carried a local
chess column, there was a very good chance that even Capablancas simultaneous
exhibitions would go essentially uncovered, as have so many great exhibitions by
practitioners of the game. The hit or miss nature of such local reportage is, of course,
at times deeply discouraging for the researcher delving into chess history. At other
times, however, such explorations lead to quite pleasant surprises. This is the story of
one such historical research adventure.
A typical mixed bag of results concerns Capablancas trips to Cleveland, Ohio, in
the northeast corner of the state. Cleveland stretches along the southern shore of
Lake Erie, and follows along naturally in a progression from Buffalo, to Erie,
Pennsylvania, and then further west, first to Toledo and then later to Detroit, or,
depending on ones choice of direction, Chicago. Professional chess players
conducting tours and traveling by train from New York City to points west along the
northern routes of the nation found cities such as Cleveland natural stopping points,
good usually for at least one exhibition during the course of an extended tour.
Whether moving east or west, players traveling the northern parts of the nation often
found themselves stopping in Cleveland.
Such was the case for Capablanca, a player who engaged in a multitude of
simultaneous performances. According to Hooper and Brandreth (The Unknown
Capablanca, 2nd, Revised Edition, Dover Publications, 1993), Capablanca had
engaged in eight extensive tours of the United States alone before 1920. Hooper and
Brandreth have done chess historians and researchers a great favor by listing all
known simultaneous performances by Capablanca, along with date, location, wins,
losses, and draws, during his long and varied career. See The Unknown Capablanca,
pp. 180-194. While not pretending to be complete, the list provided by Hooper and
Brandreth provides a valuable starting point for in depth research by local historians
seeking to track down Capablancas movements and, indeed, his forgotten games. As
an example of what one might hope to find by taking the time to explore original
sources, I have followed through Capablancas trail to one city by the lake.
Thanks to Hooper and Brandreth, it can be reported with some certainty that
Capablanca visited Cleveland on at least ten separate occasions between 1909 and
1926. His path through the city can be seen at a glance from the chart that follows:
Capablancas Cleveland, Ohio,
Simultaneous Exhibitions:
Exhibition Date Results Known Games
January 20, 1909 +20-0=1 None
December 23,
1909
+25-1=2 None
March 16, 1915 +28-0=1 None
January 13, 1919 +45-0=3 None
February 4, 1922 +102-0=1 Wins: Stearns, Hamilton, Tarasov;
Draw: Anderson
December 12,
1922
+39-3=1 Wins: Stearns, Wolfe, Tozer;
Draw: Judson
May 22, 1926 +32-0=1 Win: Thomas
May 23, 1926 +20-0=0 None
December 11,
1926
+31-2=1 Wins: Spero (44 of 63 moves),
Augustus;
Losses: Hughes, Thomas;
December 13,
1926
+29-0=3 None
For the record, the twelve games and one partial game listed above are collected in
The Games of Jos Ral Capablanca by Rogelio Caparrs (Caissa Editions: Yorklyn,
Delaware 1991) and appear among the Informal Gamesunder numbers 374-377, 400-
403, 427, and 433-436. Unfortunately, instead of specific citations for sources,
Caparrs merely makes reference to research by others, such as Brandreth or Hooper,
or to Cleveland papers,a citation which provides no help in checking for accuracy,
for additional games, or associated information from specific chess columns. Review
of the second edition of the same book shows no additional games from Cleveland
simultaneous exhibitions have been added.
Thus, according to known sources, during his ten exhibitions in the city, in which
he played a total of 390 games, Capablanca won a phenomenal 371, while giving up
only 13 draws and 6 losses. His winning percentage stands at an incredible 96.54%.
Perhaps almost equally amazing, from a chess historians point of view, is that despite
six of the ten Cleveland exhibitions taking place during Capablancas reign as world
champion, and three of the four remaining exhibitions having taken place after he had
already established himself in this country, at least, as the strongest player around
(having defeated Frank Marshall, United States Champion, by the lopsided score of 8
wins, 1 loss, and 14 draws during their match played between April 19 and June 23,
1909), a mere thirteen of his Cleveland exhibition games, out of 390, have until now
been recovered.
Such a dismal record of recovered games, however, is in many ways not really that
surprising. Capablanca clearly did not meet significant opposition while playing his
exhibitions in Cleveland, except perhaps for his December 12, 1922, and December
11, 1926, displays. Those two exhibitions account for five of his six losses. His
winning percentage no doubt bespeaks, rather, many games that would not bear
publishing. And of course, the recovery of more games has its costs, both in time and
in money. Few would venture to travel to local sources, such as a distant city library,
merely in hopes of locating at most a few additional simultaneous exhibition games.
The cost would be prohibitive, especially for such a player as Capablanca, who
literally gave simultaneous displays in scores of cities around the world. Similarly,
few would wish to expend the time needed to arrange, and then view, numerous rolls
of newspaper microfilm, often available, if at all, only through a potentially lengthy
process of inter-library loan retrieval.
Such concerns, however, need not prevent those of us interested in chess history
from being prepared to take advantage of opportunities that do arise. In this case, as I
knew I was traveling to Cleveland for other business, I made it a point to gather the
references given in the chart above and to take the time to stop by the Cleveland
Public Librarys newly renovated building which houses, among other things, the
librarys extensive microfilm collection. All that was really needed was a little
forethought and a willingness to set aside some time for the project. I needed to
know when such exhibitions took place, as a wonderful work such as The Unknown
Capablanca provided. Equally important, and in order to avoid unnecessary
disappointment later, I needed to know what games had already been uncovered by
researchers following such trails before me. In this case, examination of works by
Rogelio Caparrs, Edward Winter, and others, resulted in my confirming as already
found the nine games noted in the chart above.
Armed with information concerning relevant dates and what games had already
been recovered, it was a relatively simple matter to set about examining microfilm in
Clevelands library. As it happens, of course, the Cleveland Public Library houses the
John G. White Collection, the largest collection of chess related books in the world.
As one might imagine, I often find myself seeking out reasons to travel to Cleveland
to visit that collection. It seemed only fitting that Cleveland, then, become the scene
of such an exercise in seeking forgotten games. But of course the same strategy
would apply for someone who, for example, routinely visits St. Louis as a medical
supply salesperson. Preparation and a little time are the only real requirements to
enjoy the search for forgotten chess games.
One other bit of information that I brought along with me to Cleveland turned out
to be an extremely helpful clue. In reading through the American Chess Bulletin for
February 1910 for another project, I happened to note the following brief comment, at
page 27: The Cleveland Leader in its issue of December 19, 1909, prints its first
weekly column devoted to chess and checkers, under the management of the
Cleveland Chess and Checker Club. From the report of the Capablanca visit we learn
that the latter won 25, lost one to C. W. Shauer and drew two with W. L. Greer and
H. O. Newcomb, respectively. Mr. Newcomb is the state champion at checkers of
Ohio. We cannot too strongly commend the enterprise of the Cleveland Club and
bespeak for its efforts satisfactory results. Hermann Helms and Hartwig Cassel, then
publishers of the Bulletin, were of course great boosters of chess, and more than
happy to include such small blurbs in the pages of their journal in order to encourage
others to cover local chess events. Their interest in promoting chess had for me, of
course, coming across it eighty-seven years later, the added benefit of alerting me to
the presence of a chess column beginning in Cleveland just at the time of the Cubans
second visit to that city.
What excited me even more, of course, and what in fact led to my seeking
coverage of Capablancas play in Cleveland in the first place, was the fact that my
review of historical sources had uncovered no games from Capablancas December
23, 1909, visit to the city, despite the fact that Helms and Cassel had inadvertently
given me clear evidence that a local newspaper chess column had begun a mere four
days before the simultaneous display. This fact, coupled with the propensity for local
chess columns to proudly give the winning, or even drawing, games played by local
players against national and international talent, gave me great hope to think that
examination of the Cleveland Leader for December 1909 and January 1910 might
well result in some forgotten Capablanca games.
This hunch, I happily report, proved correct. The Cleveland Leader did cover
Capablancas appearance in the city in December 1909, and not surprisingly provided
the one win and two draws achieved against him. In the Cleveland Leader for
December 26, 1909, the second chess column to appear in the paper described
Capablancas visit. Please note paragraphing from the paper has been changed here to
conserve space. The great chess expert, Capablanca,reported the Leader, has come
and gone. He came Thursday evening from Indianapolis, was met at the Union Depot
by two members of the chess club, was rushed up in an auto to the New England
Building, arriving at the rooms of the Athletic Club about 9 oclock. A host of chess
enthusiasts eagerly awaited his arrival, about twenty-eight of whom quickly seated
themselves at tables, previously arranged in a circle around the large banquet room of
the club. After a brief introduction by Dr. Durstine, who explained that Mr.
Capablanca would play simultaneously all comers, and that a prize was offered to any
who would draw or win a game from Capablanca, everything was in readiness.
Without further ceremony Capablanca quickly passed from one table to another, and
with scarcely a seconds pause at each, he deftly moved a piece on each chess board,
and thus the battle was on. The enthusiasm ran high as the many onlookers pressed
eagerly back of the contestants to watch the progress of the various games. The
interest increased with each succeeding round, and soon one after another of the
contestants went down to defeat before the invincible conqueror. C. W. Shauer was
the first to check the visitors string of victories. And then the column gave the game:
Capablanca,JR Shauer,CW Simul
C79/06 Spanish: Russian (Rubinstein)
1909.12.23 USA Cleveland, OH (Cleveland Athletic Club)
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 d6 6.Bxc6+ bxc6 7.d4 Bg4
8.dxe5 Nxe4 9.exd6 cxd6 10.Re1 d5 11.h3 Bh5 12.g4 Bg6 13.Nc3 f5 14.
Nd4 Qh4 15.Nxe4 fxe4 16.Nxc6 Qxh3 17.Qxd5 Qxg4+ 18.Kf1 Qh3+ 19.
Ke2 Qf3+ 20.Kd2 Qxf2+ 21.Re2 e3+ 22.Kd1
22...Bxc2+ 23.Kxc2 Qxe2+ 24.Kb1 Qg4 25.Bxe3 Qg6+ 26.Kc1 Rc8 27.
Qe5+ Kd7 28.Qd5+ Bd6 29.Kd2 Rxc6 30.Rf1 Qc2+ 31.Ke1 Qb1+ 32.
Ke2 Qxb2+ 33.Ke1 Qb1+ 34.Ke2 Rc2+ 35.Kd3 Rc1+ 0-1.
Cleveland Leader, 1909.12.26
Not long after Shauers win, two other players drew their games in what is known
as perpetual check. These were Mr. W. L. Greer, of the chess club, and Mr.
Newcomb, the state checker champion. Shortly after 12 oclock all games were
ended, Capablanca winning 25, drawing 2 and losing 1. The names of all twenty-
eight players who participated in the exhibition were then given. The Leaders
January 2, 1910, column gave not only H. O. Newcombs draw against Capablanca,
but also covered Newcombs match victory whereby he defended his Ohio checkers
championship, including two checkers games, one won by the champion. Thus
Newcomb may well have been the only player ever to face Capablanca, not lose, have
his game published, and in the same column have given his successful retention of a
state crown in another game!
Typographical errors in the game scores plagued the first columns of the Cleveland
Leaders new Chess and Checkerscolumn, and it was not until two weeks later that
the correct score of Newcombs draw, as well as the draw by W. L. Greer, were finally
given in understandable form to the public.
Capablanca,JR Newcomb,HO Simul
C62/01 Spanish: Steinitz
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 d6 4.0-0 Bd7 5.c3 Nf6 6.d3 g6 7.Bg5 Bg7 8.
Nbd2 h6 9.Bh4 g5 10.Bg3 Nh5 11.Bxc6 bxc6 12.Nc4 Nxg3 13.fxg3 0-0
14.Ne3 Rb8 15.b3 Qc8 16.Nd2 f5 17.exf5 Bxf5 18.Nxf5 Rxf5 19.Qe2 c5
20.Qe4 Rxf1+ 21.Rxf1 Qe6 22.Qc6 Rc8 23.Ne4
23...Rf8 24.Rxf8+ Bxf8 25.Qxc7 d5 26.Nxc5 Qg4 27.h3 Qxg3 28.Ne6
g4 29.hxg4 Qe1+ 30.Kh2 -.
Capablanca,JR Greer,WL Simul
C67/02 Spanish: Open Berlin
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nf6 4.0-0 Nxe4 5.d4 exd4 6.Re1 d5 7.Nxd4
Bd7 8.Bxc6 bxc6 9.f3 c5 10.Nb3 Bc6 11.fxe4 d4 12.Qg4 h5 13.Qg3 Bd6
14.Qxg7
14...Bxh2+ 15.Kxh2 Qh4+ 16.Kg1 Qxe1+ -.
I suspect the reason the next game was not found was because whoever looked in
the Cleveland Plain Dealer for games from Capablancas December 12, 1922,
exhibition stopped looking too soon. The scores of the four games previously
recovered from this event, those of the new world champions play against Stearns,
Wolfe, Tozer, and Judson, apparently were found in the December 17th, 24th, and
31st issues of the paper. But the game against Irving Spero, given below, did not
appear until the January 7, 1923, column. One reason whoever found the first four
games missed the fifth was, no doubt, because with the third column concerning the
exhibition, the chess column had published all three wins by the local players, as well
as the one draw (against thirty-nine victories for Capablanca). Local papers time and
again, and understandably, publish the games of local players who defeat the
exhibitor or who at least hold him to a draw. No doubt whoever was looking for
Capablanca games originally felt it unnecessary to examine the January 1923 roll of
Cleveland Plain Dealer microfilm, as all the games of local interestwere already
accounted for, and weeks had passed by since the December 12, 1922, exhibition had
taken place.
But the game that got awayfrom the previous researcher, so to speak, was also in
fact a game that got awayfrom the player who lost it. Irving Spero was then Ohio
Chess Champion, and at least according to his notes to the game, included below, he
had a won game against the world champion until he managed to blunder it away.
Thus, the game that got awaywas memorialized in the first column of the new year.
One may find some interesting insight into both Capablanca and Spero from reading
his comments surrounding the game.
Capablanca had himself stated, as reported in the Plain Dealer for December 17,
1922, that his 39 wins, 3 losses and 1 draw was the worst defeat in the last four years
of exhibition and match playhe had suffered. While the comment appears to have
been a slight exaggeration for local consumption, a review of the listing in The
Unknown Capablanca shows that on only one occasion, in Manchester on October
28, 1922, two months earlier, when he lost four games, had Capablanca suffered more
than three losses in such an exhibition since a visit to Chicago on December 4, 1915,
seven years earlier, when he had lost five games. Capablanca, while in Cleveland,
added that the wonderful reception accorded me and the keen competition the players
here evinced indicate a greatly quickened interest in the royal game since I played in
Cleveland last. The local report thus concluded that the three wins scored against
Capablanca bears out the conclusion that the city is developing chess talent of a high
order.
Capablanca,JR Spero,I Simul
D30/09 QGD: Vienna (Capablanca)
Annotations by Irving Spero
1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.c4 e6 4.Bg5 Nbd7 5.e3 c6 6.Nbd2 Bb4 7.a3 Bxd2+
8.Nxd2 0-0 9.Qc2 Re8 10.Be2 Nf8 11.f4 h6 12.Bh4 Ng6 13.Bf2 Qc7 14.
c5 Kh8 15.Bd3 Ne7 16.h3 Nf5 17.g4 Nxd4 18.exd4 Qxf4 19.Be2 e5 20.
Qd3 exd4 21.Bxd4 Nxg4 22.hxg4 Bxg4 23.0-0-0 Bxe2 24.Qc3 f6 25.
Rde1
At this point, believing my game better than the champions, I modestly proposed a
draw as the hour was late. Capablanca kept on playing.
25...Re6 26.Kb1 Rae8 27.Nb3
27...Bf3
Here I was sure of a win and the analysis may so indicate but single-handed (all the
other players having been dispatched) I was no match for the champion.
28.Ka2 Bxh1 29.Rxh1 Re2 30.Qh3 a6
A move of no significance, made only to gain time to comply with a request that I
play.
31.Rf1 Qg5 32.Rg1 Qf4 33.Rf1
Again I offered a draw which under other circumstances I would not have done but
I felt my game weakening.
33...Qg5 34.Bc3 R8e7 35.Nd4 R2e5 36.Nf5 Re3 37.Nxe3 Rxe3 38.Qc8+
Kh7 39.Bd2 Rxa3+ 40.Kxa3 Qxd2 41.Qf5+ Kh8 42.Ka2 Qb4 43.Kb1
a5 44.Qg6 a4 45.Rg1 Qe4+ 46.Qxe4 dxe4 47.Kc2 Kg8 48.Kc3 Kf7 49.
Kd4 f5 50.Ke3 g6 51.Ra1 h5 52.Rxa4 1-0.
A brilliant example of a won game turned into a disastrous defeat.
Cleveland Plain Dealer, 1923.01.07
The final two newly recovered games played by Capablanca during exhibitions in
Cleveland were also discovered in the Cleveland Plain Dealer chess column. Like
the game above, they were published the week after other exhibition games, ones
previously recovered by researchers, had been printed. In the first, G. A. Anderson,
of Akron, Ohio, won a ten dollar prize after Capablanca judged his effort had been
the second best game played in the thirty-four game exhibition. Anderson was noted
by the Plain Dealer to be the brother of another Cleveland chess player, Eric
Anderson, the Cleveland chess shark.
Capablanca,JR Anderson,GA Simul
D33/05 Tarrasch: Schlechter (Prague)
Annotations from the Cleveland Plain Dealer
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 c5 4.cxd5 exd5 5.g3 Nc6 6.Bg2 h6 7.0-0 Nf6 8.
Nc3 Be6 9.a3 Qd7 10.dxc5 Bxc5 11.b4 Be7 12.Bb2 a6 13.Na4 Rd8 14.
Rc1 0-0 15.Nc5 Bxc5 16.Rxc5 Ne4 17.Rc1 Bh3 18.Ne5 Nxe5 19.Bxe5
Bxg2 20.Kxg2 Rc8 21.Qd4 f6 22.Bf4 Qb5 23.Kf3 Rfe8 24.Rxc8 Rxc8
25.Rd1 Nc3 26.Rd2 Rc4 27.Qd3 d4 28.Kg2 Qd5+ 29.f3 Nb5
Looks as if 29...f5 would have won.
30.a4 Nc3 31.e3 Nxa4 32.exd4 Rxb4 33.Bxh6
If the bishop is taken White should at least draw by perpetual check.
33...Rb3 34.Qg6 Qf7 35.Qg4
35...Nc3
35...f5 would draw: 35...f5 36.Qg5 Kh7 37.Bxg7 Qxg7 and White must draw by
perpetual check.
36.d5 f5 37.Qc4 Nxd5
There is nothing better.
38.Rxd5
The only move, but sufficient.
38...Rb2+ 39.Kf1 Rb1+ 40.Kf2 Rb2+
Not 40...gxh6, due to 41. Qc8+
41.Ke1 Qe6+ 42.Kd1 Kh7
Not 42...gxh6 because of 43.Rd8+ Kf7 44.Rf8+ Ke7 45.Re8+. Nor; 42...Qxh6 due
to 43.Rd6+.
43.Bd2 b5 44.Qh4+ Kg8 45.Qd8+ Kh7 46.Qd7 Qxd7 47.Rxd7 b4 48.
Kc1 Rb3 49.f4 a5 50.Kc2 a4 51.Bc1 Rc3+ 52.Kb1 Rf3 53.Bb2 Rb3 54.
Kc2 1-0.
Anderson did not take down the concluding moves that spelled his defeat. After he
moves his rook White plays Rxg7+ and Ra7, which should win.

The final game recovered was another played by Elliott E. Stearns. Stearns had
lost to Capablanca in a Cleveland exhibition in February 1922, but later that year had
won a game against him in another. Both games, as noted in the chart above, have
been recovered and appear in the Caparrs book. His third try against the Cuban
genius, however, was not as successful as his second, nor has it been recovered, until
now. Stearns himself provided the notes that follow.
Capablanca,JR Stearns,EE Simul
D30/10 QGD: Vienna (Capablanca)
Annotations by Elliott E. Stearns
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 d5 4.Bg5 Nbd7 5.e3 c6 6.Nbd2 Be7 7.Bd3 dxc4
8.Nxc4 Nd5 9.Bxe7 Qxe7 10.0-0 0-0 11.Rc1 f5 12.Re1 N7f6 13.e4 fxe4
14.Bxe4 Nxe4 15.Rxe4 Nf6 16.Re1 Nd5 17.Qe2 Bd7 18.Nfe5 Rae8 19.
g3 Rf6 20.f4 Bc8 21.Nd2 Ref8 22.Ne4 Rf5 23.a3 a6 24.Rc2 Nf6 25.Ng5
Nd5 26.Ngf3 Qe8 27.Nh4 R5f6 28.Ng4 R6f7 29.Qd3 Nxf4 30.gxf4 Rxf4
31.h3
31...h5
31...Qh5 would have been much better: 31...Qh5 32.Qg3 [However, L. W. Brand,
the chess columns editor, noted the following: Stearns did not submit an analysis of
32.Ng2 Rf3 33.Re3, which seems to win for White.] 32...g5 33.Ng2 Rf3 34.Qe5
Qg6 35.Rf2 R3f5 36.Rxf5 exf5 37.Nf2 h5 and Black should win with three pawns
for the piece. The sacrifice would therefore appear to be sound and Black would
also seem to have drawing chances by playing 33...Rxd4 [in this variation].
32.Nh6+ 1-0.
Pleased as I was to find these games, and to offer them here, perhaps the most
important lesson for each of us to learn from this accounting is that much more exists
to be found concerning even the greatest of chess players, in terms of their activities,
statements, and games. It is impossible to speculate how many more such games
could be unearthed were interested readers who either visit or live in or near cities
around the United States, and elsewhere, willing to spend an afternoon examining the
local newspaper microfilm available in public libraries. All it really takes is a little
time and knowledge. Results can never be guaranteed, but when such games are
recovered, they offer a great deal of satisfaction for those who have made the effort to
find them.
1999 John S. Hilbert. All Rights Reserved.
A Trap for the Historian
by Tomasz Lissowski
Works about the history of chess are not perfect.
Of course, every careful reader can name exceptions, ones that thanks to the
erudition and literary talent of the author and the care of his investigation have led to
excellent results. Books entitled The complete games of...(use the name of any
famous chess master) contain more and more games, with a great majority of them
authenticated by careful research. On the contrary, large commercial databases often
contain spurious games such as those of Winawer playing a Benko Gambit.
The collecting of gamescores has been accelerated thanks to the rising popularity
of e-mail and the Internet; people from different continents, who have never seen
each other, can fruitfully collaborate by using this new tool of chess scholarship.
Nevertheless biographies of great past masters contain many white liesor even more
serious errors. An error, as experience teaches, once published, may wander from
one book to another.
As an example, I will use Johannes
Hermann Zukertort (1842-1888), first
official rival to Wilhelm Steinitz for the
World Chess Championship, to show the
mechanism that has perpetuated a
fictitious biography. The published life of
Zukertort has reached the pinnacle of a
mythic biography. What is the beginning
of Zukertorts legend? (to use Jimmy
Adamsterm from his excellent book
Johannes Zukertort, Artist of the
Chessboard). I would like to discuss one
of the oldest sources which was not cited
by Adams, and may be unknown to
Western readers, Jan Kleczynskis (1837-
1895) article Zukertorts match with
Steinitz, published February 27th, 1886,
in the Warsaw Tygodnik Ilustrowany (Illustrated Weekly). Kleczynski conducted the
first Polish chess column for nearly 30 years and was also a renowned music critic,
pianist and composer. I have added (T) and (F) to mark the true and false statements
regarding the genealogy and life of this great master.
When the score of the match was 4-3, in Zukertorts favor, Kleczynski wrote:
[...] Zukertorts play is extremely rapid and abounds with witty
conceptions; he knows the openings perfectly. Accordingly, our
compatriot has great chances. We emphasize the following words with
no lack of foundation. Germans make him a Prussian, born on the
coast of the Baltic sea, though his biography, which we obtained from
the best possible source, his family, tells us something else. Our
chessplayers grandfather was in fact an Englishman (F) and rather
foggy Albion may reckon his grandson as their own. His father, born
in Poland, was an Anglican clergyman (F) in Lublin, where Jan
Herman was born (T) in 1844 (F). Zukertorts mother, de domo
Krzyzanowska (F), was Polish, while the younger generation also
count themselves as our countrymen, as Zukertorts own sister, living
amongst us in Warsaw, Mrs. W., warmly assures us. Zukertorts father
stayed in Warsaw a short period, where he was lodged on Leszno
street in a missionary house(T). Afterwards he moved to Piotrkow
(T), where the future chessplayer took his first two classes (F). The
family then moved to Wroclaw (T), and there young Zukertort finished
gymnasium (T) and university as a doctor of medicine (F).
Subsequently he spent some time in Berlin (T), and London (T),
finally attending Cambridge University (F), where he obtained a
doctorate degree in philosophy and philology (F). A little known
detail from the life of our chessplayer is that for two years he was a
teacher of a young French nobleman (F) and afterwards worked as a
Standard newspaper correspondent. He was also a friend of young
Prince Lulu (F), going with him to Africa (F), where the two spent
time among the Zulus (F). Zukertort was also for a time an editor of
the Neue Berliner Schachzeitung (T) while currently he issues the
chess organ, the Chess Monthly (T). He also works as a secretary of a
chess club (F). The chessplayers parents are living, residing in Poznan
(T).
More than 10 misconceptions and Kleczynski insisted he had the best possible
source, his family. This is the trap which threatens a chess historian. Countless chess
biographies contain errors because writers believed articles which were based on
direct relations- our chess heroes themselves or their family members, friends,
advocates, etc.
In passing, a related error many writers of chess history commit should be
mentioned. That error is to ignore facts other than those reported in the daily press or
chess periodicals when seeking information on a chess players life.
Here is how Zukertorts legendaffected the writing of Edward Arlamowski (1909-
1979), Doctor of Law, who took part in several Polish Chess Championships and
International matches. Arlamowski found Kleczynskis article in a library. Believing
it was the best possible sourceand, not without pride, he contributed a long article to
the Polish chess periodical Szachy. Arlamowski wrote in Szachy, 1972, p172-175:
[...] Therefore, I believe, it was my duty to draw from historys
woodshed this sensational though forgotten article by Kleczynski,
which throws a strong light on the evidently Polish origin of the family
of our master. We can state Polish chess master J. H. Zukertort fought
in the first chess championship match [...] We can be proud [...]
A scrupulous critic can detect a note of national pride, if not slight nationalism, in
both writings; please be forgiving and take it as a sign of bygone times.
Three problems should be discussed respectively:
(1) Why do contemporary chess reports regarding Zukertort contain tales and
legendsinstead of facts? Was the master, backed by his family and friends, the
source of this misinformation? If yes, what was the reason? If not, what about
responsibility of the press?
(2) What does the true biography of Zukertort look like?
(3) Can chess historians draw any moral from this example?
At this time I will not answer questions (1) and (2). Regarding (3) I would like to
point out one important factor. Among those who are called chess historians (in
particular those who contribute historical chess works) only a few are professional
scholars. Among the chess historiansI know there are: an architect, a lawyer, an
electrician, an engineer, and an archivist. We (the author is no exception) are
deficient in a historians training. We investigate the history of chess and publish our
results because we love chess. Do we love history as well?
The conclusion I would like to present to chess biographers is this: Do not limit
the range of research to old chess columns and chess periodicals. We have to
look for confirmation of the factsin non-chess related literature and in the record
offices, or archives, of schools, universities, churches, cemeteries and hospitals. Even
fifty or one hundred years after the death of a chess hero, there remain chances
through such non-chess sources to learn the truth about his family and background.
Occasionally, if one is very lucky, hitherto unpublished photographs can be recovered
from such sources as well. Only then will the number of biographical errors and
white liesin chess literature be reduced.
Alexey, Brother of Alekhine
by Tomasz Lissowski
How does one find a new subject for historical research? What causes one problem
to seem more tempting than another? For me, what often works is what I call red
light. I read somewhere one or two sentences incompatible with my knowledge, or
with my outlook on life. It is then the red lightgoes on, and Im tempted to look more
closely at the discrepancy. Its a convenient starting point for further studies and
articles. Some months ago at the well known website, The Chess Cafe, one of my
favorites, I found published from the serial Grandmasters I Have Known an
interesting essay by Hans Kmoch entitled Alexander Alekhine. There, deep within
the essay, I found the following passage:
His [Alexanders -T.L.] brother, whom I met in Moscow during
the 1925 tournament, was murdered shortly afterwards in
connection with a love affair, according to newspaper reports
outside Russia. There was a great deal of tragedy in his family.
Red light! Kmoch was mistaken,I said to myself. Impossible! The true story had
to be different. And so began my search of a largely unknown brother. A review of
available Russian sources from the last hundred years revealed nothing. Then I
thought, But what are friends for?! I wrote Victor Charushin from Nizhny Novgorod
on the Volga, who has written a dozen chess books, including some known to
American readers, such as Chess Comet Charousek and Mitrofanovs Deflection,
asking him what he knew of Alexey, Alekhines brother. Soon I received a letter from
abroad and am now able to share the results of this Russian historians work, with
additions of my own and others. In his letter Victor wrote that:
Regarding Alexey Alekhine I would like to produce for you a
page from one of my booklets. I have several accounts of him. I
corresponded with the Kastorensky Regional Museum director, as
Alekhines family estate was located in this area. She [the director -
T.L.] sent me a few records on Alexanders youth, but, as I and
Shaburov [another Russian chess historian -T.L.] have deduced, in
reality she had in mind Alexey. By the way, Alexey studied at your
University [in Warsaw -T.L.] and there got married.
A short explanation might be in order for those less knowledgeable about the
complications of European Geopolitikin the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.
From 1795 until 1918 Poland was forcibly divided between three powerful neighbors:
Russia, Austria and Prussia. Central Poland, without Silesia (on the South-West) and
Pomerania (on the North), belonged to the Russian Empire and was known under the
name Kingdom of Poland. Warsaw was a residence for hundreds of Russian military
officers, policemen, teachers, officials, businessmen, and even clergymen. Victor
Charushin thinks Alexey Alekhine was, in modern standards, the first and only coach
of the future grandmaster. Alexey was older by four years, but the brothers
understood each other very well and were practically inseparable. They were taught
the basic rules of chess by their mother, Anisya Ivanovna, and for a long time lively,
almost endless, chess battles were fought in the family. The world champion recalled
later:
I have played chess since I was seven, though I was not more
seriously attracted to the game until I was twelve. [...]
Due to my young age I could not visit chess clubs, and therefore
more ardently I participated in correspondence tournaments. This is
why I had to sacrifice a lot of time to chess analysis, including
sometimes during my lessons in gymnasium. Naturally, I could not
use a chess board, so I used to draw certain chess positions on a
piece of paper and I continued analyzing in my mind. Soon I
developed the talent of managing without a board.
Charushin also wrote that:
Since 1902 Alexey Alekhine took part in correspondence
tournaments run by the journal Shakhmatnoye Obozrenye. The
brothers passionately analyzed Alexeys games, and soon the
younger brother, Alexander, entered a correspondence event.
Alekhine,Alexey Antushev corr.
C78/06 Spanish: Archangelsk
1903.03.14-[?] Shakhmatnoye Obozrenye Tournament
Annotations by V. Charushin
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 b5 6.Bb3 Bc5
**
This variation, called neo-Archangelskis nowadays quite popular in top level
tournaments: for example 7.a4 Rb8 8.c3 d6 9.d4 Bb6 10.Na3 Bg4 11.axb5 axb5 12.
Nxb5 0-0; Svidler-Shirov, Linares 1998.
7.d3
**A modest continuation. In the game Parma-Velimirovic, Yugoslavia 1963, White
after 7.c3 0-0 8.d4 Bb6 9.dxe5 Nxe4 10.Bd5 gained an advantage. Therefore,
Kazakh GM Tkatchev, one of the neo-Archangelskbackers, after 7.c3, plays 7...d6
8.d4 Bb6, as in his game with GM Bologan, Tilburg 1994.
7...d6 8.Bg5?!
**Allowing a pawn attack on kingside.
8...h6 9.Bh4 g5!? 10.Bg3 Bg4 11.h3 Nh5?!
**Interesting piece sacrifice, which could, however, be rejected by White. Much
stronger was 11...Be6! followed with 12...Nh5 13.Bh2 Nf4 and a clear advantage.
12.Kh1!? Nxg3+ 13.fxg3 Bh5?
**Instead of retreating Black should continue his attack according to the classic
scheme: 13...h5! 14.hxg4 (perhaps 14.Nbd2 should be checked) 14...hxg4+ 15.Nh2
Qd7 16.Rxf7 (after 16.Bxf7+ Ke7 follows ...Rxh2+ winning) 16...0-0-0! 17.Rxd7
Rxh2+ and mate is inevitable.
14.Nxe5!!
**Surprising and nice. The queen is taboo. If 14...Bxd1?, then 15.Bxf7+:
A) 15...Ke7 16.Nxc6+ Kd7 17.Nxd8 Be2 (or 17...Bxc2 18.Ne6 [+-]) 18.Rf5 Raxd8
19.Nc3 and bishop is lost.
B) 15...Kf8 16.Bd5+ Kg7 (or 16...Ke8 17.Bxc6+ Ke7 18.Rf7+, etc.) 17.Rf7+ Kg8
18.Re7+ Kf8 19.Ng6#.
14...Nxe5 15.Qxh5
**The picture has rapidly changed. White has one pawn more and a powerful attack.
15...Rh7 16.c3 Bb6
**16...Nxd3? 17.Rxf7!
17.d4 Nc4 18.Nd2 d5
**18...Nxd2 19.Rxf7.
19.Nxc4 dxc4 20.Bc2 Qe7 21.e5! Rh8 22.e6! 0-0-0 23.Rxf7 Qd6 24.Qf3!
**Threatening mate at a8!
24...c6 25.Bf5 Rhe8?
**By 25...Kb8 Black could sustain resistance, for example 26.Rd7 Rxd7 27.exd7 Bc7
28.Re1 Rd8 29.Re8 Kb7 30.Re6! Qxd7 (useless is 30...Qxg3 31.Qxc6+ Kb8 32.
Kg1 Qh2+ 33.Kf1 Qh1+ 34.Ke2 Rd7 35.Be4 [+-]) 31.Rxc6 Qxc6 (what else?) 32.
Be4 Rd6 33.Bxc6 Rxc6 with some hope.
26.Rd7 Qb8 27.Qxc6+ Bc7 28.e7 1-0.
** Gamescore supplied by V. Charushin
Alexeys best result in correspondence chess was his victory in the Schweizerische
Schachzeitung tournament, scoring +16-0=8. One of his wins follows:
Alekhine,Alexey Duhm corr.
D00/01 Queen's Pawn: Stonewall (Gunsberg)
1908-1909 Schweizerische Schachzeitung Tournament
1.d4 d5 2.e3 e6 3.Bd3 Nf6 4.Nd2 c5 5.c3 Nc6 6.f4 cxd4 7.exd4 Bd6 8.
Nh3 0-0 9.0-0 Bd7 10.Qe2 a6 11.Nf3 b5 12.Ne5 g6 13.Ng5 Qe7 14.Rf3
Be8 15.Rh3 Kg7 16.Bd2 Nd8 17.Rf1 Rh8 18.f5 exf5 19.Bxf5 gxf5 20.
Rg3 Kf8 21.Rxf5 h6 22.Qe3 Qc7 23.Rxf6 Ke7 24.Rf5 f6 25.Ng4+ 1-0.
** Gamescore supplied by V. Charushin
Charushin continues:
Alexey, an active member of the Moscow chess circle, had some
fine efforts and was rewarded with advancement to the first category
a rare event in those days. Alexander, following in his brothers
footsteps, became a member of the Moscow circle in 1907. Alexey
edited the chess journal Shakhmatny Vyestnik from 1913 until 1916;
Alexander, at the time a renowned master, was a frequent
contributor. Their last performance together was in the All-Russian
Chess Olympiad in Moscow 1920, which in fact was the first Soviet
Chess Championship. Alexander easily won the master group while
Alexey was third in the tournament for amateurs.
Only a few games from both tournaments have been preserved. Later, the brothers
paths split. Alexander was lucky to meet Swiss born Annelise Regg, who then was
visiting in Russia. His connection with this significantly older woman, an activist in
the workersmovement, despite its accidental and unendurable nature, offered
Alexander a possibility to leave Russia. His doing so was in fact necessary for his
chess career to flourish. Alexey, according to Mr. Shaburovs research, did not reach
a high enough level as a player to be a participant of the very rare international chess
events in the Soviet Union or even in the countrys qualifying tournaments. Living in
Kharkov in the Ukraine, however, he often participated in local chess events, and was
a champion of Kharkov. He was also a notable organizer. He served as an Executive
Board member of the Soviet Chess Federation (called the USSR Chess Section) and
was Secretary of the Ukrainian Chess Federation. He gave numerous simultaneous
displays and lessons in chess circles. He was also an editor of the first Soviet chess
annual, Shakhmaty: Isbrannye partye y kombinatsye za 1926 god and of the book
Match na pervenstvo mira Alekhine-Capablanca, both published in Kharkov in the
years 1927 and 1928.
Alexanders links with his homeland were suddenly broken shortly after Capablanca
was defeated. Taking into consideration Alekhines social prominence and views, we
may guess he was not a warm enthusiast of the Moscow regime. With his permanent
address in Paris, wandering from one tournament to another, he plunged into chess
and had no care for politics, at least to the extent politics did not interfere in chess
world matters. For several years after he left Russia, Alekhine maintained neutral
relations with the Moscow authorities, and thus the leadership of Soviet Sports had no
reason (concocted or true) to classify him among the white Russians, otherwise
known as the mortal enemies of the Revolution. Matters changed, however, after
Alekhine returned from Buenos Aires, as A. Kotovs book Alexander Alekhine,
Moscow 1973, at page 140 makes clear. The new world champion was a honorary
guest at a meeting held by the emigrant Russian Club in Paris. There, in his speech,
according to the Russian emigrant press, he expressed his wish:
Let the myth of invincible Bolshevism be blown away, just as has
been the myth of an invincible Capablanca.
Moscows reaction was immediate. Nikolay Krylenko, the high level Party leader
and the president of the Soviet Chess Federation published an official memorandum,
in which he stated that:
After his speech in the Russian Club we have finished with
citizen Alekhine. He is our enemy and henceforth we shall treat him
solely as an enemy.
The Soviet chess press broke all contacts with the grandmaster. Newspapers in the
USSR published a letter signed by Alexey Alekhine with the following key paragraph:
I reject every anti-Soviet pronouncement, irrespective from whom
it originates, even if, as in this case, the speaker is my brother, let
alone anyone else. I am finished with Alexander Alekhine forever.
Cruel, destructive words, coming from one brother to another. But then, the times
were more than cruel. Only a person totally unaware of the realities of Soviet life
would offhandedly consider the last public utterance of Alexey Alekhine as a sign of
a weak character. Not long ago I read a very unfair opinion of Alexey: He lent his
name to Communist Party denunciations of his brother. Critics of Alexey Alekhine
ought to remember his fate was joined with a state where the so-called rule of law
was frequently, and repeatedly, enforced late at night by the rule of gun and knife.
For those who doubt this, I can only recommend a reading of Solzhenitsyns Gulag
Archipelago. In the Soviet Union of the twenties or thirties, simply having a family
member in the West could be (and often was) a reason to be condemned as a spy.
Equally damning was a foreign sounding name or even the reception of a single letter
from abroad.
This is why renouncing of a compromisedbrother was for Alexey the one and only
chance to avoid brutal and baseless repression, aimed against him, his family, and his
friends, both close and distant. I do not know of Alexey Alekhines subsequent life
until his premature death in 1939 (not shortly after 1925 in connection with a love
affair, as suggested by Kmoch), but I suspect many of his nights were sleepless and
anxious, while a phantom of a younger brother - the merciless enemyof Soviet power
- haunted him until the last minute of his life.
Tomasz Lissowski 1999
The Chess Cafeis a trademark of Russell Enterprises, Inc.
LETTER FROM THE LODZ GHETTO:
A Tribute to Dawid Daniuszewski
by Tomasz Lissowski
Though little known, Dawid Daniuszewskis biography and chess achievements are
deserving of remembrance. Daniuszewski (1885?-1944?), who spent most of his life
in Lodz (located in central Poland), was a practical player weaker than both
Rubinstein and Tartakower. He was, to be perfectly frank, weaker than a number of
forgotten Polish players such as Przepiorka, Regedzinski, Paulin Frydman, and
Makarczyk, whose best years were in the first decades of the twentieth century. I
believe it important to recall that Daniuszewski had the best score against Alekhine
among Polish players (1-). He participated in the first individual Chess Olympiad
in Paris 1925, and played in a number of Polish team, and individual, championships.
It would be interesting to research the part of his life spent in the Soviet Union
(1915-1921), where he played in what was the first de facto Soviet Chess
Championship held in Moscow in 1920. A tournament won by Alekhine with a score
of 12 out of 15, with Romanowski finishing second, a point behind. Daniuszewski
finished ninth, scoring 7-8.
Daniuszewski also compiled two chess books. The first, a great rarity nowadays,
was entitled The First Almanac of the Lodz Society of Chess Playing Amateurs (Lodz
1907, in Russian, co-author: A. Mund). Over thirty years later, Daniuszewskis
second and final book appeared, The Jubilee Book of the Lodz Society of Chess
Playing Amateurs (Lodz 1938). He edited a chess column in a Lodz newspaper and
contributed to Polish and Russian chess magazines, the latter until 1915.
Originally I had hoped to locate people who in their youth were familiar with
Daniuszewski, ones who had met him at the chessboard. That hope proved
impossible as Makarczyk, Wroblewski, and Gadalinski, to name just a few, had
already passed away. They were too modest or perhaps too introverted (a feature
very popular among chess players, and the bane of their biographers) to write down
their memoirs, detailing names, events, facts and impressions. And they were not
lucky enough to meet an inquisitive chronicler, one capable of asking the right
questions to help preserve such eyewitness accounts of chess history.
Recently, by chance, an unusual item came into my hands. During a phone
conversation with Zygmunt Lokuciewski, an older Lodz chess player who was born
in Vilnius during the twenties, I happened to mention Daniuszewskis name.
Lokuciewski said: Well, personally I can say little about him, but I think there is
something in my book collection. I will write you.
I soon received a letter, in which my correspondent wrote as follows:
Please find enclosed a copy of one page. You will find on it a
game D. Daniuszewski - Dr. S. Szapiro, played in the Lodz ghetto
on February 9, 1944. The page had been inserted on the last, blank
page of a chess annual, seemingly from 1937. My discovering it
was purely by accident. I have no more evidence concerning D.
Daniuszewski.
With regards,____________
Z. Lokuciewski
Here is the page sent to me by Zygmunt Lokuciewski:

At the top appear descriptions to several positions. The first, according to
Kasparian (Domination in 2545 Endgame Studies, Moscow 1974, page 13) is a study
by E. Post from 1939.
White wins: 1.Nc7 Bh1 2.
Kg1! B~ 3.f6+ K~ 4.e6
and wins.
Manuscript
(Courtesy of Zygmunt
Lokuciewski)
Daniuszewski,D Gelenstern,J [?]
(Position)
1941.09.14 POL Litzmannstadt (Ghetto)
1...f4? 2.Re6! fxg3? 3.
Rg6+ Kh8 4.Rh6+ Kg7
5.Rh7# 1-0.
Manuscript
Lokuciewski)
The next position was taken from Richters column in the German contemporary,
the Neue Illustrierte Zeitung.
Lundin Richter,K
(Position)
1941 Europa - Turnier
Black to move.
Manuscript
Lokuciewski)
Leepin Mross
(Position)
1...Nxe3!
Manuscript
Lokuciewski)
The gamescore, with annotations written in Polish, is at the bottom.
Daniuszewski,D Szapiro,S
C17/06 French: Advance Winawer (Bogolubov)
1944.02.09 POL Litzmannstadt (Ghetto)
Annotations by Dawid Daniuszewski
1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e5 c5 5.Bd2 cxd4 6.Nb5 Bc5 7.Nf3 Qb6 8.
b4 Be7 9.a3 Nc6 10.Bf4 a5 11.bxa5 Rxa5?
**11...Qxa5.
12.Rb1 Qd8 13.Rb3 Bc5 14.Bd3 Nge7 15.0-0 h6
**15...0-0? 16.Bxh7!
16.Nd6+ Bxd6 17.exd6 Ng8?
**17...Ng6.
18.Bb5 Bd7 19.Nxd4 Nf6 20.Rg3
**Winning the queen by 20.Bxc6 bxc6 21.Nxc6 Bxc6 22.Rb8 is too costly.
20...Kf8 21.Bxc6 bxc6 22.Be5 Ra4 23.Qa1 Ne8?
**
Even without this mistake Blacks position remains difficult.
24.Bxg7+ Nxg7 25.Nxe6+!
**Weak is 25.Rxg7? for then 25...Qf6! but not 25...Kxg7? because of 26.Nxe6+!
25...Bxe6 26.Qxg7+ Ke8 27.Qxh8+ Kd7 28.Qxh6 Kxd6 29.Rb1 Qa5 30.
Qf8+ 1-0.
** Manuscript
(Courtesy of Zygmunt Lokuciewski)
After playing over Dawid Daniuszewskis last games I started to wonder if I should
publish them. The Second World War was finished more than half a century ago.
Perhaps enough of martyrdom? Perhaps it would be better to leave such matters in
silence? I posed such questions to one of my friends, and received a reply which I
direct to the readers attention, as it helped me form my opinion:
My own view is that such historical matters in chess are
invaluable. [...]
I think the games and the story surrounding them are a very
important matter. The struggle to preserve culture, to continue with
the matters of the mind that make us truly human, and not mere
animals, in the face of the Nazi beast strikes me as true courage.
Just the act of writing down the scores suggests an effort to preserve
something valuable in the face of such utter horror and destruction
that is ennobling, in itself. I, for one, would be proud to play over
the game scores, if you care to share them. I think they would make
a valuable human interest story. [...]
You may be holding in your hands one of the last cultural artifacts
ever to emerge from among that suffering group of humanity. The
recording of those games was an act of affirmation of life, of what
makes life good and beautiful, in my estimation. Sure, the games
themselves might not be great chess, but that is not the point. They
are candles lighting the darkness, if only for a moment, if only in a
small way - and as such, I believe, entitled to more consideration
than merely the merits of the play itself.
I could hardly express it more profoundly. Let us preserve in our memory Dawid
Daniuszewski, who, as a man and chess player, was formed in Lodz, on the
borderline of Polish, Jewish, Russian and German culture, and whose life was
tragically cut short during the extermination of those in the Lodz ghetto.
Footnote
Lodz: A city in central Poland, and a large center of commerce and textile industry, referred
to in the nineteenth century as the Polish Manchester. Before 1939 Lodz had less than one
million inhabitants, with a large share (approximately 30% each) of Germanic and Jewish
people. In 1940 Lodz (later renamed Litzmannstadt) and Poznan, along with the surrounding
area, were joined directly to the German Reich as Wartheland. Numerous Polish inhabitants
were deported to the so-called General Government in Warsaw, Cracow, Lublin, etc. Jewish
inhabitants were enclosed in a selected part of each city (ghetto) where a huge forced labor
camp was organized in which only one in a thousand survived. The details and precise date
of Dawid Daniuszewskis death, as well as thousands of others, remains unknown.
Errata (Added 1999.05.10)
Mr. Lokuciewskis surname is ZYGMUNT, not Zbigniew. I wrote in a hurry. Could you
correct it? Sorry and thanks. T. L. [No Problem - N. P.]
Unknown Games of Mikhail Tal
by Tomasz Lissowski
Although Riga, the capital of Lettland (Latvia), lies only three hours flight from
Warsaw, Mikhail Tal, the Wizard from Riga,was seen only three times in Poland by
the local lovers of chess. Two major reasons may explain this absence. The first was
the lack of great tournaments with prizes in hardcurrency held in Poland. The second
involved the rules governing the Soviet Chess Federation. That organizations leaders
had in their hands a powerful tool to exert pressure on chessplayers, i.e. the power to
give permission (but more often not to give!) for a trip abroad.
The first time Tal visited Poland was in February 1966. His initial display, a
simultaneous exhibition against the best Warsaw team of players under 20 years old,
was not difficult. The champion allowed only one draw (to Jerzy Lewi) in eight
games. The draw could be considered a grandmaster achievement by his young
opponent, in those days fully unknown outside Poland.
Tal,M Lewi,J Simul
(Position)
1966.02.05 POL Warsaw (Youth Exhibition)
**White is hopelessly lost, but for one moment of lapsed concentration which proved
crucial.
1...Kg7? 2.Rg8+!! -.
**Mad rook. 2...Kxg8 stalemate or 2...K-any 3.Rxg6 Kxg6 stalemate.
Szachy, 1966, p92
Note: Jerzy Lewi, born in 1949, was extremely gifted although he never realized his
countries hopes. In 1969 he was both the junior champion and adult champion of Poland.
After the zonal tournament in Athens he refused to return to Poland and finally settled down
in Sweden. Lewi tragically died in 1972 in Lund, under circumstances not quite clear.
Tals second display was an eight board clock simultaneous (40 moves in 2 hours)
against a strong Warsaw team. The event was witnessed by hundreds of chess fans
and was held in a modern student hostel called Riviera. Tal, who played all his
games with white, faced five masters: Andrzej Adamski, Jan Adamski, Romuals
Grabczewski, Wladyslaw Schinzel and Stefan Witkowski; two candidate masters:
Rafal Marszalek and Feliks Przysuski; and one player of the first class: Marek
Kwiecinski.
The single player was in excellent form and gave up only three draws to his
opponents. The gamescores printed below have been hitherto unpublished. Scores
for three of them were kindly made available to me by the mathematician and avid
chess player Stefan Wronicz, who for decades has recorded a private chess chronicle
of results and gamescores from important and lesser known chess events.
Tal,M Schinzel,W Simul
D50/01
Queens Gambit Declined: Semi-Pillsbury (Been-
Koomen)
1966.02.06 POL Warsaw (Clock Simul)
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 d5 4.Bg5 c5 5.e3 cxd4 6.exd4 Be7 7.Nf3 Ne4 8.
Bxe7 Qxe7 9.Bd3 Nxc3 10.bxc3 dxc4 11.Bxc4 0-0 12.0-0 Nd7 13.Re1
Nf6 14.Qd3 Rd8 15.Ne5 Bd7 16.Bb3 Rac8 17.Re3 Be8 18.Rae1 b5 19.
Rh3 Qa3 20.Ng4 Nxg4 21.Qxh7+ Kf8 22.Qh8+ Ke7 23.Qxg7 Nf6 24.
Rh6 Rd6 25.Rxf6 Kd8 26.Qg3 a5 27.d5 a4 28.dxe6 axb3 29.exf7 1-0.
** Wronicz manuscript, p9
Tal,M Przysuski,F Simul
A86/02 Dutch: Fianchetto
1.Nf3 f5 2.g3 Nf6 3.Bg2 d6 4.d4 c6 5.c4 Qc7 6.d5 g6 7.0-0 Bg7 8.Nc3 0-
0 9.Nd4 c5 10.Nc2 Nbd7 11.Bg5 Ne5 12.b3 Nf7 13.Bd2 a6 14.Rb1 Bd7
15.a4 Rab8 16.e4 fxe4 17.Nxe4 Bf5 18.Nxf6+ Bxf6 19.Rc1 Qd7 20.Ne3
Bh3 21.Bxh3 Qxh3 22.Qg4 Qxg4 23.Nxg4 Bd4 24.Bc3 h5 25.Ne3 Ne5
26.Bxd4 Nf3+ 27.Kg2 Nxd4 28.Rb1 b5 29.axb5 axb5 30.b4 cxb4 31.
Rxb4 bxc4 32.Rxc4 Nf5 33.Re4 Rb7 34.Re1 Rb2 -.
Tal,M Adamski,A Simul
B27/03 Sicilian: Hungarian (Pterodactyl)
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 g6 3.d4 Bg7 4.Nc3 Nc6 5.Be3 Qa5 6.d5 Ne5 7.Nd2 d6 8.
Be2 Nh6 9.h3 f5 10.f4 Nd7 11.e5 dxe5 12.Nc4 Qd8 13.fxe5 0-0 14.Qd2
f4 15.Bxf4 Nf5 16.0-0 Nd4 17.a4 Nb6 18.Nxb6 Qxb6 19.Bc4 Qxb2 20.
d6+ e6 21.Bh6 Qxc2 22.Qxc2 Nxc2 23.Bxg7 Rxf1+ 24.Rxf1 Ne3 25.
Bh6 Nxf1 26.Kxf1 a6 27.a5 Bd7 28.Ne4 Kf7 29.Ng5+ 1-0.
Tal,M Witkowski,S Simul
B04/08 Alekhine: Modern (Alburt)
1.e4 Nf6 2.e5 Nd5 3.d4 d6 4.Nf3 g6 5.Ng5 c6 6.c4 Nc7 7.f4 dxe5 8.fxe5
Bg7 9.c5 h6 10.Nf3 Bg4 11.Bc4 Be6 12.Bxe6 Nxe6 13.Nc3 Na6 14.0-0
Nac7 15.Be3 Nd5 16.Nxd5 Qxd5 17.Qc1 0-0 18.Kh1 Kh7 19.Qc2 Rad8
20.h4 Nc7 21.h5 Qe6 22.Qe4 f5 23.Qh4 Nd5 24.Bf4 gxh5 25.Qxh5 Nxf4
26.Qh2 Qg6 27.Qxf4 Qg4 28.Nh2 Qxf4 29.Rxf4 e6 30.Nf1 Rd7 31.Rc1
Rfd8 32.Rc4 Bf8 33.g4 fxg4 34.Ng3 Be7 35.Rxg4 Rg8 36.Rxg8 Kxg8
37.Kg2 Bg5 38.Kf3 Rg7 39.Ne4 h5 40.Rc2 Be7 -.
** Original scoresheet of IM Stefan Witkowski
Tal was mostly troubled by Jan Adamski, who played the Modern Benoni Defense
(1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 e6, etc.). The single player had been spending the majority of
his time near this board in order to calculate the complex variations. Tal at the press
conference said Adamski had chosen the best strategy, he played on the whole board
and forced me to control - in my calculations - every and all fields of the chessboard.
Here I offer to the reader a short remembrance, previously unpublished, by IM
Romuald Grabczewski, ex-champion of Poland and Olympic team player:
After Tals simultaneous display organizers resolved to show him
something extraordinary. Escorted by a numerous group of officials and
chess masters, Tal was lead to the luxurious Kongresowarestaurant in
the Palace of Culture and Science- a huge sky-scraper located at the
center of the city which was built in the mid-1950s by Soviet workers
and engineers in a style analogous to the monumental buildings in
Moscow. Kongresowawas probably also the single place in Warsaw,
and one of the very few in Poland, where in 1966 striptease shows were
performed.
Tal was attracted neither by the table full of food and drink, nor by the
performersskill. After a moment he cast a searching glance at me.
You played against me today, didnt you?asked Tal.
I confirmed hesitantly.
Are you a chess master? O. K., well leave here. Lets go and talk about
chess a little.
We took a taxi to the MDMhotel, where Tal had a room. Mikhail
was extremely talkative and spirited while I was a rather passive
listener. From his suitcase he extracted pieces and a board, along with a
bottle of Russian cognac. We drank using glasses found in the
bathroom, glasses ordinarily reserved for cleaning teeth. In those days
hotel room mini-bars in socialist countries were unheard of.
It was an unforgettable experience. I, a modest chess master, for
hours was entertained by the world champion, who without interruption,
related his performances, showing from memory curious games and
combinations, demonstrating long and entertaining variations, counter-
variations, ideas and refutations, telling stories and anecdotes. I
remember he showed me several games from the Capablanca Memorial
in Cuba and from his candidates match with Lajos Portisch. From the
latter, one game especially was memorable where he had sacrificed
merelya rook (with questionable correctness). Portisch had blundered in
the time trouble allowing Tal to deliver a final blow.
At three oclock in the morning I mentioned that he soon had to
travel to Cracow. Perhaps you can rest a little,I said. Tal agreed and I
marched home along Warsaws empty streets. My head was reeling and I
did not know if it was an outcome of Tals cognac or from the
innumerable impressions I had collected during that extraordinary
evening.
Tired, Grabczewski went home, but other enthusiasts did not allow Tal to sleep that
night. Slightly weakened from lack of sleep, the next day after a two hour flight from
Warsaw to Cracow, Tal started his next simultaneous exhibition. This one with
clocks, against the junior squad from Cracow. Out of eight games he won five, drew
one (with Zbigniew Weglowski) and two lost:
Tal,M Jedrzejek,Cz Simul
D47/10 Semi-Slav: Meran
1966.02.07 POL Cracow (Clock Simul)
Annotations by Czeslaw Jedrzejek
1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.e3 e6 5.Nf3 Nbd7 6.Bd3 dxc4 7.Bxc4 b5 8.
Bb3
**Chosen incidentally by White to avoid the main lines after 8.Bd3; but Black can
easily equalize.
8...b4 9.Ne2 Bd6
**In the game Petrosjan-Nezhmetdinov (1959) 9...Bb7 10.0-0 Bd6 11.Nf4 0-0 12.
Ng5 Qe7 13.Bd2 a5 14.Re1 c5! with good position for Black.
10.0-0 0-0 11.Nf4
**11.Ng3 is hardly better.
11...c5 12.Re1 Bb7 13.e4
**A mistake. White should first prepare for e3-e4 or his position will be inferior.
13...cxd4
**Not good was 13...Bxe4 14.Ng5 Bd5 15.Nfxe6 fxe6 16.Nxe6 Qe7 (16...Bxe6 17.
Rxe6) 17.dxc5. After 13...Nxe4 14.d5 the pawn lost is compensated by a certain
initiative.
14.Qxd4 Bc5 15.Qd3 Ng4 16.Nh3 Qb6 17.Be3
**Not 17.Qxd7 Rad8 18.Qa4 Bc6 and the queen is trapped; nor 17.Rf1 Ba6 18.Bc4
Ne5 and Black wins.
17...Bxe3 18.fxe3 Nc5 19.Qe2 Nxe4
**Black won a pawn with better position.
20.Nd4 Ngf6 21.Rad1 Rad8 22.Bc2 e5 23.Nf5 g6 24.Ng3 Ba6
**The winning move, after 25.Bd3 follows 25...Rxd3 26.Rxd3 Nxg3 27.hxg3 e4, and
after 25.Qf3 Nd2 26.Qf2 Ng4 the white queen is lost.
25.Rxd8 Bxe2 26.Rxf8+ Kxf8 27.Rxe2 Nxg3 28.hxg3 Ng4 29.Bb3 Nxe3
30.Kh1 Qc6 31.Ng1 Qc1 32.Rf2 f5 33.g4 Qe1 34.Re2 Qh4+ 35.Nh3
Nxg2 0-1.
Tal,M Klaput,E Simul
A25/04 English: Closed Sicilian (Carls)
1966.02.07 POL Cracow (Clock Simul)
Annotations by Edward Klaput
1.c4 e5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.g3 f5 4.Bg2 Nf6 5.e3 d6 6.Nge2 g6 7.d4 e4 8.0-0
Bg7 9.f3 exf3 10.Bxf3 0-0 11.Nf4 Kh8 12.b3 g5 13.Nfd5 Ne7 14.Nxf6
Bxf6 15.Bb2 Ng6 16.Qd2 c6 17.Rae1 Qc7 18.Bg2 Qg7 19.Re2 Bd7
**19...Be6? 20.d5!
20.Ref2 Rae8 21.Bh3
**A strategically excellent move (21...g4 22.Bg2 followed by e3-e4!), but tactically
wrong.
21...f4 22.Bxd7 fxe3 23.Bxe8 exd2 24.Bxg6 Qxg6
**24...Bxd4 was good too.
25.Rxd2 Kg8
**Not good was 25...Bxd4+ 26.Rxd4 Rxf1+ 27.Kf1 Qf6+ 28.Kg2 Qxd4 for 29.Nd1.
Now White is in zugzwang (? - T.L.), ...Bxd4 is threatened, and White hardly can
find a defense.
26.Kg2 Bxd4
**The capture of the pawn is not important, the entrance of the bishop on g1-a7
diagonal is the decisive factor.
27.Re1
**No better is 27.Rxf8+ Kxf8 28.Rxd4 Qc2+ 29.Kg1 Qxb2 nor 27.Rxd4 Rxf1+ 28.
Kxf1 Qxf6 and Qxd4.
27...Qf5 28.Ne4
**No rescue.
28...Qf3+ 29.Kh3 Bxb2 30.Rxb2 Rf4 0-1.
**Sparkling and best. It threatens ...Rh4 mate, and if 31.Ng5, then 31...Qg4+ 32.Kg2
Qxg5.
Szachy, 1966, p120
Mikhail Tals visit to Poland in 1966 lasted from February 3 to February 12. He
visited Poland only twice more. During the summer of 1970 he gave a simultaneous
display in the powerful Society of Polish-Soviet Friendshipheadquarters. This
exhibition was again witnessed by a large crowd of chess lovers. I was among them.
In 1974 he played in and won an international event held in Lublin, 1.Tal, 12 (of
15); 2.Pribyl, 9; 3.Suba, 8; etc. Gamescores from this last named event can be
found in many chess databases.
Chess is a scientific game and its literature ought to be
placed on the basis of the strictest truthfulness, which is the foundation of all scientific research. W._Steinitz
Adolf Albin: The Teacher of Nimzovich?
by Tomasz Lissowski
Wanted,declares renowned chess historian Edward Winter in his latest essay for The Chess Cafewebsite. This
time he does not call for condemnation of inaccurate or poorly written chess books and articles, but rather
recommends a list of chess history books which deserve English translation as well as suggesting other subjects still
awaiting an author. Winter writes, and I am truly of the same opinion, that Labourdonnais, de Vre, Gunsberg,
Harrwitz, Winawer, and Breyer deserve separate monographs. The list could, of course, be prolonged,says Winter.
My intention here is to offer an additional candidate for Winters list.
Adolf Albin participated in major European tournaments for more than ten years.
He also visited the New World, taking part in tournaments in New York City and
Buffalo, as well as playing matches with Albert Hodges, Eugene Delmar, and Jackson
Showalter. Albins best tournament result may well have been his second place finish
at New York 1893, where he trailed well behind an irresistible Emanuel Lasker (13-
0!!), but ahead of the likes of Showalter, Delmar, Pillsbury, and Pollock. Albin began
participating in serious chess events relatively late in life, and in fact never recovered
the ground his delayed start in the game cost him. Although he seldom finished a
tournament in the top half of the cross table, in single encounters he was a dangerous
and wily opponent for anyone, including the very best.
Tarrasch wrote of the following game in his Dreihundert Schachpartien, Leipzig 1895, that I carelessly played a
little known line from Bilguer. My opponent, instead of making the weak reply according to theory, immediately
found a much better one and reached an advantageous position. Thus I lost a game due to my good memory and the
bad one of my opponent!
Albin,A Tarrasch,S (4)
1892.07.20 GER Dresden (Seventh German Chess Association Congress)
Annotations by Tomasz Lissowski, Siegbert Tarrasch & the BCM
1.e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.c3 Nf6 5.d4 exd4 6.cxd4 Bb4+ 7.Bd2 Nxe4
Tarrasch: Usually 7...Bxd2+ is played. I adopted the text move many times in Nrnberg and not without success.
8.Bxb4 Nxb4 9.Bxf7+ Kxf7 10.Qb3+ d5 11.Ne5+ Kf6
Tarrasch: A move, proposed by Vitzthum, and recommended by Max Lange, and called correct by Bilguer,
which, along with the next two moves, creates the main idea of Blacks defense.
Lissowski: Lionel Kieseritzky in his match against Buckle, Paris 1848, invariably played 11...Ke7.
12.Qxb4 c5 13.Qa4 Qe8 14.Qd1!

Tarrasch: This move secures a positional advantage for White in all variations. So-called theoretical analyses
only considers here the exchange of queens, when Black has a good game.
14...Ng5 15.f4 Ne6 16.Nc3 g6 17.Nxd5+ Kg7 18.0-0 cxd4 19.f5 Nf4 20. f6+ Kf8 21.Ne7 Qb5 22.
Rxf4 Qxe5 23.Qxd4 Qxd4+ 24.Rxd4 Be6 25.Rd6 Kf7 26.Re1 Bxa2 27.Nd5 Rhd8 28.Re7+ Kf8 29.
Rxd8+ Rxd8 30.Nc3 Bf7 31. Rxb7 a6 32. Ra7 Rd2 33.Ne4 Rxb2 34.Ra8+ Be8 35.Nd6 1-0.
BCM: And Black resigns, for if 35...Re2; 36.f7, etc. Herr Albin was warmly congratulated after his victory.
British Chess Magazine, 1892, p361
Albin,A Steinitz,W (10)
C64/06 Spanish: Classical
1896.07.30 GER Nrnberg
Annotation by Ludek Pachman
1. e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Bc5 4.c3 Nf6 5.d4 exd4 6.e5 Ne4 7.cxd4 Bb4+ 8. Kf1 Qe7 9.Qc2 f5 10.
h4 Ba5 11.a3 Bb6 12.Be3 0-0 13.Bc4+ Kh8 14.h5 Qe8 15.Qe2 Ne7 16.Nc3 d6 17.Bf4 Bd7 18.Re1
Bc6 19.Rh2 Rd8 20.g3 d5 21. Bd3 Kg8 22.Kg2 Bd7 23.Bc2 Be6 24.Rd1 h6 25.Qe3 Kh7 26.Ba4
Qf7 27.Ne2 c5 28.b4 cxb4 29.axb4 Rc8 30.Ne1 Rc4 31.f3 Rxb4 32.Bc2 Rc8 33.g4 Rb2 34.Qc1
Ra2 35.Qb1 Raxc2 36.Nxc2 Nc3 37.Nxc3 Rxc3 38.g5 hxg5 39.Bxg5 Nc6 40.Qb2 Rc4 41.f4 Qc7 42.
Kh1 Ba5 43.Ne3 Rb4 44.Qg2 Qf7 45.Rg1 Rxd4
46.Bf6! Rd3
46...gxf6 47.h6 Rxf4 48.Qg7+ Qxg7 49.hxg7+ Kg8 50.Rh8+ and mate in two.
47.Qxg7+ Qxg7 48.Rxg7+ Kh6 49.Rxb7 1-0.
Revista Romana de Sah, 1948, p311-313
Adolf Albin added some innovations to openings theory. Yet, paradoxically, a line invented by another player,
whose name is now unknown to the chess world, bears Albins name, while his name is omitted from the line he
really invented.
Albin,A Csank,A (8)
C13/06 French: Classical (Albin)
1890.[01] AUT Wien (Kolisch Memorial Tournament)
1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 Be7 5.e5 Nfd7 6.h4
Adolf Albin introduced it ..., Hooper & Whyld, The Oxford Companion to Chess.
And often called the Alekhine-Chatard attack. -[Pope]
6...Bxg5 7.hxg5 Qxg5 8.Nf3 Qe7 9.Nb5 Nf8 10.c3 Na6 11.Bd3 Bd7 12.Qe2 Bc6 13.Na3 Nb8 14.
Nc2 Bd7 15.Qe3 Nc6 16.Ng5 h6 17.f4 Rg8 18.Nf3 0-0-0 19.b4 Rh8 20.a4 Rg8 21.a5 Nb8 22.b5
Qe8 23.Rb1 Qe7 24.c4 c6 25.b6 a6 26.c5 Re8 27.Nb4 Kd8 28.Qe2 Bc8 29.g4 Ng6 30.Qh2 f5 31.
gxf5 exf5 32.Rg1 Nf8 33.Kd2 Qf7 34.Qh4+ Re7 35.Rg2 Ne6 36.Rbg1 Ke8 37.Rg6 Ng5 38.fxg5
Qxg6 39.gxh6 Qh7 40.Qh5+ Kf8 41.Rg6 gxh6 42.Rf6+ Rf7 43.Rxh6 Qg7 44.e6 Rf6 45. Rh7 Qg2+
46.Kc3 Bxe6 47.Rxb7 Nd7 48.Rc7 Bf7 49.Rc8+ Ke7 50.Nxc6+ Rxc6 51. Qh4+ Rf6 52.Qe1+ Re6
53.Qh4+ Rf6 54.b7 Qxf3 55.Qe1+ Re6 56.Qh4+ Rf6 57.Rxg8 Bxg8 58.c6 Qe3 59.cxd7 Qc1+ 60.
Bc2 Qa3+ 61.Kd2 Qb4+ 62.Kd1 Qd6 63.Bxf5 Be6 64.Qh8 Rf8 65.Qg7+ Bf7 66.Qg5+ Qf6 67.Qe3
+ Be6 68. Qf4 Qxf5 69.d8Q+ Rxd8 70.Qc7+ Bd7 71.Qxd8+ Kxd8 72.b8Q+ Ke7 73.Qb4+ Kf7 74.
Qb7 Qd3+ 75.Ke1 Qb5 76.Qc7 Ke8 77.Kf2 Qc6 78.Qe5+ Qe6 79.Qb8+ Kf7 80.Qc7 Qc6 81.Qa7
Kg6 82.Ke3 Qc1+ 83.Kf3 Qf1+ 84.Ke3 Qe1+ 85.Kf3 Qe4+ 86.Kf2 Qf4+ 87.Kg1 Qg3+ 88.Kh1
Bf5 89.Qg7+ -.
Vienna 1890, W. Goldman 1983, p89-90
Lasker,Em Albin,A (12)
D08/04 Queens Gambit: Albin
1893.10.16 USA New York, NY (Impromptu Tournament)
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5
Provocative reply to the Queens Gambit introduced by Cavallotti (after whom is sometimes named) in a game
against Salvioli at the Milan tournament 1881. The counter-gambit was reintroduced in the game Lasker - Albin,
Hooper & Whyld, The Oxford Companion to Chess.
3.dxe5 d4 4.Nf3 Nc6 5.a3 Bg4 6.h3 Bxf3 7.gxf3 Nxe5 8.f4 Nc6 9.Bg2 Qd7 10.b4 a6 11.Bb2 Rd8 12.
Nd2 Nge7 13.Nb3 Nf5 14.Qd3 Be7 15.Be4 Nd6 16.Nc5 Qc8 17. Bf3 0-0 18.Rg1 Ne8 19.Nb3 Qd7
20.0-0-0 Qd6 21.Kb1 Qxf4 22.Rg4 Qh6 23. Bxc6 bxc6 24.Rxd4 Rd6 25.c5 Re6 26.Qxa6 Qxh3 27.
R4d3 Qg2 28.Nd4 Rf6 29. Re3 Bd8 30.Nc2 Rxf2 31.Rxd8 1-0.
Emanuel Lasker, A.Khalifman, Sofia 1998, vol.1, p149-150
Adolf Albin was born on September 14, 1848, in Bucharest, the future capitol of Romania. His forefathers,
however, (and here I quote the article from Revista Romana de Sah, 1948, p311) sprang from Hamburg and settled
down in Zhitomir [now the Ukraine] in the nineteenth century, but later moved to Romania. Albin authored the first
chess book written in Romanian, Amiculu Jocului de Schach, in 1872. I have seen a copy of this work, a great rarity
nowadays, in Kornik Castle near Poznan, where the chess book collection of von der Lasa is housed.
(Click on image for larger view)
Now I would like to suggest an idea, namely, that the Bucharest-born master, Albin, was one of the forefathers of
hypermodernism. Hypermodernism, of course, would later flower during the nineteen twenties, with its major
exponents being Tartakover, Rti and especially Nimzovich.
Might Albin have effectively been one of Nimzovichs teachers? I would not argue that Albins games and writings
were the sole study of Nimzovich, but they may have given the younger man a serious impulse for future analysis
and thought, resulting, finally, in his crowning achievements: Die Blockade and Mein System. Consider the
following game.
Janowski,DM Albin,A (10)
B00/01 Irregular Kings Pawn: Owen
1896.10.17 HUN Budapest
Annotations by John C. Owen
1.d4 b6
Hypermodern chess in 1896? Not quite. Albins aims were much the same: to allow White a free hand in the
center - with the invitation to overreach - while he developed on the flanks and prepared a counter attack. But in
1896 the hypermodern terrain was all brush and thickets, without the following decades of theoretical research
and years of data-base accumulation to illuminate the paths. Albin wanted Janowski to lose his way.
2.e4 Bb7 3.Bd3 e6 4.Be3 Nf6 5.Nd2 c5 6.c3 Nc6 7.a3 Qc7 8.f4 h5 9. h3 g5 10.Ne2 g4 11.hxg4
Nxg4 12.Bg1 Ne7 13.Nf3 f5 14.e5 c4 15.Bc2 Ng6 16.d5! Bc5
16...Bxd5 17.Bxf5!
17.d6 Qc6 18.Qd2 h4 19.Rh3 Bxg1 20.Nexg1 Qc5 21.Nd4 0-0-0 22.0-0-0 Rdf8 23.Ngf3 Be4 24.
Ng5 Bd5 25.Rf1 Kb8 26.Bd1 Be4 27.Nxe4 fxe4 28.Bxg4 Nxe5 29.Be2 Nd3+ 30.Bxd3 cxd3 31.Re1
Qd5 32. Kb1 b5 33.Rhh1 a5 34.Qf2 a4 35.Qe3 Rhg8 36.Rxh4 Rxg2 37.Rh7 e5 38.Qh3 Qxd6 39.
Rxd7 Qg6 40.f5 Qg3 41.Qxg3 Rxg3 42.Nxb5 Rxf5 43.Rxe4 Rg2 44.Rd8+ Kb7 45.Nd6+ Kc7 46.
Nxf5 Kxd8 47.Rxe5 1-0.
Budapest 1896 International Chess Tournament, John C. Owen, p128
Albin wanted Janowski to lose his way? Of course! In Albins games we can observe pawn structures, the right
understanding of which, as many have presumed, were supposedly the private preserve of Nimzovich.
Janowski,DM Albin,A (21)
A85/10 Dutch: Queens Knight
1895.09.02 GBR Hastings
1.d4 f5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e3 Nf6 5.Bd3 O-O 6.Nf3 d6 7.Qb3 c5 8.O-O Nc6 9.Rd1 Bxc3 10.bxc3
Qe7 11.Qc2 e5!? 12.Bxf5 e4 13.Bxc8 exf3 14.Bh3 Ne4 15.g3 Rad8 16.Rb1 b6 17.Bf1 Rde8 18.Bd3
Qd7 19.Kh1 Qh3 20.Bf1Qh5 21.h3 Ng5 22.Kh2 Re4 23.Qa4
23...Nxh3! 24.Qxc6 Nxf2+ 25.Kg1 Nh3+ 26.Bxh3 Qxh3 27.Rb2 Qxg3+ 28.Kf1 Rh4 0-1.
Revista Romana de Sah, 1948, p339
Albin,A Marshall,FJ (1)
A06/05 Rti: Zukertort
1902.02.05 MON Monte Carlo
Annotations from the Deutsche Schachzeitung.
1.Nf3 d5 2.e3 c5 3.b3 Nc6 4.Bb2 Bg4 5.Be2 Nf6 6.h3 Bxf3 7.gxf3 d4 8.Bb5 e5 9. Bxc6 bxc6 10.
Qe2 Qd5 11.Na3 Bd6 12.e4 Qe6 13.Qa6 Be7 14.0-0-0 0-0 15.Rdg1 Nh5 16.h4 Nf4 17.Kb1 Rab8
18.d3 Rb6 19.Qxa7 Rfb8 20.Nc4 R6b7 21.Qa5 Rb4 22.a3 R4b5 23.Qd2 Kh8 24.Ka2 Bd8 25.Bc1
Bc7 26.h5 Qc8 27.Qd1 Ne6 28.h6 g6 29.Bg5 Nxg5 30.Rxg5 f6 31.Rgg1 Qa6 32.Kb2 Ba5 33. Kc1
Bc3 34.f4! Rf8
34...exf4 35.Qg4 g5 36.e5!
35.Qg4 exf4 36.Qxf4 Qb7 37. Qd6 Qb8 38.Qxb8 Rbxb8 39.f4 Kg8 40.f5 Kf7 41.fxg6 hxg6 42.h7
Kg7 43. Nd6 Ra8 44.a4 Rh8 45.Rg2 g5 46.e5 fxe5 47.Rxg5+ Kf6 48.Ne4+ Ke6 49. Rg6+ Ke7 50.
Nxc3 dxc3 51.Rxc6 (...), 1-0.
Deutsche Schachzeitung, 1902, p44-45
And here, dear reader, is the score of a game played by the teacherand pupilwe have mentioned, easily won by
the latter.
Nimzovich,A Albin,A
B02/05 Alekhine: Brooklyn
1905 AUT Wien
Annotations by Tomasz Lissowski
1.e4 Nf6
Everybody knows that Alekhine did not invent Alekhines Defense.
2.e5 Ng8
Too provacative.
3.d4 d5 4.Bd3 e6 5.Ne2 Nc6?! 6.c3 Nge7
Nimzovichs favorite line, the Advanced French, but with two extra moves for White!
7.Bg5 Qd7 8.Nd2 Ng6 9.0-0 Be7 10.f4 Qd8 11.Nf3 h6 12.Bxe7 Ncxe7 13.Qd2 c6 14.Ng3 h5 15.f5
exf5 16.Ng5 f4 17.Rxf4 Nxf4 18.Qxf4 Be6 19.Rf1 Qb6 20.Nf5 Nxf5 21.Bxf5 Qc7 22.Bxe6 fxe6 23.
Nxe6 Qe7 24.Qf5 Kd7 25.Nf8+ Kc7 26.Ng6 Qe8 27.Nxh8 Qxh8 28.Qe6 Kb6 29.Qe7 Qh6 30.Qc5
+ Ka6 31.b4 b5 32.h3 h4 33.Kh1 Qe6 34.Rf7 Qh6 35.a4 Qe6 36.a5 Qe8 37.Rxa7+ Rxa7 38.Qb6#
1-0.
Aron Nimzowitsch: A Reappraisal, Raymond Keene, 1974, p93
Well, even if you reject the suggestion the title of this article makes, that Adolf Albin might well be considered the
teacher of Nimzovich, Albins life and work as the first Romanian-born chess master, could well be interesting for
many fans of chess history. And last, but not least, a biography of Albin is ready, or nearly ready. Only some
corrections and, perhaps, a friendly editor, are needed. For some months I have corresponded with Dr. Sc. David
Bersadschi, currently living in Tel Aviv, Israel, and who previously was a citizen of Jassy in Romania. Once David
wrote me: Regarding Albin. For years I collected all his works - except the theatre piece played in Nuremberg - and
the majority of his games. Chess master as a playwright? There are so many questions. What was the source of
Albins income if, during his years playing chess, he never won a significant prize? Where and how did he die?
Evidently David Bersadschis book could answer those and many others exciting questions. Will it find an editor
soon?
History of the Early Irish Championships
by David McAlister
The 1865 Dublin Congress
The Irish Chess Association
The Hibernian Chess Association
The Irish Chess Union
The 1865 Dublin Congress
One of the very earliest international chess tournaments held in Ireland took place
in the autumn of 1865 in Dublin. It was a five man event won by Wilhelm Steinitz,
later to become the first official World Champion.
There is a reasonable body of evidence that a subsidiary tournament was held for
the Irish Championship. When discussing the 1913 match between Porterfield Rynd
and J. J. OHanlon the Saturday Herald commented:
It was in the year 1865, at a Chess Congress held in Dublin, graced by
the presence of Herr Lowenthal, Herr Steinitz, Rev G. A. MacDonnell,
Mr Bolt of Dawlish, and many of our home talents such as Rev Dr
Salmon, Messrs George Frith, Sam Barry, Edward Cronhelm, Edmund
(afterwards Sir Edmund) Bewley, Malcolm (afterwards Sir Malcolm)
Inglis, Robert Collins, Richard Sidney, Thomas Long, and Peter Jones
that the Irish championship was first competed for, and it was then won
by the present holder [Porterfield Rynd] with the score of 16 out of 17.
In the intervening 48 years what changes have occurred! All the
distinguished men just mentioned have disappeared. New men have
taken their places. All the openings, all the methods of problem
construction, all the principles, all the art, in fact, of chess will be found
to have undergone evolutionary, if not revolutionary, modification. And
yet the winner of that day is expected to be able to make a fight still
against the ablest of the moderns in Ireland for the chess championship
of the green isle.
In the obituary of Porterfield Rynd in the Belfast Newsletter of 22nd March 1917 it
mentions that Until recently Mr Rynd conducted a bright and interesting chess
column in the Saturday Herald.
So it is quite likely that the passage quoted was the personal testimony of Rynd
himself. There is other evidence. In his book A Century of British Chess (1934) P.
W. Sergeant states that Porterfield Rynd was reckoned amateur champion Of Ireland
for about forty years previous to his defeat by J. J. OHanlon in 1913.
The 1913 Belfast Newletter report of OHanlons win stated that Rynd had held the
title for over 40 years. A similar statement is made in the Irish Times obituary of
Porterfield Rynd. The Irish Times, reporting the 1892 Hibernian Chess Association
Congress, lists all the previous chess congresses in Ireland up to that date and the
number of entries for the 1865 Dublin Congress is given as 20. Finally, the section
on the Irish Championships in Chess, the Records (1986) by Ken Whyld states that A
championship in 1865 was run alongside a master tournament and the winners name
has been given as J. A. Porterfield Rynd, but he was supposedly born in 1855!
Chess Personalia, A Biobibliography (1987) by Jeremy Gaige also lists Rynds year
of birth as 1855. This would suggest that Rynd would have been too young to win
such a tournament. However these records are incorrect Rynd was either 18 or 19 at
the time of the Dublin congress. The proof of his real age appears in his death notice
in the Irish Times for the 19th March 1917. It reads:
RYND - March 17, 1917 JAMES ALEXANDER PORTERFIELD
RYND, Barrister-at-Law, in his 71st year.
The Irish Chess Association
The Irish Chess Association was founded in the spring of 1885 and held its first
annual meeting in Dublin from the 3rd to the 17th October 1885. It is reported in the
Irish Times that the opening night was in the rooms of St. Patricks Chess Club at
Byrnes Restaurant, Nassau Street.
The President, Mr T. Long, BA, occupied the chair, and there was a
large attendance of members, among whom were Mr W. W. Mackeson,
QC, of London and W. H. K. Pollock, of Bath. In an able speech Mr
Long pointed out the many advantages of the organisation and said that
England had its chess association, Scotland had its chess association, and
why should not Ireland have its chess association? The healthy and
intellectual pastime should be encouraged and played north, south, east
and west, in every county and in every town. He warmly thanked the
promoters of the association, and said that much credit was due to them,
particularly to Mr P. Rynd and Mr T. B. Rowland, who were foremost in
their exertions to make the meeting a success.
There were two individual tournaments: the Principal Tournament, open to all
members of the ICA, and the Handicap Tournament (play at odds) again open to all
members. In addition there was a club tourney, and various problem and endgame
competitions.
1885 ICA Principal Tournament
Pol. Ryn. Mur. Pea. Mac. Nic. _ Score Place
W. H. K. Pollock

10 11 11 11 11 9 1
J. A. P. Rynd 01

1 11 11 11 8 2
J. Murphy 00 0

01 11 11 5 3
A. S. Peake 00 00 10

01 11 4 4
W. W. Mackeson 00 00 00 10

11 3 5
W. Nichols 00 00 00 00 00

0 6
In her book, Pollock Memories, Mrs F. F. Rowland, the wife of T. B. Rowland,
states that In 1885 he [Pollock] also played in the Master Tournament of the Irish
Chess Association, coming out first with 9 points, thereby winning the Irish
Championship.
The question that arises from this is whether or not Pollock should be regarded as
the Irish national champion. William Henry Krause Pollock was born in Cheltenham
but was of Irish ancestry. He had been a medical student at Trinity College, Dublin
and was a member of Dublin Chess Club in 1880, 1881 and 1882 while pursuing his
studies. By the time of the 1885 congress he was no longer resident in Ireland.
Whether his background was such that he could justifiably claim to be Irish is perhaps
a moot point, but this is perhaps unimportant in that it would appear that the
promoters of the tournament may not have considered that they were organising a
national championship.
The following year the Irish Chess Association held its congress in Belfast from
20th September to 1st October. The first intimation of this in Belfast chess circles was
an article prepared by members of the Belfast Chess Club and appearing on the 18th
March 1886 in both the Belfast Newsletter and the Northern Whig newspapers. It
stated:
We understand that the Irish Chess Association has been invited to
Belfast for its annual autumn meeting. As a visit from the association
would undoubtedly give a great stimulus to the game in Belfast and the
Northern counties, we hope the Council [of the ICA] may see their way
to accept the invitation.
Due to the imminent arrival of the congress, a weekly chess column was provided
by the Belfast Chess Club for both newspapers, the one in the Belfast Newsletter
continuing for a period of 70 years before being discontinued. The column of the
22nd April confirmed that the ICA had accepted the invitation to Belfast. There
followed an account of how and why the Association had come into being:
Previous to the spring of last year no organisation existed representative
of Irish Chess collectively. There were chess clubs no doubt, the Dublin,
the Richmond, and the University in Dublin, the Belfast and the Salvio
in Belfast, others probably in the smaller towns, but between these
various clubs there was no connecting link, no central organisation drew
them together. To remedy this, the Irish Chess Association was founded
last spring. Already its invigorating influence is felt, most strongly,
perhaps in Dublin, to which hitherto its operations have been confined,
and to a not inconsiderable extent elsewhere. By the constitution of the
Association it is to hold annual meetings alternately in Dublin and some
provincial town. Of these meetings the first was held in Dublin last
October, and proved successful, even beyond the expectation of its
promoters.
However behind the scenes all was not quite so rosy. T. B. Rowland had resigned
from his post of Honorary Secretary and Treasurer of the Association to be replaced
by Alfred Peake, who had competed in the 1885 tournament. That this may not have
been a trivial matter can be seen by the statement in the Chess Players Annual and
Club Directory 1891 edited by Mr and Mrs Rowland that After the resignation of Mr
Rowland and other resignations that followed, the association was not worked on its
original lines, and eventually became a thing of nought.
Porterfield Rynd had also taken up residence in London, where he had joined the
famous City of London Chess Club, and so the two main progenitors of the
Association were not involved in its second annual congress.
If there had been any doubt about who could be described as the Irish champion
after the 1885 tournament, the programme for the 1886 event made it quite clear.
There were to be two tournaments, an even tournament and a handicap tournament
and the Championship of Ireland for the year will be won by the Irish resident who in
the even tournament scores highest.
The 1886 tournament was much stronger that the inaugural congress because
Pollock was joined by two formidable English masters Joseph Blackburne and Amos
Burn. It was expected that the winner would come from these three players but it was
something of a surprise that Pollock triumphed with a full score in what was
undoubtedly the finest achievement of his career. The International Chess Magazine
for November 1886 records that The highest Irish scorer in the Tourney is Mr R. W.
Barnett who thus becomes Irish champion, a post hitherto held by Mr P. Rynd who,
however, is now resident in London.
Barnett, later Sir Richard Barnett, had been the president of the victorious Oxford
team in the 1886 Varsity match with Cambridge. After the First World War he
became a Conservative MP and was president of the House of Commons Chess
Circle and played against Capablanca in the latters famous simultaneous exhibition in
the Houses of Parliament in 1919. Barnetts obituary in the Belfast Newsletter for
18th October 1930 said this about his sporting achievements:
From his boyhood days he took a keen interest in markmanship, and at
the age of 15 he was the Irish rifle champion. He was one of the twelve
representatives of the UK at the Olympic Games of 1908, and finished
fourth, winning the Diploma of Merit for shooting at 1000 yards. Just as
in markmanship so in chess, Sir Richard Barnett distinguished himself in
his early boyhood, achieving the remarkable record of being champion
chess player of Ulster at the age of twelve, and of Ireland from 1886 to
1889.
It is intriguing that the International Chess Magazine should suggest that Barnett
had succeeded Rynd as Irish chess champion. If the rules of the 1886 championship
had applied to the 1885 tournament then Rynd as the highest placed Irish resident
would have taken the title of Irish champion. However this may not be the reason
that Rynd was regarded as the champion before Barnett. Instead there is the
possibility that Rynd had been the holder of the title of Irish chess champion since the
1865 tournament and that the 1885 ICA event did not affect his status because it was
not regarded as determining the national championship.
The ICA did not hold a congress in the 1887/88 season but it hoped to make up for
this by holding two congresses the following season in Limerick and Dublin. In the
end there was only one congress in the 1888/89 season. It commenced on the 4th
March 1889 at the Coffee Palace Hall, Townsend Street, Dublin. The date had been
chosen in the hope of attracting a number of English based masters looking for
competitive practice before setting sail for the United States for the imminent Sixth
American Chess Congress. This resulted in three master strength players entering;
two of the masters who competed in the 1886 event, Pollock and Burn, were joined
by the Irish born James Mason. Unfortunately a number of strong Irish amateurs did
not compete. As well as the main tournament there was also to be a Handicap event
and the championship of Ireland was to go to the highest scorer among those players
competing in the Handicap not accepting odds. The Masters Tournament was won by
Burn.
The Handicap Tournament, originally planned to take place alongside the Masters
event, was postponed and only started about a month later and ended towards the end
of May. There were 32 competitors, divided into qualifying pools of eight from
which the first two qualified making a final consisting of 8 players. There were ten
players playing off scratch (not accepting odds) and thus eligible for the Irish
championship. Those 10 were Fitzpatrick, Morphy and Woollett, who had all played
in the Masters, plus Baker, Drury, Fawcett, Hobson, Middleton, Miley and Soffe.
The title of Irish Champion and the first prize in the Handicap of 4 both went to G.
D. Soffe.
This was to be the last Irish Chess Association congress and its organisational role
was taken over by the Hibernian Chess Association. However this was not to be the
end of the story for the ICA because T. B. Rowland returned to its helm and, although
he occasionally organised over-the-board events, he concentrated his organisational
energies on furthering correspondence chess, establishing the Irish Correspondence
Chess Championship. He was probably recalling past glories when he had this letter
published in the Belfast Newsletter on the 2nd December 1926, shortly before that
years championship began in Belfast:
There is no truth in the statement that the Irish Chess Union is the
directing body of chess affairs in Ireland. The Irish Chess Association,
which numbers over 500 members, was founded in 1885, under the
patronage of the Right Hon The Earl of Dartrey, KP, General the Right
Hon Lord Wolsey, GCB, CGMG, the Right Hon Viscount Bangor,
Admiral R. B. Beechey, RHA, and other distinguished chess players,
and has since then kept alive chess throughout the whole of Ireland, and
is the only organisation that has done so.
The Hibernian Chess Association
The Irish Chess Union (see below) had recognised that Porterfield Rynd had been
Irish chess champion since 1892. The championship he had won then had been
organised by the Hibernian Chess Association. This body had been set up in the
1891/92 season and was, according to the Belfast Newsletter:
A federation of chess clubs and individual players. Its object is the
promotion of the theory and practice of chess in all the various
branches. The governing body consists of president, vice presidents,
council with honorary secretary and treasurer. In addition to the
honorary members, foreign players of distinction may be elected
honorary members.
The first annual congress of the Association commenced on the 3rd January 1892
at the XL Caf, Grafton Street. The honorary secretary and undoubtedly driving
force behind the new Association was T. B. Rowland. There were a considerable
number of events; four individual competitions, the most important being the
Championship Tournament, open to all first class Irish chess players with the winner
to receive 5 and the title of Chess Champion of Ireland.
Play in all the various tournaments was go-as-you please in that it was for the
competitors themselves to make arrangements as to when they would play at the
venue but all games had to be played by the 23rd January. It was possible to enter for
a short time after the congress had started and interestingly Porterfield Rynd was one
of the additional entrants. The Irish Times stated that:
It was pleasing to note that a more successful or better managed chess
congress has not been hitherto been seen in this country. It is supported
by the heads of all the chess clubs in Dublin, as well as a large number
of provincial players, and has been well attended throughout. The play
is of a high order, and the well managed events are attractive and
interesting. On being congratulated on the successful working of the
meeting, the hon. Secrertary stated that he was not to be congratulated as
the meeting worked itself. Nevertheless, the vast amount of work
undertaken by the promoter is recognised and appreciated.
The tournament was won by Porterfield Rynd and his son, K. A. Rynd, made it a
family double by sharing first place in the Class 1 event.
The Association held its second annual meeting commencing 2nd January 1893
again at the XL Caf. Among the events there was again there was to be a
tournament for the Irish Championship open to all first-class Irish players.
Unfortunately the only entrant was Porterfield Rynd and he therefore retained his
championship without a contest.
However the Belfast Newsletter reported on the 23rd March that in a match for the
Irish Championship:
A close contest is proceeding between Messrs E. L. Harvey and
Porterfield Rynd, the Irish chess champion. Eight games have been
decided, and so far the score is three each and two draws. Our
townsman is to be congratulated on making so good a fight with such a
formidable foe, and it is to be hoped that he may succeed in bringing the
championship to Belfast. The player who scores the first five games
wins the match.
The paper reported two weeks later that the match had been temporarily suspended
and unfortunately there is no record of it ever having been recommenced. Ernest
Harvey was, like Porterfield Rynd, a barrister.
The Hibernian Chess Association never held another congress and it seems to have
fairly quickly faded from the Irish chess scene. It was to be another 20 years before a
further Irish Championship was to be held. By then Porterfield Rynd was in his mid-
sixties and his powers waning but by putting up the championship he won in 1892 he
conferred extra legitimacy on the fledgling Irish Chess Union and its first
championship.
The Irish Chess Union
The Irish Chess Union was founded in 1912 and held its first Championship in the
following year. The details of the conditions for the contest appeared in the Irish
Times:
The Irish Chess Union has arranged for a series of matches to decide the
Irish Championship for the year 1913, to be held in Dublin during the
present season. The first match will take place at the rooms of the
Dublin Chess Club, commencing Monday 10th February at 10.30pm.
The following with Mr Porterfield Rynd, the present champion are
eligible to compete: the chess champions of the four provinces. All such
players to have been born within the province which they represent, or to
have been resident therein for the past two years. The challenging
players are to compete among themselves in an American tourney. The
winner to play the present champion a match of five games. All games
to be played under the rules of the British Chess Code. Number of
moves per hour to be 20. Entries:J. A. Porterfield Rynd, chess
champion of Ireland; C. J. Barry, chess champion of Leinster; J. J.
OHanlon, chess champion of Ulster; and a player representing the Cork
Chess Association.
No representative of the Cork Chess Association came forward for the preliminary
tournament and instead a match of five games was arranged between Barry and
OHanlon, won by the latter. The chess column in the Belfast Newsletter for the 17th
July 1913 provided news of the imminent commencement of the championship
contest:
Owing to various causes, among which was the illness of Mr Rynd, no
meeting has taken place between the champion and the challenger. We
have just been informed, however, that Mr Rynd has now intimated to
Mr OHanlon that he will be prepared to begin the match to defend his
title on Monday 4th August. This, we believe is the first time Mr Rynd
has had to defend the title, which he won many years ago.
The Irish Times for the 4th August carried further details about the match:
A match to decide the Irish Chess Championship has been arranged to
take place under the auspices of the Irish Chess Union on Monday to
Friday this week, at the rooms of the Dublin Chess Club in Lincoln
Place. The last contest for the title took place so far back as the year
1892, when the present holder of the championship, Mr J. A. Porterfield
Rynd, scored an easy win in a large field of competitors, truly
representative of the best play of the time in Ireland. The Irish Chess
Union took the matter in hand last year, with a view to bringing on a
match with the host of younger players, who have been trained in the
more modern views of the game. It will be a crucial test which the old-
time champion is called on to face. Apart from the fact of Mr Rynd
being more or less divorced from serious chess for some years past, his
opponent, Mr J. J. OHanlon, the Ulster champion and winner of the
running up competition in February last, has wide experience in modern
chess tourney play, and the contest should prove most interesting and
productive of chess of the highest class.
The match turned out to be a comfortable victory for the challenger. The chess
column of the Belfast Newsletter for the 7th August reported on the progress of the
match:
The third, and as it proved, the deciding game was played yesterday
morning, the challenger again having the move. The champion played
rather rapidly, and after about 20 moves sacrificed a Rook for a Knight.
The result was disastrous, for his opponent maintained his advantage,
and after about a dozen more moves forced Mr Rynd to resign. Mr
OHanlon thus secures the title of chess champion of Ireland, which has
been held by Mr Rynd for over forty years. We heartily congratulate
him on his success.
OHanlon went on to become the dominant figure in Irish Chamionships for a
generation, winning the title a further eight times. His last title was in 1940 but he
continued to compete regularly until his last appearance in 1956.
David McAlister 1999
Originally published at The Irish Chess Archive
Researched by John Paul Phillips
Introduction:
**
Item #1:
**Letter from Wilhelm Steinitz to James McConnell Sr.
HTML transcript Digital Scan
Page 1
Page 2
Item #2:
**
Game: James McConnel Sr. Wilhelm Steinitz. This game was
recorded and annotated by Steinitz and has never appeared in
any collection of Steinitz games.
Gamescore presented in the Chess Archaeology format
Original
HTML transcript Digital Scan
Game
Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4
Page 5
Page 6
The Anderssen-Kolisch Match,
London 1861
Researched by Nick Pope
THE MATCH BETWEEN ANDERSSEN AND KOLISCH
An unusual interest and activity at present prevail in the chess-playing resorts of
the metropolis, owing to an unexpected visit from Herr Anderssen, who arrived in
London at the close of last week. We need hardly mention how welcome is his
presence in our chess salons, and are happy to be able to add that the stalwart German
is just as hearty as he was in 1851, looking scarcely any older, and quite ready and
willing as ever to test his skill at any time, for any number of games, and against all
comers. Although enjoying very few opportunities for good practice in his favourite
game, at Breslau, were he resides, Anderssen has already shown that his play cannot
be said to have fallen off, and that when he chooses he can play every whit as well as
of yore ; in proof of which we need only direct attention to the first game given
below. Soon after his arrival Anderssen played a few smart off-hand games with Mr
Lowenthal, and with Mr Kolisch, with
varying success ; but as these parties were confessedly
rather skittlingand unsteady, a short match was soon
arranged by the ever-zealous and spirited London
Chess Club, between Anderssen and the well-known
practitioner Kolisch, who has now been resident some
time on London. The match was commenced on
Tuesday last, the terms being simply that the games
should take place daily, commencing at one oclock, in
the rooks of the London Chess Club, at Purcells, in
Cornhill, and that the first winner of four games
should be declared victor, and entitled to a prize of
10l., subscribed by the club. The well-known prowess
of both players has invested this trial of skill with the highest interest, which the
admirable boldness and accuracy of the play on both sides, in the very first game of
the match, has tended no little to enhance. Mr Anderssen, we hear, remains in
London till next Saturday, and if the match at the London Chess Club be concluded
sufficiently soon to allow of it, a return match between the same players, for the first
three games, will probably come off at Mr Riesgreat chess divan, in the Strand. At
the time of our going to press, the score gives to Mr Anderssen 2, Mr Kolisch 2.
The Field, London, 1861.07.27
HERR ANDERSSENS ARRIVAL IN LONDON.
Our readers will perceive, with no small pleasure, that this distinguished German
master has arrived in London, intending to remain here for a fortnight. Herr
Anderssen has already visited the various Chess Clubs in the metroplis [sic], and he is
now engaged in a match with Herr Kolisch, at the London Chess Club, whose
members, we are bound to say, never lose an opportunity of providing attraction at
their rooms. The Committee, with that spirit and liberality which distinguish their
management of the affairs of the Club, have offered a handsome prize to the winner.
The match will consist of seven games, the winner of the first four to be declared the
victor. By bringing about this interesting contest, the Committee of the London
Chess Club will render a great service to Chess players, as the result of the encounter
will satisfactorily establish how far Mr. Kolisch can lay claim to the high position
which he has hitherto occupied. This is the first set match in which he has ever
engaged in this country with a player of first-rate reputation.
THE MATCH.
The first game was played on the 25th [sic] ult., and was won by Herr Anderssen.
This is one of the most remarkable and interesting games which we have had the
pleasure of examining for some time. It exhibits, in a remarkable degree, the
distinguishing characteristics of both players. While the play of the German master is
full of dash and spirit, vigour and originality, constantly pushing forward to the
attack, that of Herr Kolisch is deliberate, cautious and profound. The fortunes of the
players during the game were constantly varying. Now Kolisch had the
advantagenow Anderssen; and over and over again victory trembled so evenly in the
balance that it was impossible to predict to which side it would eventually fall. It was
a hardly-contested battle, no error of any importance having been committed by either
player. The two succeeding games were won by Herr Kolisch. It was admitted on all
hands that these games were far inferior to the first.
An additional feature of interest in this match was the introduction of a limitation
of time for the moves. Each player was allowed two hours for four-and-twenty
moves. The time was marked by a sand-glass. This plan appeared to work well, and
we hope to see it generally adopted on all future important occasions. If this should
come to pass, the London Chess Club will be able to claim the honour of having
added a new and most beneficial law to the code of Chess.
Herr Andersssen has paid a visit to the St. Jamess Chess Club, and engaged in play
with the president. Herr Anderssen scored the odd game, winning two to Mr.
Loewenthals one. In a second encounter Mr. Loewenthal proved the victor. Mr.
Anderssen has also played at the Divan, with Mr. Burden and other amateurs. We
shall duly report his movements in our next.
The Dial, London, 1861.08.02
Match between Messrs. ANDERSSEN and KOLISCH
Under the patronage of the London Chess Club a short contest, determinable by
either party winning four games, has been arranged between the above noted players,
and began on Tuesday. Up to the time when we write six games have been played,
Mr. Anderssen winning two, Mr. Kolisch winning three, and the sixth being drawn.
The following is the first game:
The Illustrated London News, 1861.08.03
Kolisch,IF Anderssen,KEA (1)
B40/04 Sicilian: Anderssen
1861.07.23 GBR London (London Chess Club)
Annotations by Boden, Lwenthal & Staunton
1.e4 c5
**Boden: Anderssen appears to have faith in this dbut still, for the whole of the
opening is played with the utmost care.
2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Bd3 Nc6 6.Be3 d5 7.exd5 exd5 8.h3
**The following sequence is given in the gamescore published in The Dial; 8.0-0 Bd6
9.h3 h6. -[Pope]
8...h6 9.0-0 Bd6 10.Qf3
**
Boden: 10.Qe2 was better probably, for the attack of Blacks c6-knight presently
occasions White to lose a move in retreating.
Lwenthal: Up to this moment the opening is conducted with care and accuracy
by both combatants. This move, however, appears weak; it loses time.
Staunton: This appears to have been a lost move.
10...0-0 11.Nc3 Ne5
**Lwenthal: An excellent move, and finely conceived. The effect will become
apparent as the game advances. The knight here occupies a most commanding
position, both for attack and defense. The feature of Anderssens play, that is most
worthy of notice, is the excellence of his openings. He invariably disposes his
forces so as to be prepared for any emergency, and to take prompt advantage of the
slightest error his adversary may commit. The move in the text is a good
illustration of our remark.
12.Qe2 a6 13.Rad1 Re8 14.Bf5
**Lwenthal: Finely played. The bishop is here advantageously placed. The move
retards the development of Blacks forces, and at the same time protects White from
any aggression on the part of his adversary.
14...Bd7 15.Bxd7 Qxd7 16.Nf3
**
Boden: Intending, apparently, to make Blacks isolated d-pawn a mark for attack.
16...Rad8
**Staunton: Up to this point the game presents no particularly interesting features.
Henceforward, however, it abounds in critical positions, and is admirably fought on
both sides.
17.Kh1
**Lwenthal: The position here is one of great interest. It is so complicated that the
utmost skill is required for both attack and defense.
Staunton: Had he taken the d-pawn Anderssen would have won the exchange.
17...Bb8
**Boden: A move to which Anderssen is very partial.
Staunton: The ulterior importance of this move becomes apparent presently; its
immediate object was, of course, to save the d-pawn.
18.Nxe5 Rxe5 19.f4 Ree8 20.Qd3 Qd6
**Lwenthal: At the first glance, playing 20...Nh5 seems to promise some advantage
to Black. Looking more closely, however, we find that on Whites replying 21.Bb6,
he avoids all danger.
21.Bd4 Ne4
**Lwenthal: Upon examination, this will be found far superior to 21...Nh5.
22.Nxe4 dxe4 23.Qg3 Qf8
**Lwenthal: Anderssen, with his usual accuracy, selected the best move, having in
view the advance of the f-pawn.
24.Qe3
**Staunton: Threatening to win the exchange by playing 25.Bc5.
24...f5 25.Rg1
**Lwenthal: An excellent move, the beginning of complicated positions. In fact,
from this point to the end, the game abounds in situations of remarkable interest.
The able manner in which the Hungarian conducted the game, against an adversary
of preeminent qualities, entitles him to our highest praise.
Staunton: Preparatory to a bold and well-conducted attack upon the black king.
25...Rd7
**
Lwenthal: A good retort; Whites contemplated maneuver is thereby rendered
perfectly harmless.
26.Rdf1
**Lwenthal: In order to be enabled to advance the g-pawn with safety.
26...Rf7 27.g4
**Boden: From this point the game is played by both masters with the utmost
boldness, determination, and precision; and through a series of positions of the
most difficult possible class, their play is of the highest order.
27...fxg4 28.Rxg4 g5
**Staunton: As daring as it was unforeseen.
29.f5 Kh7
**Lwenthal: The position here is very instructive, and all this is well calculated by
the German master. Either 29...Rxf5, or 29...Qd6, would have involved Black in
difficulties, extrication from which would have been impossible, because, had
Black played in the first place 29...Rxf5, White would have replied, with great
effect, 30.Qb3+, and if 29...Qd6, White would have rejoined with 30.Rxg5+, etc.
Staunton: He dared not take the pawn, as White would afterwards have checked
with his queen at b3, with great advantage.
30.f6 Qd6
**Lwenthal: A move which causes White great distress.
31.Rf2 Qd5
**Lwenthal: Finely played again, it defends the pawn at e4, and at the same time
opens the diagonal for the bishop, which is thus brought into active cooperation.
32.h4 Bf4 33.Qb3 Qd7
**Lwenthal: Exchanging queens would have been bad play; it would have
abandoned the advantage in position already obtained by Black.
34.hxg5 Bxg5 35.Rh2 Rg8 36.Rxe4
**Lwenthal: This move loses an important pawn, but there seems no better play.
36...Rxf6
**Boden: It is long since we have seen anything finer than all these moves; White
dare not take 37.Bxf6.
Staunton: Very fine, and equally sound.
37.Qd3
**Lwenthal: It is obvious that White dared not capture 37.Bxf6, on account of
Blacks formidable reply, 37...Qd1+, etc.
Staunton: Had he ventured to take the rook he would have lost the game in a few
moves, by Black playing 37...Qd1+, etc.
37...Rfg6
**Lwenthal: The play on both sides throughout this critical endgame will well
repay the student for his time and labor in examining it.
38.Rg2 Qc6 39.Reg4 Re8 40.Kg1 Re1+ 41.Kf2 Rh1
**Lwenthal: Ingeniously conceived. The move secured a speedy and successful
termination.
42.Qe4
**Boden: Singularly enough, this move loses White the exchange, and costs Kolisch
the gameof which, however, he has, notwithstanding, good reason to be proud.
Staunton: This loses White the exchange.
42...Qxe4 43.Rxe4 Bh4+
**The gamescore published in The Dial terminates here. -[Pope]
44.Rxh4
**Boden: If 44.Kf3, Black clearly gains a piece by playing 44...Rh3+, winning a
rook. Young students will perceive that in the closing position White has no
chance of drawing with his bishop and pawns against the adverse rook and pawns.
44...Rxg2+ 45.Kxg2 Rxh4 0-1.
Anderssen,KEA Kolisch,IF (2)
C01/12 French: Exchange
1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 exd5 4.Nf3 Nf6 5.Bd3 Bd6 6.0-0 0-0 7.h3 h6 8.c4
c6 9.Nc3 Be6 10.cxd5 cxd5 11.Be3 Nc6
**Boden: The positions on the two sides are now perfectly similar.
Staunton: The opening has been played irreproachably up to this point; and,
curiously enough, the disposition of the forces on one side is identical with that on
the other.
12.Qd2 Re8
**Lwenthal: The game is well opened on both sides, the moves being made in strict
accordance with the theoretical analysis laid down by the authors.
13.Rae1 Ne7 14.Ne5 Bf5 15.f4 Rc8 16.g4
**Boden: Now the game begins to assume a very interesting aspect; this move,
together with the one following it, are quite in Anderssens artistic style.
16...Ne4 17.Qg2 Nxc3 18.gxf5 Ne4 19.Bxe4
**Lwenthal: Anderssen explained to us that he made this move without due
deliberation, being of opinion that 19.f6 would have given him a fine game.
19...dxe4
20.Qxe4
**Boden: By making this capture White gains a pawn, but subjects himself to a most
harassing series of attacking moves from Blacks pieces. We believe 20.f6 would
have been far better.
Lwenthal: We believe that 20.f6, instead of the move in the text, would have led
to at least an even game.
Staunton: Here Anderssen appears to have overshot his mark. Instead of
snatching at this pawn, he should have played 20.f6.
20...f6
**Boden: Black proceeds to take advantage of his situation in correct style, and all
his moves, hereabouts, are most carefully considered.
**
Lwenthal: Kolisch does not fail to take immediate advantage of his adversarys
weak play; Blacks position is now very superior, and with due care victory must be
certain.
Staunton: This subjects White to a very embarrassing attack upon his queen, and
ought to have been foreseen.
21.Ng4 Bb4
**Staunton: A good move preparatory to playing his knight to d5.
22.Re2 Nd5 23.Qd3
**Staunton: Is this move as good as 23.Qg2?
23...Kh8 24.Bc1
**Boden: White has now a most uncomfortable game to play.
Lwenthal: The best move under the circumstances.
24...Qd7
**Boden: At this juncture we believe Kolisch might also have played 24...Rxc1 25.
Rxc1 Nxf4 26.Rxe8+ Qxe8 and have come off with the better game.
Staunton: He might here have taken 24...Rxc1, and then 25...Nxf4, and have had a
fine game.
25.Rxe8+ Rxe8 26.Ne3 Ba5 27.a3 Nxe3 28.Bxe3 Bb6
**Staunton: Threatening 29...Rxe3, etc.
29.Bf2 Qd5 30.Kh2 Re4 31.Be3 Qxf5 32.b4
**
Boden: Owing to Anderssens having a bad game, there is no opportunity for that
high order of play which characterized the first contest.
32...Bc7
**
Lwenthal: Played with Kolischs usual ability; after this move the game is
irrecoverable.
33.d5 Rxf4
**
Staunton: Cleverly played. Whites game is now past skillalmost past hope.
34.Qxf5 Rxf5+ 35.Kg2 Rxd5 36.Bxa7 Rg5+ 37.Kf2 Rg3 38.Rd1 Rxa3
39.Bc5
**Lwenthal: 39.Rd7 would have been unavailing, since Black would have replied
with 39...Be5, and if White had then taken 40.Rxb7, Black would have rejoined
with 40...Rxa7, and winning a piece.
39...b6 40.Be3 Rb3 41.Rd4 Be5 42.Rd8+ Kh7 43.Bxb6 Rxb4 44.Be3
Rb2+ 45.Rd2 Rxd2+
**The gamescore published in The Illustrated London News terminates here. -[Pope]
46.Bxd2 Kg6
**The gamescore published in The Field terminates here. -[Pope]
47.Kf3 f5 48.Bb4 Kh5 49.Kg2 g5 50.Bd2 Kg6 51.Bc1 h5 52.Ba3 g4 53.
Bc1 f4 54.Bd2 Kf5 55.Kf2 Ke4 56.Be1 g3+ 57.Kg1 f3 (...), 0-1.
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6
**
Lwenthal: An excellent move; in fact, the best to counterbalance Whites attack of
Nb5.
5.Bd3 Nc6 6.Be3 d5 7.exd5 exd5 8.0-0 Bd6 9.h3 h6 10.Nc3 0-0 11.Qd2
Re8 12.Rad1 Bc7 13.Rfe1
**Staunton: The opening on both sides is played with uncommon care. In a match
of greater scope White would probably have exchanged knights and then have
taken the h-pawn, gaining a powerful though hazardous attack.
13...Qd6 14.Nf3 a6
**Boden: To prevent Nb5, and evidently intending to push 15...d4 next move.
Anderssen, however, ought to have played 14...d4 at once, compelling White to
move 15.Nb5, and then, after the exchanges, it will be found that Black would have
come off with considerably the better position and equal force.
Lwenthal: Played by Anderssen, no doubt, with the object of preventing White
from playing Nb5. The move, however, was a bad one, as the sequel shows. The
following variation would tend to show that Anderssen might have ventured on
playing 14...d4, when the ensuing continuation would probably have occurred:14...
d4 15.Qc1 (best; or 15.Nb5 dxe3 16.Nxd6 exd2 17.Rxe8+ Nxe8 18.Nxe8 Bf4 19.
g3 Bb8 and the white knight has no escape) 15...dxe3 16.Bh7+ Kxh7 17.Rxd6 exf2
+ 18.Kxf2 Rxe1 19.Qxe1 Bxd6 and Black remains with more than an equivalent
for his queen.
Staunton: He ought rather, we think, to have played 14...d4.
15.Bxh6
**
Lwenthal: Kolisch takes prompt advantage of Blacks weak play.
15...Rxe1+
**
Boden: To this bold step Kolisch is, in a measure, driven by the threatened forkof
the adverse d-pawn.
16.Rxe1 gxh6 17.Qxh6 Ne4
**Boden: It is difficult to find any move that looks better for Black at this juncture.
18.Qh5
**Lwenthal: The attack is well sustained by White, and the move made secures a
speedy victory.
18...f5
**Boden: 18...Be6 was preferable here, as Anderssen himself observed afterwards.
Staunton: After this, Blacks position is indefensible. His best play appears to be
18...Be6. In any case, however, he would have had a difficult game.
19.Nxd5
**Boden: The termination is all capitally played by Kolisch.
Lwenthal: Finally conceived.
Staunton: Very well played.
19...Qxd5 20.Bxe4 Qd7 21.Bd5+ Kg7
**Staunton: Taking the bishop would have been equally disastrous.
22.Qg5+ 1-0.
**Boden: We may just observe, for the satisfaction of young players, that at the
moment Black resigns White threatens to play 23.Qg8+, and 24.Re6+, winning the
queen, etc.
A02/01 Bird
1.f4 e6 2.Nf3 d5 3.e3 c5 4.Bb5+ Nc6
**Lwenthal: A very bad move in principle, in fact, the loss of the game may be
traced to this defense.
5.Bxc6+ bxc6
**Lwenthal: The two pawns on the c-file are both weak and unsupported.
6.c4
**Lwenthal: The correct move; White has thus early in the game obtained a very
superior position.
6...Ba6 7.Na3 Bd6
**Lwenthal: It is obvious that 7...dxc4 instead would be of but little avail.
8.0-0 Nf6 9.b3 0-0 10.Bb2
**Staunton: The importance of this move in games of a close character is well
exemplified in the present partie.
10...Ne8 11.Qc2
**
Boden: All this game is played with the greatest care and judgment on Andressens
part.
11...f5 12.Rae1 Nf6 13.Nb1 Qa5 14.Bc3 Qc7 15.d3 Rae8 16.Bb2 Nd7
17.Nbd2 e5 18.g3 d4
**Boden: Kolisch sacrifices a pawn or two here; and, against a less finished master,
the open diagonal which he obtains for his a6-bishop would have been a full
equivalent.
Staunton: The sacrifice of a pawn or pawns here was not judicious; but Kolisch
seems to have grown impatient of defensive tactics, and determined at all risks to
make an opening.
19.fxe5 Nxe5 20.Nxe5 Bxe5 21.Nf3 Bf6 22.exd4 cxd4 23.Bxd4 Bxd4+
24.Nxd4 c5
**Boden: Tempting White to win the exchange with his knight, when Black would
have moved 25...Qc6, and then 26...Bb7, but Anderssen is too wary to be springed.
25.Rxe8 Rxe8 26.Nxf5 Bb7
27.Qf2
**Boden: An unlooked for and beautiful move, which at once decides the game; if
Black now play 27...Qc6, he either loses his queen or is mated by Whites moving
28.Ne7+. From this point to the end White played in a style worthy of the master.
Staunton: Irresistible! If in reply Black play the move he calculated on 27...Qc6
White wins at once by 28.Ne7+.
27...h6
**Lwenthal: Had Black played 27...Qc6, White would have won speedily, by
replying with 28.Ne7+, etc.
28.d4
**
Lwenthal: Played with Anderssens usual ability Black contemplated playing 28...
Qc6, threatening mate, the move chosen was the best calculated not only to avert
the danger but also to commence an embarrassing attack.
28...cxd4 29.Qxd4 Re2 30.Nxh6+ Kh7 31.Rf7 (...), 1-0.
C84/03 Spanish: Closed (Knight Attack)
1.e4 e5
**Boden: An unusual luxury to find the second player in such a short match risking
all the attacks contingent upon an open game.
2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6
**Staunton: How long are we to regret the want of some satisfactory defense to
Whites third move? As we have repeatedly said, until one is found the second
player in a short match is hardly warranted in playing 1...e5.
4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Be7 6.Nc3
**Boden: Played, doubtless, for variety, as being less hackneyed and well known
than the customary lines of attack. Nevertheless, we consider this move, in the
present opening, to be a weak one; and, indeed, a few moves afterwards we find
Anderssen coming through the Ruywith a secure and equal game.
6...b5
**Lwenthal: We do not approve of this line of play at this juncture.
7.Bb3 d6
**The following sequence is given in the gamescores published in The Dial and The
Illustrated London News; 7...0-0 8.d3 d6. -[Pope]
8.d3 0-0 9.Be3 h6 10.Qd2 Kh8 11.Ne2
**Lwenthal: 11.Nd5 would also have been a good move.
11...Qe8 12.Ng3
**Lwenthal: With a splendid game.
12...Nh7
**Staunton: Fearing, probably, that his adversary would take the h-pawn.
13.Bd5 Rb8 14.Ne1 Bg5 15.f4 exf4 16.Bxf4 Ne7 17.Bxg5 Nxg5 18.Bb3
f5 19.Nf3 Nh7 20.Nh4 f4
**Staunton: This appears to have been the result of an erroneous calculation.
21.Rxf4 Rxf4 22.Qxf4 g5
**
Boden: All Blacks ingenious combination to obtain this forkis worse than useless,
for he clearly overlooks the resource which White has in the move made with his
queen.
Staunton: Upon this move Black relied, apparently, when he sacrificed his f-pawn,
overlooking the fact that White could save the piece by quietly retreating his queen
to a square whence she might check the adverse king.
23.Qd2
**Boden: The winning move, and excellently played; threatening, if Black take 23...
gxh4, to move 24.Qc3+, winning back the piece with a much better position. He
having previously calculated upon all this wins the present game for Kolisch.
Lwenthal: All this is admirably played by White; Blacks game is now very much
compromised, his king very much exposed.
23...Qc6
**Staunton: It is obvious that had he taken the knight White would have won easily
by 24.Qb3+.
24.Qf2
**Staunton: We should have preferred playing 24.Rf1. If in answer Black took 24...
gxh4, then by 25.Qxh6, and afterwards moving Rf7, White must have won in a few
moves. Indeed, after 24.Rf1, it looks very difficult for Black to avert immediate
defeat.
24...Qb6
**Boden: Black has nothing better now; and with his king so fearfully exposed, and
with the adverse knights so strongly planted, he can only make up his mind to an
hour or so of hopeless struggling.
25.Qxb6 Rxb6 26.Nhf5 Bxf5 27.exf5 c5 28.Re1 Rb7 29.Re6
**Staunton: Good; but 29.Nh5 would, we believe, have been still better. Kolisch,
however, plays the ending very skillfully.
29...d5 30.f6 Nxf6 31.Rxf6 c4 32.dxc4 dxc4 33.Rxh6+ Kg7 34.Rxa6
cxb3 35.cxb3 Rc7 36.Re6 Kf7 37.Re5 Rc1+ 38.Kf2 Rc2+ 39.Re2 Rc5
40.Ne4 Rd5 41.Kg3 Nf5+ 42.Kf2 Kg6 43.Nc3 Rc5 44.b4 Rc4 45.Re6+
Kh5 46.Re4
46...Nd4 47.a3 Kg6 48.Ne2 1-0.
A02/01 Bird
1.f4 f5
**Lwenthal: Anderssen holds this move to be the only safe one in this defense.
How far Anderssen is justified in assuming this assertion we are not prepared to
say at present, because the analysis would require more time than we can bestow
upon it. But Anderssen has no doubt based his opinion on a practical test of this
defense, and so far we can place reliance in his judgment and skill.
2.Nf3 Nf6 3.e3 e6 4.Be2 Be7 5.0-0 0-0 6.b3
**The following sequence is given in the gamescore published in The Field; 6.g3 b6
7.Ne5 Bb7 8.Bf3 c6 9.Bg2 Qc7 10.Nc3 d6 11.Nd3 Nbd7 12.Nf2 Rae8 13.Nh3 e5
14.b3 d5 15.Qe2 e4 16.Bb2. -[Pope]
6...b6 7.Ne5 Bb7 8.Bf3 c6 9.Nc3 Qc7 10.Bb2 d6 11.Nd3 Nbd7 12.Nf2
e5
**Staunton: Kolisch manages to advance his center pawns so judiciously as to
relieve himself in a few moves from all the constraint the opening occasioned him.
13.g3
**Lwenthal: Necessary, in order to open a retreat for the f3-bishop.
13...Rae8 14.Qe2
**
Staunton: In violation of the wise sawwhich admonishes you never to play your
queen in front of an adverse rook, though the rook may be ever so much masked by
intervening men. But nice rules courtesy to great players.
14...d5 15.Nh3
**
Lwenthal: Loosing valuable time, which against a player of Kolischs force, must
prove more or less serious.
Staunton: White is beginning to suffer a little from the same sort of limitation
under which his opponent labored in the outset.
15...e4 16.Bg2 Nc5
**
Lwenthal: Very well played. Blacks game at this point looks much better than his
antagonists.
Staunton: Threatening an ugly attack upon the queen by 17...Ba6.
17.Qd1 Ba6 18.Ne2
**Boden: Throughout the whole of this difficult game Anderssen has good need to
take care, for be it remembered that at present he has only to lose one game to
decide the match in favor of his antagonist.
18...Ne6
**Lwenthal: Kolisch plays all this with remarkable precision and skill.
19.Rc1 Qd7
**Lwenthal: On examination this will be found to be the means of deterring Black
from advancing his c-pawn.
20.Nf2
**
Lwenthal: It will be seen that the remarks we made on Anderssens 15th move are
now corroborated by this one.
20...d4
**Lwenthal: The care and exactitude of calculation displayed nearly to the end of
the game can hardly be exceeded. This move is a very good one, and leads to
highly interesting combinations.
21.exd4 Bxe2 22.Qxe2 Nxd4 23.Qc4+ Ne6 24.Rcd1 Nd5 25.Rfe1 Bf6 26.
c3 Kh8
**The following sequence is given in the gamescore published in The Field; 26...Qf7
27.Qe2 Kh8. -[Pope]
27.Qe2 Qf7
**Lwenthal: The game is here extremely complicated and difficult, and the greatest
nicety of play is required.
28.d4 Rd8 29.Nd3
**Lwenthal: This looks promising; it is a combination which might no doubt have
proved advantageous to may an amateur; but mark how admirably Kolisch turned
the tables upon his opponent.
Staunton: Regardless of the clever combination Black has been maturing, and
which results in the gain by him of a clear pawn.
29...Nxc3
**
Lwenthal: This sacrifice is one of Kolischs brilliant conceptions. It is as
ingenious as it is sound.
Staunton: Kolisch is fairly entitled to all the honors of the play in this game, and
they ought to have secured him those of victory as well.
30.Bxc3 Bxd4+
**Lwenthal: Taking 30...Nxd4 instead would have been bad play; because in that
case White would have replied with 31.Bxd4 , and if Black then took 31...Bxd4+,
White could have interposed 32.Nf2 and thus retained the piece.
31.Bxd4 Nxd4 32.Qf1
**The following sequence is given in the gamescore published in The Field; 32.Qf2
exd3 33.Rxd3 c5 34.Rde3 Rde8 35.Re5 Rxe5 36.Rxe5 h6 37.Qe1. -[Pope]
32...exd3 33.Rxd3 c5 34.Rde3 Rde8 35.Re5 Rxe5 36.Rxe5 h6 37.Qe1
Qh5
**The following sequence is given in the gamescore published in The Field; 37...Rd8
38.Re7 Qh5. -[Pope]
38.Re7 Rd8 39.Qe5 Qd1+ 40.Kf2 Qc2+
**Staunton: If 40...Ne6, White would have replied with 41.Bf3.
41.Kf1 Qb1+ 42.Qe1
**The following sequence is given in the gamescore published in The Field; 42.Kf2
Qxa2+ 43.Kf1 Qb1+ 44.Qe1 Nxb3 45.Qxb1 Nd2+ 46.Ke1 Nxb1 47.Rxa7 Nc3 48.
Bf3 b5 49.Rc7 c4 50.Rc5 Rb8 51.h3 Kg8 52.Rxf5 Nb1 53.h4 b4 54.Bd5+ (...), -
. -[Pope]
42...Nxb3
**Lwenthal: Followed up in splendid style.
Staunton: Another proof that the best play in this game is on the side of Black.
43.Qxb1
**Staunton: If he had taken the knight, it would evidently have cost him his queen
for a rook and knight.
43...Nd2+ 44.Ke1 Nxb1 45.Rxa7 Nc3 46.Bf3 b5 47.Rc7 c4
**Lwenthal: We call the attention of the student to the position at this stage.
Whites game is utterly hopeless, and with but ordinary care on the part of Black
victory is certain. Kolisch, however, after conducting the game in a manner which
commands the highest admiration, and after having obtained such an advantage in
position as to render victory an easy matter, threw the game away. His genius
deserted him altogether. In fact, the play is conducted in a manner totally at
variance with what we should expect from a player like Kolisch.
48.Rc5 Rb8
**Staunton: Apprehensive of 49.a4.
49.a3 Kg8
**Lwenthal: To what end this move was directed we have not been able to
discover.
Staunton: A pitiable error; when 49...Nb1 must have won the day.
50.Rxf5 Nb1
**Lwenthal: Making matters worse.
51.a4 b4 52.Bd5+ Kh8 53.Bxc4 b3 54.Rb5
**Lwenthal: We believe that 54.Bxb3 would have been a more scientific way of
conducting the game, leading to the same result much more speedily.
54...Re8+ 55.Kf2 Na3 56.Rb4 Nxc4 57.Rxc4 Rb8 58.Rc1 Rb4 59.Rb1
Rxa4 60.Rxb3
60...Ra2+ 61.Kg1 Kh7 -.
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Bd3 Nc6 6.Be3 d5 7.exd5 exd5
8.0-0 Bd6 9.h3 h6 10.c4 0-0
**
Boden: By taking Whites c-pawn, Black would have given his antagonist a very
fine game.
11.Nc3 Be5 12.Nf3
**Boden: 12.Nce2 strikes us a being better play.
Staunton: As this involves the isolation of a pawn, he had better, possibly, have
played 12.Nce2.
12...Bxc3
**Lwenthal: 12...d4 would not have been good play. White would have rejoined
with 13.Nxe5.
13.bxc3 Be6 14.cxd5 Nxd5 15.Qd2
**Boden: Menacing the same sort of attack as gained him a victory in the third game,
by sacrificing his e3-bishop.
15...Qf6 16.Nd4 Ne5
**Lwenthal: This gives Black a good game.
17.Bc2 Rfd8
**Boden: Had Black played 17...Nc4 attacking the queen and bishop, White would
have replied with 18.Qd3, winning a piece in a few moves.
Staunton: 17...Nc4 would have been imprudent, on account of White answering
with 18.Qd3, etc.
18.Nxe6
**
Boden: Whites knight stands so well at d4 that we should think it much better to
keep him there than change him off.
Staunton: This is not a good move, as we shall presently see.
18...fxe6
**
Staunton: We should have preferred playing 18...Nf4; for, suppose18...Nf4 19.
Bd4 (any other move would be fatal to White) 19...Nf3+ (If, instead of this, Black
play 19...Rxd4, his adversarys best plan is to move 20.Qe3; for, should he take 20.
Nxd4, Black must win the queen by playing 20...Qg5; and, if he take 20.cxd4,
Black will first check with 20...Nf6+, then take 21...fxe6, and afterwards win
easily) 20.Kh1 (If he take 20.gxf3, Black may take 20...Rxd4, and win) 20...Nxe6
21.Bxf6 Rxd2 and Black has much the better game.
19.Bd4
**Lwenthal: A slip which loses a valuable pawn.
19...Nxc3
**Boden: Beautifully played and evidently quite unforeseen by White.
Lwenthal: This seems to have been quite overlooked by White.
Staunton: A fine move; 19...Nf4, however would have been at least as effective.
20.Qxc3 Rxd4 21.Rae1
**Boden: The best move on the board; he would of course have lost his queen by
capturing the rook.
Staunton: It is hardly necessary to show that he would have lost his queen by
capturing, the rook.
21...Rc4 22.Qxe5 Qxe5 23.Rxe5 Rxc2 24.Rxe6 Rxa2
**
Boden: Up to this point Anderssens play is excellent, but his next few moves are
incorrect; for Kolisch might have drawn the game, but for the mistake of his 31st
move.
25.Re7 b5 26.Rc1 Rf8 27.Rcc7 Rfxf2 28.Rxg7+ Kf8 29.Rxa7 Rxg2+ 30.
Rxg2 Rxa7 31.Rg6
**Lwenthal: What a mistake, and in a match game! But for this error the game
must have been drawn.
31...Rg7 0-1.
B20/01 Sicilian: Philidor
1.e4 c5 2.Bc4 e6 3.Nc3 a6 4.a4 Nc6 5.d3 Nge7 6.Bf4
**Lwenthal: The best mode of bringing the bishop into active operation.
6...d5 7.Ba2
**Boden: 7.Bb3, as appears from the sequel, would have been better.
7...Ng6 8.Bg3 Nb4 9.Bb3
**
Lwenthal: It would now appear that Whites 7th move was not a good one; he
should then have retreated the bishop to b3, instead of a2.
9...Bd6 10.Nge2 0-0 11.0-0 Bb8 12.f3
**Staunton: The opening is played on both sides very timidly, which is not
surprising when victory depends on either party winning only four games.
12...Kh8
**Lwenthal: Kolisch, no doubt, intended to advance the f-pawn; the move in the
text facilitated that object, since the commanding diagonal of Whites f-pawn might
have become embarrassing.
13.a5 d4 14.Nb1 f5 15.Nd2 f4 16.Be1 Bc7 17.Nc4 Nc6 18.Bd2 Qg5 19.
Kh1 Qh5
**Boden: Kolisch is now commencing an attack which promises to prove a terribly
strong wrong one; the present move is preparatory to doubling the action of queen
and f8-rook upon Whites h-pawn.
20.Rf2 Rf6 21.Qg1
**
Staunton: Foreseeing where the pressure will be ere long.
Lwenthal: Anderssens game was not a good one, Black having already obtained
a very superior and attacking position; it therefore required great accuracy and
correctness in the defense, by which alone immediate danger could be averted.
The move adopted by White, followed by the next series, was the best under the
circumstances.
21...Bd7
**Staunton: 21...Nh4 would perhaps have been better play.
22.g3 fxg3 23.Nxg3 Qh3 24.Qf1 Qh4
**Boden: Threatening to take 20...Bxg3.
25.Qg1 Raf8 26.Raf1
26..Qh3
**Lwenthal: Black has failed to profit by the fine position he had so ably obtained,
he should have played 26...Nge5; had that move been made Black would have
acquired a decided superiority in position. Let us suppose 26...Nge5 27.Qg2 (If 27.
f4 Ng4 winning, at least, a pawn; 27.Nxe5 would not have led to any better result)
27...Rg6 28.Nxe5 (we see no better move) 28...Nxe5 29.f4 (the only move, as
Black threatens ...Nxd3, and then ...Rxg3) 29...Ng4 30.Rf3 (best) 30...Rh6 with a
winning position.
27.Ba4
**Boden: White defends himself with great skill throughout a difficult game; he
wisely prepares to cut off Blacks d7-bishop, which would otherwise ultimately
have proved a thorn in his side.
Lwenthal: The best move to prevent the combination just indicated.
27...Nce5 28.Bxd7
**
Lwenthal: Getting rid of Blacks d7-bishop, which threatened to become a
dangerous auxiliary to Blacks future operations.
28...Nxd7 29.b4
**Lwenthal: Very well played; it breaks up the force of the advanced pawns.
29...Nde5 30.Nxe5 Nxe5 31.Qg2 Qxg2+ 32.Kxg2 cxb4 33.Bxb4 Rc8 34.
Rb1 Nc6 35.Bd2 Rb8 36.Ra1 Rff8 37.f4
**Staunton: White has pretty well overcome his difficulties now, but at one period
the attack on his kings quarters looked very serious, and, had it been well followed
up, might have proved so.
37...g6 38.c4 dxc3 39.Bxc3+ Kg8 40.Ne2 Rf7
**Boden: The latter part of this game is not particularly well played on either side;
for Kolisch, after acquiring the better position with a pawn more, as will be seen,
only draws after all.
41.d4 Rbf8 42.e5 Rd8 43.Kf3
**The following sequence is given in the gamescores published in The Field and The
Illustrated London News; 43.Ng3 Rd5 44.Ne4 Bxa5 45.Bxa5 Rxa5 46.Rxa5 Nxa5
[Staunton: Black, with a pawn more than his adversary, and with two passed
pawns, has apparently the advantage, but he plays the ending, as he played the
beginning, with little of his usual spirit.] 47.Nc3 Rc7 48.Na4 Rc4 49.Nc5 Kf7 50.
Rb2 b5 [Staunton: The better course, we apprehend, would have been to take the
d-pawn, and then play 51..Nc4.] 51.Nxa6 Nc6 52.Rd2 b4 53.Nc5 Nxd4 [Staunton:
After this the game was prolonged for several moves, and finally terminated as a
drawn battle.]
43...Rd5 44.Ke4 Bxa5 45.Bxa5 Rxa5 46.Rxa5 Nxa5 47.Nc3 Rc7 48.Na4
Rc4 49.Nc5 Kf7 50.Rb2 b5 51.Nxa6 Nc6 52.Rd2 b4 53.Nc5 Nxd4 54.
Rxd4 Rxc5 55.Rxb4 Rc7 (...), -.
A02/01 Bird
Annotations by Boden & Staunton
1.f4 f5
**Staunton: In this opening the second player, perhaps, does better in replying 1...d5.
2.Nf3 e6 3.e3 Nf6 4.Be2 Be7 5.0-0 0-0 6.b3 d6 7.Bb2 c5
**Boden: Anderssen has a knack of varying these dull openings, which evinces the
ingenuity of a master.
8.h3
**
Staunton: The primary cause, apparently, of Kolischs subsequent difficulties.
8...Nc6 9.c4 Ne4
**Boden: This is beautifully played; the knight threatens to move next to g3, which
Kolisch must prevent, and afterwards, as will be seen, Anderssen gives his
adversary no time to dislodge the knight, but compels him at once to play d4.
10.Kh2 Bf6
**Staunton: Very well conceived. Play as he may, White must now get a constrained
position.
11.d4 cxd4 12.exd4 Bd7 13.Na3
**Boden: This is a bad move, and appears even to cause the loss of so much time as
to involve the game. Why not move 13.Nc3?
13...Qe8 14.Nb5 Qg6 15.Qe1 Qh6 16.Bd3
**Staunton: Well played; if Black now capture 16...Qxf4+, his queen will be driven
back by 17.g3, and White can then take 18.Bxe4, and win a pawn in return for the
one sacrificed.
16...a6 17.Na3
**Boden: He evidently cannot retreat 17.Nc3 without losing his d-pawn.
17...Be8
**Boden: Black seizes the right moment for bringing this bishop into effective
service. By taking 17...Qxf4+, he could not win a pawn, as White would cover 18.
g3, and then, on the queen retreating, take 19.Bxe4, etc., regaining the pawn.
Staunton: This bishop now becomes a formidable auxiliary in Blacks attack.
18.Nc2 d5 19.g3 Bh5 20.Ne5 Be7
**Boden: Intending to take 21...Nxe5, and then push 22...g5; but it so happens that,
on his very next move, Kolisch makes a slip which enables Anderssen to obtain a
winning position with this bishop, deciding the game and the match at a blow.
Staunton: The object of this move was to take 21...Nxe5, and then throw forward
22...g5; but Whites next stepa manifest slipenables Black to turn the move to much
more account than he had reckoned on.
21.Ne3
**Staunton: The fatal consequence of this move are so obvious that it is amazing
they were not foreseen.
21...Bb4 22.Qc1
**Boden: If 22.Qb1, he loses the exchange, and gets a bad game.
Staunton: He had nothing better left.
22...Bd2 23.Qc2 Nxe5
**Boden: Foreseeing that, if 23...Bxe3, White will take 24.Nxc6, and then move 25.
Rae1, regaining the piece, as Blacks bishop would have no escape; nevertheless,
we are not certain that the mode of play rejected would not have been a certain
road to victory, as he would have had time to obtain an irresistible attack on Whites
king.
Staunton: Had he taken 23...Bxe3, White would first have captured 24.Nxc6, and
then have played 25.Rae1, winning the bishop.
24.Bxe4
**Boden: All these positions are extremely difficult, and Kolisch plays admirably to
avoid the loss of a piece, but to regain the lost ground is impossible.
24...fxe4
**Boden: The right move; had Black instead taken 24...Bxe3, White would have
retreated 25.Bg2and if Black retire with 25...Nc6, White plays 26.Qd3, winning
back the bishop.
Staunton: Suppose 24...Bxe3 25.Bg2 Nc6 26.Qd3, etc.
25.Qxd2 Nf3+ 26.Rxf3 Bxf3 27.cxd5 exd5 28.Nxd5 Rad8 29.Ne3 Rd6
**Boden: Threatening mate in two moves, by 30...Qxh3+, and 31...Rh6#.
Staunton: A terrible advance, by which Black threatens to take the h-pawn with
his queen, and mate next move.
30.h4 Rxf4
**Staunton: Quite sound; if White take it he will be mated in a very short time.
31.Qe1 Rg6
**Staunton: Good again.
32.Bc1
**Boden: Now Anderssen announced mate in five moves.
Staunton: After this step Anderssen announced that he should give checkmate in
five move.
32...Rxh4+ 33.gxh4 Qf4+ 34.Kh3 Bg2+ 35.Nxg2
**The gamescore published in The Field terminates here. -[Pope]
35...Qf3+ ( # in 1), 0-1.
MATCH BETWEEN ANDERSSEN AND KOLISCH.
This match was concluded on Thursday, the 1st inst., the victory falling to Herr
Anderssen. Final score;Herr Anderssen, 4; Herr Kolisch, 3; drawn, 2. The contest
excited immense interest throughout, and particularly near the close, when each
combatant had won three games. The rooms were well attended on each day by
members and visitors, who followed the moves with the greatest interest and
attention. As we have previously stated, it was not merely a question whether Mr.
Anderssen or Mr. Kolisch was the better player, but the result was looked forward as
a gauge of Mr. Kolischs ability to contend with Mr. Morphy. Whether, in this
contest, Mr. Kolisch exhibited such an amount of skill and ability as would warrant
the hope of his being successful against the American player, we must leave those
who witnessed and perused the games to determine. We must say, however, that both
gentlemen exerted themselves to the utmost of their ability to play their best. At the
conclusion of the match, Herr Anderssen was warmly congratulated, and Herr
Kolisch was much complimented on the able manner in which he conducted the
contest. The games, taken collectively, are the most interesting we have seen for
some time.
Match between Messrs. ANDERSSEN and KOLISCH.
The joust between these distinguished players has terminatedMr. Anderssen
winning four games, his opponent three, and two having been drawn. The result is not
satisfactory. We are glad, of course, to obtain even a few games contested by such
masters, but it is not by a few games that the superiority of either can be fairly
established, and that really was what we wanted to see. If Mr. Anderssen or Mr.
Kolisch had won the first four games without his opponent scoring one, that fact, in
the absence of any remarkable disparity in the skill displayed by the two combatants,
would not have sufficed to prove that the victor was a better player,teste a dozen
instances where the winner of the first few games has afterwards been signally
defeated, fortiori, the difference of a single game between them ought not to be
considered to have settled the question. Our own opinion is that Mr. Anderssen in his
best day attained a much higher eminence than Mr. Kolisch has ever reached; but we
cannot admit that the result of the present brief encounter proves that he is a stronger
player at this time. Let another match be arranged between them of some forty or
fifty games. Mr. Anderssen may not be able to play it here, but Mr. Kolisch can
easily go to Breslau; and when that fair trial has taken place it will not be difficult to
pronounce definitively upon their relative capabilities. Till then, we take leave to
reserve judgment.
MESSRS. ANDERSSEN AND KOLISCHS MATCH.M. St. Amant, publishes the
following sketch in the Sport:During a late visit to London, towards the end of July,
we witnessed at the City Chess Club a very interesting match between M. Kolisch
and M. Anderssen. The latter gentleman, Professor of Mathematics in the University
of Breslau, had availed himself of his yearly vacation to make a trip to London in
order to try his strength with M. Kolisch, who had become the terror of chess-players
on the banks of the Thames, and whom the laurels of the admirable Morphy also
prevent from sleeping. These able players, both Germans, began by a skirmish of
four games, the honours of which were equally divided, and then, in order to decide a
more serious match, the prize for which (10 guineas) was subscribed by the members
of the club, they began a series of games, in which he who should first gain four was
to be declared the victor. After various alternations of loss and gain, as well as drawn
games, hough only one game was played each day, beginning at noon precisely, the
score on the 1st inst. showed the following result:Two drawn games, three games
won by M. Kolisch, and four by M. Anderssen, who was consequently declared the
winner. Though Kolisch was beaten by losing the last game (which ended by an
announced checkmate in five moves), he is young, and has plenty of time to take his
revenge against the veteran Anderssen, who this time bravely came to challenge him,
and displayed great skill, especially in the two concluding games, which he gained
rapidly, having previously appeared somewhat inferior to this antagonist. The games
played were certainly fine ones, though often disparaged by mistakes unworthy of
such able champions, and they also showed a feeling of mutual apprehension. What
particularly pleased us in this match was an innovation, a real progress, without
which it is no longer possible to undertake a serious struggle. This innovation, which
we have always advocated in the Palamde, and still more recently in the Sport,
consists in fixing a maximum of time for the moves; for it is necessary that a game
should not be interminable, and that the conditions should be equal for both parties,
which they were not when one of the players was allowed by intentional slowness to
weary out the patience and faculties of his antagonist. As long ago as 1836 (see
Palamde, t. 1, p. 189), we ourselves were authorised to propose to the English, in the
name of Deschapelles (our illustrious and regretted master), on the occasion of his
challenge, to establish a measure of time. The practical means of execution selected
was the hourglass of old Saturn, which we borrowed from the mythological deity to
recommend it for adoption by our insular neighbours, who take for their device, Time
is money.A quarter of a century has elapsed before our idea had prevailed, simple
and excellent as it is. The London Chess Club has now adopted the emblem of the
fabled god, and we found Kolisch and Anderssen separated by two gigantic
clypsedras, or rather sand-glasses, each made to measure the space of two hours.
While the sand is running through, the player is bound to make twenty-four moves,
which gives an average of five minutes for each; but the player is at liberty to give
more or less time to any move he pleases, provided the twenty-four moves are made
in 120 minutes. We are happy to state that this first trial was most satisfactory. The
two antagonists, though a little moved at first on account of this sword of Damocles
suspended over their combinations, soon got used to it, and not the slightest
inconvenience was experienced. Seeing that a great many moves, especially at the
opening, may be played rapidly, as much as half an hour, or even an hour, may be
taken for a decisive move at the close. In the match we have just witnessed, the
shortest game took two hours and the longest seven.
A few remarks on this highly interesting trial of skill may be acceptable to some of
our readers. Although Kolisch was defeated, the match was so closely contested (4 to
3, with 2 draws), that the score cannot be taken as
deciding the relative powers of the two players.
Undoubtedly a match of at least twenty-one games is
necessary to enable us to form a judgment as to skill,
from the number of the games lost and won on each
side. Judging from the games themselves, however,
we are inclined to consider Anderssen at present
decidedly the more finished and accomplished player.
This is quite natural, and incident to an experience
longer by some twenty years than that of Mr Kolisch.
As, however, the latter is yet quite a young player (of
only twenty-three years of age we believe), there is
every probability that a continuance of play with such
a master as Anderssen would render him at least equal
to his late victor. Mr Kolischs play evidences great confidence, keen research, and
immense tenacity, but is inferior in discipline, systematic connection, and caution to
that of Anderssen. We may observer that the last-mentioned player is
acknowledgedly the quicker, and that the admirable time-limitation used in this match
(twenty moves to two hours) is said to have told rather against Mr Kolisch, who may
nevertheless play as readily as his opponent did when he has had half his experience.
On the whole the late match has produced very instructive, excellent, and valuable
games, and has clearly proved, were there only the first and fourth games, that the
German master is in the full possession of his very best play whenever he chooses to
exert himself, and that he had full need of it against such a formidable antagonist.
The Mackenzie-Reichhelm Match,
US Championship 1867
Game Pairing Result ECO Opening
1
Mackenzie-
Reichhelm
1-0 [C01/12] French
2
Reichhelm-
Mackenzie
0-1 [C68/06] Spanish
3
Mackenzie-
Reichhelm
1-0 [C10/10] French
4
Reichhelm-
Mackenzie
- [C51/03] Evans Gambit
5
Mackenzie-
Reichhelm
1-0 [C12/02] French
6
Reichhelm-
Mackenzie
0-1 [C51/02] Evans Gambit
7
Mackenzie-
Reichhelm
- [C84/12] Spanish
8
Reichhelm-
Mackenzie
0-1 [C45/21] Scotch
9
Mackenzie-
Reichhelm
The Blackburne-Steinitz Match,
London 1876
- Prologue - - -
1
Steinitz-Blackburne
2
Blackburne-Steinitz
0-1 [C45/04] Scotch
3
Steinitz-Blackburne
1-0 [C39/03] Kings Gambit Accepted
4
Blackburne-Steinitz
0-1 [C45/04] Scotch
5
Steinitz-Blackburne
1-0 [C29/01] Vienna Gambit
6
Blackburne-Steinitz
0-1 [C45/04] Scotch
7
Steinitz-Blackburne
1-0 [C30/06] Kings Gambit Declined
The Rosenthal-Zukertort Match,
London 1880
- Prologue - - -
1
Zukertort-
Rosenthal
- [C49/01] Four Knights
2
Rosenthal-
Zukertort
- [C44/02] Ponziani
3
Zukertort-
Rosenthal
1-0 [C49/01] Four Knights
4
Rosenthal-
Zukertort
- [C77/08] Spanish
5
Zukertort-
Rosenthal
- [C67/02] Spanish
6
Rosenthal-
Zukertort
- [C67/02] Spanish
7
Zukertort-
Rosenthal
- [C65/01] Spanish
8
Rosenthal-
Zukertort
9
Zukertort-
Rosenthal
- [D06/01] Queens Gambit
10
Rosenthal-
Zukertort
11
Zukertort-
Rosenthal
12
Rosenthal-
Zukertort
13
Zukertort-
Rosenthal
14
Rosenthal-
Zukertort
-
Complimentary
Dinner
- - -
15
Zukertort-
Rosenthal
1-0 [D06/01] Queens Gambit
16
Rosenthal-
Zukertort
- [C77/08] Spanish
17
Zukertort-
Rosenthal
- [A22/01] English
18
Rosenthal-
Zukertort
- [C48/01] Four Knights
19
Zukertort-
Rosenthal
1-0 [A28/11] English
The Gunsberg-Steinitz Match,
World Championship 1890-91
1
Steinitz-Gunsberg
- [D35/01] Queens Gambit Declined
2
Gunsberg-Steinitz
3
Steinitz-Gunsberg
- [D31/07] Classic Semi-Slav
4
Gunsberg-Steinitz
1-0 [C50/03] Italian
5
Steinitz-Gunsberg
0-1 [D20/03] Queens Gambit Accepted
6
Gunsberg-Steinitz
0-1 [D05/05] Queens Pawn
7
Steinitz-Gunsberg
1-0 [D26/01] Queens Gambit Accepted
8
Gunsberg-Steinitz
- [C54/07] Giuoco Piano
9
Steinitz-Gunsberg
10
Gunsberg-Steinitz
11
Steinitz-Gunsberg
12
Gunsberg-Steinitz
13
Steinitz-Gunsberg
1-0 [A46/04] Indian
14
Gunsberg-Steinitz
- [C52/01] Evans Gambit
15
Steinitz-Gunsberg
- [E14/02] Queens Indian
16
Gunsberg-Steinitz
17
Steinitz-Gunsberg
18
Gunsberg-Steinitz
19
Steinitz-Gunsberg
The Lasker-Steinitz Match,
World Championship 1894
-
Prologue
- - -
1
Lasker-Steinitz
2
Steinitz-Lasker
3
Lasker-Steinitz
4
Steinitz-Lasker
1-0 [C54/01] Giuoco Piano
5
Lasker-Steinitz
- [C62/01] Spanish
6
Steinitz-Lasker
7
Lasker-Steinitz
8
Steinitz-Lasker
0-1 [C10/12] French
9
Lasker-Steinitz
10
Steinitz-Lasker
0-1 [D35/01] Queens Gambit Declined
11
Lasker-Steinitz
12
Steinitz-Lasker
13
Lasker-Steinitz
14
Steinitz-Lasker
1-0 [D46/30] Semi-Slav
15
Lasker-Steinitz
16
Steinitz-Lasker
17
Lasker-Steinitz
0-1 [C50/04] Italian
18
Steinitz-Lasker
19
Lasker-Steinitz
-
Epilogue
- - -
History and Literature of Chess.
The game of Chess is of great antiquity, and appears to have been invented in
China or Hindostan - Sir Wm. Jones inclines to the latter supposition. In the 2d vol.
of the Asiatic Researches, he says, We may be satisfied with the testimony of the
Persians, who, though as much inclined as other nations to appropriate the ingenious
invention of a foreign people, unanimously agree that the game was imported from
the West of India in the sixth century of our era ; it seems to have been immemorially
known in Hindostan by the name of Chaturanga, i.e. the four angas or members of an
army, which are these - elephants, horses, chariots, and foot soldiers ; and in this
sense the world is frequently used by epic poets in their descriptions of real armies.
By a natural corruption of the pure and ancient word it was changed by the old
Persians into Chatrang; but the Arabs, who soon after took possession of their
country, had neither the initial nor the final letter of the word in their alphabet, and
consequently altered it further into Shatranj; which found its way presently into the
modern Persian and at length into the dialect of India, where the true derivation of the
word is known only to the learned. Thus has a very significant word in the sacred
language of the Brahmins been transformed, by progressive changes, into axedras,
scacchi, echecs, chess, and by a whimsical concurrence of circumstances, has given
birth to the English word check, and even a name to the exchequer of Great Britain.
He speaks also of the rath, or armed chariot, which the Bengalese pronounced roth,
and which the Persians changed into rokh, whence came the rook of some European
nations ; as the vierge and fol, of the French, are supposed to be corruptions of ferze
and fil, the prime minister and elephant of the Persians and Arabs.
It is perfectly clear that Chess was not known to the Greeks or Romans, - indeed it
is commonly supposed not to have been introduced into Europe till the time of the
Crusades, though there is a set of Latin verses in Hyde, describing the game, which is
said to have been written during the time of the Saxons, and therefore a good number
of years before the first Crusade. Several points in which the Eastern game now
differs from ours were then observed in Europe. - Pen. Cyclop.
The Spirit of the Times, New York, 1845.12.13
Gallery of Chess Portraits - No. II.
JAMES THOMPSON, ESQ. - This player is well and favorably known to all New-
Yorkers, especially to the disciples of Epicurus [sic; Epicures], as the famous
Restaurant-keeper, on Broadway. As a general thing we do not intend to make any
allusion to the occupation of the individuals whose chess-portraitures will find a place
in our gallery, but the question is so often asked in chess-circles by young players,
who hear of the prowess of Mr. Thompson at the game, whether it is the Mr.
Thompson - i.e. the caterer - that we make an exception to our rule in this instance.
The subject under notice ranks deservedly high at the club, having won more matches
there, we believe, than any other member. He is perhaps the most attacking player we
have - often giving away a clear piece - and without positive advantage to himself
sometimes - rather than be foiled in an attack, or act on the defensive. With players a
shade weaker than himself he is very successful in this species of tactics, frequently
winning by intimidation, - his adversary fearing that if it be madnessthus to throw
away his game, yet is there method in it,and believing half the time that is only some
latent mine or battery, masking a mate. The Evans Gambit is his favorite opening and
he manages it with remarkable skill and variety. In the hands of a finished player this
gambit affords great facilities for carrying on the kind of warfare we have indicated.
He prosecutes the attack at any and every hazard. The celebrated phrase of Danton
applies well to him - better indeed than to any other player of our acquaintance ;- de
laudace, el encore de laudace, el toujours de laudace! His defence is always the
strongest - counter-attack.
Mr. Thompson is a very interesting player, and his board usually has as many
lookers-on as any other in the room, because original, complicated and beautiful
positions and combinations are likely to be found there if anywhere. He frightens his
opponents out of their victory, not unfrequently, [sic] not only by his bold play, but
also by talking confidently of his own game and disparagingly of theirs - a sort of
bullying ones adversary, as it were. This last peculiarity, however, is not
idiosyncratic with Mr. Thompson. We know several others that indulge in the vile
habit (for we cannot otherwise characterize it) whose force as players and instincts as
gentlemen should teach them to forbear its use. We make this remark abstractly and
impersonally, and not with reference to any particular individual, certainly not to Mr.
Thompson, who is now in Europe, where he has been for a long time, and where he
designs remaining for a year or two to come. He has recently written from Paris that
the average play of our best twenty club players is much above that of the same
number picked from the Cercle des Echecs of that city. Our Minister to Portugal, Mr.
J. L. OSullivan, played a match at Paris, last summer, with St. Amant, winning three
and drawing three out of twenty-seven. Rather a great disparity, to be sure, but Mr.
T. can beat the plenipotentiary easily. We expect to hear some match, creditable to
Americans, before Mr. Thompson returns. We are quite willing to exhibit him to our
neighbors over the Atlantic Ferry as a fair specimen of our players, and are fully
confident that they will find him a pretty tough American (chess) nut to crack. We
trust that he will favor is with some chess correspondence during his sojourn in
Europe. We regret that we have not any game of Mr. Thompsons to publish with this
notice. It is our intention to give with each portraiture, a game played by the party
sketched, to verify our statements in regard to their skill as players or problem makers.
We must not forget to state that, although Mr. Thompsons general play is such as
we have described, yet no man is more careful than he in a set match; then he plays
for victory, not brilliancy, and is an ugly customer to deal with, as our old Boston
opponent, of ten years agone, Mr. Hammond can testify. By the way, can any of our
Boston readers tell us whether Mr. H. is in the land of the living? We intend to sketch
him, and would like some fresh material. He was a most promising and indefatigable
player. But of him more anon.
Frank Leslies Illustrated Newspaper, New York, 1856.01.19
Have We A Traitor Among Us?
There is a man in England who has a very unfortunate name.
We have known three persons named Church, and they were all great rascals. If a
mans name is Priest or Parson or Elder, you may safely set him down as an
undesirable acquaintance. And if a man goes by the name of Deacon, take care that
he does not commit a forgery upon you.
Now, this man in England is named Deacon, and the name, presumably, has ruined
him. Deacon used to live in Bruges, but now he lives in London. In Bruges he
distinguished himself by the invention of invariably erroneous problems. In London
he has distinguished himself by inventions which are a great deal worse than
erroneous.
He entered into a conspiracy with Koward Staunton, which resulted in the
publication of two games of Chess purporting to have been played between Mr.
Morphy and himself. His dealings with Mr. Morphy had made Howard the butt of
the Chess world, and Koward wanted the lofty satisfaction of making it appear that
Mr. Morphy had lost a game to a sixth-rate player. And, very likely, he hoped that
the discussion, which was sure to follow, would do more or less injury to Mr.
Morphys reputation among English players. Deacon was to be compensated for his
share in the dirty business, by the notoriety of having won a game from such a player
as Mr. Morphy.
But Deacon, besides being a rogue, is a bungler.
Instead of manufacturing both the games, he chose, as one of them, a game which
he had played with J. Arnous de Riviere of Paris. And it so happened that Riviere
had shown this very game to Morphy. So that, when the latter saw the two games in
print, he not only pronounced them to be forgeries, as far as he was concerned, but
was able to tell where one of them came from. And before Mr. Morphys expose had
reached Europe, the game was claimed by Riviere, in a letter to Howard.
And now we come to the most interesting development of all in this curious affair.
We allude to the part which the Philadelphia Evening Bulletin has seen fit to take in it.
In the Bulletin for March 10th we find the following:
* * * If the question is one of veracity between Messrs. Morphy
and Staunton, we cannot choose between two gentlemen, both
of whom we are bound to believe incapable of falsehood.
* * * Why cannot Mr. Deacon speak out, and settle, at once, this
vexed question?
Who has found the Bulletin to believe Mr. Staunton incapable of falsehood, in the
face of historical fact that the Chess career of the latter has been a career of falsehood
from beginning to end? We will give only one of a hundred instances of what the
Boston Gazette calls Mr. Stauntons inability to tell the truth.
Mr. Staunton, who merely entered the arena to lend the
undertaking the support of his name, being like his old
antagonist, M. St. Amant, altogether out of practice, was, like
that once famous player, unhorsed in his last two games.-
Illustrated London News, Sept. 4, 1858.
This was Kowards excuse for getting beaten by Herr Lowenthal.
Mr. S went to Birmingham and entered his name in the list of
combatants at the late meeting there, mainly to confront Mr.
Morphy, but Mr. M. thought proper no to appear.-Illustrated
London News, Nov. 3, 1858.
And this was one of Kowards excuses from not giving Mr. Morphy a chance to
beat him.
A man who undertakes to be untruthful ought to have a good memory. Koward is
very unfortunate in this respect.
Why cannot Mr. Deacon speak out, and settle, at once, this vexed question? Does
such a sentence as this need any comment? It expresses, as plainly as language can
express, the Bulletins determination to believe the unsupported assertions of an
obscure English player, in preference to the assertions of Mr. Morphy. Deacon is not
asked to give any external evidence of the truth of anything he may speak out ; and
whether he does or does not give such evidence, the Bulletin will consider the
question settled, on the spot, without giving Mr. Morphy time to say anything more,
or to produce any testimony on the other side.
We have next to notice the following language which appeared in the Bulletin for
April 14, 1860:
--- We have received, by the Persia, the English version of the
Morphy - Deacon affair. We give below a temperate,
gentlemanly, and most conclusive letter from Mr. Deacon, and
also Mr. Stauntons comments on the anonymous card, published
in New York. They are extremely severe, but not more so than
the provocation warrants.
As is well known that the Bulletins masterly acquaintance with the English tongue
enables it always to express its ideas in the clearest possible manner, we must take it
for granted that the words extremely severe,in the above paragraph, refer to Deacons
letter as well as to Kowards comments, notwithstanding the use of the word temperate
just before.
Suppose that the Editor of the Bulletin had a tremendously fine watch-chain, and
that some Philadelphia pick-pocket should relieve him of it. Would the Editor refrain
from accusing the thief, on the ground that such accusation would be a provocation
warranting the latter in bringing an action for slander?
How easy it is to convince a man of that which he is determined to believe
anyhow. The Deaconic letter which the Bulletin regards as most conclusivethrows
not a single ray of new light upon the subject. It merely contains sundry roundabout
declarations that the games in dispute were really what they pretended to be. The
mere fact that he published the games, was all the assurance the public wanted that
Deacon asserted their authenticity. What the public did want, was any evidence of
their genuineness which he might be able to bring forward. But he took care not to
give any such evidence until formally called upon to do so.
But the remarkable feature of this remarkable controversy is yet to be chronicled.
In its issue of June 9th, the Bulletin published an original letter from Deacon, in
which it is stated that the disputed games were played at the British Hotel, in the
presence of another Deacon and a waiter. As usual, Deacon accompanies his
statements with no proof, but he goes so far, this time, as to declare that he intends to
obtain a corroborative communication from that other Deacon.
This letter is prefaced by the following Bulletin paragraph:
The Morphy-Deacon controversy is yet fresh in the minds of our
readers. As the opinions of American Chess players have been
much divided in reference to the matter, we have been at some
pains to ascertain for ourselves the facts of the case, and we
have received, just as we go to press, the following letter,
written by Mr. Deacon, at our instance, to a mutual friend in
England, which we regard as a final settlement of the point in
dispute:
How very kind and patriotic of the Bulletin to take so much pains in the matter, and
in such a way! One might have supposed that an American Editor would have
applied to Mr. Morphy for information, or that, as the least thing he could do, he
would have made application to him at the same time that he made application to
Deacon.
There has been a division of opinion, certainly ; but we beg leave to suggest that
such division was rather unequal. It was the Editor of the Bulletin on one side, and
every one else on the other.
Notice how the Bulletin would leave us to infer that the facts of the casecould only
be obtained from the English side. Observe how characteristically it looks upon this
last Deaconic emanation as a final settlement of the question. It doesnt wait for
Deacon to furnish his first item of evidence. It doesnt linger to hear any rebutting
testimony from Mr. Morphy. It gives its second decision as promptly as it gave its
first, in willing forgetfulness of the fact that the only outside evidence yet produced --
Rivieres claim to one of the games -- is all the other way.
It may be well, in this connection, to show who is the Bulletins mutual friendin
England. Turning back to its number for June 2d, we shall find the following among
its Answers to Correspondents:
H. S. London.--We wrote to you on some Chess matters about a
month ago. Did you get our letter?
Howard Staunton is the Bulletins English friend!
While we think of it, there are two or three questions which we should like to have
the Bulletin answer. Why did not Deacon publish the games immediately after they
were said to have been played? Why did he keep them back until Mr. Morphy had
been eight months away from England? Why did he make no complaint that Mr.
Morphys repeatedly-given score was incorrect? The vanity of an inferior player
would inevitably lead him to give to the world, at the earliest possible moment, a
game won of Mr. Morphy. It is quite evident that Deacon dared not put forth the
games while Mr. Morphy was on the spot, and while the memory of Mr. Morphys
associates was too fresh -- if, indeed, the whole forgery be not a late thought of
Deacons.
Although the Bulletin has not, as it would make us believe, put an end to this
strange controversy, there is one thing which its articles on the subject have rendered
most conclusive-- one thing which its own action has finally settled. And that is, the
position which the Philadelphia Evening Bulletin occupies among the Chess columns
of America.
The Bulletin is only a branch of the Illustrated London News, in disguise. It has
sold itself to Koward Staunton, and to Falkbeer and his wretched Chess Players
Chronicle. It is now a traitor in our midst, doing, with a traitors industry, a traitors
work. It stands, to-day, before the American Chess public, in all the unenviable
notoriety of having twice deliberately decided -- in favor of an almost unknown
English player -- that Paul Morphy has written, and caused to be published, a willful
lie. This, and this only, is what its opinions and its language mean. It cannot, now,
hide its far-carried animosity to Mr. Morphy behind the weak pretence that Mr. M.
has forgotten the Deacon games. In common with the rest of the American Chess
world, it has too much acquaintance with that Macauleian memory of his, to entertain
any such nonsense. It knows, as well as any one, that Mr. Morphy plays few games
which he cannot recall at any time, and that he plays no games which he would not
invariably recognize at sight. This plea of fallible memoryis only a little bit of
hypocritical plausibility on the part of Deacon. And it is, moreover, worse than
worthless. For, if it be asserted that a memory like Morphys is so very fallible, how
much more fallible, it must be admitted, may a common memory, like Deacons be.
Not for this reason, but for its own purposes, the Bulletin has taken care, in all its so
freely expressed opinions, not to hint, even, that Mr. Morphys repudiation may have
occurred, in consequence of his forgetfulness. It cannot, therefore, take any such
ground, at this late day.
We shall not trouble ourselves, at present, to search for any very hidden reasons for
the Bulletins enmity to Mr. Morphy. We content ourselves with the remembrance
that Mr. M. has been intimately connected with a certain brilliant Chess writer, who
used to edit the Chess Monthly and the column of the Saturday Press -- who
originated the Chess Congress, and imported Universal Notation -- and who once
defeated the Bulletin in a literary war -- although the latter, English like, tried to make
out that it was a drawn battle. With the remembrance that Mr. Morphy favors
Universal Notation. With the remembrance that Mr. M. is one of the two players who
deprived Mr. Montgomery of his anticipated prize in the Chess Congress. And with
the remembrance that New Orleans is one of the two cities whose existence renders
the vast pretensions of the Hub of the Chess Universe on the highest degree ridiculous.
New York, June 30th, 1860.
The Spirit of the Times, New York, 1860.06.30
The Chess Detectives
by Chris Ravilious & Brian Denman
The Sculptors Daughter
A popular UK television series, The House Detectives, features a team of
researchers who in a matter of hours seem able to lay bare the history of any human
habitation. Armed with degrees in industrial archaeology and a tape-measure, and as
intimate with the ways of libraries and record offices as with the prehistory of the
damp course, they seize on the smallest clues to reconstruct the way of life of
successive owners and the changes they made to their dwellings. Magic. But is it
only the history of houses which offers opportunities for such detective work? How
about chess history...?
In her day, Edith M. Holloway was one of the
brightest names in British womens chess. Winner of
the first post-WWI Womens Championship in 1919,
she was in the prize list in several subsequent
contests, taking the title for a second time in 1936.
She also shared fourth place in the inaugural World
Womens Championship tournament in 1927. Her
husband, S. J. Holloway, M.B.E., was a tireless
propagandist for the British Chess Federation during
the interwar period. Husband and wife appear
together in at least one portrait group.
*
Despite this prominence, much about Edith Holloway remains obscure. What
family nurtured her chess talent? How old was she at the time of her two British
Championship victories (from photos one would guess her to have been around 60 in
the 1930s)? What became of her thereafter? Even Jeremy Gaiges Chess Personalia
has no answer to these questions.
Sounds like a case for the Chess Detectives...
Everyone has heard of Whos Who, but the existence of a variety of more
specialised biographical sources is less well known. In one of these, The Womens
Whos Who, 1934-5, we found a brief entry for Edith Holloway:
HOLLOWAY, Mrs E. M.
D[aughter] o[f]: John Denton Crittenden, Sculptor.
M[arried]: S.J. Holloway, M.B.E.
Ex-Woman Chess Champion G.B. (1919).
A[ddress]: 25 Howitt Rd, Hampstead, N.W.3.
Armed with this information we set to work, one of us pursuing the Crittenden
connection, the other exploring official records of births and deaths. Here is what we
found.
John Denton Crittenden (1834-77) is now forgotten by all but a few historians of
the fine arts, but in the sixties of the last century he was a regular exhibitor at the
Royal Academy whose works commanded prices as high as 250, a large sum in
those days. The family, it is clear, was comfortably off. It was also close-knit.
Obituaries commented on the extent to which the artist found inspiration in the
domestic circle, noting that during the long and trying illness which preceded his
death it was touching to see the dying artist drawing, with his failing hands, animals
for the amusement of his little children. And one of his most popular sculptured
groups, Play (1865), is of a mother with a small child, said to represent the sculptors
wife and one of their children. It would seem that the future Mrs Holloway, at
whatever age she learned her chess, came from a home in which children were loved
and encouraged to develop their talents.
While one of the Chess Detectives was immersing himself in art history, the other
was scanning microfiche records of births and deaths for an Edith M. Crittenden,
whom we now believed to have been born around 1870. Sure enough, General
Register Office records confirmed that the future chess champion first saw the light in
the St Pancras area of London in the first quarter of 1868. Her second Christian name
proved hard to read, but was probably Martha.
We now knew a good deal more about Mrs Holloway; notably - and remarkably -
that she was within two years of her 70th birthday at the time of her second British
Championship triumph. All that remained was to establish her date of death.
That Mrs Holloway had been alive during the first years of WWII we knew
already, having found various references to her in the unpublished diaries of the
occultist Aleister Crowley. The final piece in the jigsaw came once again from GRO
records, which mentioned the death of an Edith M. Holloway in 1956 at the age of
88. While we cannot know for certain that this was the chess-player, name and age
fit. The Chess Detectives have little doubt that the sculptors daughter and British
Womens Champion has finally been laid to rest.
CAISSAS LEGACY:
THE GREAT CHESS LIBRARIES
by Allan Savage, M.L.S., CC-IM
This was the lecture given June 13, 1998 by CC-IM Allan Savage at the Thinkers
Press Chess Festival held in Moline, Illinois.
I am here to tell you that chess databases and playing programs are not the
ultimate possession! (As if you didnt know!) Chess players and enthusiasts today
are focused on the present the latest international tournaments, up and coming
super GMs, the latest wrinkle in opening theory. But we must not forget that the
present rapidly becomes the past.
The history of our game is a literary one. More books exist on chess than all
other games combined. These books exist in libraries, both public and private. This
is the legacy of our game CAISSAS LEGACY. I am here to encourage you to
explore it!
Take this statement:
The preservation of accumulated knowledge is vital to those who come after.
This is not a quote from a librarian or a historian as you might think! It is from
one Garry Kasparov in his preface to the book Petrosians Legacy. Kasparov was
relating how strongly Petrosian had felt about communicating his knowledge to
those who would follow him.
My talk tonight will focus primarily on the three largest chess libraries in the
world, and I will also mention a few others.
The largest and most comprehensive collection is at the Cleveland Public Library
in Cleveland, Ohio. The John G. White Collection (chess and checkers) today has
over 35,000 volumes and subscribes to 180 periodicals. Roughly 15 different
researchers visit each month (some local ones visit several times a week). They
receive about 10 inquiries by mail/month.
I submit to you this library is a vastly under-utilized resource! I implore you
to visit it. The stacks are closed for security reasons (thus you cant browse), so you
must request your items from the staff. But do not be intimidated by this -- all
materials are available for browsing in the reading room and the staff is very
helpful. And Cleveland has many unique items found no where else in the world!
Some materials are available via interlibrary loan.
How did such a vast collection arise? It arose out of the library of a single
collector, John G. White (1845-1928). He viewed chess literature as a educational
vehicle where he could learn about other countries, cultures, and time periods.
Through chess he learned to read at least a little in 29 different languages!
He had three major book collections: chess, folklore, and orientalia; but the chess
collection was his most prized. He aimed at bibliographic completeness! All
editions, all versions, all languages! He inherited a sizeable chess collection from
his father and then purchased the famous library of George Walker (in toto). But
this was the only complete library he bought, which, as you will see, is highly
unusual for a major collector. Then, over many years, he corresponded with dealers
and other collectors worldwide to build his collection piece by piece.
At his death in 1928, there were nearly 12,000 volumes on chess (5,000 titles),
appraised at $300,000. Most importantly, he left the rest of his estate ($275,000) as
a trust fund to maintain and continue the collection. In 1991, the value of that fund
was $875,000 (which includes a $100,000 donation); at that time its projected
yearly income was in excess of $36,000. This is truly CAISSAS LEGACY!!
The collection now contains over 1,000 original manuscripts, scrapbooks of
about 2000 newspaper columns, thousands of volumes of chess periodicals, 40 large
boxes of uncataloged chess problems, portrait and autograph collections, 57
incunabula (books printed before 1500) and over 100 chess sets. While the trust
fund stipulates no money can be used for acquiring chess sets, the library has
obtained many by donation. The recent exhibition of their complete chess set
collection is documented in a published catalog.
The chess collection at the Royal Library at the Hague, in the Netherlands, is
a very close second in size (some estimates have it larger), but its surely not as
comprehensive. It, too, was formed from private collections: those of van der Linde
(750 books in 1876) and Niemeijer (nearly 7000 books in 1948).
Dr. Niemeijer (1902-1987) started collecting seriously in 1924 (encouraged and
supported by a Mr. Oskam, chess promoter). Niemeijer bought books frequently at
auctions and also acquired many whole libraries, attaining 2400 volumes in 9
years! By 1948 he had 7000 volumes and donated his collection to the Royal
Library with the stipulation that they publish a catalog, which they did in 1955. He
had acquired about 25 complete libraries, which numbered from a few hundred to
4000 volumes (DeMotta of Brazil). After donating his collection, Niemeijer
continued to add rare older titles and the Library comprehensively acquired modern
works.
In an interview in NIC Magazine a year before his death, Niemeijer emphasized
the importance of openness and accessibility of significant collections, a trait he
shared with John G. White. He would always welcome visitors into his home to see
his library, when it was still housed there. The chess collection at the Royal Library
receives about 200 visitors a year, roughly the same as Cleveland.
Niemeijer was always interested in trading with other collectors, especially those
with major collections. He defined a major collection as one with at least a few
thousand books! In that interview, he did mention another major collector named
Meissenberg who had 10,000+ volumes; perhaps this is the next largest private
collector behind Schmid.
Niemeijer was also a problem composer (IM), who published 30 books on the
subject and authored 600 problems. He started the great Netherlands Problem
Archives in1925, which has an excess of 50,000 problems today.
The 3rd largest collection is private: GM Lothar Schmids is recognized by
everyone as the largest personal collection in the world. There is no catalog (!) for
this collection housed in 7 rooms on the top 2 floors of his house in Bamberg,
Germany. The ground floor is taken by his publishing business (Karl May-Verlag)
and his living quarters are on the 1st floor. It is said that the collection looks
chaotic, but Lothar knows where to find everything!
He started collecting in the 1950s, when he was offered the library of Rogmann.
Since then he has bought over 50 other collections including that of Tarrasch! His
Incunabula is notorious: It includes one of the 10 extant copies of Lucena (1497)
and all eight editions of Damiano (1512-64).
For those of you who dont know, Schmid is one of the few double GMs: he won
the great Dyckhoff Memorial CC tourney in 1956 and finished =2nd with OKelly
behind Ragosin in the CC world championship of 1958. His strongest OTB years
were in the 1960s. Furthermore, he is a famous International Arbiter, officiating at
the 1972 Fischer-Spassky match, the 1978 Karpov-Kortchnoi match, and the 1992
Fischer-Spassky Match (and others).
What is possibly the 4th largest collection in the world is probably unknown to
all of you except our special guests from Australia. The M. V. Anderson
Collection, located at the State Library of Victoria in Australia contains
approximately 12,000 volumes and more than 600 periodicals (70 current). Started
in 1918 and offered to the library in 1956 (1500 volumes). Anderson continued to
build the collection and it stood at more than 6000 volumes at his death in 1966.
The library continues acquire everything on chess in English and major works in
other languages.
I would like to mention a few of the more important public collections in the
USA. I have prepared a handout for you on these, which you can pick up after the
lecture. Many of these are so-called Special Collectionswhich are found in the
Rare Book Rooms or separate facilities within larger libraries. The May 1998 issue
of Biblio has a nice article on some of the unique items in these collections.
The Cook and Spackmann Collections at Princeton University
E.B. Cook (1830-1915) was the foremost American chess problemist of his day.
The collection is strong on 16th and 17th century books and US chess history in the
1800s. It was acquired by Princeton in 1915.
The Spackmann Collection is post-1915 and is concerned with chiefly with
tournament books and bulletins.
Gladney Collection at Louisiana State University
Portion of the personal collection of Frank Gladney, of Baton Rouge acquired in
1976. It features a deep collection of material on Paul Morphy, which is probably
the best anywhere.
Justice Collection at Colorado College
Collection of Alfred Justice; acquired in 1957- gift by his son. Strong on 16th to
19th century works. Includes an 1805 edition of Philidor, which is from Dolly
Madisons library.
Willing Collection at the Free Library in Philadelphia
Large collection of Charles Willing (1872-1950). A catalog of this collection
exists.
Muir-Hoganauer Collection at the University of Louisville
Established in 1971 by CC-IM Walter Muir based on a consignment, a friends
collection, and part of his own collection. 500 items, but later will contain Muirs
entire collection. Muir wanted as much public access as possible so books are split
between the circulating collection and rare book room. Yearly cash gift used for
new books and general maintence.
Not all current items are cataloged; Muir working on catalog of entire collection.
His pride is a complete run of BCM from 1881.
Finally, let me conclude by encouraging you to consider building your own
collection! Most of you probably have a small collection already. Of course, today
few can afford to build a general collection that is comprehensive, but you CAN
SPECIALIZE. Pick a very small area that interests you and try to build that
comprehensively! Get on dealers mailing lists, browse used and antiquarian
bookstores, get friendly with other collectors.
Excavations
April 2001
Conserving the Past: Chess Lifeas a Historical Vehicle...
by John S. Hilbert
August 2000
Norman Tweed Whitaker and the Search for Historical Perspective
by John S. Hilbert
February 2000
More Recovered Chess Games: Steinitz, Pillsbury, Lasker and Capablanca
by John S. Hilbert
January 2000
Alekhines Simultaneous Exhibition: Sofia, Bulgaria April 1936
by Tomasz Lissowski
The N.Y.S.C.A.s Mid-Summer Meeting at Saratoga Springs 1899
by John S. Hilbert
December 1999
OHanlons First Two Irish Titles
by David McAlister
November 1999
The 1897 Franklin - Manhattan Chess Club Telegraphic Team Match
by John S. Hilbert
October 1999
Keres Plays With the Wehrmacht
by Tomasz Lissowski
The Blackburne-Zukertort Match, London 1881
by Nick Pope
September 1999
A Player in Search of a Biographer: George Henry Mackenzie
by John S. Hilbert
August 1999
Reference Literature For Chess History
by Anders Thulin
One Mans Mind
by Quentin Reynolds (submitted by John S. Hilbert)
Previous Articles
Library Archives
Earlier Chess Archaeology Excavations
Introduction:
I came by this piece of American chess history rather by accident. I was playing
out the 1996 Karpov-Kamsky games from the rec.games.chess newsgroup when my
friend and co-worker, Mark Sherrouse, came by. He remarked that he too played
chess and that his great-great grandfather, James McConnell, used to play with Paul
Morphy. He had a notebook of Jameswith some gamescores in it, and said he could
bring it in sometime for me to look at. Needless to say, I was impressed and eagerly
accepted. I said that the notebook must be over a hundred year old, Mark agreed it
was that old and it required some care in handling. I mentioned that some chess
archivists may be interested in the scores, and that I could get some information from
the chess archives on James McConnell. Mark said sure, hed like that.
After he left, I was rather in a state of disbelief. After a moment, I looked up the e-
mail addresses of a couple individuals from the chess newsgroup that I had come to
respect for their discussions there. One was Nick Pope, and I asked him if he knew of
a James McConnell, the ancestor that Mark mentioned, and what the archives had on
him and if he could recommend any chess archivists. Nick recommended himself
since he was extremely interested, and was kind enough to give me a biographical
outline on James McConnell and sent me the 8 games on record between McConnell
and Morphy, all won by Morphy, plus some other games against Steinitz and
Pillsbury.
However, it was a while before Mark Sherrouse was able to dig up the notebook,
having left it with his mother for safekeeping since he was changing locations in his
company, eventually ending up in California. In the meanwhile, I called up the
library at Louisiana State University where Mark said he saw some writings on
McConnell there. They said that one book on Morphy had some mentions of
McConnell, and they were kind enough to e-mail me the titles of nine books on
Morphy at their library. Nick Pope did some checking and told me that the
McConnell notebook could be significant because the New Orleans Chess, Checkers
and Whist Club lost most of their records and Morphy memorabilia collection in an
1890 fire.
So when Mark was able to mail me copies of the notebook, I was really excited and
it was a bit of a letdown to see that it belonged to James McConnell Jr., the son of the
James McConnell who had played with Morphy. All of the gamescores were after
1890, being between 1894 and 1909 with a total of 34 games, several with notes by
opposing players and a few bits of analysis. Nick Pope was able to confirm that some
of the games were the first recorded instances of the Kiel variation to the Center-
Counter Defense, employed by James McConnell Jr. Oddly enough, while there were
records of the father in the chess archives, there were none of the son, even though
the games showed him to be a solid chessplayer. But the main thing that really hit me
about the notebooks were the autographs. Jose Raul Capablancas signature was in it,
as flamboyant as the man himself! Other signatures were from Pillsbury, Marshall,
Marczy, Lasker, Tartakower, Marco, Lwy and a few other. Also included were a
couple of clippings, one of a 1903 game between Pillsbury and Tarrasch, and one
announcing a competition for the city title at the New Orleans club, marked T.P. Sept.
16/23, which mentioned the younger James McConnell and a 17-year Mexican boy
named Charles Torre. There also was a letter from Marczy to McConnell Jr.
indicating a friendship between the two.
It was really exciting to see those signatures of chess giants of a bygone era, but I
was looking forward to possibly seeing some undiscovered Morphy games.
However, Mark Sherrouse mentioned in his accompanying letter about seeing a
reference to the Manuscripts Division at Tulane University Library, so I called them
up the following day and found that they had a large collection entitled McConnell
Family Papers, dating from 1723 to 1962, with the bulk being between 1868 and
1934, mostly legal papers since the McConnell family was rather prominent, having
several lawyers, including James McConnell Sr. The library sent me an inventory
list, 15 pages long with 4565 items, so I could give it to Mark Sherrouse. The people
at Tulane were kind enough to look for any chess references in the James McConnell
Sr. materials, and came up with a letter from William Steinitz to James McConnell
Sr. discussing Morphy, and a 1886 game between the two won by McConnell and
annotated by Steinitz. There was another notebook kept by the elder McConnell with
23 games, some against Captain Mackenzie and Bird, plus a couple of letters from
father to son about Capablancas visit to New Orleans in 1909.
Still no Morphy, but the 1886 McConnell-Steinitz game was a real find, since it
was never recorded in the archives and it had been annotated by Steinitz. Whats
more, McConnell announced a mate in 6 moves by the 22nd move, quite an
accomplishment against one considered to be the reigning world chess champion at
that time. Im really glad that my digging turned up quite a gem, and Mark tells me
that this has really stirred up his family and created new interest in their family
history, and we may do some more contributions regarding the McConnell
chessplayers. In all, it was almost a full year from when Mark told me about the
notebook to when I received copies of the material at Tulane University library.
Return to McConnell Index
Item #1:
Letter from Wilhelm Steinitz to James McConnell Sr.
PO Box 2987 New York
March 2nd 1885
My dear Sir
Your extremely kind letter came during my absence from N. Y.
and since my return I have been very busy indeed with editorial
work. I however take the earliest opportunity (since finishing
the March number of the magazine which is now in binders
hands) in which to thank you most sincerely for your generous
recommendations.
Knowing you to be an old admirer and friend of poor Morphy I
should like to have your opinion on my essay about him after it
is finished. It is impossible to say all at once and many
important points have not been even touched yet. If you happen
to have time I should be very glad to have a letter from you on
the subject which I would be only too proud to publish with the
fullest permission extended to you to criticise me as severely as
you may in my own paper. My object is to show that I have no
personal feeling in the matter.
I was very much struck with the remark you made repeatedly
after we had played several games together: A pawn ahead wins.
This I thought a great concession on your part answering that
you had played the (so called) Morphy style probably all your
life. But if I have succeeded in showing that even Morphy did
never indulge in material sacrifices when playing important
games and that he only hazarded with weaker players I think I
shall have removed an injurious prejudice. For I have seen
many good talents spoilt and disappointed by a hankering after
brilliancies which have no solid foundation even in Morphy's
examples.
I was in hopes of having the pleasure of seeing you again soon
in case the tournament at New Orleans should come off. But I
fear I shall hardly be able to make arrangements for a lengthy
absence from N. Y. as my editorial labours require my personal
attendance here.
With kindest regards to yourself and all chess friends in the
Crescent City I have the honor to remain
very truly yours
W Steinitz
J McConnell Esq
Item #2:
Game played between James McConnell Sr. and Wilhelm Steinitz.
McConnell,J Sr Steinitz,W
C00/01 French: Steinitz
1886 USA New Orleans, LA
1.e4 e6
**As is well known Steinitz never adopted this defense excepting in the present game
where it had been agreed that the line of play which occurred in the first tie game
of the Vienna tournament of 1882 between Steinitz (White) and Winawer (Black)
should be followed by the two parties up to Whites 14th move from which point
McConnell claimed that the game could be won by White in a manner that had
escaped the attention of all analysts who had commented on that game including
the writer.
2.e5
**This line of play was introduced by Steinitz in the above named tournament and
was his favorite attack in this opening at that time.
2...f6 3.d4 c5 4.dxc5 Bxc5 5.Nc3 Qc7
**The attack here initiated gains material but too much at the expense of time and
position. 5...Nc6 was superior.
6.Bf4
**Obviously the loss of forces could be avoided by 6.exf6 but White prefers giving
up virtually at this point the exchange of his pawns for an attack which ought to
have succeeded by proper play.
6...Qb6 7.Qd2
**Only consistent with the previous play. 7.Nh3 Qxb2 8.Nb5 Bb4+ 9.Ke2 Na6 10.
Rb1 Qxa2 11.Rxb4 Nxb4 12.Nc7+ was not as good although White wins a piece
temporarily for his knight becomes immediately subject to loss by ...b6 which also
opens measures against Whites king.
7...Bxf2+ 8.Qxf2 Qxb2 9.Kd2
**Natural enough as any attempt to save the rook would have left Black with two
pawns ahead and a comparatively very easy game.
9...Qxa1 10.Nb5
**To all appearances the most direct route to be successful but the bad position of
Blacks queen and his exposed kingside might have been also utilized in other ways
for instance by 10.Qg3 with the following interesting possibilities: 10...Qxf1 (or
10...g5 11.exf6 Nxf6 best; [if 11...gxf4 12.Qg4 threatening f7+] 12.Bxb8 Qxc3+
13.Qxc3 Ne4+ 14.Ke1 Nxc3 15.Be5 and wins) 11.Nge2 Qxh1 12.Qxg7 Nc6 13.
Nb5 Nxe5 (if 13...fxe5 14.Bg5 and wins) 14.Nd6+ Kd8 15.Qf8+ Kc7 16.Ne8+ and
wins in a few moves.
10...Na6 11.Nd6+ Kf8 12.Bxa6 bxa6 13.Qc5 Ne7 14.exf6
**In the game above referred to White here played 14.Ne2 and after 14...Qxh1 15.
exf6 gxf6 16.Bh6+ Kg8 17.Qd4. This last move was a fatal error as Blacks answer
18...Qxh2 showed. However McConnells ingenious plan disguised this point. The
late Zukertort who saw this game played had strongly expressed the opinion that
Black had a winning position at this juncture and for my part I am inclined to think
that Black ought not lose at any rate. The result of this game and the examination
of the variations arising therefrom convinced me however that McConnells idea
was as sound as it was deep and clever.
14...gxf6
**If 14...Qxf6 15.Bg5 Qf1 (or 15...Qg6 16.Ne2 h6 17.Rf1+ Kg8 18.Bxe7 Kh7 there
seems nothing better 19.Nf4 Qg4 20.h3 Qg3 21.Rf3 with a winning game. This
variation was pointed out to me by McConnell) 16.Ne4 Qxg2+ 17.Ne2 h6 18.Qxe7
+ Kg8 19.Qe8+ Kh7 20.Nf6+ gxf6 21.Qf7#.
15.Bh6+ Kg8 16.h4
**A remarkably fine move which forms the root of a variety of combinations
demonstrating the winning superiority of Whites position although Black is the
exchange and two pawns ahead and can force the exchange of queens.
16...Qe5
**The Black king is so dangerously surrounded the exchange of queens seems the
only relief. Other feasible moves provided however no better result for instance
16...f5 17.Rh3 Qf6 18.Bg5 Qg7 19.Rg3. Or 16...Ng6 17.Rh3 Qe5 18.Qxe5 fxe5 19.
h5 and wins.
17.Qxe5 fxe5 18.g4
**This precaution is most important in order not to allow the Black knight to enter at
f5 which would break Whites attack. This had to be provided for in the forecast of
the combinations which formed Whites plan and is therefore all the more
murderous.
18...Rb8
**No better was 18...Nd5 19.Nh3 Nf4 (or 19...Nf6 20.Rf1 Nxg4 21.Rg1 and wins) 20.
Rf1 Nxh3 21.Rf7 and the mating position which appears at the end of this game is
now produced although White is a clear rook behind.
19.Nh3
**
The details of Whites plan are carried out with great foresight, it is necessary to
select this plan for the development of the knight in order to prevent Black from
blocking the f-file subsequently by ...Nf4.
19...Bb7 20.Rf1 Bg2
**20...Bd5 might have prolonged the fight a little but the game could not be saved.
White would then equally play 21.Rf7 followed by Ng5 and then with a series of
checks his rook would reach c7 in which situation the battle would be decided by
Nc8 preventing ...Rxc8 as well as to reach e8 with the rook after a series of checks.
21.Rf7 Ng6 (# in 6), 1-0.
**A pretty so called seesaw of checks finishes the game thus 22.Rg7+ Kf8 23.Rxd7+
Kg8 24.Rg7+ Kf8 25.Rb7+ Kg8 26.Rxb8+ and mates next moves.
McConnell Notebook, Steinitz manuscript (Courtesy Tulane University)
Item #2:
Game played between James McConnell Sr. and Wilhelm Steinitz.
Gamescore
Game played at New Orleans in 1886
between Messrs McConnell and Steinitz
White James McConnell Black W. Steinitz
1 P-K4
2 P-K5 (b)
3 P-Q4
4 QP x P
5 QKt-B3
6 QB-KB4 (d)
7 Q-Q2 (e)
8 Q x B
9 K-Q2 (f)
10 Kt-Kt5 (g)
11 Kt-Q6 ch
12 B x Kt
13 Q-B5
14 P x P (h)
15 B-R6 ch
16 P-KR4 (j)
17 Q x Q
18 P-Kt4 (l)
19 Kt-R3 (n)
20 R-KBsq
21 R-B7
1 P-K3 (a)
2 P-KB3
3 P-QB4
4 B x P
5 Q-B2 (c)
6 Q-Kt3
7 B x P ch
8 Q x P
9 Q x R
10 QKt-R3
11 K-B sq
12 P x B
13 Kt-K2
14 P x P (i)
15 K-Kt sq
16 Q-K4 (k)
17 P x Q
18 R-Kt sq (m)
19 B-Kt2
20 B-Kt7 (o)
21 Kt-Kt3
White announced mate in 6 moves (p)
Page 1
(1)
*
(a) As is well known Mr Steinitz never adopted
this defence excepting in the present game
where it had been agreed that the line of play
which occurred in the first tie game of the
Vienna tournament of 1882 between Steinitz
(White) and Winawer (Black) should be
followed by the two parties up to Whites
14th move from which point Mr McConnell
claimed that the game could be won by
White in a manner that had escaped the
attention of all analysts who had commented
on that game including the writer.
(b) This line of play was introduced by Steinitz
in the above named tournament and was his
favorite attack in this opening at that time.
*
Page 2
(2)
*
(c) The attack here initiated gains material but
too much at the expense of time and
position. 5...Kt-B3 was superior.
(d) Obviously the loss of forces could be
avoided by P x P but White prefers giving up
virtually at this point the exchange of his
Pawns for an attack which ought to have
succeeded by proper play.
(e) Only consistent with the previous play. 7
KKt-R3, 7 Q x P; 8 Kt-Kt5, 8 B-Kt5 ch; 9 K-
K2, 9 QKt-R3; 10 QR-Kt sq, 10 Q x R P; 11
R x B, 11 Kt x R; 12 Kt-B7 ch was not as
good although White wins a piece
temporarily for his Kt becomes immediately
subject to loss by P-QKt3 which also opens
measures against Whites King.
(f) Natural enough as any attempt to save the R
would have left Black with two Pawns ahead
and a comparatively very easy game.
(g) To all appearances the most direct route to a
succesful [sic]
*
Page 3
(3)
*
but the bad position of Blacks Q and his
exposed K side might have been also utilised
in other ways for instance by 10 Q-Kt3 with
the following interesting possibilities: 10...Q
x B (or 10...P-KKt4; 11 P x P, 11 Kt x P
best; if 11...P x B; 12 Q-Kt4 threatening P-
B7 ch 12 B x Kt, 12 Q x Kt ch; 13 Q x Q, 13
Kt-K5 ch; 14 K-K sq, 14 Kt x Q; 15 B-K5
and wins) 11 KKt-K2, 11Q x R; 12 Q x P, 12
Kt-B3; 13 Kt-Kt5, 13 Kt x P; (if 13...P x P;
14 B-Kt5 and wins) 14 Kt-Q6 ch, 14 K-Q sq;
15 Q-K8 ch [sic], 15 K-B2; 16 Kt-K 8 ch
and wins in a few moves.
(h) In the game above referred to White here
played 14 Kt-K2 and after 14...Q x R; 15 P x
P, 15 P x P; 16 B-R6 ch, 16 K-Kt sq; 17 Q-
Q4. This last move was a fatal error as
Blacks answer Q x R P showed. However
Mr McConnells ingenious plan disguised
this point. The late Mr Zukertort who saw
this game played had strongly expressed the
opinion
*
Page 4
(4)
*
that Black had a winning position at this
juncture and for my part I am inclined to
think that Black ought not lose at any rate.
The result of this game and the examination
of the variations arising therefrom convinced
me however that Mr McConnells idea was as
sound as it was deep and clever.
(i) If 14...Q x P (B3); 15 B-Kt5, 15 Q-B8; (or
15...Q-Kt3; 16 KKt-K2, 16 P-KR3; 17 R-B
sq ch, 17 K-Kt sq; 18 B x Kt, 18 K-R2; there
seems nothing better 19 Kt-B4, 19 Q-Kt5; 20
P-KR3, 20 Q-Kt6; 21 R-B 3 with a winning
game. This variation was pointed out to me
by Mr McConnell.) 16 Kt-K4, Q x P ch; 17
Kt-K2, 17 P-KR3; 18 Q x Kt ch, 18 K-Kt sq;
19 Q-K8 ch, 19 K-R2; 20 Kt-B6 ch, 20
PxKt; 21 Q-B7 mate.
(j) A remarkably fine move which forms the
root of a variety of combinations
demonstrating the winning superiority of
Whites position although
*
Page 5
(5)
*
Black is the exchange and two Pawns ahead
and can force the exchange of Queens.
(k) The Black K is so dangerously surrounded
the exchange of Queens seems the only
relief. Other feasible moves provided
however no better result for instance 16...P-
B4; 17 R-R3, 17 Q-B3; 18 B-Kt5, 18 Q-Kt2;
19 R-Kt3 &c. Or 16...Kt-Kt3; 17 R-R3, 17
Q-K4; 18 Q x Q, 18 P x Q; 19 P-R5 and
wins.
(l) This precaution is most important in order
not to allow the Black Kt to enter at KB4
which would break Whites attack. This had
to be provided for in the forecast of the
combinations which formed Whites plan and
is therefore all the more murderous.
(m) No better was 18...Kt-Q4; 19 Kt-R3, 19 Kt-
B5; (or 19...Kt-B3; 20 R-B sq, 20 Kt x P; 21
R-KKt sq and wins.) 20 R-KB sq, 20 Kt x
Kt; 21 R-B7 and the mating position which
appears at the end of this game is now
produced although White is a clear R behind.
(n) The details of Whites plan are carried out
with great foresight, it is necessary to select
this plan
*
Page 6
(6)
*
for the development of the Kt in order to
prevent Black from blocking the KB-file
subsequently by Kt-B5.
(o) 20...B-Q4 might have prolonged the fight a
little but the game could not be saved. White
would then equally play R-B7 followed by
Kt-KKt5 and then with a series of checks his
R would reach Q-B7 [sic] in which situation
the battle would be decided by Kt-B8
preventing R x Kt as well as to reach K8
with the R after a series of checks.
(p) A pretty so called seesaw of checks finishes
the game thus 22 R-Kt7 ch, 22 K moves; 23
R x QP ch, 23 K moves; 24 R-Kt7 ch, 24 K
moves; 25 R-QKt7 disch, 25 K moves; 26 R
x R ch and mates next moves.
*
First Game of the match between Messrs. Richhelm [sic; Reichhelm] and
Mackenzie, played at the Philadelphia Athenaeum, on the 26th inst. [sic; ult.], for the
championship of the United States.
The Albion, New York, 1867.06.01
Mackenzie,GH Reichhelm,G (1)
1867.05.26 USA Philadelphia, PA (Athenaeum)
Annotations by Mackenzie
1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 exd5 4.Nf3 Nf6 5.Bd3 Bd6 6.0-0 0-0 7.Bg5 h6 8.
Bh4 g5
**Black exposes his king too much by this move.
9.Bg3
**By sacrificing the knight for two pawns, White might have got up somewhat of an
attack, but scarcely sufficient to have compensated for the loss of a piece.
9...Bxg3 10.fxg3 Ne4 11.c4 Nc6 12.Nc3 Nxc3 13.bxc3 Be6 14.cxd5
Bxd5 15.Ne5
**It was suggested by Stanley, who was present while the game was being played,
that 15.Nh4 would have given White a winning game, for suppose: 15.Nh4 gxh4
16.Rf5 Be6 17.Qg4+ Kh8 18.Qh5 and must win.
15...Nxe5 16.dxe5 Qe7 17.Rf6 Qxe5 18.Rxh6 Be4 19.Bxe4 Qxe4 20.
Qh5 Qe5 21.h4 Rad8 22.Rf1 Rd6 23.Rff6
**This compels Black to exchange the queen for the two rooks.
23...Qxf6 24.Rxf6 Rxf6 25.Qxg5+ Rg6 26.Qe5 Rd6 27.g4 Rfd8 28.h5 c6
29.h6 Rg6 30.g5 Rf8 31.Qe7 Re6 32.h7+ 1-0.
** The Albion, New York, 1867.06.01
Reichhelm,G Mackenzie,GH (2)
C68/06 Spanish: Exchange (Classical)
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Bxc6
**An unusual method of continuing the attack.
4...dxc6 5.0-0 Bd6 6.d4 Bg4 7.dxe5 Bxf3 8.Qxf3 Bxe5 9.Rd1 Qe7
**9...Qf6 would have been better we believe.
10.Nc3 Nf6 11.Bg5 0-0 12.Bxf6 Bxf6 13.Rd3 Rad8 14.Rad1 Rxd3 15.
Rxd3 Bxc3 16.Rxc3 Qb4 17.b3 Re8 18.g3 Rxe4
**Taking with queen would evidently have been fatal.
19.Rd3 Re1+ 20.Kg2 Qe7 21.Qg4 Re6 22.Qd4 g6 23.Re3 Rxe3 24.fxe3
c5
25.Qd3 Qd6 26.Qe4 c6 27.Qf4 Qxf4 28.exf4 Kg7 29.Kf3 Kf6 30.h4 h5
31.c4 Kf5 32.Ke3 Kg4 33.Kf2 b5 34.Kg2 b4 35.Kf2 Kh3 36.Kf3 f5 37.
Kf2 Kh2 0-1.
C10/10 French: Rubinstein
1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3
**This is equally good with 3.exd5.
3...dxe4 4.Nxe4 Nf6 5.Nxf6+ Qxf6 6.Nf3 h6 7.Bd3 Bd6 8.0-0 Bd7 9.Qe2
Nc6 10.c3 0-0-0 11.b4 Ne7 12.Ne5 Nd5 13.Bd2 Nf4 14.Bxf4 Qxf4 15.g3
Qf6 16.a4 Bxe5 17.dxe5 Qe7 18.a5 f6 19.a6 Bc6 20.axb7+ Kxb7 21.b5
Be8 22.Be4+ Kb8 23.Rxa7
**The sacrifice of this rook might perhaps have been made more advantageously a
move or two earlier.
23...Kxa7 24.Ra1+ Kb6 25.Ra6+ Kc5 26.Qe3+
**This is lost time; White should have gone at once to 26.Qb2.
26...Kc4 27.Qe2+ Kc5 28.Qb2 Rd1+ 29.Kg2 1-0.
C51/03 Evans Gambit: Morphy
cxd4 Bb6 9.Nc3 Na5 10.Bd3 Ne7 11.Ng5
**This appears to be a favorite mode of continuing the attack with Reichhelm, but we
do not think it gives so enduring an attack, as the more commonly played move of
11.d5.
11...h6 12.Qh5 0-0 13.e5 Bf5 14.Bxf5 Nxf5 15.Nge4 g6 16.Qf3
**16.Qh3 we should have preferred.
16...Bxd4 17.Nf6+ Kg7 18.g4 Bxe5 19.Nfd5 Nh4
**Perhaps 19...Qh4 would have given Black a better chance of winning.
20.Qe3 g5 21.f4 gxf4 22.Nxf4 Qg5 23.Nh5+ Kh8 24.Qh3 Qg6 25.Qxh4
Bxc3
26.Nf6 Kg7 27.Nh5+ Kh7 -.
C12/02 French: Winawer
1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.Bd3 dxe4 5.Bxe4 Nf6 6.Bg5 Bxc3+ 7.bxc3
h6 8.Bxf6 Qxf6 9.Nf3 Nd7 10.0-0 c6 11.Qe2 0-0 12.Bd3 Nb6 13.Qe4
**
13.Ne5, followed by 14.f4, in the event of Blacks playing 13...Nd5 would, we
think, have been stronger play.
13...Qf5 14.Qe3 Nd5 15.Bxf5 Nxe3 16.fxe3 exf5 17.Rab1 Re8 18.Kf2 f6
19.Rfd1 b6 20.c4 Ba6 21.Rb4 g5 22.d5 Red8 23.Ra4 Bb7 24.Nd4 cxd5
25.Nxf5 Kh7 26.g4 dxc4 27.Rxd8
**After the exchange of rooks we believe White has a forced won game, as in the
endgame that follows the knight is of much greater servive than the bishop.
27...Rxd8 28.Rxa7 Rd7 29.e4 Kg6 30.Ke3 h5 31.h3 hxg4 32.hxg4 Kh7
33.a3 Bc8 34.Rxd7+ Bxd7 35.Kd4 b5 36.Kc5 Kg6 37.Kd6 Be8 38.Ne7+
Kg7 39.c3 Bf7 40.Kd7 Kf8 41.Nf5 Bg8 42.Kc6 Ke8 43.Kxb5 (...) 1-0.
C51/02 Evans Gambit
cxd4 Bb6 9.Re1 Bg4 10.Bb2
**10.Bb5, is, we think, the best move at this point.
10...Nh6 11.d5 Bxf3 12.Qxf3 Ne5 13.Bb5+ Kf8 14.Qg3
**We should have preferred taking off the knight with bishop.
14...Nhg4 15.Re2 h5 16.h3 h4 17.Qc3 a6 18.Ba4
**
Reichhelm appears to have overlooked the object of Blacks last move, or in all
probability he would have taken knight with pawn.
18...Nxf2 19.Kh2
**White would have lost the exchange at least, had he captured the knight.
19...Qf6 20.Qd2 Nf3+ 21.gxf3 Qxf3 22.Bxg7+ Kxg7
**This was played without suffecient consideration; by simply playing 22...Kg8,
Mackenzie must have won the game in a move or two.
23.Qc3+ Qxc3 24.Nxc3 (...) 0-1.
**The game was prolonged for about thirty more moves, and finally won by Black.
C84/12 Spanish: Closed (Center Attack)
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Be7
**This defense to the Ruy Lopez attack, was, we believe, first introduced by
Hirschfeld.
5.d4 exd4 6.0-0 Nf6 7.e5 Ne4 8.Re1 Nc5 9.Bxc6 dxc6 10.Nxd4 Ne6 11.
c3 Nxd4 12.cxd4 Be6 13.Nc3 0-0 14.Be3 Qd7 15.f4 Rad8 16.Qf3 g6 17.
h3 Bh4 18.g3 Be7 19.g4 h5 20.f5 gxf5 21.gxh5 Kh7 22.Kh2 Rg8 23.Rg1
Bd5 24.Qf4 Qe6 25.Raf1
**White, we think, could have won the game here by taking off the bishop with
knight and then playing 26.Rg6. Suppose: 25.Nxd5 cxd5 26.Rg6 Rxg6 (best) 27.
hxg6+ fxg6 (27...Qxg6 28.Rg1 Qe6 (or 28...Qh5) 29.Qg3 Qg6 30.Qf3 and wins) 28.
Qh6+ Kg8 29.Rg1 Kf7 30.Qh7+ Ke8 31.Rxg6 Qc8 32.e6 and wins.
25...Rxg1 26.Rxg1 Rg8 27.Rxg8 Kxg8 28.Ne2 Bxa2 29.Qg3+ Kh7 30.
Nf4 Qc8 31.Ng6
**
Whites attack having failed, the best he can do is to play for a drawn game.
31...fxg6
**This is the best move we believe.
32.Qxg6+ Kh8 33.Qh6+ -.
C45/21 Scotch: Golmayo
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.Nxd4 Bc5
**4...Qh4 is also a good move.
5.Be3 Qf6 6.c3 Nge7 7.Be2 d5 8.exd5 Nxd5 9.0-0 Nxe3 10.fxe3 Qh6 11.
Bb5
**We should have preferred defending the e-pawn.
11...Qxe3+ 12.Kh1 0-0 13.Nxc6 bxc6 14.Bxc6 Rb8 15.b3
**15.b4, with the intention of subsequently playing it to b5, would perhaps have been
better.
15...Rb6 16.Bf3 Rh6
**Black wins the game by being enabled to bring this rook so rapidly into action.
17.Qe2 Qf4 18.Bh5
**Had White played 18.g4 the following variation might have occurred: 18.g4 Bxg4
19.Bxg4 Rxh2+ 20.Qxh2 Qxf1+ and Black mates next move.
18...Qh4 19.Bxf7+ Rxf7 20.Qe8+ Rf8 21.Rxf8+ Bxf8 22.Qe5 Re6 23.g3
Qh3 24.Qd5 Qf1# 0-1.
This contest came to a close on Monday last, the score at the termination of the
Ninth Game being: Mr. M. 7, Mr. R. none; drawn 2.
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Be7 5.0-0 Nf6 6.Nc3 b5 7.Bb3 d6 8.
h3 Na5 9.d3 Nxb3 10.axb3 h6
**An oversight which loses a valuable pawn.
11.Nxb5 Be6 12.Nc3 Qd7 13.Nh2 g5 14.d4 c6 15.dxe5 dxe5 16.Qe2
Qb7 17.Ra5 Bd6 18.Be3 Bc7 19.Ra4 Nd7 20.Rd1 0-0 21.Qh5 Kg7 22.
Bxg5
**A tempting sacrifice, though perhaps not strictly sound.
22...hxg5 23.Qxg5+ Kh7 24.Ng4 Bxg4 25.hxg4 Bd8
**Black should have played 25...Nc5 and might still have made a stubborn resistance.
26.Qf5+ Kg7 27.Rxd7 Qb8 28.Rc4 Qc8 29.g5 1-0.
London 1876
Prologue
MATCH BETWEEN MESSRS BLACKBURNE AND STEINITZ.
The preliminaries of this match have been settled, and the contest will commence
on Thursday, the 17 inst., at the rooms of the West-end Chess Club, 8, New Coventry-
street, W., where all the games will be played three times a week, namely, on
Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays. The first winner of seven games, exclusive of
draws, is to be declared victor. We shall publish the detailed conditions in our next
number.
:
CONDITIONS OF THE MATCH BETWEEN MESSRS
BLACKBURNE AND STEINITZ.
Messrs Blackburne and Steinitz have agreed to play a chess match on the following
conditions:
(1) The stakes in the match shall be 60 a side, and either player who first scores
seven games, exclusive of draws, shall be declared the victor, and be entitled to
receive the stakes of both sides.
(2) Each player shall deposit his stake of 60 with Mr. J. H. Walsh, the chief editor
of The Field newspaper, at least one day previous to the commencement of the match.
(3) The rooms of the West-end Chess Club, No. 8, New Coventry-street, W., shall
be the place of meeting throughout the contest for the purpose of play. The first game
shall commence on Thursday, the 17th inst., at 2 p.m., and play shall proceed on
every subsequent Saturday, Tuesday, and Thursday, at the same time, until the
conclusion of the match. After four hoursplay either party may claim an adjournment
for an hour. After eight hoursplay the game shall be adjourned to the next day,
Sundays excepted.
(4) Each player shall be allowed two hours for making his first series of thirty
moves, and an hour for every subsequent fifteen moves, and the time gained in each
series of moves shall be counted to the credit of the next series. This time limit shall
be regulated by sandglasses, and either player exceeding it by five minutes shall
forfeit the game.
(5) The sandglass of a player who does not appear within half an hour of the time
appointed for the commencement of a new game, or punctually in order to continue
an adjourned game, shall be set running by the opponent, and the time thus wasted
shall be counted as consumed by the absent player, who shall forfeit the game if his
time limit is exceeded.
(6) The games shall be played in accordance with the laws of the British Chess
Association, with the exception that if either player repeat the same move or series of
moves six times in succession, the opponent may claim a drawn game.
The Match between Messrs Blackburne and Steinitz. -- It has been agreed by
Messrs Blackburne and Steinitz that their right of publication of the games shall be
consigned to The Field exclusively, and that the annotations appended to the games
shall be signed by both players before publication.
Return to Match Index
London 1876
MATCH BETWEEN MESSRS BLACKBURNE AND STEINITZ.
According to announcement, the first game in this momentous contest commenced
on Thursday, the 17th, at the West-end Chess Club. After some preparations, play
commenced at half-past two oclock; the toss for the first move having fallen in favour
of Mr. Steinitz. An alteration in the conditions as published in our last number was
agreed upon by the two combatants, to the effect that the time limit should be
regulated by alarum [sic] time-pieces instead of sand glasses.
Steinitz,W Blackburne,JH (1)
C77/07 Spanish: Morphy (Anderssen)
1876.02.17 GBR London (West-End Chess Club)
Annotations by Blackburne & Steinitz
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.d3
**Anderssen first adopted this move in his match against Morphy, which at the time
caused a great deal of animadversion amongst theorists, who were inclined towards
advocating a more energetic attack than the nature of the opening apparently can
bear. But we believe that the great German master showed a true appreciation of
the spirit of this opening, which requires a treatment similar to that of the close
game, namely, a steadfast gradual development, content with the small advantage
of the first move.
5...d6
**Morphy played here invariably 5...b5, followed by 6...Bc5; the move in the text
was first brought into practice by Paulsen, and was afterwards accepted as the
standard defense, which in the majority of games hitherto played has proven
successful.
6.c3
**Anderssen prefers here 6.Bxc6+, and then directs his attention to retaining both his
knights, and preventing the adversary from dissolving his doubled pawn. White
persues here a different, and in the present position novel, policy, and makes
preparation for retaining his light-square bishop, and resting his game upon
confining the opponents dark-square bishop. Whether this plan is an amelioration
of Anderssens line of attack can only be proved by repeated practical trials.
6...Be7
**
Against Anderssens form of attack in this dbut it is more usual to open an outlet
for the bishop by 6...g6. Black prefers to get his king into safety as soon as
possible, and therefore at once makes room to enable him to castle.
7.h3
**Not so much for defensive purposes as with the view of subsequently fortifying an
attack by pawn to g4 against the opponents kingside, after the latter has castled.
7...0-0 8.Qe2 Ne8 9.g4 b5 10.Bc2 Bb7 11.Nbd2 Qd7 12.Nf1
**This peculiar way of bringing the knight over to the kingside was much favored by
Morphy in similar situations, and was also adopted by Blackburne in the tie match
against Steintiz in the Vienna tournament. But both those players had elected that
course after having previously brought out thier c1-bishop, while here White
seemed to have time for this maneuver, even at the cost of remporarily blocking
out his dark-square bishop.
12...Nd8 13.Ne3 Ne6 14.Nf5 g6
**For pure defensive purposes it would have been feasible to retreat the bishop to d8;
but Blackburne thinks that after the exchange, and since his adversary was
compelled to castle on the queenside, the chances of an attack were at least equally
balanced for both sides.
15.Nxe7+ Qxe7 16.Be3 N8g7 17.0-0-0 c5 18.d4 exd4 19.cxd4 c4
**Blackburne poined out that 19...d5 would have been much stronger at this juncture,
and there can be no doubt that this move would have much improved his game.
Whites best answer then would have been 20.e5 (for if 20.exd5 instead, Black
would rejoin 20...Nf4, with an excellent game). Most likely the game would have
proceeded thus: 19...d5 20.e5 c4 21.h4 and now, whether Black advanced 21...f5 or
21...h5, White retained still some considerable attack; in the former by 22.exf5,
followed by 23.Ne5, and in the latter case by the answer of 23.Ng5, followed soon
by pawn to f4. But, nevertheless, Black had a better chance then of repelling the
onslaught, and certainly if he once got out of the attack, even at the expense of
sacrificing a piece eventually, his fine array of well-supported pawns on the queens
wing would have been most formidable.
20.d5 Nc7 21.Qd2
**A move necessary for defensive purposes, but also threatening. Before moving the
queen, White could not utilize his dark-square bishop without subjecting his d-
pawn to capture. Now White menaces a break in with the queen, either at a5 or h6,
after removing the bishop, as actually occurred.
21...a5 22.Bd4 f6 23.Qh6 b4 24.g5 f5
**Perhaps 24...Nge8, with the intention of offering the exchange of queens at g7,
would have augmented Blacks prospects of prolonging the fight; but, even if he
succeeded in effecting the exchange, Whites pawns and pieces were better situated
for the endgame.
25.Bf6 Qf7
**The sacrifice of the rook for the bishop would not have mended matters, on
account of the impending 27.Ng5, after capturing the rook. Nor would 25...Qd7
have been any better, e.g.: 25...Qd7 26.exf5 Nxf5 (if 26...gxf5 instead, White
would proceed with 27.g6 at once) 27.Bxf5 gxf5 28.g6 Rxf6 29.gxh7+, and wins;
for if 29...Kf7 30.Ng5+ would be a destructive rejoinder.
26.exf5 gxf5 27.g6
**Decisive (for, if 27...hxg6, White replies 28.Ng5), though rather plain in
comparision with the fine variation which might have arisen in answer to 27.Nh4,
which would probably have led to a still more elegant conclusion, e.g.: 27.Nh4
Nxd5 28.Rxd5 Bxd5 29.Nxf5 Nxf5 (best) 30.Bxf5, threatening pawn to g6, and
must win, for Black dare not take the rook on account of the answer 31.Be6.
27...Qxg6 28.Bxg7 Qxh6+ 29.Bxh6 Rf6
**There was little to be done; but certainly, if Black wished to proceed further, 29...
Rf7 presented greater chances of prolonging resistance; but, as our readers may
observe, both players were just at this stage on the point of completing the fixed
time limit, and their movements bear the appearance of being hurried.
30.Rhg1+ Rg6 31.Bxf5 Kf7 32.Bxg6+ hxg6 33.Ng5+ Kg8 34.Rge1 1-0.
**White threatens, accordingly to circumstances, either 35.Re6 or 35.Re7, after
which the defense must soon collapse.
London 1876
MESSRS BLACKBURNE AND STEINITZS MATCH.
The second game, played on Saturday, the 19th inst., commenced, by mutual
consent, at three oclock, and it has been agreed by both players to alter the rule
respecting the hour for the beginning of the match games, to the effect that the games
played on Tuesdays and Saturdays shall commence at three oclock p.m., and the one
due on Thursday at two p.m. A large number of visitors, including Lord Walden, Mr
Cochrane, and Mr Strode, attended to witness the contest, which on that day was
accompanied by unusually stirring incidents. Blackburne opened with the variation of
the Scotch Gambit which had been adopted by the Viennese in one of the games of
the memorable match by telegraph and correspondence between London and Vienna.
The defence then adopted by the London council wins a P. for the second player,
whose king has, however, to abandon the privilege of castling in consequence, and to
remain confined for a long time in an extremely perilous-looking position, while his
pieces on the Q side are also shut up, an cannot be brought into play for some time.
Though it has been demonstrated by the success of the London council that the P was
worth all the trouble of a protracted defence in a correspondence game, where several
days could be taken for the consideration of one move, and though the theoretical
soundness of this defence has been advocated in our columns and by other authorities,
this line of play is shunned by many practitioners as too difficult, especially in match
games over the board wherein a time limit is adopted, which must of necessity be
much shorter than the time allowances for correspondence games.
Steinitz, who nevertheless adopted the same defence, wasted a great deal of time in
the opening, and apparently hesitated in order to endeavour to vary the recognised
line of play, as is his wont to do in match games; but he ultimately followed move by
move the precepts of the so-called Vienna game, and the first deviation from that
established form of play came from the leader of the attack. On the 9th move,
Blackburne introduced the alteration of 9. Q takes B, instead of Kt takes B, as played
by Vienna. The game became more especially exciting when the second player
exhausted his first hour on the 13th move, and, having an exceedingly difficult game
to fight, was therefore still more likely to get into trouble with the time allowance in
the second hour, when, according to the stipulations, he might have to forfeit, unless
he succeeded in raising the average speed of his moves, which seemed doubtful, as
his position was very critical. He, however, managed to keep afloat up to the 20th
move, when he ventured upon a sortie, attacking the opponents K Kt with his Q KtP,
which some experts in the room considered questionable; and so it seems, unless our
note to Blacks 22nd move should prove a redeeming feature of this defence.
Blackburne, without stopping to defend the Kt, began a vehement attack in his usual
vigorous and brilliant style, and certainly, if he consistently followed it up, would
have obtained a winning position on the 24th move. He no doubt conceived at the
time some of the beautiful variations which we give on that move below, for he
showed them to the bystanders immediately after the game was finished; but he had
no time left to make sure of them, and, seeing a mode of play which recovered his P,
though it seemed to relax the attack, he preferred the latter as the less hazardous. On
Mr Blackburnes 29th move the alarum [sic] bell of his clock rang, to show that he
could only rely upon the stipulated five minutesgrace for his next two moves, and
thus it happened that he did not elect the much stronger 29. QR takes B, which would
have soon won a P. The adjournment for an hour took place on Blacks 30th move,
and after resuming play Steinitz made two more moves, and then offered a draw. For
reasons stated below, and probably also being annoyed at having let the opponent
slip, Mr Blackburne rejected the offer, though the positions were quite equal. But in
trying to win Blackburne had to deploy one of his rooks, and subjected his queen to
the attack of the two combined hostile rooks. When the opponent took up the
offensive, Blackburne had an extremely difficult game to defend, and was also getting
short of time. A feeble move on his part, made under those circumstances, enabled
Steinitz to win a P and exchange both rooks, after which it came to an extremely
difficult ending game as both parties has still their queens on the board. By cautious
advance Steinitz managed, however, to secure an easily winning position on the 58th
move.

Blackburne,JH Steinitz,W (2)
C45/04 Scotch: Pulling (Horwitz)
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.Nxd4 Qh4 5.Nb5 Bb4+ 6.Bd2 Qxe4+ 7.
Be2 Kd8 8.0-0 Bxd2 9.Qxd2
**In the match between London and Vienna, the latter retook the bishop with the
knight. The course here adopted does not seem to afford greater facilities for the
defense, and has, perhaps, the advantage for match play that it has not received
such an exhaustive analysis as the line of play pursued in the above mentioned
game.
9...Nf6
**In the altered position this appears better than the mode of development for this
knight advocated by Messrs Potter and Steinitz in their analysis of the above
quoted game, namely 9...Nh6 (see The Field, April 18, 1874). The chief reason
given by those two examiners was the weakness of Blacks f-pawn, which might
more specially compromise the defense, since the first player had, in a great many
variations, fine opportunities of attacking that weak point with one of his knights;
but in the present position, after the queen in place of the knight has retaken the
bishop, such a contingency was too remote to be taken into serious consideration,
and it was probably the best course to defend at once the point at d5 against any
future occupation from either of the adversarys knights.
10.N1c3 Qe5 11.Rfe1 a6 12.Na3 Qd4
**
12...b5, blocking out the opponents a-knight, was tempting, but would have been
thoroughly unsound, e.g., 12...b5 13.Bf3 Qc5 (best) 14.b4 Qb6 (best) 15.Qg5 Rg8
16.Nd5 and wins.
13.Qg5 Rg8 [?:??-1:00] 14.Rad1 h6
**An important move, not alone to prevent the hostile queen from establishing
herself at any of the strong posts on the kingside, but also to enable Black to bring
his own queen into greater security by constantly offering the exchange of queens.
15.Qg3 Qe5 16.Qh4 Qg5 17.Qc4 [1:00-?:??] 17...Ne5 18.Qb4
**White would have gained nothing by attacking the knight and the queen, by 14.f4,
though the knight might have been temporarily put out of play. For instance, 18.f4
Nxc4 19.fxg5 Nxa3 20.gxf6 Nxc2 21.Bd3 Nxe1 22.Bh7 Re8 23.fxg7 Nd3 and
Black is out of danger; for if the bishop takes the knight, he replies 24...Rg8, which
recovers the most dangerous pawn.
18...Nc6
**
Blacks last two moves were made under the pressure of time limit, and under the
impression that he could advance the pawn to b5 if the opponent retreated the
queen to b3; but it appears that after Whites next answer this expedient could not
be adopted, e.g., 19.Qb3 b5 20.Bf3 Bb7 21.Qxf7 Ne5 22.Rxe5 Qxe5 23.Bxb7 Rb8
24.Bc6, etc.
19.Qb3 Rf8 20.Nc4 b5
**This move is weak, and gives the opponent an excellent opportunity for displaying
his power of brilliant resource. 20...Qc5 was the correct play.
21.Bf3 Bb7
**Had Black captured the knight, the adversary would have recovered the piece at
once by 22.Qa3, attacking the rook, followed by 23.Bxc6.
22.Nd5 Rb8
**Probably 22...Kc8 would have been the much safer line of play. The move in the
text subjects Black to a most vehement attack, from which he ought hardly to have
escaped.
23.Qa3 Rg8 24.Ne5
**At this extremely critical juncture, Blackburne, who had conducted the attack in an
excellent manner, was unfortunately very hard pressed for time so much that he
had ultimately, on the 29th move, to take advantage of the five minutesgrace
accorded by the conditions, and he was unable to work out in all its details the very
fine combination he afterwards pointed out, and which, though apparently
hazardous, was, so far as our examination goes, quite sound in all variations. He
ought to have played here 24.Re5, and the game might have gone on thus: 24.Re5
Nxe5 (or 24...Qh4 25.Nxf6 Qxf6 [or 25...gxf6 26.Re4 Qh3 (best) 27.Bg4, and
wins] 26.Red5 bxc4 27.Rxd7+ Ke8 [if 27...Kc8 28.Bg4 follows] 28.Rxc7, and
ought to win) 25.Qe7+ Kc8 26.Ndb6+ cxb6 27.Nxb6+ Kc7 28.Qd6+ Kd8 29.Qxb8
+ Bc8 30.Bb7 (better than 30.Qxc8+, which would only draw the game), and wins.
24...Nxe5 25.Qe7+ Kc8 26.Rxe5 Nxd5 27.Qxf7 Qd8 28.Bxd5 Bxd5 29.
Rexd5 [2:00-?:??]
**
No doubt is would have much improved Whites position if he had here retaken
with the other rook, and reserved the e-rook to occupy e7.
29...d6 30.R5d3 Qe8
**
At this stage the game was adjourned, and was resumed after an hours interval.
31.Qd5 Rf8 [?:??-2:00] 32.Qd4 Rf6
**Here Steinitz proposed a draw, and Blackburne admits that the offer was a fair one,
as the position and forces were quite even; but Blackburne in refusing the offer,
relied chiefly upon the circumstances that his opponent had exhausted about
seventeen minutes of his third hour over the last two moves, and he trusted the
chance of inveigling Black into such complications as would necessitate his
consuming more time than the limit would allow, or cause him to make some ill-
considered move of which advantage could be taken.
33.Re3 Qc6 34.Rde1
**34.Qa7 would have been of no use, for Black would have replied 34...Qb6, and, if
White checked with the rook, the Black king would move to d7, and White could
not then take the rook with the queen, on account of the impending mate,
commencing with 36...Qxf2+, followed by the sacrifice of the queen at f1.
34...Kb7 35.Rc3 Qd7
**Black might also with safety here have played 35...Re8, but the move in the text
gave him more aggressive chances.
36.Rce3 Rbf8 37.f3 R8f7 38.Re8 Qc6 39.c3 Rf5 40.R8e7 Rd5 41.Qh4
[3:00-?:??]
**White could not well sacrifice the queen for two rooks by playing 41.Rxf7 for
Black would win at least two pawns on the queenside by 42...Qd5, after capturing
the queen and the opponents retaking the rook with the pawn. Nevertheless 41.Qf2
was better than the move in the text.
41...Qc5+ 42.Kf1 g5 43.Qe4
**Again 43.Qf2 was preferable, but Blackburne had here to fight against the
difficulty of making all his moves up to the 45th within the five minutes grace
allowed to him, he having already exhausted his limit on the 41st move.
43...Rxe7 44.Qxe7 Rd2 45.Re2 Rd1+ 46.Re1 Qc4+ 47.Qe2 Rxe1+ 48.
Kxe1 Qxa2 49.Qe4+ d5 50.Qc2 Qc4 51.Qd2
**In answer to 51.b4, Black would have advanced 51...a5, and upon the opponent
taking it, he had time to recover it by 52...Ka6.
51...a5 52.g3 b4 53.f4 gxf4 54.gxf4 bxc3 55.bxc3 a4 56.Kd1 a3 57.Kc1
Kc6 58.Kb1
**He had nothing else; had he advanced 58.f5, Black would have replied 58...Qf1+,
followed accordingly either by the exchange of queens, or the immediate advance
of the a-pawn.
58...Qb3+
**
Now Whites king and queen are altogether confined, and Black can bring his king
round so as to exchange queens, and to capture the f-pawn at the proper moment,
as was actually done.
59.Ka1 Kd6 60.Qc1 Ke7 61.Qd2 Kf7 62.Qc1 c5 63.Qd2 Kf6 64.Qc1
Kf5 65.Qd2 Qb2+ 66.Qxb2 axb2+ 67.Kxb2 Kxf4 0-1.
London 1876
The third game, played on Tuesday, was opened by Steinitz with the Allgaier
Kieseritzky Gambit, which the theorists thought completely demolished by Paulsens
defence. It was at once surmised that Steinitz would not have adopted this attack
unless he had some novelty in store. And so it was; for he sacrificed another pawn on
the twelfth move by bringing the Q Kt to B 3, which led to the exchange of queens,
and the recovery of the lost pawn, with, as Steinitz thinks, an even position. His
opponent and Mr Zukertort opine, however, that Black has the best of the game, and
future analysis and practice must decide between the conflicting views. The ending
was carefully played on both sides, and seemed to lead to a drawn position. But on
the 25th move Blackburne, by a fine coup, which took the opponent by surprise, won
a P; and two moves later on he might have won the exchange, but missed his
opportunity, owing to being pressed for time. Steinitz, who had managed to keep
time in hand, adopted the usual policy under the circumstances, namely, to make the
game as difficult as possible for the opponent who was pushed for time - even at the
expense of correctness, and at some risk. By this means he succeeded in pretty nearly
equalising the game, though he was still a P behind at the time of the adjournment on
the 31st move. After the adjournment only three moves had been made on each side,
when Blackburne made an oversight which cost him two pawns, and gave his
opponent an easy victory in the end game.
C39/03 Kings Gambit Accepted: Kieseritzky (Berlin)
1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 g5 4.h4 g4 5.Ne5 Nf6 6.Bc4 d5 7.exd5 Bg7 8.d4
0-0 9.Bxf4 Nxd5 10.Bxd5 Qxd5 11.0-0 c5 12.Nc3
**Obvious as this move seems, it has not received any analytical attention, and we
believe that this is the first occasion of it having been introduced into practice in an
important match game. White must recover the pawn he now offers, and the
position afterwards is about even; but Blackburne and Zukertort are of the opinion
that the retention of the two bishops gives the second player the superior game,
though his pawns on the queenside are separated.
12...Qxd4+ 13.Qxd4 cxd4 14.Nd5 Nc6 15.Nxc6 bxc6 16.Ne7+ Kh8 17.
Nxc6 Bb7 18.Ne5 Rac8 19.Rf2 Be4 [?:??-1:00] 20.Rd1 [1:00-?:??] 20...
f5 21.Nd3
**White could not well venture upon taking the d-pawn, for it would have involved
the loss of the exchange, e.g.: 21.Rxd4 Rce8 22.Ra4 Bxe5 23.Rxe4 fxe4 24.Bxe5+
Kg8, and ought to win.
21...Rfe8 22.Re2 Kg8 23.Ne1 Kf7 24.Bg3 Re6
**The initiation of a finely conceived scheme, altogether overlooked by the adversary.
25.Bf2 Bxc2
**White ought on the previous move to have played 25.Kf1, which would have
frustrated this neat design. As it stands, if White take the bishop with the rook,
Black would answer 26...Rxe1+, etc.
26.Rxe6 Bxd1 27.Rd6 Ke7
**Fortunately for Steinitz, his opponent was at this point short of time, or else the
latter could not have failed to see that he could win the exchange by 27...Be5,
threatening 28...g3. White had then no better reply than 28.Rxd4, and he would
have had very hard work afterwards to draw the game, even if he found time to
strengthen his position by pawn to g3.
28.Ra6 Rc7 29.Kf1 Rd7 [?:??-2:00] 30.Ra3 [2:00-?:??] 30...Ke6 31.
Nd3 Bf8 32.Ra5
**
Preventing the adversarys king from crossing, and better than checking at a6,
which would only have had the effect of drawing the king up to the support of his
passed d-pawn; for Black could have safely answered 32...Kd5, followed by 33...
Ke4 if the knight checked at f4, and White would then have found it of no avail to
protect the knight by 34.Bg3, threatening mate with the rook, since Black could
provide an escape by 34...d3, which also cleared the road to his own victory.
32...Bc2 33.Ke2 Kf6
**Black played this with the anticipation that White would answer 34.Kd2,
whereupon he would capture the knight, followed by 35...Kg6, which would have
given him a good game.
34.Ra6+
**
White failed here to take the promptest advantage of the opponents error. He
might have taken the a-pawn with the rook at once, but still the move adopted,
drove the king back, forced the gain of a pawn, and secured at least a draw.
34...Kg7
**A grave error, for it loses two pawns at once. He ought to have 34...Ke7; but even
in that case his game was not comfortable, and he must have lost the a-pawn by the
answer of 35.Nc5, without being able to make any impression with his passed d-
pawn, which could easily be stopped.
35.Rxa7 Rxa7 36.Bxd4+ Kf7 37.Bxa7 Bd6 38.Be3 Ke6 39.Kd2 Bxd3 40.
Kxd3 Kd5 41.a4 f4 42.Bf2 g3 43.Bg1 Bb4 44.Ke2 Ba5 45.Kf3 Kc4 46.
Kxf4 Bc7+ 47.Kg5 Bd8+ 48.Kg4 Bc7 49.Be3 Be5 50.a5 Kb5 51.b4 Bd6
52.Bc5 Be5 53.Kf5 Bc3 54.h5 Ka6 [?:??-3:00] 55.Ke6 (...), 1-0.
**And after some more moves Black resigned. Duration 7 hours.
London 1876
The fourth game was played on Thursday. Blackburne, who had the first move,
repeated the same attack of the Scotch gambit which he had tried on the previous
occasion. Steinitz this time, in the ninth move, adopted the defence of P to Q R 3, at
once followed suit by Q to K 4 (on the Q Kt attacking the Q), and afterwards P to Q
Kt 4, which shuts out the K Kt from action. Blackburne developed his forces rapidly,
regardless of the loss of the piece threatened by Black advancing the P to Q Kt 5, to
which he had at any time a fine answer by Kt to Q 5. Steinitz kept himself strictly on
the defensive, brought his Q R out of the range of the hostile B, and developed at last
the Q B by P to Q 3, followed by B to Q 2, as he had nothing to fear from the hostile
Q B P. Thus he stood resisting the attack which the opponent, who was a P behind,
was bound to pursue energetically. The storm was at last on the 18th, commenced by
Blackburne, who adopted a ruse de guerre which has been often successfully tried by
Anderssen, namely, of sacrificing a piece in order to complicate the position at a point
when his opponent was hard up for sufficient time to reflect upon his moves. Steinitz
hit upon a safe defence, which soon reduced matters to simplicity, and perceiving an
opportunity of offering the exchange of queens of the 26th move, which the adversary
was obliged to accept, unless he was willing to submit to a harassing attack with a
piece behind. After that exchange, Black remained with a clear piece ahead, and even
a weak move made in a hurry could not much hurt his prospects of winning. Having
recovered time and breath on the 30th move, Steinitz proceeded after an hours
adjournment to force the gain of pawns, and the exchange of one of the rooks, and the
superiority of his forces soon proved too much for Blackburnes clever and obstinate
resistance.
Be2 Kd8 8.0-0 Bxd2 9.Qxd2 a6
**This is superior to 9...Nf6, adopted by Steinitz at this point in the second game of
the match. It has the effect of blocking the kings knight for some time.
10.N5c3 Qe5 11.Na3 b5
**Best at once, but not so much with the view of attacking the two pieces as with the
object of paralysing the action of one of the knights.
12.Bf3 Nge7 13.Rad1 Qf5
**It may be observed, that on this and the previous moves Black had to avoid the
temptation of forking the two knights by ...b4, as on each occasion White could
have obtained a winning attack by the reply of Nd5.
14.Rfe1 Rb8 [?:??-1:00] 15.Qe2
**This was a loss of time; he ought to have played 15.Qe3 at once.
15...d6 16.Ne4 [1:00-?:??] 16...Bd7 17.Qe3 f6 18.g4 Qg6 19.Nxd6
**In match games regulated by time limit the expedient is often adopted, to try to
confuse the opponent when he is short of time, by raising complications even at
great hazard. The present incorrect, strictly speaking, sacrifice belongs to that
category. The defense was extremely ticklish, and, as Steinitz had nearly
exhausted his second hour, the chances were in favor of his not hitting always upon
the right move in the course of the vehement attack to which the sacrifice gave rise.
19...cxd6 20.Rxd6 Kc7 21.Bxc6
**This exchange gave the most chances of continuing the pressure of a violent
onslaught. Had he played the 21.Qf4, Black might have replied 21...Ne5; for if 22.
Rxe5, the pawn would retake, attacking the queen. Blackburne informs us that at
the time he sacrificed the knight he contemplated at this point to move 21.Qc5,
and, upon the opponent answering 21...Qg5, to leave the queen en prise, and take
the e-knight with the rook, e.g: 21.Qc5 Qg5 22.Rxe7 Qxc5 23.Rexd7+ Kb6 24.
Rxc6+ Qxc6 25.Bxc6 Kxc6 26.Rxg7; but he overlooked that at this stage Black
could force the exchange of rooks, with a winning position, by playing either rook
to g8.
21...Nxc6 22.Qg3 Kc8
**He could not capture the g-pawn with the queen, on account of the reply 23.Rxd7+,
winning the queen.
23.Red1 Rb7 24.Qg2 Nb8
**Better than 24...Ne5, which would have been of little use for aggressive purposes,
while now the knight affords additional protection to Blacks much-exposed right
wing.
25.R1d4 h5 26.Qd5 Qg5 27.Qxg5 fxg5 28.Rg6 Bxg4 29.Rxg5 Re8 30.
Kg2 [2:00-?:??] 30...Rf7 31.h3 Bd7 [?:??-2:00] 32.Kg3 Re2 33.Rxh5
Rexf2 34.Rc5+ Nc6 35.Rd3 Kc7 36.Nb1 Kb6 37.Rcd5 Nb8 38.Nd2
**White might have here won the exchange, but it would have simplified the position
too much, e.g.: 38.Rxd7 Nxd7 39.Rxd7 Rxd7 40.Kxf2 Rd1 41.Nc3 Rd2+, winning
easily.
38...Bc6 39.Ne4
**Best. Had he moved the rook at once, the answer of 39...Rg2+, would have been
deadly.
39...Re2 40.Nc3 Rxc2 41.Rd2 Rxc3+ 42.bxc3 Bxd5 43.Rxd5 Rc7 44.
Rd3 Nc6 45.Kf4 Rf7+ 46.Ke4 [3:00-?:??] 46...Rf2 47.a3 Ra2 48.c4
bxc4 49.Rg3 Rd2 50.Rxg7 Rd4+ 51.Kf5 c3 0-1.
**There is no means of stopping the pawn now, excepting at the cost of a clear rook.
If 52.Rg2, the answer is 52...Rd2; and if 53.Rg1 or 53.Rg3, with the intention of
afterwards stopping the pawn accordingly, either by 54.Rc1 or 54.Rc3, Black may
still advance the pawn to c2, followed by 54...Rd1, for the rook will be lost after
taking the pawn by 55...Nd4+.
London 1876
Saturdays game was opened by Steinitz with the Vienna opening. Blackburne
defended on the second move by K Kt to B 3, and then on the fourth move introduced
the novelty of K B to Q Kt 5, followed by the sacrifice of the K Kt, which gave him a
fearful counter-attack. Steinitz, being thus early put on the defensive, conducted his
game on the principle which prevails in the gambit named after him, namely, of
marching out with his king to the front as far as possible, and then to endeavour to
exchange queens, when, having brought his king towards the middle of the board, and
therefore more favourably placed for the end game. Mr Blackburne, by a fine
manoeuvre, took the first opportunity of driving the hostile king back, and then
offered to exchange queens, which offer, if accepted, would have probably led to a
draw. Steinitz immediately changed tactics, refused the exchange, and entered for a
hard tussle of the middle game. Blackburne soon gave up a pawn in order to free his
game a little, and after that Steinitz slowly gained ground, until it came to a general
break-up of Blacks game on the 26th move, whereby Steinitz gained two pawns, and
had afterwards easy work to win the game.
C29/01 Vienna Gambit: Steinitz (Blackburne)
1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.f4 d5 4.d3 Bb4
**This rarely adopted variation transfers to the second player the attack, which is,
however, a short-lived one if properly defended.
5.fxe5 Nxe4
**This sacrifice of the knight is a novel introduction. 5...d4 is generally preferred at
this point, and is usually continued thus: 5...d4 6.exf6 dxc3 7.b3 Qxf6 8.Nf3 Bg4 9.
Be2 Nc6 etc., and most practitioners pronounce the game even.
6.dxe4 Qh4+ 7.Ke2 Bxc3 8.bxc3 Bg4+ 9.Nf3 dxe4 10.Qd4
**
The saving clause which redeems Whites game, and leaves the opponent no option
but to lose a move with the only piece he has got in play besides his queen.
10...Bh5
**Black would have lost a piece if he had taken the knight with the pawn checking,
for White would have simply retaken with the pawn, and Black would have been
compelled to sacrifice the pinned bishop for the adverse f-pawn, and then Whites
king would have easily reached a safe goal after a few checks from the opponent.
11.Ke3
**
A number of ingenious traps were laid for White by Blacks last move. Had he now
moved 11.Kd2, the reply would have been 11...Qg4; and if White attacked the
queen by 12.h3, Black would have checked with the queen at f4, followed by 13...
Qg3+, if 13.Ke1 or, in the other alternative, if 13.Kd1, he would have won, by 13...
exf3, followed by 14...fxg2+, in answer to 14.Bxf4 etc. Again, if White now
moved 11.Kd1 at once, Black might have sacrificed the queen by 11...exf3; for, if
12.Qxh4 in reply, he could also proceed to leave the bishop en prise by 12...fxg2+,
winning the rook and making a new queen.
11...Bxf3 12.Bb5+
**The only move to prevent an immediate draw, which Black would have obtained
by checking backwards and forwards with the queen at e1 and h4, if White had
captured the bishop at once with the pawn. White wished to avoid that
contingency, relying upon his king getting into the middle of the board, ready to
support the pawns of both wings, if he succeeded in exchanging queens, which
would be more favorable to him in the endgame.
12...c6 13.gxf3 cxb5 14.Qxe4 Qh6+
**Much superior to exchanging queens at once, whereupon White would have
retaken with the king. Whites king is now driven more to the rear and the
exchange can be afforded more conveniently on the next move. If White in reply
move 15.f4, Black would obtain a good game by 15...Nc6.
15.Kf2 [1:00-?:??] 15...Qc6 16.Qd4 Na6
**Black chose this mode of development for the knight with the object of getting rid
of the hostile bishop as early as possible. 16...Nd7 would have led to various
complications of a character which must have made Blacks game exceedingly
difficult, for White would have replied 17.Rg1 attacking the g-pawn, which could
not be defended by 17...g6 or 17...0-0, on account of the rejoinder 18.e6.
17.Ba3 b4 [?:??-1:00]
**Black could not afford to allow the bishop to be planted at d6, and the sacrifice of
the pawn was quite judicious under the circumstances that Whites material
advantage consisted afterwards in a doubled pawn.
18.Bxb4 Nxb4 19.Qxb4 Rc8 20.Rab1 b6
**Taking the c-pawn would have led to an exchange disadvantageous to Black, e.g.:
20...Qxc3 21.Qxc3 Rxc3 22.Rxb7 Rxc2+ 23.Ke3, and wins the a-pawn.
21.Rb3 Rd8 22.Re1 Rd5 23.Re4 Qh6
**The counter attack looked promising at first sight; but 23...Rc5, with the object of
castling, was in reality safer play. Whites best reply was then to challenge the
exchange of queens by 24.Qa4, and he would have still retained the best of the
game, but his chances of winning must have been considerably diminished in that
case.
24.h4 g5
**
A desperate sortie, which involves the exposure of the K to a strong attack by
Whites forcible reply. Q to B 8 offered better chances of recovering ground,
though White would even then have kept the attack in hand by Q to R 4, ch.
followed either by Q takes R P, or by R to Kt 4, according to Blacks reply.
25.e6 fxe6
**Black had nothing better, for White threatened an extremely harassing check at a4.
26.Qa4+ Ke7
**Again the only move. Had he interposed the rook, White would have won as
follows, supposing-26...Rd7 27.Rd4 Qg7 28.Rxb6 axb6 29.Qa8+ Ke7 30.Rxd7+
Kf6 (best; for if 30...Kxd7, White wins the queen by 31.Qa7+) 31.hxg5+, and wins;
for if 31...Kf5, White would reply 32.Qe4+.
27.Qxa7+ Rd7 28.Qxb6 Rc8 [?:??-2:00] 29.Qe3 Kf7 30.Rb5 Rcd8 31.
Rxg5 Rd2+ 32.Kg3 R2d6 33.Rf4+ [2:00-?:??]
**
The following note leads me to suspect that Blacks 32nd move is actually 32...Rd1
(R-Q8 vs R-Q3 in descriptive). If this is the case then the note dealing with the
exchange of two rooks for queen begins to make sense (R to B 4, ch. being Rf5+ so
the pawn can capture on f5!-[Pope]
Here White missed the shortest way of winning the game right off. He ought to
have doubled the rooks by moving the same rook to K Kt 4, threatening Q to B 4,
ch. followed by R to Kt 7, ch. He might have also won here two rooks for the Q by
R to B 4, ch. Black had then nothing better than to capture the R with the P, for if
he attempted to support the Q by K to Kt 3, R to B 6, ch. followed. But the latter
mode of play left, however, the chances of long protracted and perhaps
complicated fight open, and the line of play in the text had therefore the preference
of greater simplicity, though it was not as prompt and decisive as our first
suggestion.
33...Ke7 34.Qe5
**There was only one answer to this, and that was the one actually made.
34...Rd5 35.Rg7+ Ke8 36.Qf6
**36.Qc7 would have been of no use, for Black would have replied with 36...R8d7.
The move in text forces the exchange, and leaves Black no game to fight with.
36...Qxf6 37.Rxf6 R8d6 38.Rxh7 Rc5 39.Rg6 Kf8 40.h5 Rdd5 41.Rxe6
Rxh5 42.Rxh5 Rxh5 43.a4 Rc5 44.Re3 Rc4 45.Kf2 Kf7 46.Ke2 Kf6 47.
Kd3 Rxa4 48.c4 Ra1 49.c5 Ra4 50.Re4 Ra1 51.Kc4 Ra4+ 52.Kd5 Ra3
53.c6 1-0.
London 1876
Tuesdays game. - Blackburne commenced with the Scotch gambit, in the same way
as in the fourth game, and Steinitz defended again by P to Q R 3; Blackburne
retreated the K Kt at once to Q R 3 before bringing out the Q Kt. This might appear a
measure adopted to prevent the K Kt being blocked out by P to Q Kt 4, as happened
in the fourth game, since this expedient would have been unadvisable for Black to
adopt at that point, on account of the reply of B to B 3. But Mr Blackburne assures us
that his retreating the Kt at once was only a finger-slip, caused by his attention being
diverted at the time in consequence of his desire to assist the scorers, who could not
follow the players, owing to the rapidity in which the opening moves were played on
both sides. Finding he had thus lost time he gave up a second pawn, in order to keep
up the attack. On the twenty-second move, Steinitz gave up the exchange, in order to
simplify the game; but his opponent, in his turn, elected to give up a piece for the
very opposite purpose. On Blacks 31st move the game was adjourned, and Steinitz,
whose turn it was to play, had in accordance with custom, to write down his move,
and to hand it over to the secretary in a closed envelope. Just at that time the alarum
bell of his clock gave the sign of his having completed the second hour, and, being
under the impression that it was his 30th move, he hurriedly put his move down,
which subjected him to a tremendous attack after the adjournment. Ultimately,
however, he succeeded in exchanging queens, remaining with a rook behind for six
pawns, three of which were bound to fall; but, having his king near to support the
other three pawns, he succeeded in a difficult and long ending to force the game.
Be2 Kd8 8.0-0 Bxd2 9.Qxd2 a6 10.N5a3
**At first sight this seems a feasible attempt to prevent the maneuver successfully
adopted by Steinitz in the fourth game of the match, namely to shut out the kings
knight by 10...b5. This object is certainly now attained; for in answer to 10...b5,
White would obtain a strong attack by 11.Bf3 followed by 12.c4 upon the adverse
queen retreating to g6, e.g.: 10...b5 11.Bf3 Qg6 (best) 12.c4 b4 13.Nc2 a5 14.a3,
with an excellent game. Blackburne assures us, however, that his retreating the
knight at once was a simple slip. He contemplated playing the same attack as in
the fourth game, placing reliance upon a slow attack, to be fortified later on by
bringing the a-knight to the succour, which, as he thinks, would be extricated by
pawn to c4, or pawn to c3, after removing the b-knight. Blacks following answer is
plain, and it is made chiefly with the purpose of getting the queen on the a1-h8
diagonal, where she is better placed for defensive purposes, and out of the reach of
the hostile rooks and minor pieces.
10...Qd4 11.Qg5+
**The immediate retreat of the queen to c1, though rather humble in an attacking
game if this sort, would have been sounder play, for it might have afforded the f-
rook an opportunity of occupying the d-file without loss of time, if Black in answer
developed his g-knight. In that case it would not have been advantageous for
Black to advance pawn to b5 so long as the c-pawn was available for an attack by
pawn to c4.
11...Qf6 12.Qd2
**In our opinion White places here more faith in the chances of an error on the part
of the adversary than in the requirements of the position for relinquishing the attack
and adopting a temporary patient defense. Blackburne maintains, however, that the
sacrifice of the second pawn was quite legitimate, since it enabled him to gain the
point at a3 with his queen, for the purpose of delaying the advance of the hostile d-
pawn.
12...Qxb2 13.Nc4 Qd4
**Black would have gained two rooks for the queen even if he had taken the rook,
and the opponent had shut out the queen by 14.Nc3; but his position would then
have become extremely difficult to defend, and, besides, he could in the present
situation be well satisfied with the surplus of two pawns.
14.Qc1 Nge7
**Had Black now taken the rook, the opponent would have replied 15.Qa3,
threatening mate, and must have afterwards won the queen by 16.Nc3.
15.Nbd2 d6 16.Rd1 Be6 17.Qa3 Nd5 18.Nb3 Qc3 [1:00-?:??] 19.Bf1
**
19.Kh1 was preferable. Blacks d-knight could not then attack by 19...Nf4, on
account of the winning reply, 20.Nxd6; and if Black proceeded in the same way as
the text, namely by 19...Ndb4, it must have saved at least a move for White that his
king would have been already in the corner. See Blacks 24th move.
19...Ndb4 20.Ne3 Re8 [?:??-1:00] 21.Rd2
**In this kind of position the attack must be proceeded with any hazard, and, though
Black had well protected his most vulnerable point, the d-pawn, the assualt could
only be directed against that spot. With two pawns behind already, White could
only hope to confuse the opponent, who was pressed for time, and had a difficult
game to defend.
21...Bxb3 22.Rad1 Rxe3
**The sacrifice makes matters more smooth and clear for the defense, and forces the
opponent to give up a piece and two pawns, or to submit to a ruinous exchange of
queens, which would have left Black with an extremely easy position in the ending
game, and with the overwhelming superiority of four pawns and a knight against
the rook. Had he taken the c-pawn at once with the knight, he would have
obviously lost a piece without releasing his position, for White would have simply
retaken 23.Nxc2.
23.fxe3 Nxc2 24.Qc1 Qxe3+ 25.Kh1 Ba4 26.Bc4 N2d4
**By a singular infatuation, Steinitz greedily plays here, and subsequently, for
preserving the piece, totally contrary to his own principle, which usually aims at a
simplification of the game. He ought to have moved 26...Kd7, liberating the rook,
and winning must have become an easy matter; for White could not gain the piece
without exchanging queens, and then there was nothing left to counteract the march
of Blacks pawns.
27.Re1 Qf4 28.Rf1 Qh6 29.Qb2 [2:00-?:??] 29...Qe3 30.Bxf7
**Better than taking with the rook; for Black would have answered 30...Ne5, since he
could safely move the king to e7 if White then proceeded with 31.Rf8+.
30...Bb5 31.Rfd1 (Adjourned) 31...Nf5 (Sealed) [?:??-2:00] 32.a4
**
We explained in our last number how Blacks error on the previous move, when the
game was adjourned, arose. The latter ought to have played the king to d7 or to e7,
and there would have been no more complication to give White a chance of a
mistake. But it is only due to Blackburne to state that, with inferior forces, he had
skillfully managed to perplex the opponent with the most puzzling moves, while
the latter was pressed for time; and Whites clever maneuver at this juncture was
also one which could not be easily foreseen.
32...Ne5
**Black could not capture the a-pawn without resigning his best chance of winning
and being content with a probable draw. For instance: 32...Bxa4 33.Re2 Qh6 34.
Re6 Qh4 35.Qxb7 Rb8 36.Re8+ Kd7 37.Rxb8 Nxb8 38.Qxb8, and Black cannot
take the other rook, and he can only check with the knight at g3 and e2; for White
would certainly avoid coming out to f1 on account of the reply ...Qf4+, etc. Giving
up a clear piece by 32...Ncd4 might have been, however, even better than the move
in the text; for if 33.axb5, Black, by 32...axb5, opening the a-file, would have had
more than enough for the exchange he lost. Blacks knight would then have been
quite safe at d4, though White had three pieces on it, for the latter dared not capture
it on account of the mate threatened either with the queen at e1, or with the rook at
a1 after exchanging queens. Nor could White get rid of the other knight by 34.g4,
on account of the reply 34...Qf3+.
33.axb5 Nxf7 34.Re2 Qh6 35.Qb3 axb5 36.g4 Nd4
**One piece was lost and this way of giving it up was no doubt better than going in
for winning another pawn by 36...Qf6. Black would have had no time to take that
pawn, since White threatened to win by doubling the rooks on the e-file.
37.Rxd4 Ra1+ 38.Kg2 Qf6 39.Rde4
**39.Qxb5, though it threatened a mate, would have been disastrous, for Black would
have answered 39...Qf1+, followed by 40...Ra3+. If White then interposed 41.Rd3,
Black would capture 41...Qxe2, the other rook remaining pinned.
39...Ne5 40.Rf2 Qg6 41.Ref4 c6 42.Qe3
**
This fine move cuts off the retreat of Blacks king, and keeps the latters queen also
fixed. It will be seen that later on Blacks queen could neither move to e6, or to e8,
or b1, on account of Whites check with the rook at f7.
42...Kc7 43.h3 h5 44.Rf5 hxg4 45.Rg5 [3:00-?:??] 45...gxh3+ 46.Kh2
Ra3
**Had he checked with the knight at g4, White would have taken off the knight with
the rook, and then at least have drawn the game by checking backwards and
forwards with the other rook at f7 and f8. Whites ingenious reply enables him to
come out with a rook ahead, but the best experts declare that Blacks pawns must
win by force afterwards.
47.Qxe5 dxe5 48.Rxg6 b4 [?:??-3:00] 49.Rb2
**Had he played 49.Re2, Black would have protected the e-pawn by 49...Ra5,
followed, according to circumstances, either by rook to b5 or d5, which would have
enabled Black to lead his combined pawns to victory, supported by the king.
49...c5 50.Rf2 Rd3
**Necessary to keep up communication between Black's king and his passed pawns.
White threatened to check with the rook at f7, followed by the other rook taking the
g-pawn, attacking the b-pawn doubly.
51.Rc2 b6 52.Re6 b3 53.Rb2 c4 54.Rxe5 Kc6 55.Rg5 Rd5 56.Rxg7 Kc5
57.Kxh3 Kb4 58.Rb1 b5 59.Rg4 [4:00-?:??] 59...Rd2
**White's king being cut off, and Black's king having crossed the front to support his
pawns, the cautious advance of the latter must win easily and surely.
60.Rg5 b2 61.Kg3 c3 62.Kf3 Kc4 63.Rgg1 Kb3 64.Ke3 Rd8 65.Rgf1 c2
66.Ke2 Ka2 0-1.
The Field, London, 1876.03.04 & 11
London 1876
The final game, played on Thursday, was opened by Steinitz again with the Vienna
debut. Blackburne defended in Anderssens favorite way, whereupon Steinitz at once
blocked out the Q B by P to K B 5. The novelty proved a success, since White was
able to support the whole battle line of pawns on both wings, with the choice to
himself to break in on either side. Blackburne pushed hard, unable to castle, and,
having most of his pieces knotted together uselessly on the Q side, forced an opening
on the K side in order to relieve himself by exchanging queens. But the position
proved unfavourable to him in the ending. Steinitz, having one important open file
for the K R, and being able to force another opening for the Q R, soon compelled the
opponent to sacrifice two pawns, and then managed to force the game in a pretty
finish.
C30/06 Kings Gambit Declined: Classical
1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Bc5 3.f4 d6 4.Nf3 Nf6
**Safe enough. If White now takes the e-pawn, the game might go on thus: 5.fxe5
dxe5 6.Nxe5 Qd4 7.Nd3 Bb6, etc.
5.Bc4 Nc6 6.d3 a6
**This move was played by Anderssen against Blackburne in the Vienna tourney,
whereupon the latter also replied 7.a3.
7.f5
**Stronger than 7.a3, and it seems, from the progress of the present game, that the
array of Whites pawns on the kingside cannot be broken through.
7...h6
**The answer to either 7...g6 or 7...Na5 would have been 8.a3; for in the former case,
if Black proceeded by 8...gxf5, White would reply 9.Bg5, threatening knight to d5,
and in the latter case Black could only follow up by taking the bishop, and on the
pawn retaking he would have had little prospect of liberating his game on either
side.
8.h3
**In order to fortify the attack immediately by pawn to g4, in case Black attempted to
castle on the kingside, or to open the game by pawn to g6, as afterwards done.
8...Qe7 9.a3
**White, being safe on both wings, makes an opening for his bishop to prevent the
opponent exchanging it by knight to a5. He has now also prepared for an attack
with his pawns, on either side, wherever the adversary might attempt to castle,
while his own king is in perfect security.
9...b5 10.Nd5 Nxd5 11.Bxd5 Bb7 12.b4 Bb6 13.a4 Rb8 [?:??-1:00]14.
c3 Nd8 15.Bb3 g6 16.g4 h5 17.Rf1 hxg4 18.hxg4 gxf5 19.gxf5 f6 20.
Qe2 [1:00-?:??] 20...Qg7 21.Be3
**White threatens now to take possession of the open g-file with both rooks by rook
to g1, followed by rook to a2.
21...Bxe3 22.Qxe3 Qh6
**
22...Rh3 would not have improved Blacks position, for the opponent would have
first answered 23.Ke2 before attacking the queen.
23.Qxh6 Rxh6 24.Rg1 d5
**24...Rh7 was the only other means to prevent the hostile rook cutting off the king
by rook to g7, and then the game might have proceeded thus: 24...Rh7 25.Rg8+
Ke7 26.axb5 axb5 27.Ra7 Nc6 28.Rxb8, winning a piece.
25.exd5 Ke7 26.Kf2
**Better now than checking with the rook, whereupon Black might have attacked the
rook by 26...Kf8, and White could not then capture the c-pawn on account of the
impending rook to h1, check.
26...Nf7 27.Rg7 Rf8 [?:??-2:00]
**White threatened pawn to d6, check, winning a piece. Neither pawn takes pawn
nor rook to h5 would have been a better resource, for in the former case White
could have replied 28.Bc4 without altering the position materially, and in the latter
contingency he could move out of all danger by 28.Ke3, followed in answer to 28...
Rxf5, by 29.Nh4, threatening check at g6, and winning at least the exchange.
28.axb5 Kd6
**The pawn could not be retaken, on account of 29.Ra7, winning easily.
29.bxa6 Ba8 30.a7 Bb7 31.Rxf7 Rxf7 32.Ra6+ Kd7
**Had he played 32...Ke7, White would have pushed 33.d6+, followed by 34.Bxf7,
etc.
33.Ba4+ Ke7 34.Re6+ Kf8 35.Bc6 Ba8
**A last desperate attempt to prolong the game by 36...c6, in case White takes off the
bishop at once; but Whites reply leaves no escape.
36.Re8+ Kg7 37.Rxa8 1-0.
London 1880
Prologue
MATCH BETWEEN MESSRS ROSENTHAL AND ZUKERTORT.
M. ROSENTHAL, the French champion, has addressed a courteous letter to the
winner of the Paris tournament, which is published in La Revue des Jeux, des Arts, et
du Sport, and which conveys an open challenge for a chess match, reserving only
three conditions, namely: That play shall not take place more than three times a
week ; the time limit shall be thirty moves in two hours ; and the contest shall not be
fought during the hot summer months. In every other respect, viz., the amount of the
stakes, the place of meeting, the number of games, and other particulars, Herr
Zukertort is at liberty to fix his own terms. Considering that the French champion
came out below the six prize winners of the Paris congress, his proposition on such
fair conditions can only be regarded as a chivalrous offer, and we have reason to
believe that the challenge will be accepted, and the match will come off without
greater delay than will be necessary for preparations and the settlement of the
preliminaries.
CHESS INTELLIGENCE.
[...] Herr Zukertort has accepted Herr Rosenthals challenge, and has fixed the stakes
at a minimum of 100 a side. He proposes the modification of the time limit, to the
effect that thirty moves should be played in the first two hours, and afterwards fifteen
moves per hour. The victor will be the winner of the first seven games, and each
game is to be played out at a sitting.
THE MATCH BETWEEN MESSRS ROSENTHAL AND
ZUKERTORT.
WE learn, with great pleasure, that all the main preliminaries of this contest are at
last satisfactorily settled, and the match is expected to commence shortly. Herr
Rosenthal has already deposited his stakes of 100 with the treasurer of the Cercle
des Echecs de Paris, M. Le Grande, and we understand that Herr Zukertorts stakes
will be ready by to-day, to be handed over to the hon. sec. of the St. Georges Chess
Club, Mr. J. I. Minchin. Herr Rosenthal has engaged to arrive in London a fortnight
after his receiving official notification of Herr Zukertorts stakes having been
deposited. The only important addition to the terms of the match as already published
is that the contest shall be adjourned till October next whenever the temperature
should reach 25 Centigrade (77 Fahrenheit) on three successive days.
THE MATCH BETWEEN MESSRS ROSENTHAL AND ZUKERTORT.
ALL the formalities in reference to the stakes of this match have already been
fulfilled, and M. Rosenthal is expected to arrive in London next week, whereupon the
day for commencement of the contest and other minor details will be speedily settled.
M. Rosenthal is sure to meet with a warm reception ; for whatever may be the
opinions about the relative prospects of the two players, all lovers of the game can
only admire the spirit and pluck which inspired M. Rosenthals challenge. The French
representative may have little faith in tournaments as tests of skill, for a priori it
seems unlikely that the first winner of a great chess congress should have to yield in
the personal encounter to the seventh man. He may also have been stimulated by the
success of Herr Englisch, who last year won the chief prize in the German Chess
Congress, though the year before he was bracketed with M. Rosenthal for seventh and
eighth places in the Paris Congress. At any rate, he backs his opinion for a handsome
sum, such as has not been played for in this country in any public contest since the
match between Steinitz and Anderssen in 1866 ; and, taking into consideration the
fairness of his conditions, the straightforward manner in which the challenge was
conveyed, and the dispatch and energy shown by the French champion in the conduct
of the negotiations, M. Rosenthal will be fairly entitled to the fullest respect of his
adversary and Herr Zukertorts supporters, whatever the result of the following contest
may be.
M. ROSENTHAL arrived yesterday (Friday). We understand from the French
champion that he will be ready to play on Monday week at the latest ; but at the time
of our going to press he has had no conference with Herr Zukertort. It is possible,
however, that the match may commence in the latter part of next week.
ZUKERTORT.
THE two parties to the forthcoming most interesting contest were engaged last
week in finally settling terms and in other necessary preparations. The main
particulars of the regulations were agreed upon with difficulty, and are in effect as
follows: The match is to be played every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday,
commencing on Monday next. Play will begin at two oclock p.m., and proceed till
half-past six, when an adjournment for two hours is to take place, after which the
sitting will continue until the finish of the game, but no more than one game will be
played on any day. The time limit, which will be regulated by stop watches, is thirty
moves for the first two hours, and fifteen moves for every following hour. The Rev.
W. Wayte will act as umpire for Herr Zukertort, and Mr Lindsay has accepted the
same office for M. Rosenthal. The two umpires, who according to the conditions had
to select a referee, have conferred that honour upon Mr Steinitz. All rights in
reference to the proprietorship of the games in England have been reserved in the
original conditions by Herr Zukertort, who has, however, made over to our journal the
right of first publication.
M. Rosenthal met with the most cordial reception in metropolitan chess circles, and
there can be no doubt that he will be treated with the courtesy and consideration due
to a stranger who is fighting an honourable battle which will unite the interest of
chess players all over the world. M. Camille Morel, who acted as secretary of the
Paris International Chess Congress of 1878, and other members of the Paris Cercle
des Echecs, are expected to come over from France for the purpose of witnessing the
contest.
ZUKERTORT.
IN challenging the winner of the Paris tournament, M. Rosenthal virtually put
tournament skill on its trial versus match play. That there is a difference between the
two tests has long been recognised in theory and verified in practice. Anderssen was
more successful in the majority of short encounters of a general mele than in longer
single-handed contests ; and immediately after the first Paris tournament of 1867 the
fourth winner, Neumann, beat the second prize-holder, Winawer, without losing a
single game, the latter only succeeding in drawing a few. While, however, many
objections have been raised against the rules of previous tournaments, and more
especially against the first Paris Congress, which was made a sort of handicap, owing
to the ill-considered regulation that the drawn games should count fully against both
parties, the Paris Congress of 1878 is generally admitted to have been conducted on
fairer principles than any former general contest. We may therefore say, without in
the least wishing to prejudice M. Rosenthals prospects, that his attempt to dislodge
Herr Zukertort from the position the latter attained in the last Paris tournament can
only be described as a bold one. Yet the denial of the superiority acquired by Herr
Zukertort on that occasion comes from a quarter which, apart from technical
considerations, appears fully entitled to enter the protest. M. Rosenthal and his French
supporters were the chief promoters of the Paris tournament, which they brought to a
successful issue at great expenditure of time and money. The case of the French
champion, and the remembrance of his pluck and spirit, will therefore engage a good
deal of sympathy ; and the terms of the contest, which hold out the prospect of fair
remuneration, as well as honour to the winner, will create a wide interest in the match
amongst lovers of the game of all nationalities.
London 1880
The First Game.-Played on Monday, the 3rd inst. The two players arrived before
two oclock-the time appointed for commencing the game-in order to discuss some
further details. We have all along commended M. Rosenthals chivalry in the conduct
of the negotiations, and we are glad to put on record an instance of reciprocation of
this spirit of courtesy on the part of his antagonist. M. Rosenthal proposed that both
parties should dispense with the assistance of bystanders in taking down the game or
regulating the stop watches which mark the time limit, and Herr Zukertort at once
agreed. This was a very courteous concession, for the winner of the Paris tournament
would have found plenty of enthusiasts willing to relieve him of the troublesome duty
of scoring the game, while M. Rosenthal, who employs the French notation, would
have been very much limited in the choice of his assistants. In the absence of Mr
Lindsay, M. Rosenthals umpire, the Rev. W. Wayte, Herr Zukertorts representative,
drew for the first move with Mr Salter, and this considerable advantage fell in favour
of Herr Zukertort. Amidst breathless silence the first few moves were made by both
players at a moderately quick rate of time, and the game assumed the aspect of the
well-known Double Ruy Lopez, which often occured in the Paris tournament, M.
Rosenthal having, however, designedly omitted the usual advance of P to Q R 3, in
order to drive back the B to Q R 4, the tug of war began on the 7th move, when
Zukertort instituted a new form of attack by P to Q 4, of which Mr Blackburne is the
inventor. Rosenthal took a long time to consider his reply, and at last entered on a line
of defence which appeared the simplest. On the 9th move it was Zukertorts turn to
deliberate for a long while on an important line of action, and he at last decided on a
course of general exchanges, which, at least in his own opinion, led to a clear drawn
game ; for when, after making his 12th move, Rosenthal proposed a draw, Zukertort
impetuously knocked down his king in agreement with the offer, play having lasted
altogether about fifty minutes. This clearly breaking up of the game caused some
natural disappointment, and the general impression was that the French champion had
slightly the best of the result, and that the spell of Zukertorts two successive victories
against his present opponent in the Paris tournament was somewhat shaken. We
believe that Zukertort had slightly the superior position ; at any rate, he could run no
risk, and the prospective moral effect of a third continuous victory would have made
it worth while to go on longer. But both combatants pleaded indisposition for a
continued hard struggle, which of course is a valid excuse ; and Herr Zukertort, like
some other great masters, does not easily work himself into form at the beginning of a
great contest, for it will be remembered that his score in the first two rounds of the
Paris Congress was the worst of the ultimate winners. The game, though it is very
valuable for analysis and students of the opening, is the shortest match game on
record, in point of number of moves, with the exception of one between Blackburne
and Fleissig in the tenth match of the Vienna Congress, which was resigned by the
latter on the eighth move under the misapprehension that he was bound to lose a clear
rook, while it was afterwards proved that he could have relieved himself from
difficulty with the lose of the exchange for a P only, with a fair game.
This first encounter resembles a reconnoitring fight before a great battle, or a feeler
between two wrestlers who wish to ascertain each others strength. We publish it
below with our comments ; and in reference to the notes we intend to give throughout
the match, we may be allowed to remark that we shall endeavour, to the utmost of our
power, to do full justice to the two players and to the nature of the positions arising in
the games; but we are much restricted in our examinations by considerations of space
and by the time fixed for our going to press. We must therefore confine ourselves to
the points which appear to us the most striking, and must leave the more detailed
analysis to the periodicals exclusively devoted to chess. We have no doubt, however,
that Herr Zukertorts splendid analytical powers will fully satisfy the technical
requirements of the match in the pages of the Chess Monthly, of which journal the
winner of the Paris tournament is the chief editor.
Zukertort,JH Rosenthal,S (1)
C49/01 Four Knights: Brentano
1880.05.03 GBR London
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nf6
**Rosenthal, as well as some other first-class practitioners, deliberately reject
Morphys favorite defense of 3...a6 at this point, probably on account of the dulness
of the positions which arise therefrom ; for we do not think that any palpable
inferiority can be demonstrated for the second player adopting that line of play.
The turn which the present game takes shows, however, not the least improvement
on the score of vivacity over most other variation of the Ruy Lopez, which seem to
assume an early aspect of a draw.
4.Nc3 Bb4 5.0-0 0-0 6.Nd5 Bc5
**Black might also without disadvantage take the knight followed by 7...Nd4. In
reference to this line of play the novel idea has struck us that White might give up a
piece temporarily with the certainty of recovering it and some possibility of
obtaining the advantage of position, and we, therefore, think it right to call special
attention to the following variations: 6...Nxd5 7.exd5 Nd4, (or 7...Ne7 8.Nxe5
Nxd5 9.c3 with slightly the better game, as the bishop must retreat to e7, where he
will be obstructed by his d-pawn which must drive away the adverse knight from
being utilized on the queenside, and on the kingside he will be of little use. The
bishop cannot well retreat to c5, or else he will be shut out from action by the
adverse d-pawn.); 8.Nxe5 Nxb5 9.a4 Nd4 (This is best. If 9...Qe7, White answers
10.Re1 with advantage ; if 9...Qf6, White defends by 10.d4, and will afterwards
recover the piece by the process indicated below ; and if 9...Bd6, White retreats the
knight to f3, and Blacks knight is lost immediately. Again, if 9...Nd6, White
pursues the bishop by 10.c3, and then accordingly by 11.d4 or 11.b4, and
ultimately by pawn to a5, regaining the piece with the better game.); 10.c3 d6 11.
Nf3 Nxf3+ 12.Qxf3 Bc5 13.d4 Bxd4 14.cxd4, and the position is even on account
of the bishops of opposite colors.
7.d4
**Zukertort adopts here a line of attack which first was first played against himself by
Blackburne in the Paris Congress. On the occasion. However, Black (Zukertort)
had already pushed the pawn to a6, and the white bishop had retreated to a4. This
slight difference in the position enabled Black to defend in the following manner:
8...Nxd4 9.Nxd4 Nxd5, with the better game, for White will gain nothing by 10.
Nb3, attacking the bishop, as Black would reply 10...Nb6, followed by 11...d6 in
reply to 11.Nxc5.
7...Nxd5
**The slight difference in the position makes all the difference, and the above-
mentioned defense is no more practicable, for, in answer to 7...Nxd4, followed by
8...Nxd5, White would first takes the knight (d4), followed by 9.Nb3, Black having
then no means of retaliation by attacking another piece. The point of the present
attack lies in the danger threatened to Black by bishop to g5, for which reason
neither knight nor bishop can take the d-pawn; e.g., in the first place: 7...Nxd4 8.
Nxd4 Bxd4 9.Bg5 c6 10.Nxf6+ gxf6 11.Bh6, and wins the exchange; for Black has
no time to take the bishop (b5), on account of the impending mate in two moves,
commencing with 12.Qg4+. Secondly, 7...Bxd4 8.Nxd4 Nxd4 9.Bg5 Nxb5 10.f4
d6 11.fxe5 dxe5 12.Rxf6 c6 (This seems best; for, if 12...gxf6, the bishop retakes,
followed by 14.Qh5, winning easily.); 13.Rg6 hxg6 (The queen cannot escape; for,
if 13...Qa5, White would answer 14.Nf6+, followed by 15.Qh5; and if 13...f6,
White takes the pawn with the bishop, and the rook dare not retake, on account of
15.Nxf6+, also winning the queen.); 14.Bxd8, and wins; for the rook dare not take
the bishop, on account of 15.Ne7+; and, if 14...cxd4, the reply is 15.Qxd4,
attacking the knight. Nevertheless, we do not feel sure of the soundness of the
present attack, and we believe the following defense would be successful: 7...exd4
8.Bg5 Re8 (The object of this move is not alone to attack the e-pawn, but also to
make room for the bishop at f8 in certain emergencies when the adverse bishop
posts itself at h6. It should be observed that Black must be careful not to block his
bishop by ...d6, until all danger is passed.) 9.Bxf6 (or 9.Nh4 Rxe4 10.f4 Be7 11.
Bd3 Re6 12.f5 Re5, with two pawns ahead and a fine game.) 9...gxf6 10.Qd2 Rxe4
11.Qh6 Re6 12.Rae1 Ne5, threatening 13...c6 with an excellent game. Should
White now answer 13.Qh4, for the purpose of taking the knight with the knight
next move. Black might reply 13...Ng6, followed first by 14...Bd6, in case White
answers 14.Qg3.
8.dxc5 Nf6
**
Zukertort thinks that this was Blacks best move, and that White would have
obtained some ultimate advantage with his combined two bishops had Black here
retreated the knight to e7.
9.Bxc6
**Had the winner of the Paris tournament been better disposed, he would probably
have elected to keep up the position, and to maintain his two bishops by 9.Qd3.
The probable continuation was then as follows: 9.Qd3 Qe7 10.Be3 d6 11.Nd2, and
Black will find it difficult to develop himself properly, for if 11...dxc5, White
would first capture the knight, followed by 13.Nb3, recovering the pawn with the
better game.
9...dxc6 10.Qxd8 Rxd8 11.Bg5 Re8 12.Bxf6 gxf6 -.
**We believe that White had a small advantage in position. The knight is generally
very strong when the opponent has a doubled pawn which cannot easily be
dissolved, and we think White might have harassed the opponent considerably by
knight to h4, followed at the earliest opportunity by pawn to f3 and pawn to g4. Of
course he was bound in the meanwhile to guard against any danger from the
opponent occupying the open d-file with his rook; but ultimately the knight might
have been brought into play via g2 and e3, and White had then the better chance of
winning.
** The Field, London, 1880.05.08
London 1880
The Second Game. - Played on Thursday, May 5. - The two players punctually
appeared before two oclock, but the game did not commence till about a quarter past.
Rosenthal opened with the Ponciani [sic] attack, much to the surprise of connoisseurs,
for this opening has been practically abandoned since the invention by Steinitz of the
defence of P to K B 3 on the 4th move, which has since been pronounced by all
authorities as most satisfactory for the second player. Zukertort immediately adopted
this defence, and it became evident that Rosenthal relied on a new plan of slow
development by P to Q 3. Zukertort, we believe, lost some ground by an indifferent
6th move, which gave the opponent an opportunity of instituting an attack with his Q
P, but then a struggle for position commenced on both sides, than which we have not
seen any finer since the Paris tournament. Zukertort castled on the Q side in face of
the advancing pawns, and pressed his pawns on the K side, driving back Whites
pieces, and with the intention of opening the K file for his rooks. The thick of the
fight was reached about the 22nd move, when a series of manoeuvres were made by
both players, which alternately made the game look precarious for either party.
Almost every move was a surprise, and kept the excitement of a large number of
spectators alive, the French champion maintaining the attack in the end, until on the
31st move Zukertort, by a masterly coup, prepared a series of exchange which would
have left the opponent with a weak P for the ending on the Q side. Rosenthal took
nearly half an hour to consider his reply, and the time for adjournment (half-past six
oclock) having been reached, he marked his move on the score sheet, which was
handed over in a sealed envelope to the editor of this department, who joined the two
players at dinner at a West-end restaurant. It is one of the regulations of the match
that the two opponents should not separate during the two hours of adjournment for
refreshment. Such a provision is now always adopted in tournament, and is obviously
necessary where many different parties are interested in the contest. Both masters are
expert blindfold players and quite capable of analysing positions from memory, even
when engaged in conversation. Yet their stopping together during the dinner hour
must be satisfactory to both, and is calculated to keep up a friendly feeling between
the opponents. At half-past eight oclock the game was resumed and M. Rosenthals
envelope on being opened, contained a move which at first sight appeared like a
useless sacrifice of a pawn, and, therefore, like throwing away the game. But is soon
became clear that the French champion had secured a draw at least, by a fine
calculation ; and Herr Zukertort, seeing through the danger of trying to maintain the
P, forced a draw in a few moves by perpetual check. The conduct of this beautiful
game on the part of the French champion pleads strong justification of his challenge
even on the score of skill.
Rosenthal,S Zukertort,JH (2)
C44/02 Ponziani: Steinitz
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.c3 d5 4.Qa4 f6
**First adopted by Steinitz against Wisker in the handicap tournament of the British
Chess Association of 1868.
5.Bb5 Nge7 6.d3 Bd7
**The proper way of development was 6...Be6. The move in the text exposes him to
a troublesome attack.
7.exd5 Nxd5 8.Qe4 Nb6 9.d4 a6 10.Be2 f5 11.Qc2 e4
**Black could have exchanged pawns, thereby isolating the adverse d-pawn,
followed by ...Qf6. But in answer to the latter move, White would probably castle,
and afterwards obtain a considerable attack by Rd1 in case Black took the d-pawn.
12.Ng5 Qf6 13.Nh3 h6 14.a4 0-0-0
**The course of the game proves this to have been hazardous. 14...g5 was, we
believe, more worth trying. There was no more danger in the latter experiment
than the king would have to move to d8 in answer to the bishop checking at h5 ;
but in many games nowadays the king moves for lesser advantages then is here
presented by the adverse h-knight being shut out from action, while to opponents
pieces on the queenside are also quite undeveloped.
15.a5 [1:00-?:??]
**At first site 15.Nf4, looks the stronger move, but it turns out inferior on
examination, e.g.: 15.Nf4 g5 16.a5 gxf4 17.axb6 Bd6, with the superior game.
15...Nd5 16.Nf4 Nxf4 17.Bxf4 g5 [?:??-1:00] 18.Bd2 Bd6 19.b4 f4
**Black energetically pursues his counter attack in the center, and in his general
judgment Zukertort seems to have been quite correct. There was hardly any real
danger to his kings quarters.
20.b5
**White, on the other hand, was bound to proceed on the left flank, and could not
afford to capture the e-pawn without exposing himself to a powerful attack,
commencing with ...Re8.
20...axb5 21.Bxb5 Nb8
**But now we think that the danger he wished to provide against was only imaginary,
and it would have been more consistent to press at once the assault by 21...e3.
White could not capture twice on account of 23...Rde8 followed next move by 24...
Rxe3, whether king or queen defended. Nor would he gain anything by 22.a6, e.g.:
21...e3 22.a6 exd2+ 23.Kxd2 (best apparently) 23...bxa6 24.Bxa6+ Kb8 25.Qb3+
Nb4, etc. If White on the 24th move play 24.Qa4, in lieu of 24...Bxa6+, the answer
is also 24...Nb4, and Black in the meanwhile remains a piece ahead, and ought to
get some pawns for it.
22.a6
**An excellent move. White of course threatens to go on further with the pawn.
22...bxa6 23.Bxa6+ Nxa6 24.Rxa6 Bb5 25.Ra8+ Kd7 26.Rxd8+ Kxd8
**The manner in which Black recaptures shows extraordinary foresight. At first it
looks better to take with the rook, and to leave the latter free access on both wings;
but Zukertort had, no doubt, already determined on his plan, and foreseen all its
contingencies, and it will be found later on that he would have subjected himself to
an inconvenient check of the adverse queen if he had left the king at d7.
27.c4 e3
**All this is in high style.
28.0-0
**The best answer. He obviously could not take the pawn twice, on account of the
following continuation: 28.fxe3 fxe3 29.Bxe3 Re8 30.Kd2 (if the queen defends,
Black answers 30...Bf4) 30...Bf4 31.Re1 Rxe3 32.Rxe3 Qxd4+ 33.Qd3 (best) 33...
Bxe3+, and wins. It was equally useless to attempt 28.Bc3; e.g.: 28.Bc3 Bxc4 29.
d5 exf2+ 30.Kd1 (Best. If the king moves elsewhere, Black wins accordingly either
by 30...Re8+, or by 30...Bc5+) 30...Qf7 31.Bxh8 Qxd5+ followed by queening the
pawn, thus regaining the rook with two pawns ahead.
28...exd2 29.cxb5 Qxd4 30.Nxd2 Re8 31.Nc4 [2:00-?:??] 31... Bb4
**A beautiful resource. See our introductory remarks.
32.b6
**Rosenthal perceives now, with fine judgment, that his b-pawn will be weak for the
ending, and that Black can force the exchange of rooks. He sacrifices the pawn
temporarily, with the assurance of regaining it. We give a diagram of the position
which occurred just after the adjournment.
32...cxb6 33.Rd1
**Best. Rosenthal pointed out that if 33.Qa4, Black would have maintained the
superiority thus: 33.Qa4 Qxc4 34.Rd1+ Ke7 35.Re1+ Kf6 36.Qxe8 Bxe1, etc.
33...Re1+ 34.Rxe1 Bxe1 35.Nxb6 Bxf2+
**To avoid a troublesome and uncertain ending. If he took the knight, White
recovered the piece by 36.Qd1+.
36.Qxf2 Qd1+ 37.Qf1 Qd4+ -.
London 1880
Third Game, played Friday, May 7. - Zukertort won this game. The opening was,
as in the first game of the match, a Double Ruy Lopez. Whether Rosenthal was afraid
of the attack, of which a short analysis appears above, or whether he merely wished to
introduce an alteration for which the opponent could not have been prepared, we
cannot say, but he adopted the novel retreat of B to K 2 on the sixth move, in lieu of
B to B 4, and he afterwards blocked his B out by P to Q 3. His game seemed
cramped, and had all the appearance of a Philidors defence, with a move behind for
the second player. Nevertheless, Rosenthal played up to the middle part most
skilfully, and, owing to a premature advance of the K B P on the part of the opponent,
the French champion obtained a strong attack on the K side, which we believe would
have grown in time if he had nursed it carefully.
One of the greatest difficulties in chess is to know when to avoid difficulties, and in
Rosenthals case there was no necessity for pressing the attack as he did, whereby he
forced the opponent to a sacrifice of the exchange for a P, which gave Zukertort time
and some compensation in position. Rosenthal then became hurried, and gave up
another P uselessly.
THE MATCH BETWEEN MESSRS. ROSENTHAL AND
ZUKERTORT
THE third game, played Friday, May the 7th. We have only a few more general
remarks to make about this game beyond what we hurriedly wrote on the Friday
immediately after the finish. On closer examination we find that Rosenthals case was
by no means hopeless after his opponent sacrificed the exchange, and that the former
mismanaged his defence on the 22nd move. On the 29th move M. Rosenthal
exhausted his second hour, and according to the strict regulations, he would have had
to make his next move instantaneously. Herr Zukertort kindly offered a few minutes
grace ; but the French champion, in view of an unavoidable mate, preferred resigning
at once. The allowance proposed by Herr Zukertort could be offered and accepted in
a match where only two players are directly concerned ; but in tournament in which
the interest of other parties may be affected one way or the other, no deviation from
the general rule by mere mutual consent of two opponents could be permitted, and the
least alteration could only place with the unanimous approval of one and all the
combatants and the committee.
C49/01 Four Knights: Brentano
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nf6 4.Nc3 Bb4 5.O-O O-O 6.Nd5 Be7
**Whether Rosenthal adopted this defense for the sake of variety, or because he was
afraid of the attack by 7.d4 in answer to 6...Bc5, as played by Zukertort in the first
game of the match, we cannot tell. Appearances, however, would prejudice this
retreat of the bishop, and its subsequent blocking up by 7...d6. In reference to
Blackburnes attack, of which we gave an abstract in the notes to the first game,
both players have pointed out a strong line of play for White on the 9th move,
which we omitted to notice in our necessary brief analysis, and, as we consider 6...
Bc5, at this point, at any rate, better than the move in the text, we supplement our
remarks on this subject with the following variations: 6...Bc5 7.d4 exd4 8.Bg5 Re8
9.Re1 (This is the move proposed by Rosenthal and Zukertort for the attack, and is
certainly difficult to meet ; but yet we think that the defense ought to obtain a
satisfactory game.) 9...Ne5 (It would be bad to advance 9...d6, on account of the
reply 10.Qd2, threatening to continue the attack either with 11.Qf4 or 11.b4.) 10.
Nxe5 Rxe5 11.f4 Rxg5 12.Nxf6+ (If 12.fxg5 at once, Black retreats 12...Ne8,
threatening 13...c6.) 12...Qxf6 13.fxg5 Qxg5 14.e5 c6 (Necessary; for, if 14...d5 at
once, White takes en passant, followed by 16.d7 [threatening 17.Re8+], in case
Black should attack 15...Bg4.) 15.Bd3 d5 16.exd6 Bg4, and the two extra pawns
and Blacks combined two bishops ought to prove fair consideration for the loss of
the exchange.
7.d3 d6 8.Ne3
**Anderssen would never hesitate in a similar position to take 8.Bxc6, for he held
that the cluster of Blacks pawns on the queenside should ultimately prove a great
disadvantage. In some variations of the Ruy Lopez, the defense against such a line
of attack may fall back on the king fianchetto, followed by Bg2, with some
prospects of a counter-attack ; but here, where the bishop is shut up at e7,
Anderssens favorite plan appears sound enough, and most feasible. The game
might then have proceeded thus: 8.Bxc6 bxc6 9.Ne3 c5 (If 9...Ne8 at once, White
would reply 10.d4.) 10.b3 Ne8 11.Bb2 f5 12.exf5 Bxf5 13.Nd2, with the better
game.
8...Nd4 9.Bc4 c6 10.c3 Nxf3+ 11.Qxf3 Be6 12.Bb3 Qd7 13.Qe2
**In preparation of a form of attack which does not turn out forcible. The whole
aspect of the game, as now presented, would lead to the supposition that White
should have been able to make, more of his position, even against best play, and
the right process appears to us 13.h3, followed by 14.g4, and 15.Nf5. This knight
was then either fixed at a strong post, or if Black took with the bishop, White
opened the g-file for the attack with his rooks. Not the least danger would arise to
White in the pursuance of this plan from the opponent opening the d-file in the
meanwhile, e.g.: 13.h3 d5 14.g4 dxe4 15.dxe4 Bxb3 16.axb3 Qd3 17.Rd1 Qxe4 18.
Qxe4, followed by 19.Rd7, with much the superior game.
13...d5 14.exd5 cxd5 15.f4 exf4 16.Rxf4 Bd6 17.Rf1 Rfe8
**17...d4 looks strong, but nothing would have come of it if White first answered 18.
Bxe6. If then 18...fxe6, the knight could retreat to c2; and if on the other hand 18...
Qxe6, then it was quite safe to take the pawn, followed by Qf3, attacking the b-
pawn. The move in the text prepares this attack.
18.d4
**The only move; for Black might also push the pawn with advantage in case White
moved the queen out of the way; for instance, to f3. Still worse would have been 18.
Qf2, e.g.: 18.Qf2 d4 19.Bxe6 Rxe6 20.cxd4 Bxh2+, followed by 21...Rxe3 should
king take bishop.
18...Qc7
**Not well judged, on several accounts. In the first place, this was the kind of
position where the reservation of the plan of placing the queen before the bishop by
18...Bc7, and 19...Qd3 would have been more threatening than this reversal of the
battle order, which will leave his d-pawn weak; in the next place, he had already
sufficient advantage of position, which we believe could have been augmented by
18...Ne4. Evidently White could not have then taken the d-pawn on account of the
ultimate ...Ng3; and if he answered 19.Qf3, then Black would withdraw 19...Bc7,
with a good game; for if Whites knight entered at f5, then the g-pawn might safely
advance attacking it, as the check of the knight at h6 would only involve White into
difficulties of ultimately extricating it, and Blacks king would stand safe at g7.
19.g3 Bh3
**White throws away a fair game, and gives the opponent a strong attack, besides
sufficient compensation in forces for the sacrifice of the exchange. He ought still to
have moved 19...Ne4 to prevent the sacrifice; and if then White replied 20.Qg2 or
20.Qf3, he was bound to protect the d-pawn by 20...Qc6 with an even game.
20.Rxf6
**He had nothing better, and this turned out good enough. He gains a compact
surplus of two pawns on the queenside for the exchange, while Blacks extra pawn
on the kingside is doubled and isolated, and therefore counts for little.
20...gxf6 [?:??-1:00] 21.Qh5 [1:00-?:??] 21...Be6
**The only move. 21...Qd7 was of no use, for White would capture the d-pawn with
the bishop, and then retreat the bishop to f3, thus threatening to block out the
adverse bishop by pawn to g4.
22.Bxd5 f5
**
This additional sacrifice ot a pawn is quite untimely, and only helps the opponents
rapid development. The only move that gave him any prospect of equalising the
game was 22...Bf8, whereupon the game might have proceeded thus: 22...Bf8 23.
Be4 (We see no better way of continuing the attack; if 23.Nf5, then Black might
take the bishop, followed by 24...Kh8, in answer to the knight checking; and then,
if 25.Qxd5, the rook would check at e1, followed by 26...Rxc1, and winning the
knight, at the expense of an unimportant pawn.) 23...f5 24.Nxf5 f6, with a
satisfactory game; for if the bishop attacks the queen the answer is 25...Qd7, and
White apparently cannot press the attack by other means, for instance, by 25.d5,
which would lead to the following continuation: 25.d5 Bxf5 (best; for if 25...Bf7,
White wins by 26.Ne7+.) 26.Bxf5 Qc5+, and wins the d-pawn with a check in a
few moves.
23.Nxf5 Bxf5 24.Qxf5 Re1+ 25.Kf2 Rae8
**
Altogether overlooking the opponents brilliant design. His only hope consisted in
capturing the bishop, and then to make a fight with bishops of opposite colors; but
no doubt with the exercise of common care White would have maintained a
winning superiority even in that case.
26. Bh6
**
A master stroke. After this Blacks game becomes utterly hopeless.
26...R8e2+ 27.Kf3 Bf8 28.Rxe1 Rxe1 29.Qg5+ Kh8 [?:??-2:00] 30.Bxf8
1-0.
London 1880
THE fourth game of the match, played on Monday, May 10. Rosenthal opened with
the attack in the Ruy Lopez, adopted in the first game of the last Steinitz-Blackburne
match; but Zukertort, in lieu of Blackburnes 6th move for the defence B to K 2,
followed our recommendation in the notes to that game, and turned into the K
Fianchetto by P to K Kt 3, and B to K Kt 2. In developing the Q Kt, Rosenthal
pursued the course taken in the above-mentioned game, namely, to bring it out via Q
2 and K B sq before developing the Q B; but he made the alteration of fixing K Kt 3
as the final destination of this Kt, instead of K 3. In accordance with the principles of
this attack, the movements of Whites pieces were well concealed behind the pawns,
until, on the 15th move, Rosenthal opened hot action by the brilliant sacrifice of the K
Kt for the adverse K P. The French champion was bound to recover his piece, but
unless we err much in our detailed analysis given below, he ought not to have come
out actually with the superior game by best play on the other side. As it was,
Rosenthal brought all his confined pieces into full play with a few effective strokes
then forced the exchange of queens, and obtained a free and easy attacking position
with the open file for his R on the extreme Queens wing. Zukertort defended himself
with great ingenuity, but could not altogether release himself from difficulties. On
the 32nd move - singularly enough, just the time of the adjournment, as in the second
game of the match - the most critical moment arose, and Rosenthal gave his move in
a sealed envelope, which was put into the care of Dr Ballard. This move enabled his
opponent to equalise the game in a few moves after the adjournment. At that point,
however, Rosenthal could have won the game, owing to an incautious movement of
the K on the part of his adversary. From the discussion which ensued after the finish
of the game, we gathered that Rosenthal had hit on the right idea, and in his
calculation had demonstrated a win for himself against the very defence which
Zukertort had intended to employ; but the former game up his plan, on the
assumption that another defence by P takes P would turn out unfavourable to his
projected attack. Zukertort, however, immediately proved that in that case White
would also have won. It should be stated that Zukertorts variation was by far the
finer of the two, and, in fact, so subtle and ingenious that even Rosenthals best friends
may excuse his not discovering the same in his forecast. We give a diagram of the
position below, and have only to add that at the time when Zukertort consented to a
draw we thought he had a slight superiority of position, but we are not prepared to say
that it was sufficient to win by force.
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nf6 4.d3 d6 5.c3 a6 6.Ba4 g6 7.Nbd2 Bg7 8.
Nf1 O-O 9.Ng3 b5 10.Bc2 d5 11.O-O h6
**In order to prevent White releasing himself by Ng5, when the bishop is brought out
to e3. Black could now exchange queens by 11...dxe4, but the opponent would
have remained in first possession of the open file.
12.Bd2 Be6 13.a4
**We have given frequent illustrations of the importance of this move when the
opponents b-pawn is fixed at b5. It prepares the eventual opening of the a-file at a
convenient moment, and in the present game this process greatly augmented
Whites position at a later stage.
13...Qd6 14.Qc1 Kh7 15.Nxe5
**An ingenious surprise, so far has he had calculated upon recovering the piece, but
we doubt whether he ought to have had the best of the final position, after
equalising the forces.
15...Nxe5
**Of course he could not take with the queen, which would have been lost, in that
case, by the reply 16.Bf4.
16.d4 dxe4
**Retreating the e-knight anywhere would have been unfavorable; for White, after
advancing 17.e5 and capturing the f-knight, had in most cases, a prospective source
of a strong attack by Nh5; yet, by the move in the text, he allows all Whites pieces
to obtain powerful positions for the ending game; and, on the other hand, we
believe he might have retained the superiority by taking the e-pawn with the
knight, this at once unmasking his confined g-bishop. The game might then have
proceeded thus: 16...Nxe4 17.dxe5 (17.Nxe4 dxe4 18.dxe5 Qxe5 19.Bf4 Qd5 20.
Bxc7 Rac8 21.Ba5 {if 21.Bf5, the game might proceed thus: 21.Bf5 b4 22.cxb4
Qc4 23.Bd1 Qxb4 winning another pawn, with a fine game.} 21...f5, and we prefer
Blacks position, which at any rate, is much superior to the one he actually
obtained.) 17...Nxg3 18.hxg3 (if he take the queen, Black checks with the knight at
e2, and, after capturing the queen, he advances the c-pawn to c6 or c5, and the
opponents far-advanced d-pawn ought to fall soon by ...Rfd8 and ...Bf8.) 18...Qxe5
19.Bf4 Qe2 20.Bxc7 d4, with an excellent game, for White dare not capture the
pawn on account of rook to c8, as the attack of the queen by Bd1 will be of no use,
since Black may answer ...Qc4, winning at last the exchange.
17.dxe5 Qxe5 18.Bf4 Qc5 19.Nxe4 Nxe4 20.Bxe4 Rad8 [?:??-1:00] 21.
axb5
**
See our note to Whites 13th move. The opening of the a-file becomes now most
effective; and recognising his advantage for the ending with keen judgment, the
French champion forces the exchange of queens next move.
21...axb5 22.Qe3 Qxe3
**The exchange could not be avoided, or else White would have increased his attack
by Ra7.
23.Bxe3 f5 24.Bc6 f4 25.Bc5 Rf5
**Zukertort develops powerful defensive resource, and makes the most of his
extremely difficult game.
26.Bb4 Rd2 27.Rfe1 [1:00-?:??]
**
27.Ra7 at once strikes us as much stronger. Blacks best reply was apparently 27...
Be5, for he could not allow the c-pawn to be taken with the rook, as by best play
White ought afterwards to succeed in doubling the rooks on the seventh rank after
opening a square for the king by the advance of the h-pawn, or else in winning also
the b-pawn. The following was then a probable continuation: 27.Ra7 Be5 (if 27...
Rf7, the answer is 28.Ba8) 28.Re1 Rxb2 29.h4, and should Black defend the b-
pawn by 29...Bc4, he would lose through 30.Be4, followed accordingly by h5; or in
case the rook moves to h5, the bishop attack again at f3, and ultimately at g4, with
a winning game.
27...Bd7 28.Bxd7 Rxd7 29.Ra7 Rfd5 30.h3 Be5 31.Rb7 [2:00-?:??] 31...
Kg7
**An error which might have cost the game. He should have brought the king round,
via g8, although it would have taken him one move longer to reach the center.
32.b3
**We give a diagram of this most interesting position, already alluded to in our
introductory remark. The winning move would have been 32.c4. Rosenthal
assumed Black would reply 32...bxc4, and though he saw that the rook might be
sacrificed, he did not perceive the full effect of the beautiful line of play pointed
out by Zukertort, and which goes on as follows: 32.c4 bc4 33.Rxe5 Rxe5 34.Bc3
Kf6 35.Rb5 Rde7 36.g4. The combination of this ingenious move with Whites
previous attack had been overlooked by Rosenthal. Black dare not take en passant,
on account of the winning answer 37.f4. Whites next move is Rc5, and then he
brings up his king to f3, and while Black, after exhausting his pawn moves, can
only play one rook backwards and forwards. White will await the most favorable
moment for recovering the exchange, and will also gain both isolated pawns on the
c-file, remaining with a strong passed pawn, which ought ultimately to win.
Rosenthal, on the other hand, pointed out that the defense which Zukertort admitted
he had relied upon in lieu of 32...bxc4, viz., 32...Rd1, would have proven
unsatisfactory, owing to the following simple process: 32.c4 Rd1 33.cxb5 Rxe1+
(if 33...Bxb2 at once then White takes the rook, and after moving king to h2, wins
also by b6 and Ba5.) 34.Bxe1 Rd1 35.Kf1 Bxb2 36.Ke2, followed by b6, and Ba5,
winning.
32...Kf6 33.Kf1 Kf5 34.c4 bxc4 -.
**
We think now that if the game had gone on Whites far-advanced c-pawn (after 35.
bxc4), which was not capable of much support, might have proved a source of
trouble. Black could have now first exchanged one rook by ...Rd1, followed by ...
Rd4 and ...Ke4.
London 1880
THE fifth game, played on Wednesday, May 12. Another draw. Generally,
undecided games are of a dull sort; but this will never be said of the second and the
last two games of this match, which are full of fine points. Again Zukertort opened
with the Ruy Lopez, and Rosenthal defended in a manner little known hitherto; but
the former introduced a new line of attack on the 7th move, whereby he gave up a P,
but brought his pieces into rapid action. On the 11th move he recovered his P with
the superior game; but on the 13th move we believe he missed a straightforward way
of strengthening his advantage in position by B to K 2, and he entered instead on a
complicated line of attack by another sacrifice of a P, followed soon by giving up a
piece. Rosenthal was cool and collected in his defence. He accepted all sacrifices,
but soon returned his gains, and took an opportunity of castling into safety just when
he seemed to be at the point of the utmost danger. In a few moves afterwards the
game was abandoned as drawn on the merits of the position; for the opponents had
only one R and B each, the bishops were of opposite colours, and the pawns were
quite even in number and well placed on both sides. Rosenthals play shows firmness
and assurance, and he does not seem in the least discouraged by his first defeat in the
match. His general bearing has gained him many friends, and amongst other marks of
favour he received last week notice of his election as honorary member of the St.
Georges Chess Club. The two players have agreed to suspend play on Monday next,
on account of the general holiday.
C67/02 Spanish: Open Berlin (Rosenthal)
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nf6 4.O-O Nxe4 5.d4 a6
**This move is rarely adopted at this stage; the usual move here is 5...Be7.
6.Bd3 d5 7.c4
**A new line of attack which appears very effective. The German Handbuch gives
here the following continuation: 7.Nxe5 Nxd4 8.Re1 Be6 9.c3 Nc6 10.Nxc6 bxc6
11.Qa4 Qd7 12.Bxe4 dxe4 13.Qxe4, with an even game.
7...Bg4
**7...Be6 would equalise the game at once; but Black was apparently in hopes of
retaining the pawn.
8.cxd5 Qxd5 9.Re1 Nf6
**It would have been dangerous to try to defend the knight by 9...f5, e.g., 9...f5 10.h3
Bh5 (If 10...Bxf3 the pawn retakes, and Black may then get three pawns for the
piece, commencing with 11...Nxf2; but as the majority of pawns is not compact but
separated on the two wings, it would be dangerous to pursue such a speculation in a
match game.) 11.g4 Bg6 12.gxf5 Bxf5 13.Bxe4 Bxe4 14.Nc3 Bxf3 (best) 15.Nxd5
Bxd1 16.Nxc7+, and the knight afterwards escapes at b6.
10.Nc3 Qd7 11.Nxe5 Nxe5
**If 11...Bxd1, White would have maintained the advantage by 12.Nxd7+ (not 12.
Nxc6+, on account of the reply 12...Qe6), followed by Bf5+, before taking the
bishop.
12.Rxe5+ Be7 13.Qe1
**Here we think that White would have done better to interpose the bishop at e2.
The game might then have proceeded thus: 13.Be2 O-O (If 13...Bxe2, the queen
retakes, and Black will never be able to castle. The bishop cannot well retreat, for,
if 13...Bf5, White pursues by 14.g4, 15.g5, and 16.Bg4, and, if 14...Be6, the d-
pawn will obviously attack him again.) 14.Bg5 (It would be bad play to take the
bishop with bishop, followed by 15.Rxe7, for the queen dare not afterwards capture
the knight, a mate being threatened with the queen at e1.) 14...Bf5 15.Bf3 c6 16.d5,
with much the superior game; for, if 16...cxd5, the knight takes, and, if Black
replies 17...Nxd5, he loses a piece by the answer 18.Rxd5, followed by 19.Bxe7.
13...Be6 14.d5
**The attack which follows after this sacrifice is harassing, but not strong enough to
secure victory.
14...Nxd5 15.Nxd5 Bxd5 16.Bf5 Be6 [?:??-1:00] 17.Bg5
**
Blacks defense was very clever, and White could not now press the attack by 17.
Bxe6, for Black would have taken with the pawn, and then coolly castled on the
queenside in answer to 18.Rxe6, for the rook could not take the bishop, as the
queen could simply take the rook. The move in the text is an ingenious but futile
attempt at forcing the game by a violent and puzzling attack.
17...Bxg5 18.Rd1 Qe7
**Good, though curious, for he secures now an even game by castling, as White must
recover the piece by 19.Bxe6. But we think it would have been worth trying to
remain with a pawn ahead by 18...Qa4; e.g.: 18...Qa4 19.Bxe6 fxe6 20.Rxg5 (If 20.
Rxe6+, the king may move to f8; and it does not much matter that the h-rook
remains confined for some time, as the latter can relieve himself soon by ...h5
and ...Rh6.) 20...O-O 21.Qxe6+ Kh8, with a pawn ahead, and the superior game;
for, if White now play 22.Rd7, the answer would be 22...Qc2; or, if 22.b3, the
queen may capture the a-pawn, threatening ...Qxf2+. We give a diagram of the
curious position.
19.Bxe6 O-O 20.Bb3 [1:00-?:??]
**He could have won the queen here, but at too great cost, e.g.: 20.Rd7 Qf6 21.Rxf7
Rxf7 22.Rf5 Qxf5 23.Bxf5 Rxf5 24.Qe6+ Rf7, with three pieces for the queen, and
a winning game.
20...Qf6 21.Rd7 Kh8
**He sees it, and all prospects of winning vanishes for White, who had threatened 22.
Rxf7, winning the queen; for, if 23...Rxf7, the other rook checks at e8.
22.g3 Qc6 23.Rxf7 Rxf7 24.Bxf7 Qc1 -.
London 1880
THE MATCH BETWEEN ROSENTHAL AND ZUKERTORT.
THE sixth game, played on Friday, the 14th of May. Another Ruy Lopez, and
another draw, but again the struggle was distinguished by fine features, though of a
different character from those of the previous games of the match, for the fight was,
by an early exchange of queens, soon resolved into an ending game; and then came
such a steady wrestling for small advantages as will delight the students of pawn
play. M. Rosenthal, by a series of masterly manoeuvres, at last obtained a winning
superiority with a well-supported passed P at Q 7, the adversarys K being cut off by
the White R, and another passed P having been forced on at the K B file. Instead,
however, of supporting the latter with his K, he rushed on with it to B 6 on the 43rd
move, not seeing that his subtle opponent though unable to capture it at once, could,
by a fine manoeuvre of the B, secure its final fall. Owing to mismanagement in the
early part, Zukertort had the inferior and the more difficult game throughout the
greater part of the struggle, and his defence was mostly only of a negative character;
but the manner in which he calculated the chances of prolongation and of an error on
the part of the opponent when all seemed hopeless, as well as the way in which he at
last force the draw in a position which was still extremely difficult, deserves the
highest commendation. M. Rosenthal is of the opinion that the superiority which he
by degrees acquired should be the natural outcome of his exchanging queens on the
9th move. He evidently differs in this judgment from the best authorities, who
assumed the game to be so even at that juncture as not to bestow upon it further
analysis; and as the present game is also, as far as we are aware, the first match game
on record in which this exchange was adopted, we may conclude that M. Rosenthals
views are at variance with those of other first-class practitioners. Our opinion on the
subject is in accordance with the principles we have frequently laid down in out
columns in our criticism of similar positions. We still maintain that Blacks majority
of pawns on the Q side, though somewhat marred by a doubled P, ought, in
combination with the two bishops, to prove at least an equal match against the
adverse superiority of pawns on the K side. Though the aspect of the defence in the
present game is not favourable to this theory, we think we shall be able to show, in
our notes below, sufficient objections against Blacks 15th, 20th, and 22nd move to
account for the failure of the defence on this occasion. The duration of the game was
seven hours and a half.
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nf6 4.O-O Nxe4 5.d4 Be7 6.Re1 Nd6 7.Bxc6
dxc6 8.dxe5 Nf5 9.Qxd8+
**The usual move is here 9.Qe2. As regards the general merits of this innovation, see
our introductory comments.
9...Bxd8 10.Nc3 h6
**Good play. He wishes to preserve his two bishops, and to prevent Ng5 in case he
brings out his bishop to e6. It may be observed that he had nothing to fear now or
before from the opponent endeavoring to exchange by Bg5, for he might well
answer ...Nd4, threatening to double the adverse f-pawn by ...Nxf3+.
11.Ne4 b6 12.h3 c5 13.c3 Be6 14.Bf4 Ne7 15.b3 Nc6
**
Up to the present Blacks plan of development and the battle order of his pawns are
very well devised; but this we consider a loss of time, and we hold 15...Nd5
superior. The following was then a likely continuation: 15...Nd5 16.Bd2 (Which
seems best. We see no use for the bishop on any other square) 16...a5 17.c4 Nb4
18.Bxb4 axb4, and, we think that Black has a very fair game in spite of the two
doubled pawns, owing to his being enabled to form an attack against the adverse a-
pawn with both rooks. His best plan of getting his king into good position for that
object would be to bring him out at once to d7 and then to c6, in order to prepare
the eventual advance of the b-pawn. Should White try to prevent this by 19.Red1,
the game might further proceed thus: 19.Red1 Be7 20.Rd2 b5, and if 21.cxb5,
Black answers 21...Bxb3 with the better game, otherwise he will exchange pawns,
followed by ...Ra3, also with superior position.
16.Rad1 Be7 17.c4 O-O 18.Nc3 Rfd8 19.Nb5
**19.Nd5 was tempting but not good; e.g.: 19.Nd5 Bxd5 20.cxd5 Nb4 21.d6 cxd6 22.
exd6 Bf6 23.d7 Nc2, followed by 24...Nd4 if the adverse e-rook moves. Should
White now play 24.Bc7, then Black takes the rook with the knight, whereupon the
knight must retake, and then the bishop interposes at d4, winning the pawn.
19...Rxd1 [?:??-1:00] 20.Rxd1 Bd8
**This ill-considered retreat appears to us the root of all subsequent difficulties. We
see not the least objection to 20...Rd8. White could not then escape exchanging
rooks, for, if he removed the rook from the open file, Black would mostly answer
21...Rd7, and would soon obtain the better game. After the exchange of rooks
Black would reach the queenside with his king in a few moves, or attack the knight
and release the bishop for action vi e7. White, on the other hand, could not pursue
the plan of fixing the knight at d5 without exposing his far-advanced pawns, e.g.:
20...Rd8 21.Rxd8+ Bxd8 22.Nc3 Kf8 23.a3 (This seems a necessary preliminary to
Nd5, in order to prevent Blacks entrance with the knight at b4 after exchanging.)
23...Ke8 24.Nd5 Bxd5 25.cxd5 Ne7 26.d6 Nd5 (We consider this better than
exchanging pawns first, for it compels the retreat of the adverse bishop on the
kingside, as he is bound to keep the e-pawn supported.) 27.Bg3 Kd7 (And we
prefer Blacks game, for White will be ultimately compelled to exchange pawns,
which brings the bishop at once into a good position. In the meanwhile the surprise
by 28.e6+, ought not to succeed by correct play for Black could answer 28...fxe6,
and then safely capture the other pawn with the king in reply to 29.Ne5+.
21.Nc3 Ne7 22.g4 c6
**On no account should we have done this now, if at all. It was so manifestly
dangerous to allow the adverse knight the strong post at d6, which he could reach
in two moves, vi e4, as to make it absolutely imperative to postpone such a move
as long as possible. Nor do we see any immediate necessity for it; as we think the
king ought to have moved at once to f8. If the adverse c-knight then entered at d5,
Black gained at any rate an important move by ...c6; and, in answer to most other
movements of the hostile c-knight. White could gain time by the counter threat of
a4, with the view of breaking through by a5.
23.Ne4 Bc7 24.Bg3 [1:00-?:??] 24...Ng6 25.Rd2
**A waiting move apparently, but one which we believe loses time. 25.Kg2 or 25.
Ne1, had much more meaning.
25...Kf8 26.Kg2 Re8 27.Nd6 Rd8
**Best. White would have soon obtained a winning superiority if he had taken the
knight, e.g.: 27...Bxd6 28.Rxd6 b5 29.Nd2 bxc4 30.bxc4 Rb8 31.f4 Rb2 32.Kf3,
with a winning game.
28.Ne1 b5
**This looked plausible enough, and, to all appearance, it was a fair attempt at
releasing his confined position; but in reality it led to a lost game, on account of the
isolation of the c-pawn. 28...f6 was probably the best resource here, for White
could not afford to protect with the f-pawn without weakening his centre pawn by
allowing it to be isolated. If, on the other hand, he exchanged pawns first, then
Black had certainly somewhat the inferior position, on account of his separated and
isolated pawns on the kingside; but then there was no immediate danger, as the
king was handy enough to support them. At any rate, White could not institute a
very effective attack at once. Supposing 28...f6 29.exf6 gxf6 30.Nf3 (If 30.Re2,
the answer is 30...Bxg4) 30...Ke7 31.Nf5+ (He will hardly obtain any advantage by
31.Ne4, and the move we suggest seems to require greater nicety of play on the
part of the defense.) 31...Bxf5 32.Rxd8 Bxd8 (The only move. 32...Kxd8 33.Bxc7
+ Kxc7 34.gxf5 Ne7 [This seems best if the knight move elsewhere; then White
withdraws the knight to h2, threatening Ng4, and should the h-pawn advance, then
White would win the same with a few moves of his king.] 35.Nh4 Kd6 36.Kf3, and
Black dare not reply 36...Ke5, e.g.: 36...Ke5 37.Ng6+ Kd6 [Best; Black would lose
immediately if he exchanges, for the pawn retakes, and then White moves Kg4 in
reply to Blacks best defense, ...Ke6.] 38.Kg4, and he ought to win the h-pawn soon,
which would decide the game in his favor.) 33.gxf5 Nh8, and, in case of danger,
the h-pawn may be protected by ...Nf7. The a-pawn is also safe now, for if White
play 34.Bb8, the answer will be 34...Kd7, threatening to block out the bishop by ...
Kc7 in case he takes the pawn.
29.Nd3
**The correct rejoinder; Rosenthal plays this part with nicety and marked precision.
29...bxc4 30.bxc4 Bxd6
**Zukertort pointed out that 30...Nxe5 at this juncture, would have given him some
chance of a draw, for it was by no means easy for White to win in that case, e.g.:
30...Nxe5 31.Nxe5 Rxd6 (Best, if 31...Bxd6, White wins by 32.Nxc6) 32.Ng6+
fxg6 33.Bxd6+ Bxd6 34.Rxd6 Bxc4 35.Rd2 (Best; if 35.Rxg6 then Black checks
with the bishop at d5, and afterwards attacks the rook alternately by ...Kf7 and ...
Ke7) 35...Bd5+ 36.Kf1 Ke7, and it would be extremely difficult to point out a sure
win for White, though no doubt he has the better chance of victory, and a certain
draw at any time. The move in the text was the only other alternative, for if 30...
Bb6, White would obviously obtain a winning superiority in a few moves by 31.f4.
31.exd6 Bxc4 32.Nxc5 [2:00-?:??] 32...f6 [?:??-2:00]
33.Nb7 Rd7 34.Nc5 Rd8 35.d7 Bd5+ 36.f3 Ne5 37.Bxe5 fxe5 38.Re2
Kf7
**Had the king moved to e7, then White would take the e-pawn checking, followed
by 40.Re8 in answer to 39...Kd6. He could then exchange rooks, and, after moving
the a-pawn to a3, he would win easily, as the adverse king remained fixed, and the
hostile bishop could never approach the strong pawn at d7.
39.Rxe5
**Stronger than the tempting 39.Nd3, for Black would then reply - first 39...Kf6,
followed by 40...B-K3, in answer to 40.Nxe5.
39...Bxa2 40.f4 g6 41.f5
**Good enough. But it was also a sure way of winning to bring the king round to the
queenside, vi f2 and e1, but not by way of e3, as he was bound to reserve this
square for the rook, in case the adverse a-pawn advanced up to a4. The White king
then threatened to come up at last to c7, after picking up the pawn on the road; and
Black had no defense to stop this, for even if he sacrificed the a-pawn in order to be
enabled to attack the d-pawn by ...Be6, White could defend by Rd3, and the hostile
king could not come nigh at e7, on account of the winning reply Re3 pinning the
bishop.
41...gxf5 42.gxf5 Bb1
**
In anticipation of Whites plan of attack, and a lucky guess.
43.f6
**A gross error. He had nothing to do but to bring up his king to f4 in support of the
f-pawn, winning became only a question of time. According to the line occupied
by Blacks bishop, he could then force the game either by Re6, or pawn to f6. We
give a diagram of this position.
43...Bg6
**An excellent rejoinder. Of course, he could not take at once, or White would win
by 44.Re8; but this preparation enables him to take it next time.
44.Kf3 Kxf6 45.Kf4 [3:00-?:??]
**White could here win a piece by the following process: 45.Re6+ K-moves 46.Rg6
Kxg6 47.Ne6 Rd7 48.Nf8+ Kf5 49.Nxd7; but by cautious play Black ought to have
little difficulty in securing a draw by the help of his pawns on the queenside.
45...Bf7 46.Rf5+ Ke7 47.Re5+ Kf6 48.Rf5+ Ke7 49.Re5+ Kf6 50.Rf5+
Ke7 51.Re5+
**One of the conditions of the match provides that, after three repetitions of the same
move or line of play, the repetition moves do not count any more in the time
allowance for the player who first initiates the repetition; and, after six such moves,
the game may be claimed as a draw by the opponent. This rule is framed in order
to prevent any player gaining undue time in situations in which a certain line of
play can be forced upon the adversary. It will be observed that Rosenthal alters his
course just after the third repetition of a series of two different moves.
51...Kf6 52.h4 a5 53.Re4 h5
**All this is played with great foresight. The effect of this fine move will be seen
afterwards.
54.Re1 a4 [?:??-3:00] 55.Re3 a3 56.Rxa3 Be6 57.Rd3 Bg4
**See our previous note. Without the bishop being able to fix himself on this square,
Black could not save the game now, for the bishop could nowhere else command
the line on which he attacked the adverse pawn, and enabled his own king to come
near at e7. He could not at once move 57...Ke7, on account of the rejoinder 58.
Re3, and if 57...Bf5, he would lose thus: 57...Bf5 58.Rd6+ Ke7 59.Rh6 Bxd7 60.
Rh7+ Ke8 61.Nb7 Rc8 (Best, or else a whole rook is lost by 62.Rh8+.) 62.Nd6+,
winning the exchange and the h-pawn, which ought to secure an easy victory.
58.Rd4 Kf7 59.Kg5 Rg8+ 60.Kf4 Rd8 61.Rd6 Ke7 62.Rxc6
**Had he now attempted 62.Rh6, the game might have proceeded thus: 62.Rh6 Rf8+
63.Ke3 (Best; if 63.Ke5, Black checks with the rook at f5, and then again at d5,
and afterwards wins the pawn safely.) 63...Kd8 64.Rh7 Kc7, followed by ...Rd8
and then taking the pawn with the bishop.
62...Bxd7 63.Rh6 Rf8+ -.
London 1880
THE seventh game, played on Wednesday, the 19th inst. - This is an extraordinary
match. No other single-handed contest on record has been so evenly fought at
starting. The opening was again a Ruy Lopez, and Zukertort introduced on the 8th
move a form of attack which turned out as weak as it is comparatively unknown. As
far as we can make sure in the short time at our disposal for the examination of the
line of play suggested in our notes below, we should think that the bold sacrifice of
the Kt for the BP would have led to a winning position for Black. But so much had
the postion of the attacking player been misjudged that even the slow and steady
process adopted by the French champion gave him the patent superiority, and it will
be a matter of astonishment that such a master of the openings like Zukertort should
have been in such a sad plight so early in the game as first player in a Ruy Lopez. On
the 15th move Rosenthal had exchanged all the opponents active pieces on the Ks
side; and while Zukertorts Q side was quite undeveloped the French champion
brought all his own pieces into full battle order, and mostly in a threatening attitude.
But his tenacity gave way on the 19th move, and, instead of continuing to exercise a
slow and sure pressure on the opponents development, by P to Q Kt 4, which we
believe must have ultimately ripened into a winning advantage, he impulsively
sacrificed a piece in a situtation which could only lead to a draw by perpetual check.
C65/01 Spanish: Berlin (Nyholm)
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nf6 4.d4 exd4 5.O-O Be7 6.e5 Ne4 7.Nxd4 O-
O
**It is evident he could not take the e-pawn on account of the reply 8.Re1.
8.Re1
**See our introductory remarks. 8.Nf5 seeems to us a more feasible way of
continuing the attack, but we do not think it would lead to more than an even
position, e.g., 8.Nf5 d5 9.Nxe7+ Nxe7 10.f3 c6 followed by 11...Qb8+.
8...Nxd4
**We believe that Black might have ventured on the sacrifice of the knight, for which
he would have obtained sufficient attack, e.g., 8...Nxf2 9.Kxf2 (If 9.Nxc6 Black
may retake with the d-pawn, and he will retain the pawn.) 9...Bc5 10.c3 [or 10.
Bxc6 Qh4+ 11.Kf1 (If 11.Ke3, then follows 11...Bxd4+; and if 11.Ke2, then Black
takes the bishop with the d-pawn, threatening ...Bg4+, with greatest effect; and
should White then attempt 12.Be3, then follows 12...Rd8, recovering the piece, for
White must guard against ...Bg4+, winning the queen.) 11...Bxd4 12.g3 (If 12.Qd2,
then Black takes the bishop with the b-pawn, threatening ...Ba6+.) 12...Qxh2 13.
Qxd4 dxc6 14.g4 f5 15.g5 (Best) 16...f4 15.e6 (Best) 16...Qh3+, followed by 17...
Bxe6, remaining with three pawns for the piece and a strong attack. Besides that,
Whites g-pawn should also fall soon. We cannot possibly enter into a more
exhaustive analysis, and give the above variations only as example; but we feel
satisfied of the strength of Blacks postion.] 10...Qh4+ 11.Kg1 Nxd4 12.cxd4 Bxd4
+ 13.Kh1 Bf2 14.Re3 (Best; if 14.Re2, Black answers 14...Bg3 followed by 15...
d5, which threatens ...Bg4.) 14...Be3 15.Bxe3 Re8 16.Qd4 (If 16.B-d4, Black goes
on in the same way by ...c6 and ...d6.) 16...Qxd4 17.Bxd4 c6 18.Bd3 (It will avail
him nothing to retreat the bishop to f1, for Black will also answer 18...d6, and if 19.
exd6, the rook attacks at e1.) 18...d6, and either Black wins a third pawn for the
exchange, or if 19.exd6, the rook checks at e1 and Whites pieces remain confined
while Black will gain the d-pawn by ...Be6 and ...Rd8, remaining with two pawns
for the exchange and a very fine game.
9.Qxd4 d5 10.exd6
**Inconvenient as this is, it was his best. To allow the opponent four pawns against
three on the queenside, while his fixed e-pawn at e5 could at any time be
exchanged by ...f6, thus opening the adverse f-file for the rook, would have been
still worse.
10...Nxd6 11.Bd3
**Inch by inch he is driven back. He would have lost a clear pawn had he brought
out the knight to c3, thus: 11.Nc3 Bf6 12.Qd3 (Best) 12...Bf5 13.Qe2 Bxc2 14.
Qxc2 Bxc3, etc.
11...Bf6 12.Qb4 Re8 13.Qd2 Rxe1+
**Though this has the effect of releasing the bishop, we cannot suggest anything
better, and Black certainly obtained a strong advantage after the exchange.
14.Qxe1 Bf5 15.Bxf5
**It was dangerous to allow the d-pawn to be isolated by bringing out the knight, e.g.,
15.Nc3 Bxd3 16.cxd3 Nf5 17.Qf1 (This seems to be the best retreat for the queen)
17...Bxc3 18.bxc3 Qd5, with the superior game.
15...Nxf5 16.c3
**No choice. He was bound to guard against ...Nd4, and to postpone his
development in consequence. If he brouught out the knight to c3, then the bishop
would take, creating an ugly doubled pawn, and if 16.Nd2, then followed 16...Nd4,
which made 17.Qd1 compulsory; Black could afterwards play ...Qd7, and ...Re8,
with a fine develpment, and by retreating the knight to c6 when attacked by the
pawn, he could again shut in all the white pieces.
16...Qd7 17.Nd2 Re8 18. Qf1 Nh4 [?:??-1:00]
**A fine move, which not alone prevents the adverse knight from gaining a convient
post at f3, but also other ample attacking purposes, as will be seen.
19.Nc4 [1:00-?:??] 19...Nxg2
**We give a diagram of this position. By this sacrifice Black throws away a very
good prospect of winning the game. The correct move was 19...b5, as pointed out
by Zukertort. White then had nothing better than to retreat the knight to e3,
otherwise Black would sacrifce the knight for the g-pawn with much greater force.
Whites bishop remained in that case shut up, and Black had certainly the much
superior game.
20.Kxg2 Qg4+ 21.Kh1 Qf3+ 22.Kg1
**The same two moves were repeated twice more, and then the game was abandoned
as drawn. He could not afford to continue the attack by 22...Re4, for White would
consolidate his forces by 23.Ne3, followed by 24.Ng2, and would win. But it was
not easy to draw if he now played 22...Re2, threatening to win the knight by ...Qg4
+. If White defended by 23.Ne3, the winning answer was 23...Bh4. Again, if he
retreated 23.Nd2, the game might have proceeded thus: 22...Re2 23.Nd2 Qg4+ 24.
Kh1 (Best; if the queen interposes mate follows in three moves by 24...Re1+; 25...
Rxf1+; and 26...Qd1#.) 24...Be5 (Threatening ...Qh4) 25.f4 Rxh2+ 26.Kxh2 Bxf4
+, and White must sacrifice the queen; for if 27.Kh1, then follows 27...Qh4+, 28...
Qg3+, and 29...Qh2#. But the only move to draw in answer to 22.Re2, is, as
pointed out by Zukertort, 22...Bf4. If Black then checks with the queen at g4, then
White is compelled again to move the king; but White then threatens either 25.Bg3,
or 25.Ne3, or 25.f3, according to circumstances, and Black has therefore no time to
regain the piece, and must therefore draw by perpetual check.
22...Qg4+ 23.Kh1 Qf3+ 24.Kg1 Qg4+ 25.Kh1 Qf3+ 26.Kg1 -.
London 1880
THE MATCH BETWEEN ROSENTHAL AND ZUKERTORT.
THE eighth game was played on Friday, the 21st inst. The Ruy Lopez is falling flat,
and the two masters seem to excercise in vain their ingenuities for the purpose of
improving the attack of the Spaniard, who according to Heydebrandt Von der Lasa,
was in general deficient of inventive power, and inaccurate in his demonstrations. As
regards M. Rosenthals variation, our remarks on the sixth game in our last weeks
number received a practical verification. We gave it as our opinion that Blacks
majority of pawns on the Q side, though somwhat marred by a doubled pawn, should,
in combination with the two bishops, prove an equal match at least for Whites
numerical superiority on the K side; and so it did, but of course Herr Zukertort greatly
modified his defence this time. On general principles we would describe M.
Rosenthals attack as a double-edged weapon, to use a chess critical metaphor of Herr
Falkbeer, and, as regards the details of the combat, we cannot refrain from stating our
view that the Frenchmans mode of handling this attack does not seem efficient even
from his own point of view. He manifestly lost several moves on this occasion as
well as in the sixth game. The Q B is certainly not well placed at K B 4 if it is part of
his ultimate plan to support the K P with the K B P. P to Q Kt 3 also appears to give
the defence the desired opportunity of dissolving his doubled pawn. Zukertort, by a
series of skilful and cautious manoeuvres, exchanged, in consequence, both Q B
pawns and liberated his Q R P for a march on, which confined the opponents R, but,
as he had to watch his own P with a piece of equal value, he was, for practical
purposes, almost a P behind in the employment of his forces, when, by an ill-
considered placement of his K, Rosenthal left himself open on the 32nd move to one
of his opponents deep coups, which broke up Whites game on the K side. Five moves
later on, Rosenthal committed a still graver error of judgment with a useless move of
the K, of which Zukertort availed himself most cleverly. On the 45th move he missed
his last chance of making the issue doubtful. He had already lost a P, but if he had
first stopped the Q Kt P from advancing by B to Q Kt 2 matters were not hopeless.
After that Zukertort finishedd with his accustomed skill by conducting alternately one
of the two separated passed pawns to Q, and Rosenthal had finally to resign after a
tenacious but hopeless defence. Duration, six hours.
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nf6 4.O-O Nxe4 5.d4 Be7 6.Re1 Nd6 7.Bxc6
dxc6 8.dxe5 Nf5 9.Qxd8+ Bxd8 10.Nc3 c5 11.Bf4 O-O 12.Rad1 b6 13.
h3 h6 14.Nd5 Be6 15.b3 c6 16.Nc3
**
See our remarks above respecting the conduct of the opening on Whites part.
16...c4 17.g4 Nh4 18.Nxh4 Bxh4 19.Kg2 cxb3 20.axb3 Be7 21.Ne4
Rfd8
**This appears to us an unnecessary delay in the advance of the a-pawn. The
opponent could make no use with his rook on the open d-file.
22.f3 [1:00-?:??] 22...c5 23.Nd6 a5 24.Ne4 c4 25.bxc4 Bxc4 26.Rxd8+
Bxd8 27.Nd6 Be6 [?:??-1:00] 28.Be3 a4 29.c4 a3 30.f4
**If anything can be made of this present opening, it is surely not the way to waste so
many moves. There ought to be some means of advancing this pawn to his present
post, where he seems to be necessary, in a quicker manner.
30...a2 31.Ra1 Ra3 32.Kf3
**This gets him into trouble. 32.Kf2 was the proper move, and would most probably
have led to an even position in a few moves; e.g.: 32.Kf2 Kf8 (If 32...Ra5, White
pushes at once the pawn to c5, and, after gaining the a-pawn for the c-pawn, he
gets the best of the game, either by Ra8 or Ra7.) 33.f5 Bd7 34.Ke2 Bc7 (If 34...
Ba4, White goes nearer with his king to d2, and may afterwards even run into
discovered check by Kc3, without sustaining loss.) 35.Bd4, and he will soon gain
the a-pawn, either by Ne4-c3, or else by Bb2, and eventually bringing the king up.
Should Black now take the h-pawn White may obviously take the a-pawn, for he
may cover with the bishop in answer to Rh2+.
32...h5
**An excellent move, which effectually prevents White from dislodging the bishop
by 33.f5, and gives him otherwise good chances of obtaining the superiority.
33.gxh5 [2:00-?:??]
**Had he advanced the pawn to f5, the game might have proceeded thus: 33.f5 Bg5
34.fxe6 Bxe3 35.exf7+ Kf8 36.Ke4 (If 36.Nb5, then the bishop withdraws
nevertheless to d4, checking, and after taking the rook and moving the bishop, must
win the knight at least) 36...Bc1, and ought to win. Had White tried, in lieu of the
text move, 33.Ke4, he would have also come out with the worst of the position, e.
g.: 33.Ke4 hxg4 34.f5 Bd7 (It would not be sound to sacrifice the bishop by taking
the h-pawn with the pawn; for White, after the capture, would ultimately obtain a
strong defensive move in Bd4.) 35.hxg4 Ba4 36.Nb5 Bc2+ 37.Kf3 (Best) 37...Ra4
38.Nc3 Rxc4 39.Rxa2 (Best; 39.Nxa2 would lose sooner on account of the reply
39...Ra4.) 39...Rxc3 40.Ra8 Rd3 41.Ke2 Kh7 42.Rc8 Bb1, and, if White now play
43.Rc1, the winning answer is 43...Rxe3+.
33...Bxh3 34.Nb5 Ra4 35.Nc3 Rxc4 36.Nxa2 b5 37.Kg3
**This very weak move strongly compromises his position. He ought to have
opposed the rook at once, and he had then a good chance of drawing, e.g.: 37.Rc1
Rxc1 (Or, if 37...Be6, then White exchanges rooks, followed accordingly by Nb4
or Nc3) 38.Bxc1 Ba5 39.Ba3 Be6 40.Bb4, etc.
37...Be6 38.Rc1 Ba5
**
A beautiful move. White remains now confined with his pieces, while Blacks b-
pawn is well supported for the advance.
39.Kf2 b4 40.Rxc4 Bxc4 41.Nc1 b3 42.Bd4 Bd2
**All this is in good style.
43.Ne2 Bxe2 44.Kxe2 Bxf4
45.Kd3
**This throws away all chances of drawing. (See diagram). There was a great deal of
fight left if he had now retreated the bishop to b2. The game might have then
proceeded thus: 45.Bb2 Kh7 46.Kd3 Kh6 47.Kc4 Bg5 (If 47...Kxh5, or 47...Kg5,
White draws by 48.e6.) 48.Kxb3 Be7 49.Kc4 Bf8 50.Kd5 Kxh5 51.e6, and ought to
draw.
45...Bc1 46.Kc3 b2 47.Kc2 [3:00-?:??] 47...Kh7 48.Bc5 Kh6 49.Bf8 Bf4
50.e6
**It avails him little, but he had no other chance of prolonging the fight, and,
therefore, justly endeavors to separate the pawns.
50...fxe6 51.Kxb2 Be5+ 52.Kc2 Kxh5 53.Kd3 g5 54.Ke4 Bf6 [?:??-
2:00] 55.Kf3 Kh4 56.Bc5 Kh3 57.Bb6 g4+ 58.Kf4 Bc3 59.Bf2 e5+ 60.
Kf5 g3 0-1.
**For, unless the bishop is sacrificed at once for the pawn, he is caught next move by
61...Bd4, and there is no further hope.
London 1880
THE ninth game, played on Monday, the 24th inst. At least there was a change of
the opening, and Zukertort transferred the analytical battle-ground from Spain into
Holland by adopting the Van tKruyz dbut of 1 P to K 3. This opening is rarely used
and little analysed, nor is there much to be said about it, as it belongs essentially to
the close games. If the opponent answer P to K 4, White will gain the advantage of a
move by entering into the Sicilian opening with P to Q B 4. If, on the other hand,
Black answers P to Q 4, as done in the present game, the play on both sides must
assume the aspect of the Q gambit declined. Both parties proceeded in a peculiar
way. Zukertort castled early, and voluntarily withdrew his K Kt to Q 2, blocking out
his Q B ; and Rosenthal, on the other hand, deliberately allowed his centre K P to be
doubled, relying on a prospective attack on the K side, which the opponent cleverly
avoided by withdrawing the K R to K sq, thus making room for the defensive retreat
of Kt to B sq before commencing his attack on the Q side. In pursuing the latter, we
believe he lost time with a conventional move, P to Q R 3, and also by retreating his
Kt to K B sq unnecessarily. M. Rosenthal seized the proper moment for dissolving
this doubled K P by P to K 4. The onus of difficulty would, we believe, have rested
with Whites game. As it went, the attack had the best of it, and Zukertort was the
first to prepare a breach on the Q side, which, however, he opened too soon on the
twentieth move. A studiously and carefully devised plan of exchanging the heavier
pieces was then instituted on both sides, and the game had all the appearance of a
blocked position. Zukertort after the adjournment, still tried on a concealed scheme
of entering with his Q B at K 5, vi K Kt 5, R 6, and Kt 7, but Rosenthal saw it in
time, and prevented the design by a proper move of the K. By an apparently
hazardous exchange, Rosenthal allowed at last his opponent a formidable-looking
passed P at Q Kt 6, in combination with two bishops ; but he had well calculated, as it
turned out that neither party was able to break through the game, which was soon
after given up as drawn. Duration, five hours and a half.
D06/01 Queens Gambit: Grau
1.e3 d5 2.d4 Bf5
**Contrary to general practice, Black develops his c8-bishop on the kingside, and
thus leaves some weakness on the other wing. It will be seen that he is later on, at
the trouble of maneuvering this bishop back again; and though we doubt whether
the retreat was compulsory at the time, at any rate Rosenthals view of such
necessity would support the expediency of the policy adopted by most
practitioners, who imitate Whites example, and shut the bishop by pawn to e6,
reserving its use for the queenside.
3.Nf3 e6 4.Be2 Bd6 5.O-O Nd7 6.c4 c6 7.Nc3 Ngf6 8.Nd2
**Liberties of that sort may be taken with the rules of development in the close
game. Yet 8.Ne1 presents a better appearance on general grounds, and especially it
would more effectively meet Blacks counter plan of 8...Ne4. In that case White
might capture the knight, followed by 10.f3, having not even a draw by perpetual
check to fear from the reply 10...Qh4, as, after 11.g3, the knight may ultimately
interpose at g2 should the adverse bishop be sacrificed.
8...Ne4
**An original and ingenious method of dealing with the close game. It sets the
ordinary notions of pawn placement at defiance; and, at all events the progress of
the present game would go to show that he runs not much risk in this deviation
from commonly accepted principles.
9.Ncxe4
**Proper. Now let us understand that for the attack on the queenside, at which he
evidently and judiciously aimed, the capture with the d2-knight was apparently
more promising. But the kingside was then bare, and Black threatened to compel
the advance of the g-pawn by ...Qh4, and then, after retreating the queen, the march
of the h-pawn to h5 and h4 menaced a breach of the peace. We assume another
alternative, and he fares no better, e.g., 9.Ndxe4 dxe4 10.f4 (to make 10...Qh4
useless) 10...g5 11.fxg5 Qxg5 12.Rf2 Qh4 13.g3 Rg8 14.Bf1 Qh6 15.Bg2 Nf6,
threatening ...Ng4, with an excellent game.
9...dxe4 10.Re1
**White also shows the master. The kingside is now perfectly safe, for he will not be
under the necessity of touching any of the pawns in that quarter as the retreat of the
knight to f1 will cover any danger.
10...O-O 11.a3
**If he intended to advance pawn to b4, and then to leave the latter pawn and also the
c-pawn abreast until he could do better, then this was quite right. But he denies the
utility of this preparation only two moves later on, and consequently we may
describe this as a loss of time, compared with 11.c5 at once followed by 12.b4.
11...Bg6 12.b4 f5 13.c5 Bc7 14.Bc4 Qe7 15.Qb3 Bf7 16.a4
**Contradictory to move 11. Had he pursued the above plan, he would have taken
time by the forelock.
16...Nf6 17.Nf1
**Query, was it necessary to make room for bishop to d2; or could that bishop be
better employed at a3. In the latter case the retreat of the knight was clear waste.
17...Nd5 18.b5 a6 [?:??-1:00] 19.Bd2 Be8
**We cannot defend this defense. It was a proper occasion for an attack by 19...e5,
not with the object of taking, but of leaving it alone until the advantage was
properly nursed. We take it for granted that White could not capture the center e5-
pawn, or else his c-pawn lost, and the other to follow. If he left all in statu quo,
then Black would press still more with ...Qf6 and ...Rfd8.
20.bxa6
**Quite unripe. Now he had, undoubtedly, the best of the struggle for position by 20.
Reb1. If Black tried to get relief by opening with either the 20...axb5 or 20...cxb5
then first possession of the open file for the rook was insured by retaking with the
pawn, and also the adverse b-pawn was isolated for the ending. All he had to avoid
was (assuming that 20...cxb5) the trap of 21.Bxd5, 22.Qxd5+, and 23.Qxb7, on
account of the ultimate 23...Bxh2+, winning the queen. Otherwise, he could
always maintain the superiority.
20...bxa6 21.a5 Bd7 22.Reb1 [1:00-?:??] 22...Rfb8 23.Qd1
**Zukertort informs us that he though of afterwards giving up the exchange by fixing
his rook at b6, but subsequently found it impracticable. We believe that the plan
was feasible, if he had now moved 23.Qa4. After the sacrifice (which, of course,
could only be followed up by retaking with the a-pawn on b6), he could bring his
knight round, removing his d2-bishop first, vi d2 and b3, into the formidable post
of a5. He stood then a fair chance of winning, without incurring any danger at
either wing. The two adverse rooks were then helplessly blocked up, and the play
of Whites minor pieces had much more scope for action.
23...Qd8 24.Rxb8 Qxb8 25.Rb1 Qd8 26.Qa4 Qc8 27.Ng3 Rb8 28.Rxb8
Bxb8 29.Qb3 Bc7 30.Ne2 Qa8 31.f4 Bc8 32.Ng3 Qb7 33.Qxb7 Bxb7 34.
Nh1 Kf7 35.Nf2 g6 36.Nd1 Bd8 37.Nb2 Bc7 38.Kf2 Bd8 39.Be2 Bc7 40.
Nc4 Ke7 41.Bd1 Bb8 [?:??-2:00] 42.Ba4 Bc7 43.Ke2
**The plan of 43.Kg3 could be frustrated by the answer 43...g5.
43...Bb8 44.Be1 Bc7 45.Kd2 Kd7
**The sacrifice of the knight for three pawns, commencing with 45...Nxf4, was
unsound, as the bishop would ultimately by shut out by pawn to g3.
46.Bh4 Bb8 47.Bg5
**The dulness of the maneuvering against the adverse barricaded position receives
now some interest by presenting the real danger of his entering at g7, vi h6, with
the view of gaining the fine post at e5. See diagram.
47...Ke8
**
The only move. He recognises the opponents design, and prepares for ...Kf7,
should White attempt Bh6.
48.Bd1 [2:00-?:??] 48...Bc7 49.g4 Kf7 50.Nb6 Bxb6
**
Apparently bold, but well calculated. Whites two bishops cannot act for aggressive
purposes.
51.cxb6
**It was of no more use to take with the a-pawn, for Black could always find means
of bringing his knight to b8 in case any danger arose for his own a-pawn.
51...Ke8 52.h3 Kd7 53.Bh4 Kd6 54.Bb3 Kd7 55.Bxd5 cxd5 56.Kc3
Kc6 57.Kb4 Bc8 -.
London 1880
THE tenth game was played on Thursday, the 27th inst. By mutual agreement, play
had been put off over the Derby Day, and the tenth meeting of the two masters took
place on the Thursday. Rosenthal had the move, and again played a Ruy Lopex, with
the continuation 5. P to Q B 3, already adopted in the fourth game of the match,
making however, an alteration in the final placement of the KB, which he retreated to
QN3. Strange to say, Zukertort committed a regular blunder as early as the 8th move,
whereby he lost a P, without hope of delaying the ending game, for the opponent was
enabled to exchange queens simultaneously. Rosenthal had then an easy game, and
had only to exercise common circumspection to maintain his superiority. Zukertorts
defence would have been worthy of a better cause, but naturally had only a dilatory
effect. Nothing remarkable occurred until the 28th move, when Rosenthal, by a fine
coup, forced an exchange of pawns most favourable to himself, for he drew an
adverse isolated P into his own quarter, where it would soon be reached with his K.
Rosenthal then effected an exchange of pawns on the Q side, which left him free on
the other wing for approaching with his K the unprotected hostile pawns. The
position at the time of adjournment left Rosenthal with two combined passed pawns
ahead - all other pawns being exchanged - and just when Rosenthal was on the point
of writing down his move for the purpose of handing it over to the secretary, his
opponent announced his resignation. This makes the score: Zukertort two; Rosenthal
one; drawn seven.
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nf6 4.d3 d6 5.c3 a6 6.Ba4 g6 7.d4 b5 8.Bb3
**In the fourth match game he played 8.Bc2. This is more immediately aggressive.
8...Bg7
**An extraordinary blunder to make at such an early stage. He loses now a clear
pawn, and must besides submit to the exchange of queens. Of course, he ought to
have taken the d-pawn first with the e-pawn.
9.dxe5 Nxe5
**Nor did he make the best choice in accepting the loss. It was clearly better to take
with the pawn, e.g., 9...dxe5 10.Qxd8+ Nxd8 11.Nxe5 Nxe4 12.Nxf7 (if 12.Bd5,
Black answers 12...Bb7) 12...Nxf7 13.Bd5 and, though White will remain a pawn
ahead, his position is not so strong as it came out by the move in the text, which
leaves Black with the cumbersome weak e-pawn to defend, and with less pieces on
the board to make a fight, besides having forfeited the right of castling. He could,
however, not escape the exchange of queens, for, wherever the f6-knight moves,
White won by the answer 9.Qd5.
10.Nxe5 dxe5 11.Qxd8+ Kxd8 12.Bxf7 Bb7 13.f3 Ke7 14.Bb3 h6 15.
Be3 Rhd8 16.a4 g5 17.axb5 axb5 18.Rxa8 Rxa8 19.Na3 Bc6 20.Kf2
Bf8 21.Nc2 Ke8 22.Nb4 Bb7 [?:??-1:00] 23.Rd1 Be7 24.Nd5 Nxd5 25.
Bxd5 c6 26.Be6 Bc8
**The exchanges weaken him, of course; and, though he was much limited in his
defensive moves, we should have preferred waiting as long as possible before
submitting to, much less offering, a reduction in forces.
27.Bxc8 Rxc8 28.h4
**An excellent move (see diagram). Black must take, or else, after the exchange of
pawns, his g-pawn will become untenable. The effect of the exchange of pawns is
to draw the adverse h-pawn nearer to his own king, and therefore easier within
reach of capture in case he succeeded in exchanging rooks.
28...gxh4 29.Bxh6 [1:00-?:??] 29...Kf7 30.Be3 Ke6 31.Ra1 Rg8 32.b4
Rc8 33.Ra6 Kd7 34.Ra7+ Ke6 35.Bc5 Bg5 36.Be3 Be7 37.Ra6 Kd7 38.
Kg1
**He hits on the right plan after having lost some moves with his rook. The king
must be brought round on the h-file in order to secure victory.
38...c5
**The game could not have been saved under any circumstances, and this was about
as good as anything else, though its immediate effect is to release White from any
apprehension respecting the pawns on the queenside, and to allow him to devote
his fullest energy to clearing the road on the other wing.
39.Rb6 cxb4 [?:??-2:00] 40.cxb4 Rc3 41.Bh6
**The best move to avoid subsequent molestation. Wherever else the bishop went,
the adverse rook could either harass the king with checks, or attack the bishop.
41...Bxb4 42.Rxb5 Bc5+ 43.Kh2 Bf2 44.Kh3 Bg3 45.Bg5 Rc2
**It was altogether hopeless now, and quite irrelevant what he did.
46.Bxh4 Bxh4 47.Kxh4 Rxg2 48.Rxe5 1-0.
London 1880
THE MATCH BETWEEN MESSRS. ROSENTHAL AND
ZUKERTORT.
THE eleventh game. The substitution of Thursday for Wednesday in the play
calendar necessitated also a change of appointment for the end of last week, and
consequently the eleventh game was played on Saturday, the 29th ult. Zukertorts start
was a surprise. 1 Kt to K B 3 has never been heard of, and the adoption of this odd
novelty is, in one sense, a compliment to the knowledge of opening displayed by his
opponent hitherto. On the other hand, it could have no deep meaning; and Rosenthal,
by replying P to Q 4, clearly showed that he saw through it. The object of this curious
beginning is apparently, perchance, to induce the adversary to answer Kt to Q B 3,
and then White would proceed with P to Q 4, having gained a fine point of
development, for in the Q P 2 opening Blacks Kt is badly placed at Q B 3 before his
Q B P has moved. The early attempt to steal a march on the adversary did not repay
the trouble as well as in the case of Anderssen, who twice baffled Morphys ingenuity
by commencing with 1. P to Q R 3, and then obtained a fine opening by 2. P to Q B 4
in reply to 1. P to K 4, being a move in advance in the Sicilian opening. Rosenthal, as
we said before, made the right reply, and the game resumed all the aspects of the
opening in the 9th game of the match, with the exception of the addition on Whites
part of the useless preparation 5. P to Q R 3. The French player treated his defence on
the same system as in the ninth game, or, properly speaking, instituted a counter-
attack by developing his minor pieces, almost regardless of the position of his pawns,
as in an open game. Zukertorts 9th move, R to K sq, might pass criticism, but is made
remarkable chiefly by being completely retracted three moves later on, apparently for
the purpose of avoiding a hostile attack, which gave the opponent at least a draw. We
should be far from advocating argumentation through thick and thin in favour of a
position once taken op, but this confession of error strikes us as an error in itself. He
was bound to look out for some more dignified defence, and we believe he could have
accomplished his object, even with less risk, by P to K R 3. As it was, Rosenthal
could either win an easily defensible P, or obtain an attack which would have well
repaid trial, as he had at least a draw by perpetual check in hand in a few moves, to
fall back upon in case his calculations did not satisfy his attempting to win. The
French master elected, however, to pursue a course which left the parties with no
other minor pieces than bishops of opposite colours, rooks and queens still on the
board, and all the forces as well as position, quite even. A prolongation of the struggle
would have been useless, and the game was fairly given up as drawn on the sixteenth
move, but altogether presents a feeble specimen of match play. Duration, two hours
and a half.
1.Nf3
**See our introductory comments in explanation of the meaning of this odd initiation
and of the merit of Blacks reply.
1...d5 2.d4 Nf6 3.e3 Bf5 4.Be2 e6 5.a3
**We do not discern any utility for this move at the present stage.
5...Bd6 6.c4 c6 7.Nc3 Nbd7 8.00 Ne4 9.Re1
**He stood now in the same position as in the ninth game, excepting that he was a
move behind, owing to the thrown-away fifth move. Consequently he could not
take the knight at once, as Blacks pawn would retake, and then the opponent would
obtain a strong attack by 10...Qh4, forcing the advance of Whites g-pawn, which,
after Black retreats the queen, furnishes a mark for the onslaught of his h-pawn.
The expedient is adopted with the intention of capturing the knight, followed, if the
pawn retakes, by the retreat of the knight to f1, vi d2, as in the ninth game.
9...Ndf6
**Excellent. Perceiving the difference of the situation, with true judgment he settles
his plan accordingly, and prepares even a better one than in the ninth game. It is
evident that he now means to hold the adverse gap in the center with one of his
knights, which promises to be more advantageous than fixing his pawn at e4.
10.Nxe4
**Black threatened 10...Ng4, and, though White could in that case defend the f-pawn
for the time by retreating 11.Rf1, he was always afterwards under the
inconvenience that he could not drive either of the hostile knights from their
respective posts. For, attacking one knight by 12.h3 was then obviously useless, as
Black would advance 12...h5 in support, threatening to open the file for the rook
with an irresistible attack should White take. Black could also sufficiently protect
the other knight at e4 by withdrawing the bishop to g6, followed by ...f5, and White
could never exchange without exposing himself to a powerful attack on the
kingside, like the one pointed out in the note to Whites ninth move.
10...Nxe4 11.Bd2 Bg4 12.Rf1
**Black threatened to win thus: 12...Bxf3 13.Bxf3 Bxh2+ 14.Kxh2 Qh4+ 15.Kg1
Qxf2+ , followed soon by ...Qxd2. But the move in the text is a poor resource.
Sooner than submit to such a retreat we would have moved the d-bishop, and then
Black had no more than a draw in the above indicated exchange and sacrifice. We
think, however, that 12.h3 was better still.
If Black at once exchanged the two minor pieces by 12...Bxf3 and 13...Nxd2 he
could get no more than a drawn position, on account of bishops of opposite colors,
while the extra pawn he might gain in the exchange could not be maintained if
attacked by Rc1. If, on the other hand, he offered to sacrifice the bishop by 12...h5,
then White, of course, was not bound to take, but could proceed with 13.Rc1.
12...Bxf3
**Lack of energy. He would have been quite justified in this position to attempt a win
by 12...dxc4. This pawn was well defensible; and if White tried to recover it the
game might have proceeded thus: 12...dxc4 13.h3 This seems best for the purpose;
for, if 13.Bxc4 at once, Black will proceed in the same way as in the following
variation from the 15th move, with much greater effect, as he will compel the
advance of the hostile f-pawn, and then open the game by ...g5. 13...Bh5 14.Bxc4
Bxf3 15.gxf3 , best 15...Qg5+ 16.Kh1 and Black has already the choice of drawing
by 16...Ng3+, followed by 17...Qxg3, which leaves no other resource than the reply
by 18.f4; then, at least, perpetual check may follow by 19.Qh3 and 20.Qg3. He
may, however, also pursue the attack by 16...Qh4, followed, in reply to 17.Kg2 by
17...Ng3, and 18...Nf5, or else by the simple retreat of 17...Nf6 at once, with the
object of advancing the pawns on the kings wing in each case with an excellent
game. We give a diagram of the position in the text.
13.Bxf3 Nxd2 14.Qxd2 00
**He would gain nothing by 14...dxc4, for the hostile rook would at once attack the
same at c1, and Blacks b-pawn could obviously not advance to b5 in support,
without leaving his c-pawn en prise of the adverse bishop.
15.Rac1 Qe7 16.Rfe1 Rfd8 .
**It would have been waste of time for either side to go on with this game.
London 1880
THE twelfth game was played on Monday, the 31st ult. This game will be
memorable in the records of match play, owing to a breakdown at the finish, such as
has very rarely been witnessed in a serious contest. The opening was the same as in
the tenth game up to the 7th move, when Rosenthal, instead of continuing with the
attack by P to Q 4, cautiously advanced the K R P to R 3, evidently in pursuance of a
plan of slow development. Zukertort defended on the previously adopted system, but
prematurely tried to open the game on the 9th move by P to Q 4. The consequence
was that a hostile B planted itself most inconveniently for him at Q B 5, preventing
his castling, while Rosenthal obtained the usual strong attack on the Q side by the
advance of the Q R P. On the 14th move White missed a fine opportunity of much
improving his game by taking the hostile K B before removing his own, thus creating
an ugly double pawn for the opponent in the centre, and also weakening the other
hostile pawns on the K side. Zukertort instituted a masterly defence, and we
especially commend his 17th move to the attention of students. He castled,
apparently leaving an important P en prise, which was, however, secured by a fine
conception. Rosenthal avoided the bait, and still kept the initiative; but he missed
again his chance of fortifying his game on the 23rd move. His manuvres with his
queen and the Q R were, to use a mild term, very indifferent, and had only the effect
of enabling Black to consolidate and strengthen his pawns on the Q side, to drive the
hostile rooks back, and to exchange queens, with free possession for his own rooks of
the only open file. Rosenthal at last succeeded in getting rid of one of the hostile
rooks, after bringing his K round in support of the challenge for the exchange; and the
game had all the appearance of an easy draw, when, on the 42nd move, he committed
as terrible a blunder as we have ever seen in a match game. He overlooked the loss of
a clear piece by a simple combination only two moves deep, and, his game being
hopelessly ruined, he had to resign a few moves later on. Duration, five hours and a
half.
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nf6 4.d3 d6 5.c3 a6 6.Ba4 g6 7.h3 Bg7 8.Be3
b5 9.Bb3 d5
**Too early, certainly. It exposes the point at c5 to the commanding occupation of
the hostile bishop.
10.Nbd2 h6
**He wants to post his c8-bishop to e6 without being subject to the strong rejoinder
Ng5. 10...d4 would have been useless; for White, after taking once, would have
obtained a good post for his bishop at f4, and afterwards an attack with his rook or
queen on the open c-file.
11.Bc5 Be6 12.a4 dxe4 13.dxe4 Nd7 14.Be3
**It was unquestionably much stronger to take the e6-bishop first, Black could not
avoid retaking, and consequently forming a weak doubled pawn in the center; for if
he took 14...Nxc5, the winning answer was 15.Bd5, followed by 16.axb4 in case
the queen protected the knight.
14...Bxb3 15.Qxb3 bxa4 16.Qc4 Qf6 17.Rxa4 0-0
**Finely played. We give a diagram of this position. White dare not take the a-
pawn, for Black would win then the exchange at least by 18...Na5, attacking the
rook twice.
18.0-0 a5 19.Rfa1 [1:00-?:??] 19...Nb6 20.Bxb6 cxb6 21.Qb5 Na7 22.
Qe2 Rfc8 [?:??-1:00] 23.Rc4
**A move thrown away entirely. 23.Nc4, attacking the e-pawn once more, was the
correct play, and he could then gain the strong post at d5 with his knight in two
moves, vi e3. It is obvious that Black could not reply 23...b5, on account of the
rejoinder 24.Rxa5, doubly attacking the black knight.
23...Nc6 24.Rca4
**Sooner or later he must have beaten the retreat with his rook, for Black threatened
to cut it off first by ...Bf8, with the intention of advancing the b-pawn on it.
24...Rab8 25.Qb5 Na7 26.Qd7
**All these maneuvers of the queen are useless, and lead to no favorable result. He
ought again to have tried to fix his d2-knight at d5, vi f1 and e3.
26...Nc6 27.Qd3
**Notwithstanding the loss of time which he had incurred, he had still a fair game,
and he evidently did not wish to give the opponent the option of drawing at once by
constantly attacking the queen with the rook at d8 and c8.
27...b5 28.R4a2 Rd8 29.Qe2 Bf8 30.Nf1 Bc5 31.Ne3
**He comes too late now. His opponent has, with due care, provided against the sally
of the knight by preparing its exchange on the last move.
31...Bxe3 32.Qxe3 Kg7 33.Qc5 [2:00-?:??] 33...Qd6 34.Qxd6 Rxd6 35.
Kf1 f5 36.Re1 Kf6 37.Raa1 Rbd8 38.Re2 a4 [?:??-2:00] 39.Ke1 f4
**He closes the game upon the kingside, in order to be able to utilize his knight,
which he could nor move before, as White would win a pawn by exchanging the f-
pawn, and opening a double attack on the e-pawn.
40.Rd2 Rxd2 41.Nxd2 Na5 42.Ke2
**An extraordingary oversight. He must have been worn out and tired to overlook
the opponentThe Field, London, 1880.06.05s plain reply. 42.Rd1 would have made
his game quite safe, and Black could expect no more than a draw at the utmost; for
White could offer the exchange of rooks by withdrawing the knight, and Black
would then have to take care of his loosely advanced b-pawn.
42...Rxd2+ 43.Kxd2 Nb3+ 44.Kd3 Nxa1 45.c4 bxc4+ 46.Kxc4 Nc2 47.
Kc3 a3 0-1.
London 1880
The thirteenth game, played on Thursday, the 3rd inst. The opening was the same
as in the seventh game of the match up to Whites eighth move, when Zukertort
adopted the attack by Kt to B 5 which we had recommended in our not (b) to that
game. Rosenthal also pursued the defence given in our comments; but his adversary
had evidently examined this variation beyond the limit of our notes; for, almost
without any hesitation, he made a succession of moves instituting a perplexing attack
whereby he left a P to be gained by the opponent, which, however, he would have
recovered at least, with the better game, if Rosenthal accepted the offer. At the same
time it would have been difficult for the French master always to make the right
reply. Rosenthal exhausted a great deal of time and apparently useless calculation
before he entered on the process of simplification, which gave him an even game in a
few moves. The struggle for development was then transferred to the Q side, and
White had somewhat the best of it up to the 26th move, when Zukertort left himself
open to the loss of a clear P on the Q side. Rosenthal, who was short of time at that
stage, did not see it, and, on the contrary, adopted a manuvre whereby he lost a clear
P himself. The French master played better after the 30th move, when the pressure of
time limit had ceased, yet he missed his opportunity on the 33rd move of much
improving his game. Zukertort was rather lax in his attention for some moves after he
had gained the P, but his play from the 35th move was of a very high order. Rosenthal
left a piece to be taken, evidently in result of a miscalculation, but it looked feasible
enough at the time, and the sacrifice could only be defeated by the exact calculation
which his opponent had evidently prepared. Every move of Zukertort combined
attack and defence, and, though his K was apparently driven up to the dangerous
hostile quarter, it soon became clear that the winner of the Paris tournament had in his
forecast provided his final escape with an overwhelming superiority of forces. When
Rosenthal resigned he was bound to lost a clear R, being at the time already four
pawns behind. Duration, six hours and a half.
The score at the time of our going to press stands, therefore: Rosenthal, 1;
Zukertort, 4; drawn, 8.
C65/01 Spanish: Berlin (Nyholm)
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nf6 4.d4 exd4 5.0-0 Be7 6.e5 Ne4 7.Nxd4 0-0 8.
Nf5
**It will be remembered that in the seventh game of the match Zukertort adopted the
much inferior move 8.Re1 at this point.
8...d5 9.Nxe7+ Nxe7 10.f3 c6 11.fxe4 Qb6+ 12.Kh1 Qxb5 13.Nc3 Qc5
[?:??-1:00] 14.Bg5
**White rests his attack on the principle of rapid development, and his position is
apparently worth the pawn he offers to give up.
14...Ng6
**Best. Had he played to gain the pawn, the game might have progressed thus: 14...
dxe4 15.Nxe4 Qxe5 16.Nf6+ gxf6 (best; if 16...Kh8, then follows 17.Nxh7, 18.Qh5
+ and 19.Rae1 as pointed out by Zukertort.) 17.Bxf6 Qd5 (best; any attempt to save
the piece would be disastrous, on account of the reply 18.Qh5, or 18.Qd2, or 18.
Qc1, always threatening either 19.Qg5+, or 19.Qh6, with a winning game.) 18.Qc1
Qh5 19.Bxe7, with the superior game. We may state that we thought at first that the
capture of the e-pawn would be fraught with much greater danger, on account of
the reply 16.Re1; but, on examination, we come the conclusion that Black might in
that case retreat the queen to c7; and if the hostile knight sacrificed itself at f6, he
might take, followed by 18...Nd5, and mostly afterwards by ...Qf4.
15.exd5 Nxe5 16.dxc6 Qxc6 17.Qe1
**If 17.Nd5, the only answer was 17...Ng6.
17...f6 18.Bf4 Ng6 19.Rd1 Re8 20.Qf2 Be6 21.Rd6 Qc4 22.Rd4 Qc6 23.
Rfd1 Qb6 24.Na4 Qa5 25.b3 Rac8 26.c4
**Apparently an oversight. He endangers an important pawn thereby.
26...b5
**Black also overlooks that he could safely capture the c-pawn with the bishop, for
the adverse knight was bound to lose ultimate support if White retook; and, in reply
to 27.Bd2, the queen could keep its hold on the knight by 27...Qa6.
27.Bd2 Qc7
**27...Qa6 looks awkward, but we feel sure that the legitimate result would not have
justified the prejudice which appearances raise against it. It was certain to turn out
better than to give up a clear pawn on the queenside, where he was already in a
minority.
28.cxb5 Red8 29.Bc3 [1:00-?:??]
**We should have preferred 29.Be3, which would have kept greater pressure on the
root of Blacks position, his a-pawn, without ultimately necessitating the desertion
of Whites queen from his kingside, which afterwards might have caused some
trouble.
29...Rxd4 30.Qxd4 Nf8 [?:??-2:00] 31.h3 Qb7
**
Whites last move was weak. Black takes prompt advantage, for he also threatens
now 32...Bxh3.
32.Kg1 Qxb5 33.Qxa7
**
Which now exposes him. See note to Whites 29th move.
33...Bd7
**Dr. Ballard subsequently pointed out that Black might have here obtained a very
good game by the following line of play: 33...Qe2 34.Re1 (This seems best; if 34.
Ra1, Black may capture the bishop, followed by 35...Qb2) 34...Qxa2 35.Rxe6 Rxc3
(not 35...Nxe6, or else he would lose by the answer 36.Qd7) 36.Re7 Rg3, etc.
34.Qd4 Qg5 35.Nb6
**
A beautiful move, which completely answers the opponents intended attack.
35...Bc6
**Had he taken the h-pawn, White would have checked with the queen at d5, and
retaken with the knight, threatening 38.Ne7+.
36.Rd2 Re8 37.Qc4+ Kh8
**Under a misapprehension. He exaggerates the attack he obtained by the sacrifice.
Of course, the proper move would have been 37...Re6.
38.Qxc6 Re1+
**Which required great courage, but he had clearly seen through all complications
arising therefrom, as the sequel shows.
39.Kh2 Qe3
**Nothing was to be gained by 39...Qf4+, followed afterwards either by 40...Qf1 or
40...Qe3, for the ultimate respective answers of 41.Rg2 or 41.Qg2 made Whites
game secure.
40.Nd5
**Better than 40.Rd3, which would have made his defense troublesome, e.g.: 40.Rd3
Qg1+ 41.Kg3 Re3+ 42.Rxe3 Qxe3+ 43.Kh2 Qf4+, and if the pawn interposes, the
queen checks again at f2, winning the knight if queen interposes, otherwise White
will be much harassed before he can escape all hostile checks.
40...Qg1+ 41.Kg3 [2:00-?:??] 41...h5 42.Qb6
**All this is very fine play. He apparently gives up a piece, but he would recover the
same speedily with advantage.
42...h4+
**Had he exchanged queens, the game would have proceeded thus: 42...Qxb6 43.
Nxb6 Re3+ 44.Kh2 Rxc3 45.Rd8, followed by 46.Nd7, if the king defends the
knight, winning.
43.Kxh4 Qh2 44.Bxf6 Re4+ 45.Kh5 Qg3
**The last chance. He still threatens mate by 46...Rh4+, and 47...g6+, etc.
46.Bxg7+
**
Whites play furnishes a fine example of modern style. He has worked his king up
fearlessly, and now finishes off with a few energetic strokes. We give a diagram of
the position.
46...Kxg7 47.Qf6+ Kh7 48.Qf7+ 1-0.
London 1880
THE fourteenth game was played on Monday, the 7th inst. This was the only game
which occurred in the course of last week, two adjournments having taken place
respectively on Saturday and Wednesday last. The delays were arranged in
accordance with a bye-law to the conditions of the contest, which allows either player
to claim exemption twice in the course of two months. We believe that in the true
interest of match play it was no more than reasonable to introduce such a safeguard,
which, in case of series illness would afford great relief, and occasionally would have
also give either player time for recruiting himself from the effect of overwork and
fatigue, or from the depressing influence of a defeat or series of reverses. The unusual
length of the present contest must make such postponements welcome to both
players ; for it should also be remembered that Herr Zukertorts attention is greatly
engaged with the difficult editorial work in connection with the Chess Monthly ; and
M. Rosenthal, on the other hand, pleads that his state of health is not equal to the
continued mental exertion of hard match play for weeks in succession. The two
adjournments took place at the instance of the French master. On the first
occasionviz., in reference to the adjournment over SaturdayHerr Zukertort
handsomely agreed no to count that postponement as one of the two exemption days
to which M. Rosenthal is entitles with two months.
The game played on Monday was again opened by M. Rosenthal with a Ruy
Lopez. It certainly seems, as a prominent member of the St. Georges Chess Club
observed, as if the two masters held the opinion that the advantage of the first move
cannot be maintained in any other opening that in the Spanish, or in the close game.
The French player conducted the attack as in the fourth game, with the exception that
he posted his K B at Q Kt 3 this time, instead of at B 2. He concentrated all the other
minor pieces on the K side, and evidently aimed at opening by P to K B 4. Against
the K fianchetto in the defence, which Zukertort had again adopted, such a plan
appear unfavourable for the attack, for it opens the most important diagonal for the
adverse K B, which ought to be kept shut out as long as possible. He had also given
the opponent time for doubling his rooks on the Q file, and, almost as soon as he
effected his design of breaking through on the K B file, Rosenthal had a dead lost
game on the other wing. Zukertort, however, missed his best opportunity on the
twentieth move, where he made the inferior retreat with his Kt to Kt 2, instead of
removing it to B 2, with the intention of sacrificing the same if his opponent advanced
the Q P. He would have obtained three clear pawns and R for two minor pieces, with
an overpowering attack ; while the way he actually played subjected him to a block
on the Q side, and enabled the opponent to form an attack on the other wing.
Rosenthal, thus released from one danger which might have proved at once fatal,
soon rushed into another. He had the best of the game on the twenty-third move,
when he could have finessed for position, and would have much improved his game if
he had first played the Q to B 3, instead of at once to K 3. The latter move gave the
winner of the Paris tournament occasion for one of his brilliant coups. He offered the
sacrifice of the exchange, for which, if accepted, he would have obtained three pawns
with the superior position. Under any circumstances, and as it actually went, he came
out with a strong attack. A fine series of manuvres followed on both sides ; but the
Frenchman had to struggle against the greater difficulty, and his time allowance was
running short just on the thirtieth move, which, unfortunately for him, happened to be
a decisive point, from the nature of the position. He decided wrongly. Instead of
checking with the Q at B 7, and then retreating the Kt to B 2, which gave him a good
chance of drawing, he withdrew the Kt to R 2, whence he had come, and thus enabled
Zukertort, by a series of very fine manuvre, to force the game. Herr Zukertort
ultimately came out with a clear piece ahead by a very clever final process. Duration,
our [sic] hours. ScoreZukertort, 5 ; Rosenthal, 1 ; drawn, 8.
**In the fourth game of the match Rosenthal brought out the b1-knight, vi d2, before
developing the bishop. In view of the plan of fixing this knight ultimately at g3, the
alteration in the order of moves is insignificant; but we believe that the post at e3,
which was chosen for this knight in the first game of the Steinitz-Blackburne
match, is more adapted for attacking purposes, and should therefore be reserved.
8...h6 9.Nbd2 Qe7 10.Nf1 Be6 11.Ng3
**
See preceding note. In face of the adverse kingside fianchetto, in which Blacks g-
pawn protects every square commanded by Whites knight for aggressive purposes.
g3 does not appear a good place for the latter, which might better have been left at
d2.
11...b5 12.Bb3 d5 13.0-0 0-0 14.Nh2
**
The whole plan of Whites attack does not sufficiently balance conflicting
considerations. It is generally a sound principle to try to obtain the majority of
pawns on the queenside, and he evidently aims at that object in preparing the
advance of the f-pawn; but he does not make sufficient allowance for his opening
the range of the hostile g7-bishop on his own queenside, and for the dangerous
action of the two hostile rooks, which the opponent will be able to double on the
open d-file.
14...Rad8 15.Qe2 Na5 16.exd5 Nxd5 17.Bxd5 Rxd5 18.f4 exf4 19.Bxf4
Rfd8
**We should have preferred 19...b4 at once, which would have weakened the adverse
queenside, for White could not take without exposing himself still more.
20.b4 [1:00-?:??]
**An ill-considered advance, which might have cost the game on the spot.
20...Nb7
**Feeble. The proper answer was 20...Nc6, which would have gained at least one
important pawn on the queenside, for White could not then advance the d-pawn
and allow the opponent to sacrifice the knight, e.g.: 20...Nc6 21.d4 Nxd4 22.cxd4
Bxd4+ 23.Kh1 Bxa1 24.Rxa1 Qxb4 , and White can neither take the h-pawn not
the c-pawn, on account of the immediately winning reply 25...Qc3, attacking two
pieces. Consequently Black remains with three strong pawns and a rook for two
minor pieces; besides that, the adverse a-pawn is weak and indefensible in the long
run. The advantage clearly preponderates on Blacks side.
21.d4 R5d7 22.Rae1 Qh4 23.Qe3
**He did not master the situation, or else he would have seen that he had to gain this
point in a roundabout way, or he subjected himself to danger at present. The proper
play was 23.Qf3, attacking the knight, whereupon the game might have proceeded
thus: 23.Qf3 Bd5 24.Qe3 (now he can safely enter this square, as the opponents
rooks are shut out) 24...Nd6 25.Nf3 Bxf3 26.Qxf3 , with the superior game.
23...Rxd4 [?:??-1:00]
**A fine resource, which turns the tables, at least as far as the attack is concerned.
We give a diagram of this position.
24.Bxc7
**Perhaps best under the circumstances; but we are not quite sure whether he could
not accept the proffered exchange, e.g.: 24.Nf3 Qxf4 25.cxd4 (it comes to the same
if he take 25.Nxd4, for the adverse rook will always retake after exchanging
queens) 25...Qxe3+ 26.Rxe3 Rxd4 27.Nxd4 Bxd4 28.Rff3 Bxa2 29.Kf1 Bc4+ 30.
Ke1 Bxe3 31.Rxe3 c5 (if 31...a5, White may reply 32.Re7) 32.Ra3 cxb4 33.Rxa6,
with a fair prospect of a draw.
24...Rd3 25.Qb6
**Best. If 25.Bxd8 , then followed: 25...Qxd8 26.Qf2 (if 26.Qf4 , the g-pawn attacks
again) 26...Bxc3 threatening 27...Bd4, and recovering the exchange with an
excellent attack.
25...Rxg3 26.Rxe6
**Again the only move. He could not take 26.Qxb7 at once before getting rid of the
bishop, on account of the crushing reply 26...Bd5.
26...fxe6 27.Bxg3 Qxg3 28.Qxb7 Rd2 29.Ng4 h5 30.Nh2 [2:00-?:??]
**Which throws away his last chance for a draw. He could not check with 30.Nf6+,
for Black, after exchanging, would check 31...Rd1+, followed by 32...Qe3+,
winning the rook. Nor could he retreat 30.Nf2 without subjecting himself to
immediate disaster by the reply 30...Be5. But he might have checked first with 30.
Qf7+, followed by 31.Nf2, and we very much doubt whether Black would then
obtain a winning position by force, for if his bishop moved away he was always
subjected to checks, and his rook had to guard against the opponent occupying the
open d-file with his own rook. It should be observed that Black had no better
answer to 30.Qf7+ than 30...Kh8; for, if 30...Kh7, the adverse knight would check
at f6 and draw at least by perpetual check at g8 and f6, as the black king dare not
then go back to h8.
30...Rxa2 31.Kh1 Re2
**Quite right. He secures first the majority of pawns, in order that he should not be
harassed by an offer of the exchange of queens, for instance, by Qf3.
32.Qa8+ Kh7 33.Rf7 Re1+ 34.Nf1 Qxc3 35.Qxa6 Qc4 36.Kg1 Rxf1+
**
Whites conduct of this difficult ending presents a model of finessing maneuvers.
37.Rxf1 Bd4+ 0-1.
London 1880
Complimentary Dinner
The complimentary dinner of the St. Georges Chess Club in honour of MM. Morel
and Rosenthal, came off, in accordance with our previous announcement, on
Thursday last, at the Criterion Restaurant. The Earl of Dartrey presided. After the
repast the noble chairman, in proposing the loyal toasts, expressed his gratification,
amidst loud cheers, at the club having the honour of counting a member of the royal
family (H. R. H. Prince Leopold) amongst its members. The noble lord next proposed
the health of M. Grvy, the President of the French Republic, who, before and since
his elevation to his exalted office, had given his warmest support to the cultivation of
the game in France. The next toast proposed by the noble lord was the health of M.
Morel, one of the guests of the evening, who was received with warmest applause
when returning thanks in French. Mr Lindsay, in proposing the health of M.
Rosenthal, said that the members of the club felt the highest satisfaction at the
election of M. Rosenthal as an honorary member. The French master numbered
amongst his pupils some of the highest personages of all parties in France, and had
also during his stay amongst us gained a great many friends through his personal
qualities. M. Rosenthal was chivalrously fighting against one of the finest players in
the world, and he (Mr Lindsay) hoped that both parties would be able to develope
their best abilities, feeling sure that the members of the club only wished the success
of superior skill, quite apart from the least personal considerations. (Loud cheers.)
M. Rosenthal, who returned thanks in French, said that he felt deeply grateful for
the honour accorded to him, and, no matter what might be the result of the contest in
which he was engaged, he would always entertain a vivid recollection of the
hospitality bestowed upon him by the members of the St. Georges Chess Club. He
had been treated with perfect fairness in reference to the match, and with great
kindness and consideration in his private capacity, and he felt proud of belonging to a
body of devotees to the game who were so evidently inspired by sentiments of honour
and justice.
Lord Randolph Churchill, M. P., next proposed the health of the hon. members,
coupled with the name of Herr Zukertort. The noble lord, amidst loud cheers,
expressed his deep regret at the loss which the club had sustained by the death of
Professor Anderssen, but he was happy to see that the other luminaries of chess who
were on the list of honorary members were still living, though not all present. His
Excellency Baron Heydebrandt von der Lasa had, with his great analytical works,
raised the noble game to a real science, and Paul Morphy, probably the greatest chess
genius who ever lived, had left an indelible mark on the history of our pastime. The
noble lord then alluded in handsome terms to the hon. members present, Messrs
Rosenthal, Steinitz, and Zukertort, and especially bestowed high praise on the latters
anaytical labours in the Chess Monthly.
Herr Zukertort briefly returned thanks.
Mr F. H. Lewis, in a humorous and complimentary speech, proposed the health of
the chess-masters, coupled with the name of Herr Steinitz, and, in the course of some
clever-observations in reference to the game, he wished an answer to the question,
what were the necessary mental qualifications for forming a chess master?
Herr Steinitz, who warmly returned thanks, said that he could not answer the
question from a scientific point of view, but he felt sure that chess was a school for
strict honesty and truthfulness. The game was free from trickery and deception, and
he had always observed that the strongest players were those who merely tried to
arrive at true conclusions, without speculating in the least on the opponents weakness.
The illustrious President of the French Republic, who some time ago wrote in the
album of a French lady the true words Life is a game of chess,and he expressed the
hope that people would come to the conclusion that deception does not play in the
long run, any more in life than in chess, for the deceiver merely deceives himself.
The Rev. W. Wayte, who, in a humorous address, proposed the health of the hon.
secretary, Mr Minchin, congratulated the latter on having come out decisively as this
years champion of the St. Georges Chess Club, by winning both the Lowenthal
tournament and the winter handicap of the club. The speaker then related some
anecdotes from the Life of Lord Palmerstonto show that chess had been a favourite
game with the late Prince Albert and Her Majesty the Queen, the following amongst
others: On one occasion Her Majesty played a game with the Queen of the Belgians,
who was then on a visit to England, and in the course of the contest Lord Palmerston
strained his constitutional privileges so far as to give his sovereign some hints about
the game, which, notwithstanding his assistance, was win by the Belgian royal lady. It
was the fault of your Majestys humble adviser,said the Prime Minister, consolingly.
The toast was received with great applause, and with musical honours. Some other
speeches followed after Mr Minchins reply. The greatest cordiality prevailed
throughout the meeting, and the French guests of the evening were duly honoured in
most of the speeches. M. Sipier, a member of the Paris Cercle des Echecs, was a
visitor at the dinner.
The Field, 1880.06.12
London 1880
THE 15th game was played on Saturday, the 12th inst. The finest game of the
match, and really one of the finest actual ending games on record, ensued this time
from a close opening adopted by Zukertort. As in the 11th game, Kt to K B 3 was his
first move, and the struggle developed itself on both sides on the principles on which
the 9th and 11th games were conducted. Some alterations occurred in the order of
moves, which were treated in the routine style by the first player, who pursued the
usual course, while we believe White could have obtained a strong array of pawns on
the Q side as early as the 5th move, by P to B 5, after Black had brought out the B to
Q 3 untimely, thus allowing the advance of the hostile P, with the gain of a move for
the opponent. Whites attack on the Q side soon assumed the threatening aspect
usually obtained in this opening, and Black ought to have sought compensation by
breaking through on the other wing, but missed this opportunity on the 14th move,
when we believe he could have advanced the K P with advantage. Again, on the 19th
move, Rosenthal, much to his own disadvantage, altered the course he had adopted in
the 9th game, and captured the advancing hostile Q Kt P, thus opening the Q R file, of
which the opponent could retain full possession. Black had then already the inferior
game ; but his best chance of fighting for a draw consisted in capturing the Kt P too,
instead of which Rosenthal allowed the latter to advance, and to block up the black K
B completely. Zukertort had thus planted a forest of pawns from K 3 up to Kt 6,
indestructible for the enemy, and covering the movements of his own pieces, for
which he had retained freedom of action, and sufficient access on the Q side for a
final break through. Rosenthal apparently did not suspect his insecurity in that
quarter, and his movements were of a waiting nature, while his opponent executed a
series of masterly manuvres with the object of being enabled to exercise a pressure
alternately on either wing. Rosenthals 25th move was faulty, and certainly assisted
the adverse design. Later on, Black might have blocked the K side in order to
concentrate his attention on the defence of the other wing. But we allowed the
advance of the hostile K R P to R 5, which Zukertort accomplished by a well-
calculated system of moves of hs R for gaining time. Rosenthal was then reduced to a
mere spectator of what the opponent was going to do, and made several moves with
his R and Q of an insignificant character, altering the squares on which he posted the
two pieces evidently only for the purpose of avoiding flagrant repetition moves. A
curious question might have here arisen if Rosenthals choice of squares had been
more limited. He would have been deprived of the benefit of the repetition moves for
the time limit after the third occasion, and the opponent, besides being able to claim a
draw, could slowly prepare the attack in hand, altering the course at his own
convenience, and might ultimately speculate on the enormous advantage of time
pressure in framing the final assault. This would have been a great hardship in the
present case, and appears quite unjust on principles. We think that the rule in future
should be altered to the effect that competent umpires should decide whether the
repetition moves are compulsory or not. The plot thickened from Whites 26th move
up to his 36th move, and it became evident in the meanwhile that Zukertort aimed at
the exchange of queens, and to manuvre his K to the other side in support of an
ultimate attack on the root of Blacks position, the Q Kt P. When the plan was fully
divulged on the 45th move, at which point Zukertort offered a beautiful sacrifice of
the K B, the scheme had been prepared with the utmost exactitude in the position of
Whites pieces, and Black could find no means of escape on either wing. His
movements with the B to gain the K Kt P came too late, and Zukertort increased the
advantage obtained on the Q side with a beautiful sacrifice of the exchange, which
gave him a well-supported passed P. A few elegant and vigorously executed
manuvres with his K and the two bishops ended in the gain of a clear piece, and
ultimately White had also a passed B P which could go straight to queen, whereupon
Rosenthal resigned. Duration, six hours.
1.Nf3 d5 2.d4 Bf5 3.e3 e6 4.c4 Nf6 5.a3
**The position is only slightly altered from the eleventh game of the match; and we
cannot therefore alter our opinion that this is loss of time.
5...Bd6
**Wrong, we have no doubt. Even in close game he cannot afford to lose moves so
early.
6.Nc3
**It was quite good enough to advance 6.c5 at once, followed by 7.b4. However
much Black might have struggled to break the pawns by ...b6 and ...a5, he could
never get rid of the phalanx, if White only brought out the bishop to b2, and Blacks
game was badly blocked at once.
6...c6 7.b4 a6 8.Bb2 Nbd7 9.Be2 Ne4 10.Nxe4 Bxe4 11.c5 Bc7 12.0-0 0-
0
**He could have equalized the game now by 12...Bxf3, followed by 13...e5. White
could then hardly allow the e-pawn to advance further, as the opponent, who had
not yet castled on the same side, would obtain afterwards the usual sort of attack,
viz., ...Qh4, and the subsequent pushing of the pawns on the kingside.
13.Nd2 Bg6 14.a4 Nf6
**At any risk, we should have preferred attempting a diversion in the center by 14...
e5 at this point. The game might then have proceeded thus: 14...e5 15.dxe5 Nxe5
16.f4 Nd3 17.Bc3 d4, and whether pawn or bishop takes, the answer would be 18...
Nxf4, with a good game.
15.f3 Qb8
**A good move, which forces White to submit to a weak pint at e3.
16.f4 Ne4
**But now he could have better utilized his previous maneuver. He should have
advanced 16...b5, and either he would soon create a block on the most vulnerable
queens wing, or else obtain a good attack for himself, e.g.: 16...b5 17.cxb6 Qxb6
18.a5 (if 18.Qb3, Black would again attack by 18...Rab8, followed by 19...a5) 18...
Qxb4 19.Ba3 Qc3 20.Bxf8 Qxe3+ 21.Kh1 Kxf8, winning another pawn for the
exchange, with an excellent game.
17.Nxe4 Bxe4 18.Qd2 Qd8 19.b5 axb5
**Bad. As in the ninth game, he ought never to have taken, but should have moved
19...Qd7 at once.
20.axb5 Qd7
**Worse. Once he had captured, he was bound to exchange both pawns, and not to
allow himself to be blocked in altogether. Under any circumstances, if he intended
to allow the hostile advance, he should have moved 20...Qe7 at once, which saved
him the trouble of gaining that post on the 23rd move.
21.b6 Rxa1 22.Rxa1 Bb8 23.Bc3 Qe7 24.Qb2
**This maneuver prevents the hostile plan of breaking through in the center with ...f6;
for, even should Black support this attack once more by 24...Re8, White may keep
him engaged by the answer 25.Ra8.
24...h6
**Some bolder course was now imperative. He ought to have advanced 24...g5; for
White could not take without losing an important pawn. Black would, therefore,
open the g-file, followed by ...Kh8 and ...Rg8 with some attack on the kingside as a
set-off for his cramped position on the other wing.
25.Be1 Kh7 26.Bg3 f5 [?:??-1:00]
**Very feeble. He not alone blocks up his other bishop, but deprives himself of all
chance of liberating himself in the center. 26...f6 was the right move, and would
have kept most of Whites pieces engaged to prevent the advance of ...e5.
27.Bf1 Rg8 28.Qf2 [1:00-?:??] 28...Rf8 29.Be2 Rg8 30.Ra8 Rf8 31.Ra3
**The last two moves of the rook were superfluous. He might have advanced the h-
pawn at once.
31...Rg8 32.h4 Qf7 33.Ra1
**But this time there is a great finesse in the movement of the rook. He wishes either
the hostile rook or queen from their present respective positions, in order to
advance the h-pawn, and then to be enabled to take with the f-pawn in case Black
replied ...g5. At present he would be in danger if he pursued that plane.g.: 33.h5 g5
34.fxg5 Bxg3 35.g6+ Rxg6 36.hxg6+ Qxg6, threatening ...Qg5 and ...Qh4, with a
winning attack.
33...Qe7
**See our opening remarks. We should have advanced 33...h5, blocking the kingside
afterwards by ...g6, and he had then a fair prospect of drawing.
34.h5 Qf7 35.Bh4 Re8 36.Qg3
**
An excellent move. After this Blacks game may be regarded as lost.
36...Rg8 [?:??-2:00] 37.Ra8 Re8
**He is hampered in every direction. It would have been useless to attempt 37...g5,
for White could take 38.hxg6+; and if 38...Rxg6, he would give up the queen by
39.Rxb8. The b-pawn was bound to fall ultimately by Rc8 and Rc7, even if the
queen kept defending it, and then the passed pawn would win. It is also plain that if
36...Bxf4, White would win a piece by the answer 37.Qg6+.
38.Kf2 Kg8
**White makes it somewhat easier for the opponent, who intended to exchange
queens, having prepared a brilliant winning maneuver on the other wing.
39.Qg6 Qxg6 40.hxg6 Kf8 41.g3 Rc8 42.Ke1 Ke8 43.Kd2 Bg2
**Had he played 43...Kd7 the game might have proceeded thus: 43...Kd7 44.Bh5 Rf8
45.Bf6 gxf6 (if 45...Bd6 White may reply 46.Ra7) 46.g7 Rg8 47.Bf7 Rxg7 48.
Rxb8, and wins, for Black dare not take the bishop, or else White takes 49.Rxb7+,
and exchanges rooks, going afterwards to queen without hindrance.
44.Kc3 Bh3 45.Ba6
**A master coup, which decides the game. We give a diagram of the position:
45...Kd7
**
He could not hope for the least relief by sacrificing the exchangee.g.: 45...bxa6 46.
b7 Kd7 47.bxc8Q+ Kxc8 48.Bf6 Kb7 49.Rxb8+ Kxb8 50.Bxg7, followed by 51...
Be5+, and wins.
46.Bxb7 Re8 47.Kb4 [2:00-?:??] 47...Bg4 48.Ka5 Bh5 49.Ba6 Bxg6
[?:??-3:00] 50.Ra7+
**All this is in splendid style.
50...Bxa7 51.bxa7 Kc7 52.Be7
**Finis. After this fine stroke winning becomes a matter of course.
52...Ra8 53.Bd6+ Kd8 54.Kb6 Be8 55.Bb7 Rxa7 56.Kxa7 g5 57.Kb6 g4
58.Bxc6 Bf7 59.Bb5 1-0.
London 1880
THE sixteenth game, played on Thursday, June 17. It is no compliment to M.
Rosenthal to dwell on the fact that the match is still proceeding, though his opponent
has only one more game to win since Saturday last, for the former is merely fulfilling
a plain duty in holding out. Nor can it be the least offensive to Herr Zukertort to
suggest that his victory is no absolute certainty at the present moment, though no
doubt the odds are immensely in his favour. Strange things have happened in some
previous contests, and in several instances on record a similar preponderance in the
score was not sufficient to secure the final superiority. In the famous match between
Harrwitz and Lowenthal for the first eleven games, the latter stood at nine games to
two at one time, but afterwards could gain no more than one game, while his
opponent kept on winning and drawing, until at last the victory fell to Harrwitz. In the
match between Kolisch and Paulsen (ten games up), the latter stood at six to one in
the early part of the contest, which, however, had to be drawn ultimately after a series
of hard fights, the final score being Paulsen seven, Kolisch six, drawn nineteen. Still
more striking is the case of Campbell against Barnes, which was a match for the first
seven games. The latter had scored six game without a break, but did not succeed in
winning one more game, while his opponent pulled up gradually to the full score, and
actually won the match. This ought to be a warning, as much against over-confidence
on the one side as against premature despair on the other.Rosenthal again opened with
a Ruy Lopez of the same description as in the fourteenth game, which Zukertort
defended in the same style as on the last occasion. Rosenthal remedied this time the
defect in his plan of posting the Q Kt pointed out in our last weeks issue, and he left
that Kt at Q 2, as suggested in our note (b) to the fourteenth game. He obtained a
good opening with a well-supported development of pawns in the centre, and we
believe he could have instituted an earlier attack by R to Q B sq on the 13th move.
His 15th move was indifferent, as well as his 21st. On the latter occasion he could
have much improved the formation of his lines by Q to B 2, followed by Kt to Q B 4.
But he obtained sufficient pressure on the Q side to compel the opponent to sacrifice
the exchange for two pawns. We agree with Rosenthal in the opinion that the adverse
pawns were not superior to his own advantage, as they could be attacked by one R in
the rear, and their advance could be finally stopped by bringing up Whites K, which
was near enough to for the purpose. As it went, Zukertort overlooked a fine manuvre
of the opponent, which cost a clear P, and his game would have been utterly hopeless
had Rosenthal brought his K to the rescue at the right time, viz., on the 37th move.
Rosenthal committed a fatal error as far as his chances of winning were concerned, on
the 38th move, where he could have safely exchanged pawns, and then again he had
time to play his K round. Instead thereof, he allowed an important P to go, which
ultimately compelled his returning the exchange gained, and the game then became
equalised. Rosenthal tried some useless dodges in the ending after the adjournment,
but could not succeed in disturbing the balance in his own favour. Duration, six
hours. Score: Zukertort six, Rosenthal one, drawn nine.
Qe7 9.Nbd2 h6 10.Qc2 Be6 11.d4 exd4 12.cxd4 Bd7 13.d5
**His opening moves were sound and in accordance with the principles of this form
of attack; but here we should have preferred 13.Rc1 . If Black took the e-pawn,
White would recover the pawn, with the superior game, by 14.d5.
13...Ne5 14.Bxd7+ Nexd7 15.Qd3
**Loss of time. 15.Qc4, at once was much better.
15.Q to B 3 is given in the issue of June 19; corrected to 15.Q to Q 3 on June 26. -
[Pope]
15...0-0 16.0-0 Rfe8 17.Rfe1 Rad8
**His hesitation to open the game gets him into a cramped position. We see no
objection to taking the e-pawn, fearless of the pinning maneuvers, and the game
might have proceeded thus: 17...Nxe4 18.Bd4 (if 18.Bxh6, the answer is 18...Ndc5)
18...f5 19.Bxg7 Kxg7 20.Nd4 Ndc5, followed mostly by 20...Qf7, attacking the d-
pawn with the superior game.
18.Rac1 Nc5 19.Bxc5 dxc5 20.Qc4
**
Which at any rate proves that he had previously lost a move (see note to Whites
15th move). Under any circumstances, it was stronger move to retreat 20.Qc2,
followed mostly by 21.Nc4.
20...Nd7 21.b3 b5 22.Qc2 Qd6 23.Rcd1 Re7 24.a4 [1:00-?:??] 24...c6
**
Hazardous. Zukertort informs us that he foresaw the opponents maneuvers, but
gave up the exchange designedly, having faith in the strength of his two passed
pawns. We should have preferred doubling the rooks on the e-file.
25.e5 Nxe5
**Of course he could not capture the d-pawn, or the answer 26.Ne4, followed by 27.
Nxc5, would have been ruinous.
26.Nxe5
**Zukertort points out if 26.Ne4 at once, he would have taken 26...Nxf3+, followed
by 27...Rxe4, and afterwards mostly 28...Bd4, threatening then ...Qg3+, etc.
26...Rxe5 27.Ne4 Rxe4 28.Qxe4 cxd5 29.Qe7
**
Well played. This was the best way to fight against the pawnssuperiority.
29...bxa4 30.Qxd6 Rxd6 31.Re8+ Kh7 [?:??-1:00]
**Interposing the bishop was better; but even then the pawns could be successfully
stopped, and Black would have been kept on the defensivee.g.: 31...Bf8 32.bxa4 d4
33.Rc8 Rb6 34.Ra8, followed by 35.a5, threatening ultimately to fix himself at b6
with his rook, via b3, whenever Blacks rook leaves the b-file.
32.bxa4 c4 33.Rc8 c3 34.Rc5
**Which wins the most important pawn, and ought to have won the game; for, even if
the d-pawn advances, White can take the c-pawn.
34...Re6 35.Rdxd5 Re1+ 36.Kh2 Re2 37.f4
**Already loss of time. We see no defense against 37.Kg3. Of course we cannot enter
into a full analysis, and give only what seems to us the most plausible way of
continuing the resistance: 37.Kg3 Rd2 38.Rxd2 cxd2 39.Rd5 Bc3 40.Kf3 Kg7 41.
Ke2 a5 42.Rd3 Bb4 43.Rd4 Bc3 (he must move the bishop, or White would take it
off) 44.Rc4, and wins.
37...g5 38.Rd7 [2:00-?:??]
**A grave error. We give a diagram of the position.
**He could safely take the pawn, and all he had afterwards to care for was not to take
the second time if Black retook or advanced the c-pawne.g.: 38.fxg5 c2 (if 38...
hxg5, then also 39.Kg3) 39.Kg3 Bb2 40.Kf3.
38...gxf4 39.Rxf7 Kg6
**He threatens now to win by 39...f3 and 40...f2, in case the adversary removes to c7
to stop the other pawn, and he must recover the exchange.
40.Rxg7+
**If 40.Rxc3, then followed, of course, 40...Be5.
40...Kxg7 41.Rxc3 Kf6 42.Kg1 Re4 43.Rc6+ Re6 44.Rc4 Kf5 45.Kf2
Re4 46.Rc5+ Re5 47.Rc8
**It was not worth while to go on with this, and there is no further interest in the
movements on both sides. The game is too even.
47...Ra5 48.Rc4 Re5 49.Rc6 [3:00-?:??] 49...Re6 [?:??-2:00] -.
** The Field, London, 1880.06.19 & 06.26
London 1880
MATCH BETWEEN MESSRS ROSENTHAL AND ZUKERTORT.
THE seventeenth game, played on Saturday the 19th inst., was a dull and common
place affair. Zukertort commenced with the Englisch [sic] opening, 1.P to Q B 4, and
Rosenthal answered P to K 4, as in the London game of the London and Vienna
match. Such a defiance of the close opening by the second player ought to be
disadvantageous for the latter, and we believe the best continuation for White is then
P to Q R 3, whence would arise a position similar to the game between Anderssen
and Morphy, in which the former opened with P to Q R 3. Zukertort brought out the
Q Kt before adopting that precaution, and Rosenthal then followed the Vienna tactics
of developing his B to Q Kt 5. The opening struggle resulted in Black getting the first
break through in the Q centre, while White had secured two bishops, which, however,
were not well developed. The game maintained its close character up to the 11th
move, when Black began an exchange of pawns, which soon led to a general
exchange of minor pieces and queens, evidently by both sides. The two parties were
left each with two rooks, bishops of opposite colours, and even pawns on the 19th
move, and the natural result was a clear draw a few moves later on. Duration, two
hours.
A22/01 English: Sicilian (Two Knights)
1.c4 e5 2.e3 Nf6 3.Nc3
**
See introduction. 3.a3, now or on the previous move, would keep Blacks f8-bishop
shut up.
3...Bb4
**In the style of the Viennese players in the match between London and Vienna by
telegraph and correspondence. The b4-bishop is an incumbrance to Blacks game,
and cannot be conveniently posted in the opening. It is better to try and exchange it.
4.Nge2
**He cannot allow the pawns to be doubled at this stage. His two bishops are no
compensation, as they cannot find commanding situations. On the other hand, his
doubled pawn cannot be dissolved against proper play of the adversary, and the
latter has the advantage with his two knights in such circumstances.
4...0-0 5.a3 Bxc3 6.Nxc3 d5 7.cxd5 Nxd5 8.Be2 Nc6 9.0-0 Be6 10.d4
Nde7
**A good move. Black wishes to preserve the superiority of pawns on the queenside,
and justly does not mind the adverse superiority on the kings wing. For the ending
the former would stand better.
11.Bf3
**The correct reply, which forces equalization in a few moves.
11...exd4 12.exd4 Bc4 [?:??-1:00]
**A thrown-away move. The adverse bishop is only driven to an important open file
thereby. It was preferable to take the pawn at once, whereupon the game might
have proceeded thus: 12...Nxd4 13.Bxb7 Bb3 14.Qd3 (This seems best; neither at
g4 nor at h5 is the queen apparently better placed, for she will be subject to attacks
by the pawns sooner or later) 14...Rb8 15.Be4 (He cannot now endeavor the
maneuver 15.Bd5, as Black would answer 15...Nc2) 15...g6 16.Bh6 Re8, followed
mostly by ...Nef5, and also threatening to win a pawn at least by ...Bc2, with a
good game.
13.Re1 Nxd4 14.Bxb7 Rb8 15.Bd5
**Which speedily counteracts all complications, and reduces the positions to a level.
We give a diagram presenting the game at this, its only interesting juncture.
15...Ne2+
**A good answer. He draws the adverse knight back into a less commanding position
before accepting the offer of exchanging.
16.Nxe2 Qxd5 17.Nc3 Qxd1 18.Nxd1 Nd5 19.Ne3
**Which means as much as offering a draw.
19...Nxe3 20.Bxe3 a6 21.Rec1 Bd5 22.Rxc7 Rxb2 23.h3 Rfb8 24.Rd1
Bb3 -.
London 1880
THE eighteenth game, played on Monday, the 21st inst., was a fine and interesting
contest from the beginning almost to the very end. Though analysts will seriously
complain about the uniformity of the openings adopted in this match, yet lovers of
theoretical novelties may be satisfied with the new varieties introduced in the course
of this contest within the limits of the openings chosen. Rosenthal experimented this
time on another form of the Ruy Lopes, hitherto unknown. He introduced 5. Kt to Q
B 3 in the Anderssen form of this opening, in lieu of P to Q B 3, which constitutes the
Steinitz variation. Zukertorts reply, P to Q R 3, was waste to time; and Rosenthal,
with keen perception, exchanged the B for the Kt, thus creating one of Anderssens
favourite positions with a move ahead, as clearly shown by comparing the game after
Blacks 6th move with the first game between Anderssen and Blackburne in the
Vienna Congress. Rosenthal again had the best of the development, and kept up the
attack towards the middle, of which we believe he ought to have made more. But it
came to no more than an exchange of pieces, with bishops of opposite colours and
even forces and positions, when on the 17th move Zukertort left a P apparently as a
bait, as its capture seemed very dangerous. Rosenthals replies on the next two moves
proved abundantly that he had looked beyond the opponents scheme, for he accepted
the proffered P, and defended himself against all consequent menaces in a manner
which threw on the opponent the onus of exchanging queens, and afterwards of
fighting for a draw. For White had two compact passed pawns on the extreme Q
wing, which looked very formidable, though bishops were of opposite colours. The
way in which Zukertort defended himself in this difficulty was a fine piece of
strategy. He actually created mating positions on the opponents K wing, by the
advance of his K R P, and by fixing his B at K B 6, threatening to sacrifice one of his
rooks in support of his attack. Rosenthal was on his guard, and perhaps would have
succeeded in getting safe and asserting his superiority if he had not lost time on the
25th move. As it was, Zukertort, by some masterly movements with his pawns, rook,
and bishop, brought the adverse pawns to a standstill, exchanged one of the hostile
rooks, and obtained such an attack against the exposed opposite K as to force his
adversary to declare himself satisfied with a draw, after about three hoursfight.
C48/01 Four Knights: Spanish (Rosenthal)
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nf6 4.d3 d6 5.Nc3
**A very good move at this stage, to all appearance. It rests on the new idea of
gaining time for Anderssens line of play, who generally took 5.Bxc6, creating a
doubled pawn, and then aimed as straight as possible at exchanging pieces, and
bringing about and endgame.
5...a6
**He does not perceive that he remains a clear move behind. In the game between
Anderssen and Blackburne above referred to, the latter had adopted 3...a6, and
Anderssen had, as usual, withdrawn 4.Ba4.
6.Bxc6+ bxc6 7.d4 exd4 8.Qxd4 c5 9.Qd3 Bb7 10.0-0 Be7 11.e5 Nd7 12.
exd6 cxd6 13.Nd5
**Bringing out a fresh piece was more in accordance with the usual rules of the
attack, and was also more effective in the present instance. He ought to have
proceeded with 13.Bf4, and the game might have gone on thus: 13.Bf4 Nf6 (This
seems best, for the knight will probably be wanted on the kingside, and he is
therefore better placed here than at b6) 14.Rfe1 (threatening 15.Rxe7+, followed by
16.Bxd6 in case the opponent castles) 14...d5 15.Rad1 d4 (if 15...Ne4, 16.Nxe4,
followed by 17...Qc3) 16.Qe2 0-0 17.Qxe7 Qxe7 18.Rxe7 Bxf3 19.gxf3 dxc3 20.
b3, with the superior game; for Blacks pawns on the queenside are hardly
supportable in the ending.
13...0-0 14.Nxe7+
**Even now 14.Bf4 was stronger, and might have led to the following continuation:
14.Bf4 Bxd5 15.Qxd5 Nf6 (if 15...Nb6, 16.Qc6, followed by 17.Qb7, in case the
rook attacks her) 16.Qc6 d5 17.Rad1 , and then 18.Rfe1, with the better game.
14...Qxe7 15.Re1 Ne5 16.Nxe5 dxe5 17.Be3 Qe6
**This trap was not laid deep enough.
18.Bxc5
**White accepts the bait, and escapes with it scot-free, as will be seen.
18...Qc6 19.Qf3
**This fine rejoinder must have been overlooked by Black in his forecast on the 17th
move.
19...Qxf3
**He had nothing better, and only risked worse if he took the bishop, e.g.: 19...Qxc5
20.Qxb7 Rab8 21.Qxa6 Rxb2 22.Qd3, and Whites a-pawn becomes formidable.
20.gxf3 Rfc8 21.b4 Bxf3 22.Rxe5 a5 23.c3 axb4
**Black is fighting under great difficulties now, and extricates himself in a masterly
manner. He designedly relieves the adverse passed pawns from all control of the
only pawn he possess on this side, and in this exceptional case he proves right, for
he supports a fine scheme thereby.
24.cxb4 Rd8 25.h3 [1:00-?:??]
**That Black threatened 25...Rxa2, which could not be retaken on account of the
impending mate, was obvious; but had he seen at once the purport of Blacks next
fine rejoinder, he would have advanced 25.h4 at once, thus gaining the required
time for pushing 26.a4 which probably would have won.
25...h5
**We give a diagram of this position.
**The main object of this beautiful move is to stop the immediate advance of the
adverse a-pawn.
26.h4
**Whereby he acknowledges a previous error. He could not now advance the a-pawn,
for the opponent might have taken it; e.g.: 26.a4 Rxa4 27.Rxa4 Rd1+ 28.Kh2 h4 29.
Ra8+ Kh7 30.Rh5+ Bxh5. Black thus recovers his pawn, with a very good game.
White has nothing better to save himself than 31.Kg2; and then Black stops the
advance of the b-pawn by ...Rb8, or ...Be2; and afterwards his king comes up to g6
and f5, followed by ...g5, with a strong attack on the kingside. Yet we believe that
he would have accomplished his object better by 26.Kh2 at this point. If, then, 26...
h4, 27.Re3, followed by 28.Rc3, in case 27...Bc6. This gave him more chance of
making use of his combined two passed pawns, for he might even aim at
sacrificing his e3-rook for the adverse bishop when opportunity offered itself, and
his pawns would then more than cover the loss of the exchange if they could cross
the white squares.
26...f6 27.Re3 Bc6 28.a3 Rd2 [?:??-1:00] 29.Re6 Rd7 30.Rd6 Rxd6 31.
Bxd6 Bb5 32.Kh2 Kf7 33.Bc5 Ke6 34.Re1+ Kf5 35.Re3 Re8 36.Rf3+
Kg6 37.Rg3+
**His h-pawn remained now too weak to allow him to speculate on bringing his king
round to the queenside after exchanging rooks; besides, Black was also near
enough with his king, and had thus the option of playing for attack or defense.
37...Kf7 38.Rc3 Re4
**This forces equality. It would be loss of time, for neither side can now play to win.
39.Re3 -.
London 1880
THE NINETEENTH AND LAST GAME OF THE MATCH.
*
THE contest was decided yesterday in favour of the winner of the Paris tournament.
Herr Zukertort again adopted the English opening; Rosenthal castled early, and
obtained some attack with his two knights against the adverse centre. Zukertort had
great difficulty in The defence, but at last found time to get his K secure, by castling
on the K side. On the seventeenth move he had equalised the game, and then
instituted a very fin manuvre, which comprised a deep trap, without the least risk for
his own position. Rosenthal did not see through the scheme, and lost a clear piece. He
then fought out the hopeless game with the tenacity of despair; he sacrificed another
piece to get the adverse K into some trouble, but he failed to make any lasting
impression on the opponents game, and Zukertort compelled his resignation with a
few vigorous strokes at the end. Duration, three hours.
THE LATE MATCH BETWEEN MESSRS ROSENTHAL AND
ZUKERTORT.
*
THE final score of seven decided games against one, which Herr Zukertort
accomplished in the match just concluded, makes the fair mark of eleven draws on
the part of his opponent all the more conspicuous. The final score of the victor
seemed to be out of reach of probability, when it is remembered that after the
eleventh game of the match he counted only two games to one and eight draws. Yet
M. Rosenthals deficiency in one important quality, which by no means belongs to the
higher attributes of a chess master, will in the eyes of connoisseurs sufficiently
account for his ultimate breakdown. It soon became evident that the Frenchman had
no staying power either for a long game of for a long match. His complete downfall
dates, in our opinion, from the twelfth game, where he left a piece almost en prise at
the end. He then lost heart and consequently was outplayed in three successive game,
whence he only recovered sufficient moral force to delay the opponents final victory
for four sittings. One of M. Rosenthals minor defects is, that he does no know how to
economise his time. Thus we saw him waste nearly an hour over a move in the early
part of the thirteenth game. He naturally became fidgety and restless at the most
important turning point, and not alone missed his best chances of gaining the
superiority, but committed mistakes of reckoning under the pressure of time limit,
while his opponent, who had moved in the opening with great rapidity, could remain
cool and fresh, just in the most difficult part of the struggle. But, on the other hand, it
stands to the credit of the French master that he did actually get out with the best of
the opening and the early part of the middle in the majority of games played.
It is generally difficult to draw the line of demarcation between the losers faults
and the winners merits; but apart from Herr Zukertorts greater powers of endurance,
there is a marked superiority in the conduct of the ending game on the part of the
winner of the Paris tournament. Notably does the beautiful end play of the fifteenth
game stand out as a masterpiece of Herr Zukertorts genius for exact and clever
calculation, not alone at the deciding point, but even more so in leading up to it from
the complicatious [sic] of the middle part. Of his fertility of resources in difficult and
sometimes inferior positions, the course of the match furnished several instance, and
the finish of the third game is an example of brilliant tactics such as rarely occurs in
hard match play.
The contest was watched with the keenest interest by members and visitors of the
St. Georges Chess Club, and amongst the regular attendants on play days were the
Earl of Dartrey, Lord Randolph Churchill, M. P., Lord Lindsay, Prince Teano, Messrs
Catley, Francis, Lindsay Minchin, Wayte, and others.
A28/11 English: Four Knights
1.c4 e5 2.e3 Nf6 3.Nc3 Nc6
**An alteration from the course taken in the seventeenth game, where Black played
3...Bb4 at this point. Zukertort informs us that he intended to reply with the move
adopted by Anderssen in the Paris Congress, viz., 4.Nd5, had Black now pursued
the same line of defense as on the last occasion and that he considers Whites game
superior in that case, albeit Black being enabled to double the pawns.
4.Nf3 Bb4
**4...e4 would have lost a pawn, thus: 4...e4 5.Ng5 Qe7 6.Qc2 Nb4 7.Qb1 d6 8.
Ngxe4, and it would be of no use to pin the knight with the bishop at f5, either
before or after exchanging one of the knights, for White might safely reply Nxd6+.
5.d4
**5.Nd5, which, as stated above, Zukertort considers sound in a similar position on
the fourth move, would not be favorable now that the c6-knight is already
developed, for Black might exchange knights, followed by 6...Ne7.
5...exd4 6.exd4 d5
**
The superior plan was to take off the knight, followed by 7...d6. Whites doubled
pawn was then a great hindrance to his game. The move in the text enables White
to gain an important move by attacking the bishop, or to force an exchange which
strengthens his center.
7.a3 Bxc3+ 8.bxc3 0-0 9.h3
**This appears to us entirely superfluous, and we do not see how it assists the
development in any way, or how it could be necessary for defensive objects. 9.Be3
at once would have kept White a move ahead.
9...Re8+
**9...Ne4 10.Qc2 Bf5 (threatening 11...Ng3, etc.) 11.Qb2 Na5 12.cxd5 (if 12.c5,
Black would reply 12...b6) 12...Qxd5 13.Qb4 Nd6 14.Ne5 b6 15.c4 Qe4+,
threatening 16...c5, with the superior game; for White cannot develop his f1-bishop
without losing his g-pawn.
10.Be3 Ne7 11.Bd3 Nf5 12.Ne5 dxc4
**12...Ne4 13.0-0 (This seems best; for, if 13.Bxe4, 13...dxe4 , threatening to win a
piece by 14...f6, followed by 15...h5; and Black also threatens to capture the
bishop, followed by 15...Qh4+) 13...f6 14.Nf3 Nxc3 15.Qc2 Ne4 16.cxd5 Ned6,
with the better game; for, should White now attack by 17.g4, Black would gain
time by taking 17...Rxe3.
13.Bxc4 Nd6 14.Bb3 Be6 15.0-0 Nd5 16.Bd2 Ne4 17.c4
**See diagram. In our general notice of this game published last week, we were
wrong in stating that the deep trap laid here was attended with no risk. On further
examination we find that, beautiful as the combination is worked out in one
direction, the initiatory move was not as correct as the straightforward line of
defense by 17...Rf8.
17...Ndc3
**17...Nb6 18.Ba5 (if 18.c5 , Black may capture the d-pawn with the queen) 18...f6
19.d5 (We see nothing better; for, whatever else he does, the answer 19...fxe5 will
also gain a pawn, with a still better position) 19...Bxd5 followed by 20...Rxe5, with
a pawn ahead, and a good position. It may also be observed that Black, in lieu of
the disastrous move in the text, could also equalize the game by 17...Nxd2, for
White had no better answer than 18.Qxd2, as 18...fxe5 would lose, e.g.: 17...Nxd2
18.cxd5 Bxd5 19.Bxd5 Qxd5 20.Qxd2 Rxe5, with a pawn ahead, and a fine game.
18.Bxc3 Nxc3 19.Qc2
**
This beautiful move decides the game absolutely in Whites favor. No doubt Black
has speculated on the adverse queen defending the d-pawn now, either at d2 or d3,
whereupon he would capture the d-pawn nevertheless, afterwards recovering the
queen by 20...Ne2+.
19...Qxd4 [?:??-1:00] 20.Nf3 Qf6 21.Rfc1
**All this is played with great foresight and precision. Attacking with the other rook
was inferior.
21...Ne2+ 22.Qxe2 Bxh3 23.Qd2 h6 24.Qc3 Qf4
**
It was no more Blacks good play, but the remote chance of White playing badly,
that could possibly save the game; and it is entirely a question of style how to go
on with such a hopeless case. Nevertheless, we cannot see the least prospect for
him in throwing away another piece, since White, with proper precaution, had
made room for the retreat of the king at f1 on the twenty-first move. If anything
was better than resigning, it was to exchange queens, and to face the ending game
with two pawns ahead. Such a defense was more feasible, though quite unlikely to
succeed in drawing, for Blacks majority was separated on the two wings.
25.gxh3 Re6 26.Re1 Rg6+ 27.Kf1 Rf6 28.Re3 [1:00-?:??] 28...Qf5 29.
Ke2 Qxh3 30.Rg1 Kh8 31.Bc2 Rd8 32.Qe5 Qd7 33.Rd1 Rd6 34.Rxd6
cxd6 35.Qe7
**Straightforward and correct. It is no use wasting calculations on such a position.
35...g6 36.Qf6+ Kg8 37.Re7 1-0.
THE CHESS MATCH BEGINS.
STEINITZ AND GUNSBERG PLAY.
THEIR FIRST GAME A DRAW - MOVES MADE BY THEM.
:
The chess match between W. Steinitz, of New-York, and I. Gunsberg, of London,
for the championship of the world, was begun yesterday afternoon, in New-York,
under the auspices of the Manhattan Chess Club. The proceedings were opened by
Colonel G. F. Betts, who first of all welcomed the competing masters to the club.
After a few further appropriate remarks he introduced the players to the members of
the club present in these words: I have the pleasure, gentlemen, to introduce to you
Mr. Gunsberg and Mr. Steinitz, and may the best man win.
The two players, with the umpires, a few subscribers, and others, ascended to the
floor above, where, in a private room, it had been arranged that play should be
conducted. At the time when the first game began, at about 2 p.m., there was a
moderate attendance of members and visitors in the club, and such of them as did not
posses the privilege of witnessing the actual play watched the moves as they were
almost simultaneously recorded on a huge diagram board which occupied a
prominent position on the walls of the principal clubroom.
From time to time, as the play advanced, comment and criticism on the moves
prevailed in this lower room, while in the room above where the players were
engaged the stillness was indicative of the importance of the contest.
Both players appeared to be in good health when they came to the club in the
morning, a thing which cannot be wondered at in the case of Gunsberg, who has
enjoyed the benefits of a sea voyage, followed by a week of rest. With Steinitz there
is more cause for surprise when it is remembered, not only that he has been
exceedingly busy for some months, but is also a
frequent sufferer from insomnia.
Just before the beginning of play, Mr. Gunsberg lodged an objection to the
admission of press representatives to the room of play. This he had power to do
under the regulations, and the objection was sustained.
Steinitz, being drawn to make the opening move, proffered his opponent a Queens
Gambit, which Gunsberg declined. On the fourth move Steinitz introduced quite a
novelty in P-K B 3, which, no doubt, very few chess players would anticipate. Then
he brought out his K Kt to K R 3, which will probably be considered an odd move,
following that up with Kt-B 2. Gunsbergs defence, 4 Q Kt-B 3, was based on the idea
of breaking through the centre, and he offered battle by advancing his K P on the
ninth move. This forced the exchange of the Q centre pawn, but still he could not rid
himself of Whites K P.
On the eleventh move a good chance of improving his position was missed by
Steinitz, in playing Kt-Q 3, with the result that one of his pawns became isolated, and,
by clever manoeuvring, Gunsberg made a counter demonstration on the Q side
against the weak pawn which greatly delayed Whites attack on the other wing. About
this time the game was adjourned till 7 oclock [...]
Upon play being resumed at 7 oclock, the same kind of struggle continued for two
moves by each player. Gunsberg had slightly the best of the game if it were pursued
to an ending, but the prospects of the middle fight were still somewhat in favor of his
opponent, and under these circumstances Gunsberg readily accepted the draw, which
was now offered by Steinitz. This close of the game was arrived at at [sic] a few
minutes before 7:30. At an earlier stage of the game, some half-dozen moves back,
Steinitz declined a draw, which was offered to him by Gunsberg.
THE MASTERS AT CHESS.
BEGINNING OF THE SERIES BETWEEN STEINITZ AND
GUNSBERG.
They Sart With the Queens Gambit, and on the Fourth Move the
American Makes Things Interesting - The Result Is a Draw
:
The fight for the chess championship of the world began in this city yesterday.
Gunsberg, the English player, has been recuperating during the past week, and starts,
in apparently good health, a contest which is looked upon in English chess circles as a
foregone conclusion in favor of Steinitz, while players in this country look forward
with equally settled anticipation to the defeat of the English representative and the
retention by Steinitz of the foremost position as a chess master which he has held so
long and so worthily.
There is no avoiding the fact that enthusiasm over this match has not been raised to
the customary high pitch which is manifested in a fight of such importance; and this
is readily accounted for by the disappointment which has been created by the
interruption of the cable match - a contest which, as every chess player knows, not
only involved certain important principles entirely new to the chess world, but had
unquestionably reached the most interesting stage during its progress. No doubt as
the present match between Steinitz and Gunsberg proceeds, that disappointment will
gradually give way to the interest which must necessarily centre round any prominent
event which may be in progress.
Fully an hour before the time appointed for the beginning of the match the
members of the Manhattan Chess Club began to assemble in their rooms, where
Steinitz had already arrived, with a sense of country freshness about his appearance
which he had evidently brought with him from Upper Montclair. In the midst of the
general conversation rallied upon general topics, upon his games with Tschigorin, and
upon the contest in which he was about to engage.
Meantime Gunsberg had arrived. He was in a very quiet mood, out of which he
could not even be aroused by the same process which had proved so effective in the
case of his veteran opponent. He had very little to say to any one, and when asked
what he would do if Steinitz fired off an Evans gambit at him, he replied with what
may almost be described as his characteristic quiet meekness, I dont know.
Steinitz was drawn to make the first move, and play was just about to commence
when Gunsberg entered an objection to the presence of reporters. This objection, it
was seen, was empowered by the conditions, and the umpire accordingly sustained it.
Steinitz raised no opposition to the admission of the press. Gunsbergs action, it is
believed, is almost, if not entirely, without precedent.
In the large club room on the floor below that in which the play was going on, a
giant chess board was fixed against the wall, and as each move was made in actual
play it was sent down by a messenger and recorded on the board for the edification of
those assembled in the club room. Here, throughout the progress of the game, each
move was commented upon either briefly or at length, according to its importance or
insignificance. Meanwhile, the spectators who had gathered engaged with each other
in play, or lounged about discussing the position as it developed. Just before the first
adjournment quite a crowd had gathered round the diagram board and more interest
was felt in the game than had been the case at any other period during the afternoon.
THE PLAY.
Steinitz offered a queens gambit, which his opponent promptly declined, and when,
a few moves later, the game took a novel turning, things began to be pretty exciting.
The introduction of some sort of a novelty has ever been one of the features of
Steinitzs play. His idea seems to be to throw himself and his opponent, whenever
practicable, on new ground, which it is always his delight to explore. Connoisseurs,
however, would hardly anticipate that a novelty could be brought out so early in the
usually dull queens gambit as the fourth move. There it was that Steinitz introduced,
after the customary three moves, a sort of Giuoco Piano on the kings side by 4 P-K B
3 in conjunction with the other opening. Moreover he brought his kings knight out to
K R 3, one of his many oddities and then the Kt to B 2.
Gunsbergs defence by moving 4...Q Kt-B 3, which blocked his Q B P, was based
on the idea of breaking the centre, and he then offered battle by the advance of the
kings pawn on the ninth move, which forced the exchange of the queens centre pawn,
but, on the other hand, he could not get rid of whites K P, which formed the head of a
strong line of pawns directed against blacks kings side.
On the eleventh move Steinitz missed an opportunity of much improving his
position by moving Kt-Q 3. The result was that his Q B P became isolated, and
black, by very clever manoeuvring, made a counter demonstration on the queens side
against that weak pawn, which for a long time delayed whites attack on the other
wing. This was practically the state of the game on Gunsbergs twenty-sixth move,
which he sealed at the adjournment of the afternoons sitting - white was threatening
the kings side, while black menaced the other wing.
Prior to the adjournment, Gunsberg, after the eighteenth move, offered his
opponent a draw, which the latter declined. On the recommencement of play at 7
oclock the same sort of struggle as had been going on before continued for two moves
on each side, queens and bishops being shifted from one side to the other for
purposes of attack. Gunsberg had then the best of the game if it came to an ending,
but the chances of the middle fight were still somewhat in favor of white. Under the
circumstances the draw, which was this time offered by Steinitz, was readily accepted
by Gunsberg.
When within half an hour after the resumption of play it was announced to the
spectators that a draw had been offered and accepted there was for the moment some
little surprise manifested. This surprise, however, disappeared when the position was
put up to the finish and examined. It was declared with confidence by some of those
in the room that Steinitz could not possibly have won the game if it had proceeded.
Prof. I. L. Rice, the President of the Manhattan Chess Club, acts as referee in the
match, and the umpires are Prof. Holladay for Steinitz, and Mr. Vorrath for
Gunsberg. Dr. Fred Mintz had the entire control of the arrangements, which were
pronounced very satisfactory by everybody present. It may be added, further, that the
hours of play have been finally settled as follows: Afternoon session, 1:30 oclock to
5 oclock; evening session, 7 oclock to 10:30 oclock.
The next game will take place at 1:30 oclock to-morrow.
The Sun, New York, 1890.12.10
STEINITZ VS. GUNSBERG.
THE FIRST GAME OF THE CHESS MATCH A DRAW.
Twenty-six Moves at the Manhattan Chess Club - The London Man
Attacks Vigorously and Obtains an Early Pull - The Plays Reproduced
on a Bulletin Board.
:
A visitor to the splendidly appointed rooms of the Manhattan Chess Club at 1
oclock yesterday afternoon would have been impressed with the fact that some event
of great importance was in preparation, for the room was crowded and there was a
scent of solemnity in the air. There were not many strong players in New York who
did not put in an appearance to support Col. Betts, the Vice-President of the
prosperous chess club, in inaugurating the great contest between Steinitz and
Gunsberg. Proceedings commenced with the formal signing of the agreement and
articles of play by the players and by Dr. Murtz [sic] on behalf of the Manhattan
Chess Club. The Vice-President then addressed a few kindly words of encouragement
to both players, dwelling on the great merit and well-known prowess of Mr. Steinitz,
whom they had known for years past as an American citizen. The Colonels polite
allusion to Mr. Gunsberg as an always welcome visitor from a distant shore, was
approvingly received by his hearers. The fight for the chess championship of the
world was began at 2 oclock by Mr. Steinitz, who had won the toss for the move,
opening his game with 1 P-Q 4.
The match was played in a private room, where the players were at their ease. The
members of the Manhattan Chess Club enjoyed all the excitement of the contest and
were enabled to watch the game, move for move, on a giant chess-board 6 feet
square, placed on chairs against the wall. A special messenger was detailed whose
duty it was to convey each move as it was played by the players in their room to the
club-room below, where the moves were shown on the big board. Besides this every
spare board was occupied by eager analysts following the moves and discussing the
probabilities. When Gunsberg played 9 P-K 4 it was very amusing to listen to the
various opinions expressed thereon at different boards.
Meantime the game proceeded steadily upstairs. White had evidently preconceived
a plan of action by which he intended to form a strong centre, but his active opponent
gave him little chance to build up his game in accordance with his theoretical plan. A
vigorous advance resulted in whites Queens pawn being isolated and black having a
little more freedom to move his pieces. The game was adjourned at 5, although play
began half an hour later than usual.
At 7 oclock the game was resumed. Black seemed to play with a good deal of
confidence. He knew that if it came to an end game he would have the best chance.
There were possibilities of attack for white, but as the latter seemed disinclined to
venture on an advance, as indicated in Mr. Gunsbergs notes to the game, a draw was
agreed on shortly after the resumption of play on the twenty-sixth move of white.
The game is appended. The second game will be played on Thursday next. The
hours of play are from 1:30 to 5 and from 7 to 10:30 P.M. The umpires are Mr. A.
Vorrath for Gunsberg and Mr. Waller Halliday [sic] for Steinitz, as well as Mr. Ford,
who acted in Mr. Hallidays [sic] absence.
The World, New York, 1890.12.10
Steinitz,W Gunsberg,IA (1)
1890.12.09 USA New York, NY (Manhattan Chess Club)
Annotations by Gunsberg & Steinitz
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.f3
**Gunsberg: Quite new at this stage of the game. Steinitz favors this move, whether
as first or second player, to defend his center if the adverse dark square bishop is
shut out from c5. As will be seen the text move also enables him to utilize his
knight to fortify his center by bringing it to f2 via h3.
Steinitz: Perfectly new in this opening, adopted with a view to forming a center
and taking advantage of the confined position of the adverse light square bishop.
4...Nc6
**Gunsberg: Steinitz advises in close openings not to develop this knight to c6
before the c-pawn has been moved. I selected this move, however, in order to
force White to play his pawn to e3, or else he would lose a pawn by 5...dxc4.
Steinitz: Probably the best way to stop the advance in the center.
5.e3
**Steinitz: If 5.e4 dxe4 6.d5 exd5 7.cxd5 Ne5, with a good game.
5...Be7 6.Nh3
**Steinitz: A better outlet for the knight than at e2 later on, for the latter plan would
have necessitated Whites moving his light square bishop to d3, where Black would
have had an opportunity of attacking it by ...Nb4.
6...0-0 7.Nf2 Re8 [0:08-0:08] 8.Be2 Bb4 9.Bd2 e5 [0:24-0:31]
**Gunsberg: By this properly prepared move Black assumes the initiative,
preventing his opponent from establishing a strong center, and finally breaking up
his queens wing.
10.dxe5 Rxe5 [0:38-0:37] 11.cxd5
**Steinitz: 11.Nd3 Bxc3 (best) 12.bxc3 Re8 13.cxd5 Qxd5 (or 13...Nxd5) 14.e4
would have given White a more superior game still.
11...Nxd5 12.e4
**Gunsberg: 12.Nd3 instead would have been met by 12...Bxc3.
12...Nxc3 13.bxc3 Ba5
**Gunsberg: Black has now the better position for the endgame.
14.Qc2 Re8
**Gunsberg: The rook is here safer, and more useful.
15.0-0 Bb6 [0:55-0:55] 16.Kh1 Qe7 17.Nd3 Ne5
**Gunsberg: 17...f5 looked very tempting, but would have been met with 18.Nf4. If
then Black 18...fxe4, White retakes and obtains a very open game, for if 19...Qxe4
20.Bd3. There were also other moves, as Bc4+, by which White would obtain a
formidable attack.
Steinitz: If 17...f5 instead, White would answer 18.Nf4, and if then 18...fxe4 19.
fxe4, and evidently Black dare not again capture on account of the reply 20.Bd3,
and anyhow White gets a powerful attack.
18.Nxe5 Qxe5 19.Bd3
**Steinitz: White might, perhaps, have pressed the attack with more prospects of
success by 19.f4 Qxe4 20.Bd3, followed by 21.Bxh7+.
19...Rd8
**Gunsberg: In anticipation of 20.f4, which now could be parried by 20...Qd6.
20.Rad1
**Steinitz: If 20.f4 Qd6 21.Rad1, and now Black dare not take the bishop on account
of the reply 22.Bc1, but he wins, nevertheless, by 21...Bg4.
20...Be6 [1:11-1:11] 21.Bc1 Qa5 22.c4 Bd4
**Gunsberg: The bishop is here well posted, as it also prevents the adverse bishop
from going to b2.
23.Bd2 (Adjourned) 23...Qh5 (Sealed) [1:24:30-1:37]
**Gunsberg: At this stage the game was adjourned for dinner at 5pm.
24.Bf4
**Gunsberg: White might have proceeded here more attackingly with 24.f4.
24...c6
**Gunsberg: Of course not 24...Be5, because of 25.g4, winning a piece.
Steinitz: A very good move. It helps Black to obtain the drawn result, and is much
stronger than 24...c5.
25.Be2
**Gunsberg: Here again 25.e5 would have been played by an attacking player.
25...Qc5 [1:34-1:50] -.
**Steinitz: Black threatens now ...b5, and the game is now well balanced that a draw
is a fair result.
CHAMPIONS PLAY CHESS.
STEINITZ SCORES A FINE GAME.
GUNSBERG BEATEN AT ALL POINTS - HIS OPPONENT SHOWS HIM HOW
TO DEFEND A RUY LOPEZ.
:
The result of Tuesdays game in the match between Steinitz and Gusnberg, which is
being played at the rooms of the Manhattan Chess Club, gives the contest at once an
increased interest for chess players. The innovation introduced by Steinitz, coupled
with the smart defence which Gunsberg set up, were also important factors in
augmenting the interest of the encounter.
When Gunsberg yesterday, somewhat contrary to general anticipation, made a Ruy
Lopez opening, curiosity to see the manner in which he would conduct it was added
to the already aroused interest, and just before the adjournment of the afternoon
session the moves were being closely followed by a large number of spectators in the
club-room where they were being recorded on the big diagram board. At this time it
was readily seen from the position that Gunsberg had a very bad game. Indeed, on all
hands it was confidently declared to be a won game for Steinitz, and in some quarters
surprise was expressed that Gunsberg did not resign, instead of allowing the game to
be adjourned from 5 till 7 oclock. Of course this latter was a prejudging of the case,
for it was just possible, though by no means probable, that Gunsberg saw a way out of
his difficulties.
As the result showed, however, it would appear as if he pursued the game in the
hope of something good suggesting itself by which he could bring about a draw. On
the resumption of play most of the moves were made rapidly, and almost every move
of White that was sent down the bearer was asked if he had yet resigned.
Dr. F. Mintz, the president of the Tournament and Match Committee, who has
control of the match arrangements, desires The Tribune to publish the appended
statement which he makes on behalf of the club: One of the city papers having
severly commented upon the exclusion of reporters from the room of play, the
officials of the Manhattan Chess Club desire to state that they have arranged for this
match for the benefit of the members and the subscribers to the match fund and have
granted to the players the sole right of publication of the games. It must be distinctly
understood that neither we nor the members derive any monetary benefit whatever
from the affair, and that we have arranged for the contest and subscribed $1,050 for
the sole purpose of giving our members an interesting and instructive entertainment.
The nature of the game is such that when played in a comparatively small room we
are compelled to exclude reporters from the actual room of play, which in this case is
a small one. We have, however, put up in our large club-room a giant diagram board
on which the moves are recorded as they are made, and press representatives are at
liberty to enter the club and watch the progress of the game on this board and to write
whatever they choose for their respective papers so long as they do not print the
scores of the games, which are the absolute property of the players.
To deal more fully with the play. It will be seen that Steinitz played right away in
due observance of the principles which he has laid down in his chess works, by
defending this opening (the Ruy Lopez) by playing P-Q 3 as his third move.
Gunsberg now followed by taking up one of the leading variations exemplified in
Steinitzs works, viz., 4 P-Q B 3, and anticipating the probability of Gunsbergs having
come prepared with something on this particular line of attack, the great theoristat
once turned his attention to other tactics that have hitherto remained without analysis
and are comparatively new to the chess world. He adopted a plan of development on
his fifth move which was originally introduced in the Sixth American Chess Congress
by Martinez. Gunsbergs seventh move clearly showed that he was entering into a
defence upon the blocking plan, which is frequently adopted by first-class masters,
because it sometimes evolves a brilliant game. According to Steinitzs theories,
however, it compromises the ending.
The next few moves saw a development of the Kings side, on the part of Black, in
preparation for castling, while an attempt was made by White to work his Kt in at K
3, with the ultimate idea of occupying a strong position at K B 5. On the tenth move
Black entered on a counter demonstration, which may be said to resemble in some
respects that of Gunsberg in the first game, attacking the adverse K P with his Kt.
After defending here, White took an early opportunity to attack the Kt with his Q Kt
P, but then Blacks piece gained strong entrance into the holeat Q R 5. Later Black
effected a long prepared breach in the centre by advancing his K B P. After his
seventeenth move, Black proceeded to force the exchange of Qs, and by clever
manipulation of the rooks on the open files he greatly improved his position, and at
the adjournment threatened to occupy the strong post at Q 7 with one of his rooks.
After a gallant fight to no purpose, on the part of Gunsberg, Steinitz captured the
pawn, and being the exchange ahead, he easily forced a win after forty moves on each
side. Gunsberg deliberated fifteen minutes before he decided to resign.
CHESS MASTERS MEET AGAIN.
STEINITZ DRAWS FIRST BLOOD IN AN EXCELLENT MANNER.
Gunsbergs Attack Was Weak and to No Purpose, While the Champion
Made a Beautiful Defence in the Spanish Game.
:
When play was resumed yesterday in the championship chess match at the
Manhattan Chess Club there was not so large an attendance of members as on the
opening day, but as evening drew near the club room began to assume a more
animated appearance, and the game provided a fund of interesting points for
discussion and comment.
Despite the fact that Steinitz for several reasons did not begin the day in a settled
frame of mind, it will be seen from the character of the game that this did not militate
against his powers of play. Before the opening of the game he entered an opposition
to the objection made by Gunsberg, which resulted in the total exclusion of reporters
from the room, and ultimately, as the result of his efforts, Gunsberg assented to the
admission of one or two special chess reporters, including the representative of THE
SUN, on the understanding that they should not write out their reports in the room,
which he considers too small for the purpose.
By many it was expected that Gunsberg would offer an Evans gambit to his
opponent, who, it may be remembered, stated some time ago that he would undertake
to play the defence in the Evans four times with Gunsberg from a certain position
which at that time had been reached in his game with Tschigorin. Several persons
expressed, with some confidence, the opinion that Gunsberg would take up this
challenge, if challenge it may be called; but a few moves soon showed the spectators
that he had selected the Ruy Lopez. It is only fair to say, however, that Gunsberg has
never been known to play the Evans Gambit in match games. It is a pity that he did
not offer Steinitz a chance to redeem his declared intention, for then we should have
had a revival of the old interest which was evinced in the Evans cable game when it
was adjourned. It would really have been like a continuation of the cable fight. As
the game progressed it took little penetration to see that Gunsberg was making a weak
development of his pieces and the climax of his bad play wa reached when, on his
eighteenth move, he made a blunder which gave his antagonist the advantage of the
exchange, and before the adjournment it was equally clear that nothing short of the
intervention of a miracle would prevent Steinitz from winning easily.
Steinitz played in accordance with the theory laid down in his book - defending the
Ruy Lopez by 3...P-Q 3 - whereupon Gunsberg started one of the leading variations
from the same work, viz., 4 P-Q B 3, and Steinitz, not knowing whether his opponent
had anything of a special nature prepared in that particular line of attack,
immediately adopted other tactics which have not yet been analyzed. On the fifth
move he adopted a plan of development for the K Kt at K 2, which, in a similar
position, was first introduced by Martinez of Philadelphia in the sixth American
Congress. On the seventh move Gunsbergs plan of action was declared, and his
defence of P-Q 5 showed that he was playing for the crowding and blocking system,
which, according so Steinitzs theories, somewhat compromised the ending, but us
nevertheless often made use of by first-class masters, as it sometimes leads to
brilliant games.
During the next few moves black simply developed the kings side ready for
castling, while white tried to manoeuvre his Kt into the centre at K 3 with a view to
keeping the strong post at K B 5. Black on the tenth move entered upon a counter
demonstartion in the centre, attacking the adverse K P with his Kt, and white, after
defending, took the earliest opportunity to attack that Kt with his Q Kt P, but blacks
pieces then gained strong entrance into the holeat Q R 5. White proceeded with the
advance of pawns on the Q side, while black on the fourteenth move effected a long
prepared breach in the centre with the advance of his K B P. After some moves for
the development and preparation of an attack by black, who had evidently the pull on
both wings, the crisis came on his seventeenth move, which threatened a dangerous
exchange that would have allowed blacks Kt to jump in at the holeat whites K B 4.
In trying to avoid that white lost the exchange. After this black proceeded to force
the exchange of queens and then to get strong entrance with his rooks, first on the
open K B file and afterwards in the Q file. At the time of adjournment, it being whites
twenty-seventh move, which he sealed, black threatened to occupy the strong post at
Q 7 with one of his rooks, which seemed to win a pawn.
On play being resumed at 7 oclock black succeeded in capturing the pawn, and
being the exchange ahead, it only became a matter of time. Steinitz pressed the pace
and Gunsberg resigned at his forty-first move after taking fifteen minutes
consideration.
STEINITZS FIRST GAME.
THE ENGLISH CHESS-PLAYER RESIGNS AT FORTY-ONE
MOVES.
He Adopted the Ruy Lopez at the Opening of the Second Game
at the Manhattan Chess Club Rooms - Remarkable Judgment Displayed
by Mr. Steinitz - Many Spectators.
:
The undecided result of Tuesdays battle has apparently whetted the appetite of
chess amateurs, as was plainly shown yesterday by the rooms of the Manhattan Chess
Club being crowded. Gunsberg was credited with having achieved a moral victory in
the last fray, and so the spectators looked eagerly forward to the events of the day.
The Anglo-Hungarian player, having the move, cautiously adopted a Ruy Lopez, to
which his antagonist replied with P-Q3 on his third move. Mr. Steinitz had this move
first adopted against Senor Golmayo and other amateurs in Havana, and has
recommended it, together with the continuation B-Q2, both in his books and in
analytical notes. The first player might have transformed, now, the game into a well-
known variation of the Philidor defense by playing his pawn to Q4, which is
considered by all the authorities as in whites favor. He, however, moved contrary to
his usual agressive style - P-QB3. Later on he pushed his QP to Q5 and a position
ensued similar to what is known as the Hungarian game. White temporarily was
compelled to retire his QKt home but the advanced QP proved subsequently a source
of weakness. In the tenth move Mr. Steinitz displayed his remarkable judgment of
position by posting his Kt at QB4, which proved to be a thorn in the opponents side.
On the other hand Gunsberg, laboring under the disadvantage of a cramped
position, made a few aimless moves which enabled black, by a brilliant stroke, to win
the exchange. On the twenty-sixth move the game was adjourned and, after
resumption, white continued the hopless struggle against numerical force up to the
fortieth move, when he resigned after nearly four hoursplay.
The next game will be played next Saturday at 1:30 P.M.
An erroneous report has been circulated that Mr. Gunsberg objects to the presence
of reporters during play. The representatives of the press are welcome to be at the
Manhattan Chess Club all day and to do their work there. As to their entrance into
the players room, Mr. Gunsberg is not only not opposed to it, but will be pleased to
see them.
Gunsberg,IA Steinitz,W (2)
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 d6
**Gunsberg: Steinitz recommends this move as the safest defense to the Ruy Lopez.
Steinitz: A defense that has been little thought of though occasionally tried by old
masters. Recently I gave it as the best in my Modern Chess Instructor,but there is
still some opposition to it.
4.c3
**
Gunsberg: Very tame and not suited to Whites character of play. 4.d4, as
remarked above, would have led into a variation of Philidors Knight game, which,
with the sole exception of Steinitz, is considered in favor of the first player.
Steinitz: A sort of Giuoco Piano attack which holds good in many variations in this
opening.
4...Bd7
**
Steinitz: 4...f5 is the answer given in the Modern Chess Instructor,but I considered
the text move equally good.
5.0-0 Nge7 [0:05-0:05]
**Steinitz: If 5...Nf6 6.d3, etc.
6.d4 Ng6 7.d5
**
Gunsberg: Although Black loses ground temporarily, the white queens wing is
weakened by this advance.
Steinitz: A question of style, in which I am opposed to many masters.
7...Nb8 [0:15-0:15] 8.Bxd7+ Nxd7 9.Na3
**Gunsberg: This and the next move of the knight are pure loss of time.
Steinitz: 9.c4 followed by 10.Nc3, was, I believe, his best plan.
9...Be7 [0:19-0:19] 10.Nc2 Nc5 [0:19-0:26]
**Gunsberg: Black with tactical sagacity posts his knight where it does the most
good. Although it is self-evident that the subsequent entrance of this piece at c3
via a4 could not be foreseen at the present stage the second player shows his master
hand by selecting the best spot available for his avant garde.
Steinitz: This knight is now strongly placed, for, as will be seen, it could not be
dislodged without further disadvantage for White.
11.Qe2 Qd7 12.b4
**
Gunsberg: This weakens his queens wing. He had, however, to guard against ...
Nf4, which would have forced him to give up his bishop for the knight, as well as
against ...Qg4.
Steinitz: 12.b3 was, I think, much preferable.
12...Na4 13.Bd2 0-0 14.c4
**
Gunsberg: Very weak. 14.g3 ought to have been played here. Whites play is far
below his usual standard.
14...f5
**Gunsberg: Black presses the attack with his noted vigor and precision.
Steinitz: Having arranged his pieces in battle order, Black proceeds with his attack
against the obvious mark in the kings center.
15.exf5 Qxf5 [0:54-0:36] 16.Rac1 Rae8 [0:54-0:58]
**Steinitz: I studied twenty minutes for this move because 16...Nb2 seemed to yield
some promise, but on consideration I concluded to make another strong developing
move, which was sure to be useful in the end.
17.Nfe1
**Gunsberg: 17.Kh1 was better.
17...Bg5
**Gunsberg: An excellent move. White cannot afford to take this bishop, as the
adverse knight will finally enter at f4.
Steinitz: There is hardly any escape from this that I can see.
18.g3
**Gunsberg: Too late now.
Steinitz: If White had played 18.Bxg5 then 18...Qxg5, followed by 19...Nf4 or 19...
e4, accordingly with an irresistible attack.
18...Nc3
**
Gunsberg: A brilliant and suprising coup, which crushes Whites game entirely.
19.Bxc3
**Steinitz: Forced.
19...Bxc1 20.Ng2 Qf3 [1:24-1:29] 21.Qxf3 Rxf3 22.Nge3 Bxe3 23.Nxe3
Ref8 24.Kg2 c6
**Steinitz: This is the decisive move that breaks the pawns and gains entrance for
Blacks rooks in the adverse camp.
25.Bb2 cxd5 [1:34-1:34] 26.Nxd5 Rd3 (Adjourned)
**Gunsberg: Threatening to win a pawn by ...Rc8.
27.Bc1 (Sealed) 27...b5 28.Ne3 bxc4 29.Nxc4 Rd4 30.Ne3 Rxb4 [2:04-
1:34] 31.Rd1 Rb1 32.Ba3 Rxd1 33.Nxd1 Rd8 34.f3 d5 35.Nc3 d4 36.
Ne4 Rb8 37.h4 h5 38.Kf2 Rb1 39.Bd6 Rb2+ 40.Ke1 Rxa2 [2:12-1:41]
0-1.
THE GREAT CHESS MATCH.
THE THIRD GAME IN THE SERIES A DRAW.
STEINITZ AGAIN OFFERS THE QUEENS GAMBIT AND MAKES AN
INTERESTING VARIATION.
:
By degrees the interest in the Steinitz-Gunsberg match steadily grows, and
although, when the masters sat down to begin their third game at 1:30 p.m. yesterday,
there was only a small attendance, during the afternoon and evening the club-rooms
of the Manhattan Chess Club, where the match is being played, were well filled.
Steinitz, in offering again the Queens Gambit, at once put an additional interest
into the encounter. The offer was just as promptly declined by Gunsberg as on
Tuesday, and in exactly the same manner. Chess players who expected that after this
Gunsberg would proceed with the same defence which he had previously adopted
were doomed to disappointment, for the Hungarian on his third move deviated from
the first game by playing P-Q B 3, instead of Kt-K B 3.
Naturally this change might be considered a desirable one by some followers of the
game, the more so that this new variation promised much in the shape of instruction.
It followed now as an obvious consequence that Steinitzs proceedings had to be
altered and fitted to the new tactics of his opponent. Eventually Gunsberg managed
to isolate the pawn of his adversary on the queens file, which ought to have given him
a considerable advantage. Several of his succeeding moves, however, which were
described by the spectators as premature if not actually useless, enabled Steinintz to
double his rooks on the queens file and to assume a consequently threatening
attitude. Gunsberg thereupon found himself compelled to proceed with a rapid
exchange of pieces, which not only brought to Steinitzs isolated pawn, but gave
Steinitz the opportunity of redeeming the time which he had lost in the early part of
the game. This will be readily seen when it is stated that after twenty moves had been
made Steinitz had consumed one hour and twenty-two minutes to his opponents fifty-
six minutes, whereas at the time of the adjournment, after twenty-seven moves had
been recorded on the score-sheet, Mr. Gunsbergs time stood at one hour and forty-six
minutes and his opponents at one hour and forty-five minutes.
Dealing in more minute detail with the game it will be seen that after the variation
on the third move Steinitz proceeded with the same development as in the first game,
by playing 5 P-K B 3. His opponent next gained a move by playing B-Kt 5, instead
of first moving the Kt to B 2 and then to Kt 5 as he did in the first game. He then
immediately entered upon an attempt to break the centre by Q Kt-Q 2, and Steinitz
played K Kt to B 4 instead of to K B 2 as he did in the first game, and this he himself
looks upon as an improvement upon his previous play. His eigth move, B-K 2,
however, was hardly as good as B-Q 2. He might also have done better by retaking
with the queen. Afterward White forced the withdrawal of his opponents K B. An
exchange of minor pieces soon followed, and it then became apparent that Gunsberg
was aiming at a draw, which was probably the best thing he could do, for although
Whites queens pawn was isolated, it greatly hampered Blacks game and might
ultimately become very strong. Later on White succeeded in concentrating his rooks
on the open kings file, and Black then altered his tactics with winning purposes in
view. He directed his attack upon the isolated Q P, but soon recognizing that he
could not make much impression in this direction, he returned again to the
exchanging policy with the view of drawing.
At the adjournment, when Gunsberg sealed his twenty-seventh move, the pieces
and pawns were even, each side having a queen and one rook on the board. Blacks
king and bishop, however, were confined, while White had a greater freedom for
those pieces. After the resumption of the play at 7 oclock only one more move was
made on the board, this being the twenty-seventh move of Gunsberg, which had been
already sealed when the game was adjourned. It was certainly a very good one, as it
offered the exchange of queens, which it would have been a very difficult matter for
White to avoid, and it furthermore liberated the confined king. For the space of about
twenty minutes deliberated upon a reply, and then he finally agreed upon a draw,
which was suggested by Gunsberg.
THE EXPERTS AT CHESS.
ANOTHER DRAWN BATTLE - BOTH MASTERS AT THEIR BEST.
At First Gunsberg Made a Good Stand, While the Champion Had to
Think - Later the Hungarians Position Became Difficult,
but Fine Play on His Part Secured for Him the Division of Honors.
:
When the third game in the championship chess match began yesterday morning at
the Manhattan Chess Club in West Twenty-seventh street there was only a meagre
attendance of members in the large club room; but as was the case on Thursday, as
the afternoon progressed the number of spectators began to increase. What made
matters more than ordinarily interesting from the start, was the fact that Steinitz again
opened a Queens gambit, which, as on the first day, Gunsberg declined by playing P-
K 3. The inference to be drawn from this proceeding on the part of Steinitz is that he
had fully realized the mistake he made on the first day, and was satisfied that he could
do better, if not actually win. He was evidently of the opinion that he could rectify
the errors of judgment which marked his play in the first game, and presumably in
this belief he entered for the second time upon the same opening.
It is frequently the case that when a master loses or draws a game in a certain
opening he will take the earliest opportunity of playing the same opening again,
provided he thinks he could improve on his previous play by substituting at times a
different move or variation. From the point of view of the chess student yesterdays
game is a most valuable one when studied side by side with that of Tuesday, for from
such a study the weaknesses of the earlier game will probably be exemplified in the
second one. It will be seen, upon reference to the score, that Gunsberg thought it well
not to pursue the same course which he adopted on Tuesday, for, as early as his third
move, he entered upon a different course of defence. Instead of playing Kt-K B 3, as
he did in the first game, he moved P-Q B 3. It is worthy of note that Steinitz took five
minutesconsideration on his fourth move and that he consumed twelve minutes upon
his eighth move.
This careful deliberation indicated that Steinitz was once more treading new
ground, while Gunsberg consumed much less time, probably because he had his
course of action clearly planned in accordance with long-established principles.
It may be pointed out that when fifteen moves had been made by each player
Steinitz had consumed an hour, and Gunsberg only 39 minutes. Attention may also
be drawn to the fact that a clear advantage acerned [sic] to Gunsberg early in the
game by his isolating his opponents Queens pawn.
Just before the time for the adjournment of the afternoon session many spectators
declared that Gunsberg had thrown away the chances he had gained earlier in the
game, and was obviously playing for a draw. And here it was, too, that Steinitz, on
his twenty-seventh move, brought into operation one of his pet ideas by putting his
king into play, with the idea of making use of him as a fighting monarch.
At the adjournment Gunsberg sealed his twenty-seventh move [...]
During the adjournment Steinitz was asked to give his opinion on the game as far
as it had gone, and he said: You are aware that though a Queens Gambit declined, this
game differs very much from the one we played on Tuesday, in consequence of
Gunsberg having adopted a different line of play on his third move. Although the
position was thus at once altered, I still proceeded with the same line of development
as in the first game, commencing with 5 P-K B 3. My opponent answered this time B-
Kt 5, thereby gaining a move, for in the first game he had played B-K2 in a similar
situation, and afterward B-Kt 5. He then proceeded immediately with an attempt to
break the centre by Q Kt-Q 2, and I then played my K Kt-B 4, instead of K B 2, as in
the first game, which, I believe, was some improvement. My eighth move, B-K 2,
was probably not as good as B-Q 2. I think I should also have done better by
retaking with the queen. Blacks twelfth move was, in my opinion, not a good one,
and in his place I would have played B-Q 2, White then compelled a withdrawal of
his adversarys K B and proceeded. An exchange of minor pieces soon followed, and
it became evident that black was playing for no more than a draw, and I think he
could not do better than that, for whites Q P, though isolated, greatly hampered his
opponents game, and experts will recognize that in similar positions which arose in
the game between Labourdonnais and McDonnell the Q P became ultimately very
strong.
The further progress of the game was marked by the concentration of the rooks on
the open kings file on the [sic] whites part, while black changed tactics and attempted
an attack against the isolated Q P, evidently for winning purposes. He, however, soon
recognized that he could not make much impression with his attempted attack, and
again he entered on an exchange policy with a view of drawing. At the time of the
adjournment, on the twenty-seventh move, the pieces and pawns were even, and there
was this difference of position that blacks king and bishop were confined, while white
had more freedom for those two pieces, each side having queen and one rook on the
board.
Some of the spectators were prepared to see the game proceed for fifteen or twenty
moves more, and therefore it was a source of some little surprise when it was
announced that a draw had been agreed upon, practically without any additional
moves being made, for the only move recorded after the adjournment was the one
which Gunsberg had sealed at 5 oclock, when the two players arose for their two
hoursrest, viz.: 27. Q-Q 3, which on all hands was counted a good one. This
movement made Steinitz think for about twenty minutes at the end of which time his
opponent said: It is nothing but a draw, Mr. Steinitz.and the latter then assented to
the proposal, saying: Very well, all right. This is what Steinitz has to say about the
termination of the game: Gunsbergs twenty-seventh move, Q-Q3, was certainly a
very good one, as it offered the exchange of queens, which white could hardly avoid,
and it furthermore liberated the confined king. After I had looked a good while for
my reply, Gunsberg interrupted by offering a draw, which was accepted.
STEINITZ STILL LEADS.
The Third Game in the Chess Contest a Draw.
GUNSBERG HAS NOT WON A VICTORY.
While the Veteran Player Has a Shade the Best of the Match Thus
Far Honors Are Rather Equally Divided - A Close Analysis of the
Important Moves Last Night - The Game in Detail.
:
The first week of the championship chess match has passed and while the younger
player has not as yet a victory to his credit he has by no means reason to feel
discouraged. He has twice succeeded in wresting the attack from his famous
opponent, who had the advantage of the first move and who played an entirely novel
variation, which, to all appearances, he had carefully prepared and analyzed.
Although thrown upon wholly unknown ground Gunsberg came out both times with
an advantage in position. Mr. Gunsberg failed to make good his advantage, but his
friends assume that in the course of the match he will be able to do so despite the
stubbornness of his opponent, for which he is so justly famous.
Mr. Steinitz having the move, again selected a Queens gambit, to which Gunsberg
replied with P-QB3 on his third move. This move, recommended by Rosenthal, and
adopted in his match against Zukertort, is a favorite defense of Gunsberg, who has
played it successfully against Blackburne and others. Mr. Steinitz, too, chose this
defense in the first part of his match against Zukertort, his QB, however, having been
played previously to B4. In his analytical notes he disapproves of Blacks defending
with P-QB3.
In yesterdays game white pursued his plan of the first game, with the modification
of playing his Kt-KB4 instead of B2. Black, as in the first game, rapidly developed
his pieces, and, assuming the counter attack by P-K4, succeeded in isolating the
hostile QP. On the fourteenth move, however, he impaired his chances of winning by
allowing his KB to be exchanged, and, while the position was still in his favor, the
road to victory was not clearly discernible.
After the adjournment, while Mr. Steinitz devoted twenty minutes to the
consideration of the move by Gunsberg, the latter proposed a draw, which was
accepted.
The score is now: Steinitz, 1; drawn, 2.
D31/07 Classic Semi-Slav
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 c6
**Gunsberg: Recommended by Rosenthal and invariably adopted by Gunsberg.
Steinitz: With a view of playing ...dxc4 and then supporting the captured pawn
by ...b5.
4.e3 Nf6 5.f3
**
Steinitz: Blacks third move does in no way counteract Whites tactics, which are
still quite feasible, and it also gives the first player a slight pull.
5...Bb4 [0:06-0:03]
**Steinitz: Certainly superior to 5...Be7 as played in a similar position in the first
game of this match.
6.Nh3 Nbd7
**Gunsberg: While White moves by carrying out his plans of development, Black
brings his pieces rapidly into play with a view of assuming the attack.
Steinitz: Also better than 6...0-0 and 7...Re8; he gains his point of breaking in the
center much sooner.
7.Nf4 0-0
**Gunsberg: Better than 7...e5 at once.
8.Be2
**Steinitz: This was probably not as good as 8.Bd2.
8...dxc4 [0:29-0:18]
**Gunsberg: In order to avert the danger of his d-pawn becoming isolated he ought
to have exchanged pawns.
9.Bxc4 e5 10.Nfe2
**
Gunsberg: After 10.dxe5 Nxe5 11.Qxd8 Rxd8, the position would be in Blacks
favor.
10...exd4 [0:40-0:21] 11.exd4
**Steinitz: Here 11.Qxd4 was undoubtedly stronger.
11...Nb6 12.Bb3 Bf5
**Steinitz: The bishop here is exposed to attacks and to being shut in; 12...Bd7 was
much preferable.
13.Bg5 Be7 14.0-0 Nfd5
**Gunsberg: He would have done better to preserve his dark-square bishop, which
would have rendered powerful assistance in keeping up the pressure on Whites
weak d-pawn.
15.Bxe7 Nxe7 [1:00-0:39] 16.Ng3 Bg6 17.Nce4 Nbd5 18.Qd2 b6
**Gunsberg: To prevent the adverse knight from entering at c5.
Steinitz: Black conducts his defense in an extremely difficult position with very
good judgment.
19.Rae1 Qd7 20.Re2 Rad8 [1:22-0:56] 21.Rfe1 Nf5 22.Nc3 Nxg3 [1:30-
1:20]
**Gunsberg: Perhaps 22...Nde7 would have been preferable.
23.hxg3 Nxc3
**Gunsberg: Not having adopted the line of play indicated above he had nothing
better, for instance, 23...Nf6 24.Re7 Qxd4+ 25.Qxd4 Rxd4 26.Rxa7, with a slight
pull.
24.bxc3 Rfe8 25.Qf4 Rxe2 [1:40-1:30]
**Gunsberg: Rather forced, for White would exchange rooks, followed by 28.Qc7.
26.Rxe2 Kf8 [1:40-1:30]
**Steinitz: For, if 26...Re8 at once, then 27.Qc7 Qd8 (best) 28.Qxd8, followed by
Re7, with an excellent game.
27.Kf2 (Adjourned) [1:45-1:46] 27...Qd6 (Sealed) [2:06-1:46] -.
A DEFEAT FOR STEINITZ.
GUNSBERG COMPELS HIM TO RESIGN.
THE FOURTH GAME IN THE GREAT CHESS MATCH - THE
WINNER PLAYS A GIUOCO GAME.
:
The fourth game in the chess match now in progress between Steinitz, of New-
York, and Gunsberg, of London, was begun punctually at 1:30 p.m. yesterday. As in
the previous days of play, there was a small attendance at the beginning, but by and
by the numbers increased, and those who were present during the latter part of the
afternoon were well repaid for their visit by seeing an exceedingly interesting game in
one of its most interesting phases.
Gunsberg had the move, and when he had played the first three familiar moves and
Steinitz had replied, it was on all sides expected that now he was going to gratify a
desire strongly felt in chess circles that he would offer Steinitz an Evans Gambit; but
no, it was not to be. The fourth move declared his intention, which was to play a
Giuoco Piano. The disappointment which was at first felt at his adoption of this
course, however, soon gave place to a new interest which was kindled as the game
went on. Steinitz, not satisfied with introducing a distinct novelty in each of last
weeks games, now brings one forward which is perhaps even more interesting than
any of those which went before. He acts in direct opposition, on his fifth move, to the
universal recommendation of book writers, by taking off the bishop from K 3,
instead of retreating his own bishop to Kt 3.
The game assumed an entirely different aspect upon the introduction of this novel
variation, and was now watched with close interest. On his tenth move Gunsberg was
threatening to capture one of his opponents pieces, and here Steinitz pondered long
and deeply before he made his move, and then it was one which was pronounced by
some to give Gunsberg the chance of putting into operation the move which would
threaten to capture a piece. Gunsberg, however, did not pursue that course. He soon
afterward massed his forces in an attack on the Kings side, and matters soon became
more and more exciting, when Steinitz made a sortie on the opposite side of the board
with his Queen, leaving his King well protected by several strong pieces.
The effect of this movement on the part of Black on the Queens side was to call
away the attention of White from his meditated attack on the Kings side. At the time
of adjournment it was unanimously agreed that the postion was a very interesting
one. It was still in the middle game stage, and from its nature seemed to promise for
the first time an evenings entertainment. It is peculiar coincidence that for the fourth
time Gunsberg was the player who had to seal his move when the time for adjourning
arrived.
The expectation of a longer evening session than usual was realized, but after about
and hours play it was agreed that Steinitz was getting the worst of it, and as further
moves were made the opinion became unanimous among the spectators that Steinitz
had a lost game. At an early stage of the evening session Steinitz greatly
handicapped himself for his subsequent play by consuming twenty-five minutes upon
his twenty-ninth move. This obliged him to play hurriedly at a later stage. Just about
as the clock struck 9 Steinitz resigned on the fifty-seventh move, and the Hungarian
player drew up alongside of his veteran opponent.
ACROSS THE CHESS BOARD.
GUNSBERG DEFEATS STEINITZ IN GRAND STYLE.
The Veteran Took the Youngster Out of the Book
- The Latter Did Not Mind it -
He Pressed On Early in the Game and Scored Beautifully
After 57 Moves.
:
For the first time since the beginning of the Steinitz-Gunsberg match in this city
peace marked the opening of the proceedings yesterday afternoon at the rooms of the
Manhattan Chess Club, where the two masters are playing. On each of the three
prededing days of play there has occured some sort of unpleasantness. Yesterday,
however, such occurrences were conspicuous by their absence.
It was Gunsbergs turn to open, and when the first three moves on either side had
been recorded on the big show board in the club room, the few spectators who were
assembled there were at once filled with the anticipation that at last Gunsberg was
going to give them an opportunity of seeing a highly interesting continuation or
variation of one of the cable games, by opening an Evans Gambit. Such an opening
at this juncture, as has already been pointed out, would for many reasons prove
eminently interesting to chess players all over the world. But the fourth move of
white brought disappointment in its train, and showed the spectators that instead of an
Evans Gambit they were going to be treated by the Hungarian to a Giuoco Piano.
Steinitz proceeded to play against all the usually adopted methods of defence in
this opening; instead of playing on his fifth move B-Kt 3, which is recommended as
the best by the German Handbook, by Staunton, and in fact, by all other works on
theory, he chopped down the B in K 3, thereby giving over the open bishops file to
whites rook. Of course this move altered the whole prospect of the continuation.
After a few more moves some surprise was felt at the length of time taken by Steinitz
to consider his tenth move, and when the amateurs set up the position and began to
examine and analyze it they found an explanation in the fact that Gunsberg was
threatening to win a piece.
Steinitz, of course, saw the difficulties of the position, and it took him twenty-one
minutesdeliberation before he was sufficiently satisfied in what way to try and
obviate them. Finally he made a move which seemingly did not prevent the loss of
the piece. What could not be elucidated at the moment by the majority of spectators
was, however, pointed out by Major Hanham, who showed how white could not
capture the piece. Next came Gunsbergs time for thinking, and at the fifteenth move
the time consumed by each player had been equalized, and stood at 45 minutes.
After whites thirteenth move there was some talk about the difficulties, if not
weaknesses, of Steinitzs position. A believer in Steinitz declared his willingness to
bet $10 that no member of the club could beat Steinitz in that position. If no other
characters are to be found in chess circles, there are always some players who have
any amount of confidence in themselves and their powers, and at this moment a
championcame forward and declared that he could beat the great theorist in that
position. The bet was registered.
As the game progressed it grew very interesting. White gathered his pieces in
readiness of an attack on the kings side, and it is deserving of mention that black
never castled, being content to allow his king to remain surrounded by a number of
trusty officers, while the queen was sent out on an exploring expidition. This
introduced a welcome variety into the contest, for blacks trip with the queen
necessitated whites advancing with his queens pawn, and also forced him to abandon
for the time his attack on the kings side and turn his attention to the other side of the
board, where a little side fight was going on independent of the main issue. When
each player had made twenty-five moves there was a difference of ten minutes in
favor of the younger player.
It is a noteworthy fact that on every occasion so far Gunsberg has been the one to
seal his move on the adjournment of the afternoon sitting. This was the case
yesterday.
When the game was resumed at 7 oclock there was every prospect of an evening of
interesting play. The previous games had all been finished soon after the
commencement of the evening session, but yesterdays was an exception. Steinitz too
25 minutesconsideration on his twenty-ninth move, and then a number of rapid
moves on both sides followed. It now became evident that Gunsberg was quickly
getting the advantage. This superiority the Anglo-Hungarian maintained, until at
length the spectators began to declare that Steinitzs game was a lost one. Still he
fought on to the Fifty-seventh move, when he struck his colors as the clock struck 9.
GUNSBERG WINS A GAME.
STEINITZ FORCED TO RESIGN ON THE FIFTY-SEVENTH MOVE.
The English Expert Chooses a Giuoco Piano, with Which He Has Won
Many Battles Against the Masters - The Record is Now One Victory
for Either Player; Two Games Drawn.
:
The second week of the chess match found both players in excellent health and
spirits. It was Gunsbergs move yesterday and he selected a Giuoco piano, a pet
opening of his, with which he achieved some of his greatest triumphs over such
formidable opponents as Blackburne, Mackenzie and Zukertort. Steinitz, in
accordance with his theories, doubled whites pawns on the king side by exchanging
B, and threatened to create another double pawn by taking the adverse K B, which he
attacked by Kt-Q R 4. White, however, counteracted his intentions. Black brought
his queen early into play, which subjected him to a well-directed attack. On the
twenty-ninth move he had to lose a pawn and on the thirty-third move Gunsberg won
a piece. Steinitz fought gallantly against odds, but resigned after fifty-seven moves.
The score is now: Steinitz, 1; Gunsberg, 1; drawn, 2.
After the conclusion of the game Gunsberg was congratulated all around. By this
victory the match is now more interesting.
C50/03 Italian: Pianissimo
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.d3 Nf6 5.Be3 Bxe3 [0:02-0:03]
**Steinitz: The Giuoco Piano has not yet come within the province of an analysis in
my work, but it is generally known to first-class masters that I hold different views
as regards the treatment for the defense to those which have been long established,
and it may be assumed that Gunsberg either really discovered a flaw in my
demonstrations, or merely thought so. One if the main points of my divergence
from the accepted notions occurred as early as the fifth move, where my line of
play in capturing the bishop and opening the adverse f-file for the opponents rook
has generally been condemned hitherto. This variation I played first against Mason
in Vienna in 1882.
6.fxe3 d6 7.0-0 Na5 8.Bb5+
**Steinitz: Another feature of my defense in this opening came out on my seventh
move, and then my opponent entered on a line of attack that is already known to
experts in similar positions, viz., to check with the bishop at b5, with a view of
drawing on the adverse pawns on the queenside and thereby weakening them.
8...c6
**Gunsberg: Black intends to take the bishop, after which White would remain with
doubled pawns on b-file and e-file. Whites mode of playing this opening always
been to develop his pieces rapidly and to castle either on the queenside, or when
the f-file is open, as in the present game, on the kingside.
9.Ba4 Qb6
**Gunsberg: Had Black played 9...b5 10.Bb3 Nxb3 the command of the open a-file
and the weakness of Blacks a-pawn would fully compensate White for the inferior
position of his pawns. Blacks move in the text is not favorable. It is contrary to
established principles to bring out the queen so early in the game.
10.Qd2
**Gunsberg: An important developing move.
Steinitz: My counter attack against the b-pawn on the ninth move was apparently
hazardous, for my opponent, in his answer, threatened to confine and ultimately
win my queen in case I took the b-pawn, and otherwise he threatened to win a
piece.
10...Ng4 [0:09-0:32]
**Gunsberg: If 10...Qxb2 11.Qxa5 Qxa1 12.Nbd2 Qb2 13.Rb1 would win the queen,
as Black can neither take the a-pawn nor play 13...Qa3, because of 14.Bxc6+.
11.Re1
**Gunsberg: He might here have won two minor pieces for the rook by 11.b4 Nxe3
12.bxa5 Nxf1+ 13.axb6 or 13.Kxf1. But Black would remain with an unbroken
phalanx of eight pawns and White should ultimately lose his far advanced pawn.
Steinitz: On my tenth move it was evident that I intended to sacrifice two minor
pieces for the rook and at least one pawn (in some variations I would have got two)
with a strong game for the ending, the exchange of queens being forced. But
Gunsberg avoided that contingency, and I think very wisely, and then I had to
direct my attention to the release of my confined a-knight, which was fully
accomplished on my thirteenth move.
11...Qa6 [0:29-0:33] 12.c3 f6 13.Bc2
**Gunsberg: White has succeeded in preserving his bishop. Had he played 13.b4,
Black would have replied with 13...b5.
13...c5
**Steinitz: At this point I believe I would have done better by playing 13...b6 and
then retreating ...Nb7 and ...Nd8, which would have made both wings inaccessible
to the adverse pieces. The move actually left a holeat d5, which, however, was
much compensated for by the adverse double pawn in the center. My opponent
then turned his attention to that holeat d5 which he tried to occupy with one of his
minor pieces, and a lively struggle followed pro and contra. As it was, White had
the opportunity of instituting an attack in the center, and on the kingside
alternately, and though by best play it should not have amounted to much, yet it
caused heavy work which might have been avoided.
14.b4 cxb4
**Steinitz: Inferior to 14...Nc6 at once, which would have made it very difficult for
the adverse b-knight to get into good play.
15.cxb4 Nc6 [0:45-0:45] 16.Bb3
**Gunsberg: Better than 16.a4.
16...Qb6 17.a3 Bd7
**Gunsberg: If 17...a5, then 18.Nc3.
18.Nc3 Ne7 19.h3 Nh6 20.d4 Rd8 [1:00-1:13]
**Gunsberg: Perhaps 20...Rc8 at once would have been better.
21.Rf1 Rf8
**Gunsberg: A very useful move; if Black now plays 21...Nf7, with the object of
castling, then 22.Bxf7+, followed by 23.dxe5, winning a pawn through the
presence of the rook on f1.
22.Qf2
**Gunsberg: Threatening dxe5 and Nxe5 and also Ng5.
22...Rc8 23.Rac1 Qa6 24.a4 Qb6 25.b5 Qa5 [1:27-1:37] 26.Qb2 Nf7
(Adjourned) [1:41-1:39] 27.Nd2 (Sealed)
**Gunsberg: White now changes his plans, as he wants to attack the weak d-pawn
by Nc4.
Steinitz: At the adjournment White made a very fine move, the sealed one, which
threatened Bxf7+, followed by Nc4. Matters became here very difficult for Black,
who, as usual in such cases, consumed much of his time, and then had to play very
hurriedly when the crisis came.
27...exd4 [1:53-2:00]
**Gunsberg: He has to guard against the loss of a pawn by Nc4.
28.exd4 Qb6 29.Ne2 d5 [1:54-2:25]
**Gunsberg: Making a strong effort to gain room for his knight and reckoning upon
recovering the pawn later on.
30.exd5 Nd6 31.Qa3
**Gunsberg: Best.
31...Kd8
**Gunsberg: A mistake which loses a piece. 31...Nef5 was the proper move.
Steinitz: Black first of all sacrificed the d-pawn in order to free his knight on the
twenty-ninth move, and this was seemingly good enough, but in reply to a cleverly
laid trap, Black played hastily his king, and committed one of those blunders which
perhaps more often in proportion occur in heavy match games among masters in
consequence of the great mental strain to which contestants are subjected than in
light skittles among inferior players. Such captious critics are apt to deride the
players when such a thing occurs, and I can only point out in anticipation of any
such remarks that a donkey will always go his trot without stumbling while a race-
horse may break neck or limbs in a run of a few seconds. After that I might have
perhaps improved my defense and made a harder fight of it, but naturally I got
demoralized.
32.a5 Nxb5
**Gunsberg: His only alternative would have been 32...Qxb5 33.Qxd6 Qxe2 34.Rxc8
+ Kxc8 35.Rc1+ Kd8 36.Ba4, and wins.
33.Qxe7+ Kxe7 34.axb6 axb6 35.Nc4 Ra8 [2:12-2:38] 36.Ra1 Nd6 37.
Nxb6 Rxa1 38.Rxa1 Bb5 39.Nf4 Kf7 40.Ne6 Re8 [2:15-2:45]
**Steinitz: Up to my forty-first move, and having very little time at my disposal by
the stop-clock, I merely went on in order to pass that point and then to resign if I
thought my game absolutely hopeless. There seemed to me some little chance for a
draw in case my opponent made some weak moves, and it was legitimate for me to
speculate upon that considering that I myself had committed a regular blunder.
Some players will in such a position try to weary out their antagonist, not alone by
the number of moves, but also by taking a long time for consideration. The former
is more justifiable than the latter, but it is altogether a matter of discretion, and I
think I may state that though I had plenty of time on my hands, I made my moves
rapidly . My opponent as an experienced master did not hurry himself and played
steadily and carefully. He avoided the exchange of rooks I was playing for, as then
I hade some chance to enter with my king in the center and stop the doubled pawn
or perhaps gain one or both of them, whereupon my passed b-pawn and the extra
pawn on the kingside could have made an excellent fight for a draw. It came
finally to a mating position from which there was no escape.
41.Ba4 Bxa4 42.Rxa4 g6 43.Nc4 Nf5 44.Rb4
**Gunsberg: Safer than 44.g4.
44...Re7 45.g4 Ng3 46.Nd6+ Kg8 47.Nxb7 Rd7 48.Nbc5 Rxd5 49.Kf2
**Gunsberg: Caught him.
49...Nf5 50.gxf5 Rxf5+ 51.Kg3 h5 52.Rb7 g5 53.Ne4 Kh8 [2:27-3:00]
54.Rg7 h4+ 55.Kg2 Ra5 56.Nxf6 Ra2+ 57.Kf1 [2:27-3:08] 1-0.
New-York Daily Tribune, 1890.12.16 & 17
GUNSBERG WINS AGAIN.
THE FIFTH GAME OF THE CHESS MATCH.
STEINITZ FOR THE THIRD TIME PLAYED THE
QUEENS GAMBIT - AN INTERESTING CONTEST.
:
Play in the Steinitz-Gunsberg chess match, which is taking place in this city under
the auspices of the Manhattan Chess Club, was temporarily suspended on Wednesday
at the request of the New-York player, who telegraphed from his home early that
morning, stating that he was suffering from a severe cold. He did not appear to be
completely recovered when play in the fifth game began at the usual hour yesterday
afternoon.
It was Steinitzs turn to play, and there was no little astonishment when for the third
time he offered a Queens Gambit, which Gunsberg this time did not decline. The
persistency of Steinitz in making this opening, after he had twice tried it and only
been so far successful as to bring about a draw in each occasion, cannot but be
admired by chess-players. Whether he expected Gunsberg, however, to accept the
proffered gambit or to reject it as he had previously done, is a matter for speculation.
Be that as it may, the Anglo-Hungarian showed himself a formidable antagonist on
this occasion, and he succeeded in producing in the course of his play some exciting
specimens of his powers of position judgment which cannot fail to prove attractive to
the student.
The spectators at an early stage were aroused from a comparatively passive interest
into one of unusual keenness, and a disciple of the principle of playing an open game
at an early stage in defending predicted on the third or fourth move a victory for
Gunsberg. As it happened, this premature prediction did finally meet with a
fulfilment.
Gunsbergs defence was based on the principles of the old masters in this opening,
particularly so with reference to his third move, P-K 4. Instead of proceeding in the
customary way by 4 B x P, Steinitz wiped out the opposing K P with his Q P, thus
enabling his antagonist to effect an exchange of Queens and neutralize the advantage
of the opening move. By the time the 10th move was completed on both sides,
Gunsberg had a slight advantage of postion, to which he soon afterward managed to
add the extra advantage of winning a Pawn by a very well wrought-out idea.
Steinitzs eleventh move was a weak one, and shortly after this Gunsberg managed to
effect such a distinct improvement in his game that it was seen that all he required to
do to become the master of the situation was to play with care. This he did by
repelling in an admirable manner the repeated onslaughts of his opponent on the
sixteenth, eighteenth and twentieth moves, and after clever play he announced mate in
fiveon his twenty-fifth move, Steinitz resigning at his twenty-ninth turn.
It will be seen by chess-players who study the game that Steinitz again played in
opposition to his own clearly defined principles by allowing his rival to obtain the
majority of Pawns on the Queens side.
CHESS STRATEGISTS AT PLAY.
GUNSBERG LEADS STEINITZ BY THE ODD GAME.
The Hungarian Added Another Masterpiece to the
Record - His Mate in FiveWas Brilliant - Steinitz was Nowhere.
:
Any one entering the Manhattan Chess Club just before 1 oclock yesterday
afternoon would have found the two chess masters, Steinitz and Gunsberg, seated in
friendly communion over a chess board in the club room, examining the position in
the Evans game which Steinitz is playing in his cable match with the Russian
champion Tschigorin. Steinitz did not, by any means, look bright; there were distinct
traces remaining of the indisposition which prevented his playing on Wednesday.
The opening of yesterdays game was another surprise to few early arrivals who
were watching the movements on the big club room board. In the first place Steinitz
for the third time offered a Queens Gambit, which this time, by the way of a change,
Gunsberg accepted. A pleasant variety was thus introduced, which was augmented
by Gunsbergs promptly hewing down the pawn. After the two previous games in
which he made a Q P opening had been drawn, Steinitz showed yesterday, in again
making the same opening, a perseverance which would suggest either that he thought
he had discovered really this time a solution which would enable him to win instead
of drawing, or that he was determined to play the same opening until he does win.
Gunsberg, however, with a wisdom which is very commendable, declined to give
his antagonist the opportunity of again testing the Queens Gambit declined, by
accepting the proffered gambit. The new turn which was thus given to affairs rapidly
developed new and interesting features. Upon the third move of black a strong
amateur player who was present said that this playing an open game by Gunsberg was
an excellent policy, and he would predict right off that the Hungarian would win.
This, of course, was rather a premature prophecy, but immediately afterward queens
were exchanged. Then Gunsberg once again put into practice the principles of his
opponent by acquiring a majority of pawns on the Queens side, and he was soon
generally pronounced to have by far the best position.
It will be seen on reference to the score of the game that Steinitz used twenty-three
minutes in considering his eleventh move, and it was decidedly entertaining to watch
him while he pondered over the board. At the beginning he complacently puffed his
cigar and toyed with the smoke as it curled upward from his lips, but after a while he
didnt seem quite so easy. Meanwhile Gunsberg gazed on with that appearance of
comfortable equinimity which one can always enjoy when witnessing the difficulties
of an adversary. At last, when twenty-three minutes had been remorselessly ticked
off by the eloquent little clock on his left, Steinitz pushed forward his K Kt and
relighted his cigar.
When the fourteenth move of white had been made his position was declared to be
an extremely bad one, and it was confidently predicted that Gunsberg had a win
clearly before him. A member, who is not considered by any means a strong player,
after consulting the board at this position said, I think I shall have to finish this match
for Steinitz. He cannot play any more. Matters went on in the same way for some
time longer, Steinitzs position becoming more and more hopeless as the game
proceeded. The excitement of the spectators grew with the increasing difficulties of
the great theorist and the corresponding improvement in the Hungarians prospects
until at last the climax came on Gunsbergs twenty-ninth move, which was
accompanied by the announcement that he had declared his intention of mating in
five moves. Suffice it to say that Steinitz resigned on his twenty-ninth move, with a
mate pending in two moves.
After the conclusion of the game, which was brought about after 2 hours and 5
minutes play, Steinitz was heard to declare his intention of playing the same opening
again on Monday when his turn comes, and in fact again and again until he wins it.
A more particular description of the play is as follows: Steinitz opened again the
Queens Gambit, which was accepted by Gunsberg, who defended in accordance with
the theories laid down by the old masters, principally so by advancing on his third
move P-K 4. Steintiz instead of proceeding in the usual way by 4 B x P, chopped off
the opponents K P at K 5, thereby enabling Gunsberg to exchange queens and
neutralize the advantage which a player, as a rule, possesses by having the opening
move. On his fourth move Gunsberg castled on the Q side with a check, and his
opponent then found a retreat for his king on B 2. After this the Hungarian proceeded
discreetly to the development of his pieces Steinitzs eleventh move, Kt-B 3, over
which he spent a great deal of time, was rather weak one, and on the twelfth move
Gunsberg had a little the better position of the two. Soon after this the latter, by a very
well conceived move, succeeded in winning a pawn, and he soon improved his game
so as to get a very good grip on his opponent. He never relaxed after once he had
gained the material advantage. He retailiated in a beautiful manner to the repeated
sorties of Steinitz - 16. Kt-R 4, 18. P-K B 4, 19. P-B 5, 20. P-K Kt 4. All these
aggressive movements were of no avail for the great theorist; they were first quietly
conteracted, and then assuming a powerful attack, Gunsberg reached the culminating
point of his clever play by announcing at his twenty-fifth turn mate in five. His play
for the mate proved as sound and brilliant as his whole game, and Steinitz resigned
when there was a mate in two moves.
GUNSBERG WINS AGAIN.
NOW LEADING IN HIS MATCH WITH MR. STEINITZ
Brilliant Contest, in Which the English Player Announced a
Mate in Five Moves - The Score Now Is: Gunsberg, Two; Steinitz,
One - The Next Game Saturday.
:
Mr. Steinitz put in an appearance yesterday in good time at the Manhattan Chess
Club. He explained that, having a slight cold, he did not care to venture out of the
house yesterday on account of the severe weather which raged in Upper Montclair, N.
J., the place of his residence. He seemed, however, to be in good form and in his
usual tenaciously combative mood. In spite if the fact that in the first and third game,
wherein he adopted the Q gambit, he could not make much headway, he nevertheless
persisted in playing this opening to-day, which, to tell the truth, was generally
expected by those who know him well. As on previous occasions, Gunsberg has
shown that he is entirely independent of any particular line of play or studied analysis
of the opening by again varying his line of defense as he accepted the proffered
gambit pawn. In consequence of the line of play pursued by Steinitz, Gunsberg, with
good judgment, effected advantageous exchange of queens, thereby forcing white to
move his king, while black himself castled on the ninth move.
The position that resulted from the opening manoeuvres brought whites king to
QB2 on the tenth move. From that point, with every succeeding move, black
developed his pieces in a telling way and brought increased and menacing pressure to
bear upon the exposed adverse king.
On the fifteenth move, by a combination of his minor pieces and probably also by
an error of judgment on the part of his opponent, black won a pawn. White did not
obtain the relief which he expected. On the contrary black directed his forces against
the exposed king with such effect that after twenty moves the coming catastrophe
could be foretold.
On the twenty-fourth move black saw winning chances, which he grasped, and
playing with great precision he obtained a position on the twenty-sixth move where,
by a brilliant coup, he was enabled to announce a mate in five moves.
Needless to say there was great pleasure and rejoicing among the chess
connoisseurs of the Manhattan Chess Club who had the privilege of witnessing this
fine game. The prophets, both on this and the other side of the Atlantic, will have to
find a new occupation. They ventured to predict - and Mr. Steinitzs reputation and
great achievements certainly warranted the forecast - that the veteran, as in past
matches, would have matters all his own way with the English player, but the result
shows that Gunsberg was too lightly reckoned and that once more he is following up
his former brilliant achievements by making such a bold stand against the undefeated
hero of twenty-five yearsbattle. Whatever the final result now may be the brave fight
will reflect honor on the younger player.
The sixth game will be played on Saturday. Gunsberg will have the move and
great anxiety prevails among the chess community whether now, with the score in his
favor, he will play an Evans gambit.
D20/03 Queens Gambit Accepted
1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4
**
Gunsberg: In the two former games played at this opening I declined the Queens
Gambit by 2...e6. This defense, in my opinion, leads to a close and often more
interesting game than can be obtained by accepting the gambit.
3.e3
**Gunsberg: Usually prefered to 3.e4. White may, however, simplify matters by 3.
Qa4+.
3...e5
**
Gunsberg: The best continuation at Blacks disposal.
Steinitz: Quit in the old style as played already by Labourdonnais and McDonnell.
4.dxe5
**Gunsberg: If now 4.Qa4+ Bd7 5.Qxc4 exd4 and Black obtains a speedier
development for his pieces.
Steinitz: The above masters invariably played here 4.Bxc4 instead.
4...Qxd1+
**Gunsberg: This exchange gives Black a slight superiority.
5.Kxd1 Nc6 [0:04-0:02]
**Gunsberg: 6.f4 may be played but the white pawns in the center would be
clumsily situated.
6.Bxc4 Nxe5 7.Bb5+
**Steinitz: This I already played against Chigorin in a consultation game; the object
is not to allow the knight to go back to c6, but it is probably better to retreat the
bishop to e2 at once.
7...c6 8.Be2 Be6 9.Nc3 0-0-0+ 10.Kc2
**Gunsberg: In hope of playing out his dark-square bishop and a-rook and retire his
king to b1.
10...Nf6 [0:11-0:05] 11.Nf3
**Gunsberg: 11.f3 instead seems preferable, although it would retard the
development of his g-knight.
Steinitz: 11.e4 or 11.f3 were the right moves at this juncture; and, in fact, the move
made loses the game by letting too many of the adverse pieces in against the king.
11...Neg4 [0:34-0:09] 12.Rf1 Bf5+ 13.Kb3
**Gunsberg: It is already plainly evident that White will not be able to place his king
in safety, as he imagined when playing 10.Kc2.
13...Nd7
**Gunsberg: The most forcible way to threaten with punishment the recklessly bold
monarch.
Steinitz: A very fine move which forces the gain of a pawn.
14.e4
**Gunsberg: The result of a miscalculation. White was of course bound to seek
some opening for his pieces, but he must been under the delusion also that Black
subsequently could not capture the pawn on account of the rejoinder 15.Nh4.
14...Nc5+ 15.Kc2 Nxe4 [0:38-0:19] 16.Nh4 Nxc3+ 17.Kxc3
**
Gunsberg: Whites idea was probably to get rid of the troublesome adverse bishop,
even at the cost of a pawn, but he probably overlooked the fact that if he now
would take the bishop, Black would win a piece by 17...Nxe2.
17...Be6 18.f4 Nf6 19.f5 Bd5 20.g4
**Steinitz: This is a bad move, and 20.Nf3 at once was undoubtedly the proper play.
20...Be7 [0:46-0:29]
**Gunsberg: Threatening ...Ne4+, which would win a piece.
Steinitz: Also a very fine move.
21.Kc2
**Steinitz: Forced as Black threatened to win a piece by ...Ne4+; nor could the g-
pawn advance, as it would be lost by the same sally.
21...Be4+ 22.Kb3 Nd7
**Gunsberg: Once more the self-same move comes in very forcibly.
23.g5 f6
**Gunsberg: Effectively stopping the desperate though harmless rush of these
pawns.
Steinitz: Very fine play, as White cannot advance the pawn without creating an
opening for the adverse rook that would be disastrous for him, and otherwise the
whole of Whites attack on the kingside is completely stopped.
24.Bg4
**Gunsberg: A move wholly without effect in preventing the speedy dissolution of
the game contemplated by Black.
Steinitz: 24.Be3 was now the only defense. The text move draws White into the
matenet.
24...Nc5+ 25.Ka3 Rd3+ [1:12-0:44] 26.b3
**Gunsberg: Black here announced mate in five moves.
Steinitz: As will be seen the mate is accomplished in a most ingenious manner.
26...Na4+ 27.Kxa4 Rd4+ 28.b4 Rxb4+ [1:15-0:50] 0-1.
**Gunsberg: If 29.Ka3, mate follows by 29...Rb5+ 30.Ka4 Bc2#. Or if 29.Ka5 b6+
30.Ka6 Ra4#.
MR. STEINITZ WINS AGAIN.
THE CHESS MATCH MADE A TIE.
REFUSING TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE TIME LIMIT - THE GAME.
:
The sixth game in the match between Steinitz and Gunsberg, which was played
yesterday, proved more interesting to the spectators in some respects than any of its
predecessors. There was a better attendance than usual in the Manhattan Chess
Clubs rooms. When play began and for some time before the adjournment of the
afternoon session there was an excited crowd gathered round the show-board in the
big club-room, discussing in an unusually animated manner each move as it was
made and the position of the game generally.
Steinitz was undoubtedly ill after spending one of his bad nights, while Gunsberg
began the fight under the auspicious and encouraging circumstances of being a game
ahead of his antagonist. The younger player brought a surprised look to the face of
the veteran when he opened the game by P-Q 4, this time putting Steinitz in the
position of defending a Q P opening, instead of carrying on the attack.
When about fifteen moves had been made Steinitz was considered to have achieved
the advantage of position, and his game was declared to be in a great measure
superior to that of his rival. Gunsberg, however, fought gallantly and managed to rid
himself of many of the difficulties which beset his forces, and then Steinitz lost a
pawn, which somewhat changed the aspect of what had hitherto been looked upon as
a fine game for the theorist. A few more moves, however, and matters began to look
much more promising for Steinitz.
It is a peculiar coincidence and one deserving mention, that Gunsberg again was
the one of [sic] seal his move at the adjournment, which has been the case on every
previous occasion. On all hands it was considered that the position as the contestants
left it for the intermission was a very difficult one, and nobody ventured to declare
that either one or the other of the players had the advantage. Playing under heavy
pressure of time and in an extremely difficult and almost hopeless position, Gunsberg
managed by a clever effort to bring into play his two Bishops, which had previously
been lying in a useless and blocked position. Finally, however, after Steinitz had
declined to claim a win because of his opponents having exceeded the time limit, he
announced on his forty-first move Mate in three,and brought the game to an
admirable and beautiful conclusion accordingly.
Taking the game from the beginning and dealing more particularly with the play, it
will bee seen that Black was the first to advance Q B P, which is out of the usual
groove. After White had castled, Black seemed in no hurry to place his King in
security, but proceeded first to develop the Queens side. Whites eigth move,
sometimes favored by Bird and Gunsberg, is one of which Steinitz disapproves.
Black made his eigth and ninth moves with the intention of opening a centre and
Kings side attack, which is scarecly in accordance with Steinitzs style. On his
thirteenth move Steinitz began to press his pawns on the Queens side, and was
thereby successful in blocking both the adverse Bishops. Complications here seemed
to arise and sacrificing tactics were expected by the onlookers. Steinitz, however,
says that such a proceeding was not justified by analysis. Black lost a pawn on his
twenty-second move, and as a matter of fact Steinitz himself admits that this was the
result of an oversight, but fortunately for him, as the result proved, it led to a strong
attack which caused White ultimately to spend thirty-four minutes in deliberation
upon his twenty-seventh move, which was the one he sealed.
After the adjournment Blacks attention was directed to the concentration of his
pieces against the King, and also to the prevention as far as possible of the exchanges
which his adversary was evidently contemplating. His Rooks also became harassing
to the adverse Queen, and White was finally obliged to give up the extra pawn, which
had yielded him some hope of fighting effectually for a draw. Furthermore,
Gunsbergs Kings side was altogether compromised, but he made a sturdy defence.
For a long time he warded off the disaster which loomed inevitably before him, but
finally was obliged to succumb after the thirty-ninth move of his opponent which
brought inevitably in its train a mate in a few more moves.
KNIGHTS AT THE BOARD.
HONORS DIVIDED SO FAR IN A SPLENDID FIGHT.
The Veteran Gave a Magnificent Display of Playing
Chess - True, He Blundered Once, but this Gave Him an Attack
Which Gunsberg Could Not Defend.
:
The sixth game in the Steinitz-Gunsberg chess match began yesterday morning, at
the Manhattan Chess Club, under the most favorable conditions for the player from
England, and he seemed perfectly at ease with himself and on good terms with the
rest of the world. There must have been a great deal of satisfaction to him in the
reflection that he was already leading, with two wins to his opponents one. Then,
again, another thing greatly in his favor was the fact that undeniably Steinitz was
unwell. In fact, in answer to a question on this point, Steinitz said he had scarcely
had a wink of sleep all through the preceeding night and, furthermore, he had been
obliged to leave home without his breakfast. It could be easily seen from his
appearance that he was far from well, but if anything was required to make assurance
on his head doubly sure, it is only necessary to add that the ever-constant Steinitzian
cigar was absent during yesterdays play. He had no heart for it, and those who know
him will understand from this that his indisposition was not a trifling one.
The opening of the game was perhaps its most amusing feature. Gunsberg had the
start, and he played P Q 4! Steinitz looked and looked at the board, and at last he
smiled a faint smile.
What, is it Q P you play?
Yes, I am going to try your game,replied the Hungarian.
His next move, however, proclaimed it to be his intention to introduce a fresh
variety of the Q P opening. During the early part of play Gunsberg rather
handicapped himself by attending to the keeping of a double score of the game. After
making his twelfth move his attention was so far distracted from the board that he got
up from the table and left his clock still going. After the lapse of about a minute his
attention was drawn to the fact, and for the moment he seemed to be under the
impression that his opponent had replied. A glance at the board, however, showed
him what was the matter, and he pressed down his clock and started that of his
adversary, explaining, as he quickly looked up, It was my own fault. When Steinitz
realized the position of things, of which he had hitherto remained oblivious, he said
he thought the mistake should be rectified by Gunsberg putting back his clock; but the
latter decided not to take advantage of the permission which had been given him to
retrieve the lost time.
As the play progressed from the twelfth to the nineteenth move the opinion of the
majority of the spectators quickly developed in favor of Steinitz, and it was declared
that with equally careful play to that which he had already shown, he would be certain
to win. It was a noticeable fact here, too, that he had the majority of pawns on the Q
side, and with a superior game it might be said that his theory thus received a further
proof of its soundness.
Almost from the beginning of play there was a large attendance of members and
visitors in the club room, and they were soon rewarded by something interesting.
Indeed, by the time white had made his twentieth move there was more than the usual
excitement, and blacks reply was awaited with a considerable degree of interest and
anxiety. Steinitz deliberated twenty-five minutes on this move.
The clever and astute defence of Gunsberg, however, was such as to minimize the
evils which surrounded his positionand the tables were somewhat by what was
pronounced to be a blunder on the part of Steinitz in the twenty-second move, which
resulted in his losing a pawn. Some rather weak play by Gunsberg, however,
neutralized the advantage of the pawn ahead [...]
For the fifth time Gunsberg was the player to seal his move at the adjournment,
and so grave did he evidently consider his position at this point that he consumed
thirty-four minutes in considering the move. Just before 5 oclock Steinitz
accidentally touched Gunsbergs foot beneath the table. In his abstraction, instead of
uttering the customary form of apology, he exclaimed, Jdoube,which is the
prescribed formula when a player touches a piece for the purpose of adjusting it
simply, and without the intention of playing it. When play was resumed none of the
spectators were sufficiently venturesome to say that either player had the best of the
game. Later, Gunsbergs position grew worse, and, as he was laboring under great
time pressure on account of the thirty-four minutes he had consumed on his twenty-
seventh turn, his position was declared to be almost without hope. He had at this
stage only six minutes in which to make eight moves, while Steinitz, having plenty of
time in accumulation, played with great deliberation, evidently forgetting that by so
doing he was allowing his opponent to utilize the time so spent in studying a way of
escape. Ultimately Gunsberg exceeded the time limit, and although Steinitz could
have claimed the game as a win on this account, he refused to do so. A move or two
later Steinitz, on his forty-first turn, announced mate in three, which he accomplished
in a brilliant and ingenious manner. All through the day the veteran had eschewed the
friendly cigar, but when he had finished play in this satisfactory manner he lighted
one with evident enjoyment.
Steinitz supplies the following description of the game: Black was the first to
advance the Q B P which is a proceeding out of the usual groove. After white had
castled, black proceeded to develop the Q side first, and did not hurry to get his K
into security. Whites eigth move was one which is sometimes favored by Bird and
Gunsberg, but the modern school disapproves of it. Blacks eighth and ninth moves
were made with a view of opening a centre and kings side attack, which is very rarely
in my style. On the thirteenth move black began to press his pawns on the Q side and
thereby succeeded in blocking the two adverse bishops. Complications seemed to
arise and sacrificing tactics were probably expected, but they were hardly justifiable
in analysis. At his twenty-second move black lost a pawn. To tell the truth, this was
nothing but an oversight at the time, but nevertheless it led to a very strong attack,
which it was so difficult for white to repel that he took thirty-four minutes to consider
his twenty-seventh move, which he sealed for the adjournment.
On the resumption of play black directed his attention to the concentration of his
pieces against the king and at the same time to preventing, as much as possible, the
exchanges which his opponent was aiming at. His rooks became very harassing to
the adverse Q, and white had ultimately to give the extra pawn, which, under the
circumstances - his position being altogether inferior - had yielded him some hope of
fighting effectually for a draw. His kings side was altogether compromised, but he
made a sturdy defence, and staved off for a long time the inevitable disaster. He was
also very much pressed for time, and had to make nine moves in eight minutes.
Blacks thirty-ninth move was a coup which virtually settled the matter by forcing
mate in a few moves.
NOW ITS MR. STEINITZ.
He Is Tied with Mr. Gunsberg in the Chess Match.
:
A numerous and illustrious crowd packed the handsome rooms of the Manhattan
Chess Club to witness the sixth game of the great chess match. The President, Prof.
Isaac Rice, and the Vice-President, Col. Betts, of the Club, were early on hand in the
playersroom, while the masters of the New York chess community, E. Delmar, S.
Lipschutz, J. Hanham, A. Hodges and numerous others watched the progress of
yesterdays contest.
The opening moves were wuite a disappointment to the spectators, as they hoped
for an Evans Gambit,or at least a repetition of Gunsbergs aggressive tactics in the
Giuoco Piano.
The English player, however, started with P-Q4, and proceeded thereafter to
develop his forces without offering the gambit usually connected with that opening.
The line of play adopted by the English champion, though leading to a dull game, is
theoretically perfectly safe, but the first player was not always at his best and was
soon compelled to move his Q B P, which gave him an inferiority of the position,
besides condemning his Q B to inactivity. Black instituted an attack with his pawns
on the queens wing and a difficult and complicated position arose. The second player
made a few feeble queen moves and gave his opponent, unnecessarily, an opportunity
to win a pawn on his twenty-third move.
The game was now in whites favor, but the latter, too eager to fortify the position
of his pawns on the queen side, lost two valuable moves by advancing his Q R P, and,
moreover, allowed black a wide range for his two bishops. At the time of the
adjournment Mr. Gunsberg, realizing the dangerous state of his game, was so excited
that he twice left the playing-room before sealing his move, for which to decide he
consumed fully thirty-five minutes. After the adjournment, at 7 oclock, white had but
half an hour in which to make fourteen moves. A well-directed sacrifice of a pawn
gave him considerable relief, but in spite of intense concentration, time slipped by
and amid great excitement it was noticed that Gunsbergs clock stood at five minutes
to the hour and he had yet six moves to make. Those present in the room could not
but admire the coolness with which up to that point white resisted the attack, but the
last five minutes proved too much for him, and his opponent, taking forcible
advantage of the position, managed by a clever sacrifice of his B to bring about a
mating position on the forty-third move. Score - Gunsberg, 2; Steinitz, 2; drawn, 2.
D05/05 Queens Pawn: Closed (Rubinstein)
1.d4 d5 2.e3 e6 3.Bd3 c5
**Steinitz: It is a curious feature of this game that, while White retains the c-pawn,
Black, although second player, is the first to advance that pawn. As will be seen,
White intends to turn the game into an ordinary Fianchetto di Donna.
4.b3 Nc6 5.Nf3 Nf6 [0:02:30-0:04:00] 6.0-0 Bd7 7.Bb2 Rc8
**Gunsberg: A good move played with the object of continuing with ...Nb4.
Steinitz: This threatens, after exchanging pawns, ...Nb4, with a good game.
8.c3
**Gunsberg: A very disagreeable alternative.
Steinitz: Hardly advisable in this and similar situations.
8...Bd6
**Steinitz: Usually the defense plays ...Be7 in this opening, but, as White has
blocked his own dark-square bishop, Black is justified in altering his tactics.
9.Nbd2 e5
**Gunsberg: Always a forcible move in similar positions.
Steinitz: As in a similar position in the match between Steinitz and Chigorin at
Havana.
10.dxe5 Nxe5 [0:16-0:15] 11.Nxe5 Bxe5 12.Nf3 Bb8 13.h3
**Steinitz: There was hardly any necessity for this move, which is generally
disadvantageous.
13...c4 14.Bc2 0-0 15.Qd4 Re8 [0:33-0:24] 16.Rad1 b5 17.b4
**Gunsberg: White already has a serious disadvantage by having his dark-sqaure
bishop blocked in.
17...Qc7 18.Rfe1
**Gunsberg: An unnecessary move. White ought to have proceeded at once with 18.
Qh4.
18...Re7 19.Kf1
**Gunsberg: If 19.e4 Black plays 19...dxe4 20.Bxe4 Rd8 which makes it
uncomfortable for White. The text move was played to gain time if necessary to be
able to play his knight.
Steinitz: He might have better utilized his time by playing first 19.Rd2, with a
view of bringing the bishop back to d1.
19...Rce8 20.Qh4 Qd6 [0:53-1:09]
**Steinitz: If 20...Re4 21.Bxe4 Rxe4 22.g4 h5 23.Ng5 and Black gets nothing for the
loss of the exchange. But anyhow the text move was a waste of time, and Black
should have played 20...Qc6 at once.
21.Rd4 Qc6
**Gunsberg: These are aimless moves which lose time.
22.Red1 Be5
**Gunsberg: A curious oversight by which he loses a valuable pawn.
Steinitz: An oversight which loses a pawn. Black as it happens obtains a strong
attack by the loss of the pawn, as he liberates his light-square bishop.
23.Rxd5 Bb8
**Gunsberg: He would be mated if he took the rook with his knight.
24.a4
**Gunsberg: The best play for White would have been to retire the rook at once to
d2.
24...a6
**Steinitz: Black could not take the pawn without getting the disadvantage by the
reply 25.b5, followed by 26.Ba3.
25.a5
**Gunsberg: This move gives Black a wide range for his pieces.
25...h6 [1:37-1:25]
**Steinitz: A little too late.
26.R5d4 Qb7 (Adjourned) [1:40-1:26] 27.Ne1 (Sealed)
**Gunsberg: This move was sealed. White was afraid of Black playing ...Bc6,
followed by ...Qc7 etc.
27...Be5 [2:15-1:26] 28.R4d2 Bc7
**Steinitz: Black has gained an important move by this maneuver, whereby he
prevents the exchanging of rooks at later stages.
29.Re2 Re5
**Gunsberg: A strong move. He threatens ...Rh5, followed by ...Bxh3 or ...Rxh3.
Steinitz: Threatening ...Rh5.
30.f3
**
Gunsberg: The only move to counteract Blacks powerful stroke. Although he
gives up a pawn White gains considerable relief for a time.
Steinitz: About the only move.
30...Rxe3 [2:28-1:53] 31.Rxe3
**Gunsberg: 31.Be4 would not have been good on account of 31...Nxe4 32.Rxe3
Ng3+ 33.Kf2 Rxe3 34.Rxd7 Re2+ and mates in two more moves.
Steinitz: If 31.Be4, which White probably speculated upon, then 31...R8xe4 32.
fxe4 Bg3 and wins.
31...Rxe3 32.Bc1
**Gunsberg: A very useful move if Black now plays 32...Rxc3, White gets pull by
33.Bb2.
32...Re5
**Gunsberg: If White now plays 33.Bf4 and Black replies with 33...Rh5 34.Qg3
Rxh3 35.gxh3 Nh5 36.Qh4, White gets the best of it. But an interesting variation
arises if, after White playing 33.Bf4, Black should continue with 33...Rh5 34.Qg3
Rg5 35.Qh2 Bxf4 36.Qxf4 Nd5 37.Rxd5 Rxd5 (he cannot take with the queen
because of 38.Qb8+.) 38.Be4, etc.
Steinitz: White threatened Bxh6, which is now prevented, as Black would
answer ...Rh5. The text move was also better than 32...Rxc3, as White would
answer 33.Bb2, with an excellent attack.
33.Qf2 Qc6 34.Be3
**Gunsberg: 34.g4 might perhaps have been played here.
34...Re8 35.Qd2 Qe6 [2:42-2:11] 36.Bd4
**Gunsberg: If 36.Bf4, Black plays 36...Bxf4 37.Qxf4 Qe2+ 38.Kg1 Qe3+ 39.Qxe3
Rxe3 40.Kf2 Rxc3 41.Rd6, with a good game.
36...Nh5 37.Bf2
**Steinitz: If 37.Bxg7 Ng3+ 38.Kg1 Kxg7, and obviously White dare not take the
bishop as mate would follow in a few moves, beginning with 39...Qe3+.
37...Bc6 38.Bb1 Qe5 39.Nc2 Bxf3
**Gunsberg: All these moves were made under great time pressure. Black now
seizes a chance for a pretty mating combination.
Steinitz: This is decisive.
40.gxf3
**Gunsberg: If 40.Re1 Bxg2+ 41.Kxg2 Qh2+ 42.Kf1 Qh1+ 43.Bg1 etc., the same as
in the text.
40...Qh2 41.Qd7 Qh1+ 42.Bg1 Qxf3+ 43.Bf2 Ng3+ [2:47-2:29] 0-1.
**Gunsberg: Mate follows next move.
STEINITZ LEADS AGAIN.
A DECISIVE VICTORY OVER GUNSBERG.
THE GAME MARKED BY SOME OF THE FINEST
PLAY OF THE MATCH
:
The seventh game in the chess match which is being played in this city between
Messrs. Steinitz, of New-York, and Gunsberg, of London, was contested yesterday,
and ended in a decisive victory for Steinitz. Reference to the score will show the
reader that this game contains some finer plays than have yet been witnessed in the
course of the match.
Steinitz fulfilled his openly declared intention of again playing a Queens Gambit,
which Gunsberg accepted. The first player, however, introduced at his third move a
variation which he did not adopt in the fifth game, and by this move he prevented
Gunsberg from pursuing the tactics in which he was so successful on the former
occasion. Both masters castled on the Kings side on the sixth and seventh moves
respectively, and at that time the game presented a compact appearance.
With his fifth move Steinitz began a fine combination, and was materially assisted
in the execution of his strategical project by the mediocre play of his adversary. First
the Hungarian exchanged his bishop for a knight, whereby Steinitz succeeded in
getting an entrance for his Q B on R 3. Then Black compromised his position still
further by offering the exchange of bishops, which, according to Steinitzs views, lost
him the game. Then, again, Gunsbergs fourteenth move was an unsound one, and all
these circumstances combined ultimately enabled the veteran player to give some
brilliant specimens of chess, which, at the same time, were entirely sound.
On his seventeenth move, P x P, the eminent theorist left a knight en prise; on his
twenty-second turn, by playing R x Kt, he sacrificed the exchange, and then he
showed the finest bit of play in the entire contest by sacrificing the queen afterward
regaining it, and finally establishing two passed pawns on the queens and kings
seventh squares. After a series of brilliant finishing moves on the part of Steinitz,
Gunsberg was finally compelled to resign on his twenty-eighth move. The play
occupied only about three hours. On account of the approaching holidays, no further
game will be played until Saturday.
The score now stands: Steinitz, 3; Gunsberg, 2; drawn, 2.
THE CHESS CHAMPIONSHIP.
STEINITZ AGAIN LEADS HIS OPPONENT
IN THE GREAT MATCH.
The Veteran Played in His Old Form - He Gave A Most
Beautiful Specimen of Brilliant and Sound Play - Gunsberg
Was Outplayed at Every Stage of the Game - A Masterpiece of the
Royal Sport.
:
A few days ago, after he had lost his second game, Steinitz declared his intention
of playing the same opening - the Queens Gambit - until he succeeded in winning it.
Yesterday it was his turn to open, and when he offered a Queens Gambit the almost
universal feeling of the chess players who were watching the encounter was
expressed by a spectator, who said: Well, Steinitz tires me by this. Notwithstanding,
the game soon opened up some interesting features for the delectation of the
spectators, of whom a goodly number had assembled in the rooms of the Manhattan
Chess Club, where the match is being fought.
Gunsberg accepted the proffered gambit, and then on his third turn Steinitz played
Kt-K B 3, and thereby prevented his adversary from pursuing similar tactics to those
which he adopted in the fifth game by replying 3...P-K 4, and which on the former
occasion brought about the exchange of queens at a very early stage, and almost
secured for the Hungarian a winning position.
Yesterdays game was quickly developed after the first few moves. It presented a
very solid appearance when both players had castled on the kings side. Evidently the
movements of Steinitz brought considerable difficulty to his opponent, who had to
think very long and very deeply. On his fifteenth move he consumed thirty minutes
and at this time the older player had the advantage of thirty-two minutes saved, with
the superior position. Gunsbergs thirteenth move was described by a strong amateur
as a stunner,but another controverted this statement by saying that Kt to R 3 was far
better for purposes of development, and a little later the first man was bound to admit
that the Hungarian had been entirely outmanoeuvred by the veteran player.
As the game progressed Steinitz gradually assumed a distinct superiority of
position, and ultimately brought about a brilliant combination by the sacrifice of a
knight on his seventeenth move, and later on the exchange, which was declared to
give him a certain win. With the excellent combination he had achieved he pressed
forward his attack in a manner which Gunsberg found it impossible to resist, although
at times he made some good defensive moves, and on the whole fought well. The
brilliant consummation of Steinitzs scheme, however, was as irresistible as it was
pretty, and this game may claim to rank first among the seven which have been
played in this encounter as affording really fine specimens of chess play. On his
twenty-eighth move Gunsberg bowed to the inevitable and resigned.
In regard to his having offered the Queens Gambit so many times in succession
Steinitz says he knows there are some people who object to this repetition of the same
opening. My answer is,he says, that Morphy always played a Ruy Lopez in a match.
It was only in skittle games that he varied his openings. Zukertort almost invariably
played P-Q 4 as first player. In former days I used to play a variety of openings but
latterly I have taken to playing one with which I am familiar.
My memory,he proceeded to explain, is not so good as it was, and I cannot always,
in a complicated position, rely on book knowledge. Nevertheless, I always try to
introduce something original or new, even in the openings, as I play them. I have
done so in the match with Tschigorin, and I also think I introduced some fair
novelties in my match with Zukertort.
STEINITZ LEADS AGAIN.
OPENING WITH THE QUEENS GAMBIT HE WINS EASILY.
Constant and Merciless Attack Mark
His Play in the Seventh Game of the Series-Gunsberg,
Apparently in Poor Form, an Easy Prey for the
Onslaught-A Short Game as to Moves.
:
One third of the games in the chess contest have been played and Mr. Steinitz leads
by one game. His opponent, who was evidently not himself on Saturday, failed sadly
to recover his form. Mr. Steinitz tenaciously adhered to his Queens Gambit and
scored for the first time as leading player. Indeed, the Queens Pawn opening needed
a rehabilitation.
Mr. Gunsberg committed an error of judgment early in the opening by pinning the
adverse Kt with his K B. In the course of events he had to exchange it, and he
labored from this point under serious disadvantage. His fourteenth move
compromised his position still more, while his sixteenth move rendered his game
untenable.
Mr. Steinitz, whose play recalled the winner of the Vienna tournament, 1873,
pressed the attack with merciless precision, and finished off by a crushing sacrifice of
the exchange. For six more moves Gunsberg struggled bravely, then he surrendered,
after not quite three hoursplay.
A recess will be taken during the holidays. The next game, the eighth, will be
played at the usual place and hour on Saturday.
D26/01 Queens Gambit Accepted: Classical
1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.Nf3
**Gunsberg: Better than 3.e3 as played in the fifth game, as it prevents the strong
rejoinder 3...e5.
Steinitz: Certainly a very strong move; introduced by Blackburne in the Vienna
tournament of 1873.
3...Nf6
**Steinitz: If 3...b5 4.a4 c6 5.axb5 cxb5 6.b3 recovering the pawn with a superior
game.
4.e3 e6
**Gunsberg: An attempt to defend the gambit pawn by 4...b5 would be bad, as
White would continue by 5.a4, followed eventually by pawn to b3, etc. Blacks
later trouble may be ascribed to this move, as afterwards he will be compelled to
give up the bishop for the adverse b-knight which is disadvantageous to him, as
White gets control of an important diagonal by Ba3. Blacks reply should have
been 5...Be7.
5.Bxc4 Bb4+ [0:04-0:06]
**Steinitz: Not to be approved of, though twice before in this contest Gunsberg
adopted it in a similar position, and the games were finally drawn.
6.Nc3 0-0 7.0-0 b6
**Gunsberg: Here 7...Nbd7 seems preferable.
Steinitz: This move makes it a sort of Fianchetto di Donna.
8.Ne5
**Steinitz: Chiefly with a view of playing pawn to f3, thus counteracting the bearing
of the adverse light-square bishop on the long diagonal against the queenside.
8...Bb7 9.Qb3 Bxc3
**Steinitz: Although White threatened Bxe6 and then to come out with a rook and
two strong center pawns against two minor pieces, it would have been somewhat
better to face that combination, as the white pawns could not be made available for
some time, than to strengthen Whites center with the text move.
10.bxc3 Bd5 [0:11-0:25]
**Gunsberg: A necessary precaution, as White threatened to win a rook and two
pawns for two minor pieces by either Nxf7 or Bxe6, which would have been all the
more dangerous if he had been given time to play Ba3 and pawn to f4 first.
Steinitz: A weak move, though no doubt made with the intention of effecting
exchanges and simplifying matters. The drawback was that the bishop protected
the holeat c6.
11.Bxd5 exd5 12.Ba3 Re8 13.c4 c5
**Gunsberg: This seems the right move, as White threatened pawn to c5.
Steinitz: A very fine defensive move.
14.Rac1
**Steinitz: As the sequel shows, the rook was very well placed here.
14...Ne4
**Gunsberg: A move which virtually loses the game, as it enables White to gain
important time for bringing his f-rook into a commanding position on d1. The
correct play was 14...dxc4, followed by ...Qd5, but even then the utmost caution
was necessary.
Steinitz: Blacks game was extremely difficult, but he facilitates matters here for
the opponent. Still the manner in which White afterward took advantage of this
move was not easily to be foreseen, and it seemed to be a feasible to try to drive off
the adverse knight.
15.Rfd1 cxd4 [0:29-1:01] 16.exd4 f6
**Gunsberg: Which compromises his game even more. 16...Nf6 was his best
defense.
17.cxd5
**Gunsberg: White seizes the opportunity and presses the attack in brilliant and
vigorous style.
Steinitz: The beginning of a series of sacrificing tactics.
17...fxe5 18.d6+ Kh8 19.Qd5 Nxf2
**Steinitz: Black makes an excellent defense, which renders it very difficult for the
opponent to maintain his advantage of position. If 19...exd4 20.Rxd4 (not 20.
Qxa8, on account of 20...Nc3, followed by ...Ne2+, which would give Black
drawing chances).
20.Rd2
**Gunsberg: With his usual precision White chooses the strongest continuation.
20...Nd7 [1:00-1:21]
**Gunsberg: Hopeless as his game is there were still more chances in 20...Nh3+
instead of the move in the text, for if then 21.gxh3 Qg5+ 22.Rg2 Qe3+ 23.Kh1
Qxa3 with much better chances.
Steinitz: The position is now extremely interesting, and at first sight it might look
as if Black would have done better by proceeding with 20...Nh3+; but then might
have followed 21.gxh3 Qg5+ 22.Rg2 Qe3+ 23.Kh1 Qxa3 24.Rcg1, with a winning
game.
21.Rxf2 Nf6 22.Rxf6
**Gunsberg: Finishing off in high style.
Steinitz: A decisive combination of rare interest.
22...gxf6
**Gunsberg: No better would have been 22...Qxf6, as White would continue with 23.
d7 Rf8 (best) 24.Bxf8 Rxf8 25.Qf3, and whether Black exchanges queens or not,
Whites passed d-pawn will ultimately win the game.
Steinitz: No better was 22...Qxf6 23.d7 Rf8 (or 23...Red8 24.dxe5, followed
mostly by Qxa1) 24.Bxf8 Rxf8 25.Qf3, and wherever the queen may move to
White takes the rook with a check,followed by Rc8 and wins.
23.d7 Rg8 24.dxe5 Rg5
**Gunsberg: He has nothing else, as the advance of the e-pawn would decide the
game in a few strokes.
Steinitz: He had no good defense. If 24...fxe5 25.Bb2, and wins in a few moves.
25.Qxa8
**Steinitz: Quite a little surprise.
25...Qxa8 [1:05-1:35] 26.Rc8+ Rg8 27.Rxa8 Rxa8 28.e6[1:05-1:36] 1-0.
**
Steinitz: Of course one of the two pawns must queenwith facility.
THE EIGHTH GAME A DRAW.
CONTINUATION OF THE CHESS MATCH.
GUNSBERG PLAYED THE GIUOCO PIANO OPENING
-STEINITZ STILL LEADS BY ONE GAME.
:
After a few daysrest, which ought to have had a salutary effect upon both players,
Messrs. Steinitz and Gunsberg resumed their match for the chess championship
yesterday at the rooms of the Manhattan Chess Club in this city. In opening the
eighth game of the contest Gunsberg, who had the move, played for the second time a
Giuoco Piano, which, however, was this time varied on the fifth move by his playing
P-Q B 3, the move generally recognized and adopted as the best, instead of castling,
as he did on the former occasion.
As the game proceeded it failed to awaken the interest of the spectators, who would
idly glance over the game now and again, but who in the main found more interest in
playing games among themselves, in studying problems, or in analyzing positions.
On the whole, the conclusion of yesterdays game points to a fair degree of equality in
the mastersplay, for at no point did either appear to possess a distinct advantage over
his antagonist; and yet this very fact was perhaps what divested the game of those
brilliancies which are best seen when one player gets very much the better of the
other.
However that may be, yesterdays game, from the spectatorspoint of view, was the
least interesting of the eight which have been played in this match.
At the best there is little of an adventurous character about a Giuoco Piano
opening, and usually the issue is a draw. Gunsbergs fifth move, already alluded to,
may be said to have been a little more advantageous to him than his move in the
former game as this point. Steinitz was compelled to change his tactics two moves
later, for it would not have been wise for him to pursue his former policy by playing
Kt-Q R 4, inasmuch as Whites B had a convenient point of retreating at Q B 2, and
Blacks Kt would at the same time have been put in danger.
A new line of play was instituted by Steinitz at his eighth turn, when he drew back
his Kt-Q sq. with the idea of defending with his Q Kt an almost certain attack on the
K side. As was anticipated, Gunsberg instituted this attack. Steinitz missed an
opportunity at this point and his opponent was enabled to undouble his pawns, while
the Black King was compelled to seek shelter on the Q side without being allowed a
chance to castle. There are really no other points deserving of particular mention,
except that Gunsberg offered a draw on the thirty-first move, which Steinitz
declined. On the thirty-sixth move, however, the great theoristhimself appeared to
think this was the only expedient, so he proposed a draw which was accepted. The
position of affairs now stands at three wins for Steinitz, two for Gunsberg and three
drawn games.
CHESS CHAMPIONS ENGAGED.
THE EIGHTH GAME OF THE MATCH ENDS IN A DRAW.
Gunsberg Again Opened a Giuoco Piano, but the
Veteran Plays a Sterling Defence-The Game was Fought
Evenly Throughout-No Fireworksin It.
:
Christmas Day, with its festivities is past, and the reaction which as a rule follows
upon a season of merriment was apparent on every hand yesterday at the Manhattan
Chess Club just before the time for the resumption of play in the match between
Steinitz and Gunsberg. The two masters appeared to be equally under the influence
of retrospective reflections upon joys that were no more, while one of the most
constant followers of the play in this match, a well-known amateur player, was in
such a quiet, grave mood that one could hardly get rid of the notion that he was still
ruminating over his Christmas turkey and plum pudding.
After play had been going on for a while, members and visitors began to increase
in number in the club room, but there was a sort of languid indifference in the manner
of most of them as the entered - an appearance which seemed to tell of a surfeit of
good things, the mere recollection of which was sufficient for the time to deprive
even the great chess encounter of the interest and attractiveness which is has hitherto
possessed for them.
There was nothing in the opening if the eighth game to banish the general languor.
Gunsberg, whose turn it was to move first, played a sort of Sponziani [sic] variation
of the Giuoco Piano opening. A similar opening was played by Tschigorin in his first
game against Gunsberg in Havana a year ago, and on that occasion the Russian
vanquished his opponent. Yesterday when the Hungarian played 6. B-K 3, Steinitz,
as he did in a former game in the present match, replied by clearing off the bishop, a
move which is in opposition to the long-established and adopted principles of most of
the leading masters.
It is a noteworthy fact that after nineteen moves had been made not a single pawn
had been taken. Another thing which is charged with some interest is made apparent
when one looks back upon the game already played. Gunsberg, in almost every
instance, has effected a considerable saving of time in the opening, but just as
consistently has Steinitz given him something to think about in the middle game, and
here the younger player has spent so much time in thought that he has more than once
hampered his end play by being compelled to move rapidly under heavy time
pressure.
The first twenty moves in yesterdays game were made very quickly by both
players, who had each nearly an hour in which to make the last three moves prior to
the adjournment of the afternoon sitting.
In regard to the character of the game, it was one which was so safely played on
both sides that it admitted of no display of brilliancy whatever. As a matter of fact, it
has now come to be accepted almost as an axiom that any well-played game, in which
neither player makes a grave or material mistake, will naturally conclude in a draw,
although such a game, as a rule, is far less interesting than one which results in
victory or defeat. In the last mentioned category are to be found the games which
have made a stir in the chess world. Yesterdays game, belongs, as it does, to the
evenly fought class, was pronounced by many of the spectators present as a very tame
one. No single feature in it seemed to arouse anything more than a mere ordinary
interest. Indeed, if there was any interest at all manifested, it was rather of the
passive that the active order. Gunsberg offered a draw on his thirty-first move, but
Steinitz seemingly thought he could do something better with his game, for he
declined the proposal. It could not be seen by the onlooker, however, that he had any
advantage which would be likely to prove valuable to him, and after a few more
moves he evidently changed his mind; he in turn proposed a draw, which Gunsberg
accepted. It was 4:45 when the game was thus terminated, and at that time the
position was one in which neither player seemed to have the slightest advantage. The
score now stands: Steinitz, 3; Gunsberg, 2; drawn, 3.
THE THIRD DRAWN GAME.
Steinitz and Gunsberg Renew Their
Chess Battle.
Steinitz Has Won Three and the Londoner Two
of the Contest-A Stubborn Fight in the Rooms of the
Manhattan Chess Club-The Next Game Will Be Played To-morrow.
:
The recess since Monday last in the play of the chess match has increased the
curiosity of chess-players to know which of the two combatants now wrestling for the
worlds championship will gain a decided lead over his opponent. It was generally felt
yesterday that the time has now arrived for the match to take a turn. Mr. Steinitz,
starting with a game ahead, was expected to make an effort to secure another victory,
which would have given him sufficient advantage to make sure of not losing the
match, while his opponent would have been correspondingly depressed.
Under these circumstances it was not to be wondered at that a good many chess
enthusiasts flocked to the rooms of the Manhattan Chess Club to witness what they
expected to be a game having a critical influence on the result of the match. At the
call of time when Messrs. Steinitz and Gunsberg faced each other, they seemed to be
in a most happy mood. The game itself fully reflects the state of affairs. Mr.
Gunsberg, having the first move, felt too seriously the importance of that game to risk
any other opening than his trusted friend, the Giuoco piano.
After the opening moves, varied from the fourth game by Gunsberg playing 5 P-Q
B 3, Black did not castle, and gave White an opportunity to develop his forces with
considerable vigor and rush into a seemingly promising attack by 16 Q-R 4, which
subsequently compelled Black to move his king. White showed a very keen scent for
the attack, and in pursuing it perhaps too hotly by playing his R-K Kt 3 he lost
somewhat of the advantage which his superior development might have given him.
As usual in such cases, Black then had a chance of assuming offensive tactics.
Mr. Steinitz did not, however, seem inclined to follow the example of his opponent
by instituting an attack, but confined himself to making matters secure through the
advance of P-K Kt 4, which gave White liberty to devote his attention to the queens
side, as he had nothing to fear on the kings wing. Again Black apparently thought of
his own safety only, and as soon as White prepared to mass his forces on the queens
side Black did the same, the result being an exchange of pieces, which brought about
a position wherein neither player saw a chance to win. On the thirty-seventh move
the game was abandoned as drawn.
Although a draw is only a negative result it was generally conceded that the
outcome of this game proves that there is not much difference in strength between
these renowned players, and the members of the Manhattan Chess Club recognize
that whichever player wins the match will have to do so by hard fighting and good
chess. The score: Steinitz, 3; Gunsberg, 2; drawn, 3. The next game will be played
on Monday.
C54/07 Giuoco Piano: Pianissimo
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.d3 Nf6 5.c3
**Gunsberg: A deviation from his line of play in the fourth game.
5...d6 [0:02:30-0:02:30] 6.Be3 Bxe3
**Gunsberg: Steinitz considers the double pawn on the e-file resulting from this
exchange a disadvantage for the first player. The usual move is 6...Bb6 instead.
Steinitz: Chopped in a similar way as in game four. The fact that White has
played 5.c3 makes no difference in the situation.
7.fxe3 Qe7 8.0-0 Nd8
**Gunsberg: This knight is made extensive use of.
Steinitz: Quite new and its object will soon be seen.
9.Nbd2 Ne6
**Steinitz: This knight is now in communication with both wings and White cannot
afford to exchange it for the bishop without strengthening Blacks position.
10.d4 Ng4 [0:06-0:10]
**
Steinitz: Not so much with the object of attacking Whites e-pawn, but in order to
make room for the advance of the f-pawn.
11.Qe1 f6 12.Nh4 Nh6
**Gunsberg: 12...g6 instead of the last move would have prevented White from
dissolving his double pawns.
Steinitz: Probably 12...g6 would have been better, because it would not have
allowed White to undouble his pawns. Still there was some object in it as Whites
e3-pawn formed a marked attack.
13.Nf5 Nxf5 14.exf5 Nf8 15.e4 Nd7 [0:15-0:25] 16.Qh4 Nb6 17.Qh5+
Kd8 18.Bb3 Bd7 19.Rae1 c6 20.Re3 Kc7 [0:17-0:43] 21.Rg3
**Gunsberg: It would have been better to double rooks at once on the d-file.
Steinitz: White has conducted the attack with great spirit, but, though Blacks king
is now in safety, his kingside is somewhat weak.
21...Raf8
**Gunsberg: To prevent White from 22.Qf7.
Steinitz: In order to prevent 22.Qf7, which would have gained a pawn for White.
22.dxe5 dxe5 23.Qe2
**Gunsberg: A well timed retreat. He changes his attack to the queenside, as he has
no prospects of accomplishing anything on the kingside, while on the other hand
Black might gain ground 23...Be8.
23...g5
**Gunsberg: Black could have assumed the attack against the adverse king by
playing this pawn only one square. The move actually made renders White safe, as
he could calmly await an advance of Blacks g-pawn or h-pawn and then block the
kingside by moving the g-pawn in reply to ...h3 or the h-pawn if Black pushes the
g-pawn to g3.
Steinitz: Gunsberg expressed the opinion that 23...g6 was better. It is a difficult
question to decide for the object of that move could only be to exchange the f-
pawn, and then Whites knight obtains a favorable square at e4.
24.Rd3
**Steinitz: If 24.fxg6 hxg6, and obviously White there will not take the g-pawn with
the rook on account of the rejoinder 25...Qh7.
24...Bc8
**Gunsberg: 24...Be8 instead, with a view of posting it after due preparation at h5,
seems to be more promising.
25.Rd1 Rd8 [0:53-1:10] 26.Nf1
**Steinitz: An excellent move.
26...Nd7 27.Bc2 Nc5 28.Rxd8 Rxd8 29.Rxd8 Kxd8 30.b4 Nd7 [1:00-
1:20]
**Gunsberg: This knight has now moved eight times in thirty moves.
31.Bb3
**Steinitz: At this point Gunsberg offered a draw, but Black decided to go on.
31...a5
**Steinitz: Of course, if 32.bxa5 Qc5+ and recovers the pawn with advantage.
32.a3 axb4 33.axb4 Qd6 34.Ne3 b5 35.Kf2 Kc7 [1:04-2:08]
**Steinitz: Black at first contemplated 35...c5, but, as Gunsberg pointed out, he
would have answered just the same 36.Qd1, and there was hardly anything more in
it than a draw.
36.Qd1 [1:05-2:08] -.
**Gunsberg: After the exchange of queens the slight superiority of the position of
Whites pawn is sufficiently counterbalanced by the presence of Blacks king on the
queenside. The game was here abandoned as drawn.
THE FOURTH DRAWN GAME.
A GREAT CONTEST OVER THE CHESS BOARD.
STEINITZ AND GUNSBERG EXCITED OVER A
GAME WHICH NEITHER COULD WIN.
:
The match for the chess championship was resumed at 1:30 p.m. yesterday in the
rooms of the Manhattan Chess Club, and the game was far more interesting than that
of Saturday. Steinitz, having the move, played a Kt to K B 3 opening, which was a
favorite with his old antagonist, the late Dr. Zukertort. Steinitz is apparently satisfied
with the Queens gambit after his decisive victory of a week ago. The game
developed rapidly and after ten moves the position seemed to be pretty even.
Both players castled respectively on the eighth and ninth moves on the K side, and
at this stage neither of them had a majority of pawns on either wing, while the attitude
of both armies gave the board a very symmetrical appearance. The play was very
slow for some six or seven moves, both masters evidently playing for position only.
At length Steinitz began aggressive operations on the Queens side, but on his
twentieth move he gave up a pawn which was declared to be a blunder on his part.
After this he proceeded with an attack on the enemys Q Kt pawn. The immediately
succeeding moves made it evident that the sacrifice of the pawn was a mistake.
Gunsberg assumed a superiority of position, and securing the whip he prosecuted his
advantage with vigor and ability. First of all he carefully protected his Q Kt P, and
then took up the aggressive by playing his Queen on the enemys Q R file, and at the
same time threatening to gain another pawn with an additional improvement of
position.
When Gunsberg sealed his twenty-ninth move at the adjournment he had by far the
best of the direction of playing for a draw. This he proceeded to do when play was
resumed. Gunsberg was obliged to give up the exchange he had just won, and
thereupon followed a further exchange of pieces, the Hungarian coming out of the
general slaughter still a pawn to the good. This advantage, however, did not suffice to
win the game. Play was continued up to the eightieth move, which shows that the
veteran made a tremendous fight before he could effect a draw.
Some rapid moves were made toward the close, and both players were in a state of
great excitement, which in a smaller measure was shared by the crowd of spectators
assembled in the room. The game was declared a draw just upon the time for
adjourning the evening sitting. The score now stands: Steinitz 3, Gunsberg 2, drawn
4.
CHESS GIANTS AT PLAY.
THE NINTH GAME ENDS IN A DRAWN
BATTLE AFTER EIGHTY MOVES.
Steinitz Blundered and Gunzberg [sic] Ought to
Have Won at Once - Still the Veteran
Struggled Hard and Got on Even Terms
After the Toughest Fight of the Series.
:
The ninth game in the championship chess contest between Steinitz and Gunsberg,
which has now been going on for about three weeks in this city, was opened
yesterday afternoon, and it was not long before the members and visitors at the
Manhattan Chess Club were provided with something entertaining as well as
instructive. It will be remembered that Steinitz, on each of four the previous
occasions when he has had the opening move, has offered a Queens Gambit. The
first two were drawn, the third was cleverly won by Gunsberg, and the fourth counted
as a brilliant victory for Steinitz.
At an early stage in the match Steinitz had said he would play the same opening
until he won it. This he succeeded in doing. In yesterdays game he gave a welcome
variety, Nothing so common as a Queens Gambit,said an interested onlooker when
the great theoriststarted out with an opening which the late Dr. Zukertort repeatedly
played, and which commenced with Kt-K B 3. Pawns were exchanged on the fifth
move and the game was very quickly developed.
In the early part of the game the play was apparently conducted by both masters
with a view of securing a good position, but ultimately Steinitz initiated an aggressive
movement on the queens side. After making what subsequently proved to be a
blunder by sacrificing a pawn on his twentieth turn, he proceeded with an attack on
the opposing pawn on the Q Kts file. This pawn the Hungarian first put beyond the
reach of danger, and then quickly assumed a distinct superiority of position,
threatening at the same time to capture another pawn. After twenty-six moves had
been recorded on both sides the spectators all agreed that Gunsberg had by far the
best of it, and some ventured the opinion that he had a won game.
For the sixth time Gunsberg was the player to seal his move on the adjournment of
the afternoon sitting [...]
On the resumption of play at 7 oclock it soon became manifest that Steinitz was
playing hard for a draw, and his efforts in this direction were pronounced, after four
or five moves, to be tending with some little chance of success. At the same time it
was declared that if he were to succeed in bringing about a draw he would be a good
one. He fought on and on, though his efforts were generally thought to be useless.
Ultimately, however, affairs took a favorable turn for the great theorist.
Meantime the number of spectators in the club room had increased until the scene
was one of great animation, while a profound interest was evinced in the progress of
the play. Finally it was seen that Steinitz was gradually but surely extricating himself
from the difficulties which surrounded him, and a few minutes after 10:30 oclock, the
time for adjourning for the day, the announcement came down that a draw had been
agreed upon. It will be seen that Steinitz consumed nearly double the time occupied
by Gunsberg.
A LONG, DRAWN BATTLE.
MR. STEINITZ SURPRISES HIS LONDON
OPPONENT AT CHESS.
Over Six Hours at the Board and at
the Adjournment Mr. Gunsberg Had
the Advantage, but Mr. Steinitz
Finally Fought the Contest to a
Draw - Notes of the Sporting World.
:
The ninth game, the longest and most stubbornly contested in the chess match,
caused by its changes and vicissitudes no end of excitement. The well-conducted
game was only marred by an oversight or miscalculation on the part of the first player
in the twentieth move. The numerous and illustrious crowd which thronged the
Manhattan Chess Club-rooms, among them such expert players as Mr. Phil
Richardson and Mr. E. Delmar, discounted blacks win befor [sic] the adjournment.
Then to the general surprise, Mr. Steinitz prolonged the struggle, and by 10 oclock
seemed to have achieved a drawing position.
Mr. Steinitz, who had the move, slightly altered his previous course by beginning
with (1) Kt to K B 3, which, however, results but in a modification of the Queens
gambit. The reader will find sufficient comment on this move, which the Austro-
American champion invariably adopted in his match with Tschigorin in the notes to
the appended game. Mr. Gunsberg emerged out of this opening with a slight
superiority of position, as he could first take possession of the open Q R file with his
rook. On the twentieth move the veteran left a pawn en prise under the impression to
win afterwards the Q Kt P with his rook, which would have given him a decided
advantage. His scheme was, however, frustrated by Blacks correct defense. Just
before the adjournment Mr. Steinitz brought a highly ingenious sacrifice at the
exchange which he recovered on the 33d move. But he was still a pawn behind, and
had to submit to the exchange of queens. The remainder of the game was fought by
Mr. Steinitz with his persistent tenacity, wherein he was somewhat aided by Blacks
line of play, which did not make the most of the position, enabling White to obtain
chances for a draw.
On the sixty-third move Black, who saw a well-deserved and valuable victory slip
from his grasp, made a bold and determined effort to carry the day by abandoning his
K P, thus giving his opponent a formidable passed pawn on the K file. Mr. Steinitz
with great glee captured the pawn and smilingly asked his opponent whether it was
worth while to carry on the battle, to which Gunsberg responded with a grim and
determined, I think so. Steinitz, after a series of checks, had to give up his R for the
adverse passed R P, but his own pawn became so strong that Gunsberg had to submit
to a draw.
The game lasted nearly six hours, of which four hours and twenty minutes were
consumed by the first player.
1.Nf3
**Gunsberg: This move has been introduced and frequently played by the late Dr.
Zukertort, after whom it is sometimes called Zukertort opening. In the
correspondence match between the British Chess Club of London and the Chess
Club of St. Petersburg the English players adopted it in the game wherein they had
the move. Steinitz, in his match against Chigorin, in Havana, 1889, limited himself
solely to that opening, although he had declared it on previous occasions to be an
indifferent move which leads to a variation of the Queens gambit declined by mere
transposition of moves. The course of the present game seems to corroborate that
statement, for, as will be seen, after the fifth, eighth, ninth and tenth move, the
game presents the exact position which arises from that variation of the Queens
gambit declined, wherein the best recognized moves are made on both sides.
1...Nf6
**Gunsberg: This or 1...d5 is the best move for Black.
2.d4 e6 3.e3 c5
**Steinitz: New, but is does not make much difference in the development of the
game.
4.c4 d5 5.dxc5
**Steinitz: White obtains a slight advantage after this, as he threatens with his next
move to isolate the d-pawn, which gains time in the development.
5...Bxc5 [0:10-0:04] 6.Nc3 Bb4
**Gunsberg: In order to avoid the isolating of his pawn at d5.
Steinitz: This move is now forced, as he cannot well capture the pawn and allow
the exchange of queens.
7.Bd2
**Steinitz: Here, and later on at the tenth move, 7.Qb3 was probably better.
7...dxc4 8.Bxc4 0-0 9.0-0 Nc6 10.Qe2
**Steinitz: Initiating a kingside attack, whereas his strength was on the other wing,
as indicated above.
10...Qe7 [0:19-0:14] 11.e4 Bxc3 12.Bxc3 e5
**Gunsberg: A very good move, which frees his game considerable and prevents the
advance of Whites pawn to e5, which would have confined his position.
13.Qe3
**Steinitz: Any attempt to pursue the kingside attack would probably have been a
failure, if, for instance 13.Bb3 Bg4 14.Qe3 Rad8 with a very good game.
13...Be6 14.Be2
**Gunsberg: 14.Bxe6 Qxe6 15.Ng5 would only lead to an even game. A very
tempting continuation, instead of the move in the text, would have been 14.Bb5
Bd7 15.Bxc6 Bxc6, and White could not take the e-pawn without losing his own e-
pawn.
Steinitz: A concentration on the kingside, with a view afterward of attacking on
the other wing.
14...Ng4 15.Qc1 Rac8 [0:52-0:42]
**
Gunsberg: Blacks game is now well developed.
16.h3 Nh6 17.Qe3 f6
**Gunsberg: An excellent move, which not only gives additional support to his e-
pawn, but also opens an important square for his knight, which enables him
afterwards to use it in time for the defense of his b-pawn.
18.a3
**Steinitz: For defensive purposes, as Black threatened ...Nb4, and also with the
object of supporting the advance of the b-pawn.
18...Nf7 19.b4 a6 20.a4
**Gunsberg: This move was made probably under the impression that he could
afterwards recover the b-pawn with his rook, which would have given him the
advantage of position.
Steinitz: Simply an oversight.
20...Nxb4 [1:07-0:51] 21.Bxb4 Qxb4 22.Rfb1 Qe7 23.Rb6 Rc7 24.Rab1
Rfc8
**Gunsberg: Of course not 24...Rb8, because of 25.Rxa6.
25.Ne1 Nd8 [1:15-1:05]26.Nd3 Qa3
**Gunsberg: Again correctly played.
27.Kh2
**Gunsberg: In order to avoid an eventual check.
Steinitz: This was necessary in order to enable him to remove the knight without
being subjected to exchanges by ...Rc1+.
27...Rd7
**Steinitz: Threatening ...Rc3, but 27...Bc4 was stronger.
28.Rxe6
**
Gunsberg: An ingenious combination, which, however, is parried by Blacks
correct defense.
Steinitz: The only way to release himself and giving White good attacking chances.
28...Nxe6 29.Bg4 (Adjourned) [2:06-1:27] 29...Re8 (Sealed)
**Gunsberg: This move was sealed by Gunsberg. It is worthy of note that so far
Steinitz has not sealed a move.
30.Bxe6+ Rxe6 [2:10-1:21] 31.Nc5
**Gunsberg: This regains the exchange, but White is still a pawn behind.
31...Qxe3 32.fxe3 Ree7 33.Nxd7 Rxd7 34.Kg3 Kf7 35.a5 Kg6 [2:17-
1:46] 36.Kf3 Rc7 37.Rb2 Rc5 38.Ra2 Rb5 39.Ke2 Kf7 40.Kf3 Ke6
[2:28-1:33] 41.h4 h5 42.Ra1 g6 43.g4 hxg4+ 44.Kxg4 Rb4 45.Kf3 f5
[3:01-1:35] 46.exf5+ Kxf5 47.Rh1 Rb5 48.e4+ Kf6 49.Rd1 Rxa5 50.Rd6
+ Kg7 [3:23-1:37] 51.Rd7+ Kh6 52.Rxb7 Ra3+ 53.Kf2 Ra5 54.Rb6
Kh5 55.Rf6
**55.Rc6 is the move found in my database, but contemporary sources clearly state
55.R-KB6.-[Pope]
55...Ra4 [3:38-1:46] 56.Kf3 Ra3+ 57.Kf2 Kh6 58.Re6 Ra5 59.Kg3 Kg7
60.Kg4 Kf7 [4:02-1:55] 61.Rb6 Ra1 62.Rb7+ Kf6 63.Rb6+ Kg7 64.Re6
a5 65.Rxe5 a4 [4:10-2:14] 66.Ra5 a3 67.Kg5 a2 68.Ra7+ Kf8 69.Ra8+
Kf7 70.Ra7+ Ke6 71.Ra6+ Ke5 72.Ra5+ Kxe4 73.Ra4+ Kf3 74.Ra3+
Kf2 75.Kxg6 Rg1+ 76.Kf7 a1Q 77.Rxa1 Rxa1 78.h5 Rh1 79.Kg6 Rg1+
80.Kf6 [4:24-2:34] -.
STEINITZ WINS AGAIN.
HE LEADS BY TWO GAMES IN THE GREAT
CHESS MATCH.
THE TENTH CONTEST AN INTERESTING ONE, BUT
GUNSBERG WAS COMPELLED TO RESIGN.
:
There was a good attendance at the rooms of the Manhattan Chess Club yesterday
when the tenth game was fought between Steinitz and Gunsberg in their contest for
the championship of the world. As will bee seen from the score of the game,
Gunsberg, who had the move, selected the safe Giuoco Piano, which opening he has
frequently played, and which he now adopted for the third time in the match. While
the Giuoco Piano is in many respects highly interesting, it is an opening which gives
Black an opportunity of developing his pieces at the same that White is doing so.
In this case Steinitz took full advantage of the opportunity thus afforded him. He
castled after seven moves, and Gunsberg seemingly made several moves to very little
purpose, with the result that he was prevented from castling, having finally to bring
his king into safe quarters b a sort of artifical castling, which left the monarch on K R
2. Steinitz meanwhile had not been idle. He succeeded in doubling his Rooks on the
open Q file, and advancing his K R P to the sixth square with a check. After twenty-
seven moves had been recorded he appeared to be threatening in all directions, and a
few moves later the afternoon sitting was adjourned, Steinitz this time, being the
player to seal his move.
The development of the game after the adjournment proved highly interesting,
Gunsberg withstanding in a clever manner for some time the attacks of his opponent
on the Kings side. Ultimately, however, he was compelled to succumb. He resigned
on his forty-fourth move, which now makes the score: Steinitz, 4; Gunsberg, 2;
drawn 4. This game, and in particular the conclusion, was pronounced to be a fine
one.
BATTLING CHESS MASTERS.
STEINITZ NOW LEADS GUNSBERG BY
TWO GAMES.
The Anglo-Hungarian Opened an Italian
Game, but He Soon Had to Defend the
Repeated Attacks of His Opponent--The
Veteran Thought at First that He
Could Not Win the Game, but He
Finally Scored in Grand Style.
:
The tenth game in the contest for the chess championship between Steinitz and
Gunsberg was played yesterday at the Manhattan Chess Club in West Twenty-
seventh street. Gunsberg again opened a Giuoco Piano - which, along with most
masters, he considers to be a very safe and sound opening, and for which he appears
to have more than an ordinary fondness.
As in every other case, during the match Steinitz consumed much more time than
his opponent in the opening. In fact, as early as the sixth move he began to fall
behind. While Steinitz castled on the eighth move, Gunsberg went in for a series of
moves, the evident intention of which was to further the development of his pieces,
but ultimately his position became such as to make it dangerous for him to castle, and
furthermore he hesitated in putting his king into safety. After apparently wasting
several moves he decided upon bringing his king via B sq. to K R 2.
Meantime Steinitz got a stron attack on his opponents K P, eventually doubled his
rooks on the kings file, having previously made an aggressive movement with his K
R P, and after 28 moves had been recorded Gunsberg was considered to have a little
the worse position of the two.
For the first time Steinitz was the player to seal his move when an adjournment
was made [...]
At this point Steinitz expressed the belief that, at the best, the game would only end
in a draw, while, on the other hand, many strong amateur players who were present
were of opinion that he had a distinctly winning position.
After the resumption of play at 7 oclock, the game developed some interesting
complications. Steinitz tried hard to break through the defence on the kings side, but
Gunsberg showed himself equal to each successive emergency, defending the
position in a remarkably skilful manner.
Some fine play followed, but ultimately Gunsberg, seeing that his efforts were
going to be of no avail, saved time by gracefully resigning before he was positively
compelled to do so. The score now stands: Steinitz 4, Gunsberg 2, drawn 4.
STEINITZS ADVANTAGE.
HE WINS THE TENTH CHESS GAME
FROM THE LONDONER.
The Score Now Stands: Steinitz, 4;
Gunsberg, 2; Draws, 4 - Dame Fortune
Appeared to Be Against the
Englishman - Interested Spectators at the
Manhattan Chess Club Rooms.
:
When the chess players assembled on Wednesday last to play the tenth game of the
match, they found a number wo workmen busy at the Manhattan Chess Club,
carpeting the stairs leading to the second floor, where the playing room is situated.
The noise caused by the incessant hammering rendered it impossible to for the
champions to go on with their game, and as there was no chance that the work would
be finished before 4 oclock P.M. the game was postponed until yesterday.
With the tenth game the first half of the contest is concluded, for, as the readers of
THE WORLD will remember, the stipulations of the match contain the clause that if
none of the players have scored the necessary ten winsthe match shall be terminated
after twenty games played, and the winner of the majority shall be declared the
victor. An eager assembly of chess connoisseurs crowded the rooms of the Club and
watched the run of the game with unabated excitement.
The London expert conducted the white men, and he stuck to his K Kt opening,
followed by B-B 4. On the fourth move he hesitated a little, but soon turned the game
into a Giuoco Piano. On the sixth move he altered his line of play which he had
adopted twice before, namely, opposing his Q B at K 3 by bringing his Q Kt to Q 2.
The earlier part of the game was not well conducted by White, who, by some aimless
moves, lost time and soon had the inferior position. Afterwards he improved his play
and succeeded in ameliorating his position, when Mr. Steinitz, for the first time in the
match, had to seal his move.
After resumption of play, Dame Fortune seemed to turn against the Englishman,
for, laboring under pressure of time limit, he had not sufficient time to examine 31 Kt
to K3, which would have got rid of Blacks troublesome rook. Mr. Gunsberg stated,
after conclusion of the game, that he feared the consequences of Blacks sacrificing
the Kt after the exchange of rooks. But, as will be seen by the comments to the
appended game, Black could achieve nothing more than a draw. From this point the
remainder of the moves were all forced. Black played with his usual precision, and
on the 43d move he was bound to win a pawns. White preferred a quick surrender to
the continuation of a hopeless struggle, thus giving the veteran for the first time a lead
of two games. The score is now: Steinitz, 4; Gunsberg, 2; drawn, 4. This gives to the
Austro-American champion an immense advantage, as he has only to make even
games in the second half of the match. The eleventh game will be played to-day at
the usual place and hour.
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.d3 Nf6 5.c3 d6 6.Nbd2
**Gunsberg: White again varies his line of play, as on former occasions. The
present maneuver of bringing the b-knight over to the kingside via d2 and f1 was
first introduced by Paul Morphy, who, however, had previously developed his light-
square bishop. Although the present line of play has been repeatedly adopted with
success (among others by Steinitz vs. Blackburne and Gunsberg vs. Blackburne), it
is still an open question whether that maneuvre should not be deferred until the
light-square bishop has been developed.
Steinitz: The idea to bring this knight out to d2 and then to f1, was first brought
out by myself, against Blackburne, in a Ruy Lopez, and it has since been adopted
in various openings.
6...Ne7 7.Nf1 c6
**Steinitz: A counter-demonstration of the same sort as that of the opponent.
8.Qe2
**Steinitz: 8.Ne3 or 8.Be3 was preferable.
8...O-O 9.h3
**Gunsberg: With a view of instituting a kingside attack, but White loses valuable
time in making his preparations.
Steinitz: This weakens the kingside somewhat.
9...d5 10.Bb3 Ng6 11.g3
**Steinitz: Necessary but not auspicious for his game.
11...dxe4
**Gunsberg: There was no necessity for this exchange 11...d4, as played by
Chigorin, seems to be superior.
Steinitz: Premature; 11...Re8 instead was stronger.
12.dxe4 Be6
**Steinitz: Black can well afford the double pawn which White can create
condsidering the open f-file which he would gain and that White would find it
difficult to castle on either side.
13.Ng5
**Gunsberg: Should White exchanges bishops here the open f-file would be more
than an equivalent for Blacks doubled e-pawns.
13...Bxb3 14.axb3 Qd7 15.Be3 Bxe3 16.Qxe3 b6
**Steinitz: Probably better than either 16...a6 or 16...Rad8, as the pawns will have to
be protected sooner or later.
17.Nd2
**Gunsberg: He would have done much better by playing 17.Rd1 instead.
17...c5 18.Ngf3 Rad8 19.Nc4
**Gunsberg: Not good, as he only loses time thereby.
Steinitz: This move was wasted, and only helped Black to consolidate his forces.
19...Rfe8
**Gunsberg: Perhaps it would have been better to leave that rook on its place in
order to push, after due preparation, ...f5, which would have been very dangerous
for White.
20.Ncd2
**Gunsberg: This retreat is now necessary, as Black threatened ...Nf4, which White
could not take with impunity.
20...Re7 21.Kf1
**Gunsberg: Castling on the queenside instead would have submitted him to a
vehement attack.
21... h5
**Gunsberg: 21...Nh5, with a view of sacrificing one of the knights on f4, was to be
considered here.
22.Kg2 h4 23.Kh2
**Gunsberg: White defends himself very carefully. This move makes the h-rook
available for his defense.
23...Qb5
**Gunsberg: Finely played. The object is to reduce the activity of the adverse
knight, as White is compelled to occupy the square at c4 with his pawn.
24.c4 Qc6 25.Rac1
**Gunsberg: White now brings this rook into active and useful service.
Steinitz: His best defense undoubtedly, as Black threatened a terrible ...R7d3, after
doubling the rooks.
25...Red7 [1:01-1:23] 26.Rc3 Nh5 27.Rg1 Qf6 28.Nf1 Rd1
**Gunsberg: White has considerably improved his position. The position is very
interesting and complicated. It would require a very close examination to
determine whether Blacks last move was really the best at his disposal.
29.Qe2
**Gunsberg: A very good move, which threatens N3d2.
Steinitz: An excellent move, as it threatens to bring out his knight to e3, and into
the center at d5.
29...hxg3+ 30.fxg3 (Adjourned) 30...Ra1 (Sealed)
**Gunsberg: This move was sealed by Steinitz.
Steinitz: Of all the continuations at Blacks disposal this was probably the best.
31.N3d2
**Gunsberg: 31.Ne3 would be much better as it would compel Black to exchange
rooks and allow White to play subsequently Nd5. The tempting sacrifice of the
knight on the part of Black would lead to a draw; at least, it is difficult to see how
Black could improve on the following line of play: 31.Ne3 Rxg1 32.Nxg1 Nxg3 33.
Kxg3 Qf4+ 34.Kg2 Nh4+ 35.Kh1 Qxe4+, etc. Also, 33...Qh4+ or 33...Nf4 would
not give him a winning attack.
Steinitz: Much better was 31.Ne3, whereupon the game would probably have
proceeded 31...Ngf4 32. Qf2 best, (if 32.gxf4 Qxf4+ 33.Kg2 best, 33...Qg3+
followed by 34...Qxh3+, winning in a few moves) 32...Rxg1 33.Nxg1 Nd3 and
though Black will win a pawn, White can make an excellent fight of it by
exchanging queens and playing Nd5.
31...Qg5 32.Rf3
**Gunsberg: 32.Rd3 at once were better.
32...Nf6 33.Rd3
**Gunsberg: If 33.Rf5 Qh6, but it still seems preferable to the move actually made.
33...Rxd3 34.Qxd3 Nf8
**Gunsberg: A very good move. He intends to post his knight on d4, which means
practically a won game.
Steinitz: As will be seen this was done with a view of occupying a strong position
in the center spot at d4.
35.Qe3
**Gunsberg: If 35.Nf3 Black replies by 35...Qc1.
35...Qg6 [1:50-2:22] 36.Rg2 Ne6 37.Re2
**Gunsberg: This is forced, as Black threatened ...Ng5, followed by ...Qh5.
Steinitz: Forced; because Black threatened to take the e-pawn and ultimately the
other knight with the rook.
37...Nd4
**Steinitz: Black has achieved his object of forming a powerful attack in the centre,
which places the adverse isolated pawns at his mercy.
38.Rf2 Ra2 39.Nf3
**Gunsberg: White has no good reply. If 39.Qc3 then the e-pawn falls.
39...Nxf3+ 40.Qxf3 Qxe4 [2:12-2:41] 41.Qxe4 Nxe4 42.Re2 Ng5
**Steinitz: Indirectly protecting the e-pawn, as Black threatens check at f3.
43.Kg2 Ne6 [2:15-2:43] 0-1.
**Gunsberg: His position is hopeless. If he takes the e-pawn he loses both his b-
pawns, and if 44.Ne3 Black replies with 44...Nd4, winning a second pawn.
Steinitz: It is only a question of time. His pawns on the queenside must fall and he
can hardly steer his king, while Black has free hands.
FEW BRILLIANT PLAYS.
A DRAWN GAME IN THE CHESS MATCH.
THE SCORE NOW: STEINITZ, 4; GUNSBERG, 2;
DRAWN, 5.
:
Steinitz and Gunsberg yesterday played the eleventh game in their contest for the
chess championship of the world at the rooms of the Manhattan Chess Club in this
city. After three hoursplay the game was abandoned as a draw on the proposition of
Steinitz, and although one or two good features are to be found in it, taken as a whole
this game will perhaps rank as one of the tamest which these two masters have yet
fought.
Steinitz made what is commonly known as a Zukertort opening, by playing Kt-K B
3, and Gunsberg responded in the most approved style. In fact after the game had
been turned into a Queens Gambit Declined Gunsbergs defence was on lines similar
to those which Steinitz himself adopted some years ago against the late Dr. Zukertort,
and consisted in pushing forward his B to K 2, and then proceeding with an attempt to
get rid of the centre pawns.
This led to a quick development of pieces and likewise to a rapid exchange of both
knights. Gunsberg castled on his fifth turn, but White continued to develop his minor
pieces before castling, which he did on his tenth move. Exchanging still remained a
feature of the game, being freely indulged in by both players. After the fifteenth
move even the Queens had disappeared from the field, and on the following move
exchanges were once more the order of the day.
An even position, devoid of complications of any serious nature, was arrived at
after seventeen moves had been recorded, and the subsequent play still more
simplified matters and rendered anything but a draw practically impossible. This was
proposed by Steinitz after his twenty-eighth move, and eventually accepted. The
score now is: Steinitz 4, Gunsberg 2, drawn 5.
THE RIVAL CHESS MASTERS.
THE ELEVENTH GAME ENDS IN A
DRAW.
The Experts Discussed a Zukertort
Opening - Neither Player Could Get an
Advantage, and Honors Were Divided.
:
The rival chess masters entered upon the second half of their contest yesterday at
the Manhattan Chess Club. The first ten games, which, from present appearances,
will form exactly half of the number which will be played in this match, have resulted
distinctly in favor of Steinitz. The result of yesterdays game points still more clearly
to the probability that before either player scores ten wins, the maximum of twenty
will have been played, unless, of course, the unexpected happens and Steinitz makes a
clear break and wins a sufficient number of games consecutively to bring him up to
the much-desired point. Judging from the nature of the play in the earlier games,
such an eventuality may be looked upon as improbable, and yet taking a brief glance
backward, it will be seen that in most of his match encounters Steinitz has made out
badly in the beginning, but has almost invariably improved as the fight progressed. It
remains to be seen whether the same thing will occur in this instance.
Steinitz opened yesterdays game with Kt-K B 3, which is popularly known as the
Zukertort opening. Gunsberg retorted in the most approved fashion, and the position
of a Queens Gambit declined was evolved out of the original opening. The game
quickly developed, and pawns and pieces were exchanged at a very early stage. So
soon in the play as the tenth move a knowing onepredicted that the issue would be a
draw. A few moves later this prophet found an adherent who expressed himself with
even greater confidence in the same direction. After the exchange of Queens on the
fifteenth move another spectator exclaimed: Steinitz has no advantage at all now. It
is a draw from Alpha to Omega.
The early exchanges which had marked the previous part of the game were
continued on the sixteenth and seventeenth moves by an exchange of bishops. Indeed
this rapid slaughter on both sides formed quite a prominent feature in the game, and
had the effect of very much shortening it. A very simple position was now arrived at,
and subsequent play was of a more or less dull and uninteresting character, although
white succeeded in somewhat improving his position by later exchanges. This
improvement, however, was of so unimportant a nature that it failed to lift the game
from the drawingregion, and ultimately Gunsberg accepted the proposal of his
opponent on the twenty-ninth move, and the fifth draw was duly recorded. The score
now stands at 4 wins for Steinitz, 2 for Gunsberg, and 4 drawn games.
Here is a more minute description of the play: Another Zukertort opening was
started by Steinitz, and when the game turned into a queens gambit declined, his
opponent defended virtually in the same manner as Steinitz had himself done against
Zukertort viz. by bringing his B to K 2, and then trying to get rid of the two centre
pawns on each side. The difference in Steinitzs treatment was that he did not allow
his queens centre pawns to be isolated as Zukertort had done.
The opening moves were marked by the exchange of the two Kts on each side, and
then the struggle for position commenced on the queens wing. White seemed to have
a little the pull, but black defended excellently, and especially his thirteenth and
fourteenth moves were very fine ones for defensive purposes. On his seventeenth
move Gunsberg remarked to his opponent: Do you play to win this?to which Steinitz
answered: I think I have slightly the best of it.
The game proceeded, and white tried to break into the adverse game by advancing
the pawns in the queens wing. He had to make preparations, and as his king was also
far off he could not sufficiently support his attack in the face of the sturdy defence
which his opponent made. Black posted his rooks well and entered on a march with
his king toward the centre, after protecting his K R P. It came to the exchange of one
of the rooks and of the bishops, and white maintained the passed Q R P, while black
had a passed pawn on the Q Kt file.
In view of the proximity of blacks king, which threatened to cross over and protect
his own Kts P, while whites king was too far off from his passed R P, Steinitz offered
a draw. Gunsberg then remarked, I should like to make one or two moves.
Thereupon Steinitz played P-R 6, and Gunsberg immediately consented to a draw,
which was the obvious result of whites last move, for blacks rook had to intercept
whites passed pawn, and then an exchange of whites Q R P for blacks Q Kt P was
sure to follow, after which either side could easily make his position unapproachable.
ONE MORE DRAWN GAME.
Chess-Player Gunsberg Is Not Yet
Dismayed by Steinitz.
The American Began His Play with an
Irregular Opening Again Yesterday
- The Londoner Not Influenced by
Theoretical Doctrines - The Next
Game Will Be Played To-Morrow.
:
The chess game yesterday, although it resulted in a draw, demonstrated that the
younger player has not been dismayed by the unfavorable turn for him which the
match has taken, and that he is resolved to make as hard a fight as ever.
Mr. Steinitz, in all the games wherein he was first player, had failed to make an
impression upon his opponent, who always managed to equalize matters if not to
obtain the better position. Mr. Gunsbergs play is never influenced by what other
chess-players have played before, much less by theoretical doctrines. In playing he
follows the inspiration of the moment. It has been amply proved by the games in the
pending contest that he does not limit himself to one line of defense. For an instance,
he met Steinitzs Queens Gambits and (what is practically the same) irregular
openings every time in a different way. The eleventh game was irregularly opened by
Mr. Steinitz with 1 Kt-KB 3 and gradually drifted into a Queens Gambit Declined.
After the thirteenth move of White Q-Kt 3 it appeared as though White had the best
of it, as Blacks queen was seemingly subjected to an attack of both white rooks; but
Black, by a well-conceived plan, not only averted all danger but forced White to
exchange queens. After this episode the game drifted into shallow channels, and,
although Mr. Steinitz prolonged the fight up to the twenty-eighth move, he could not
alter the legitimate result. As Mr. Gunsberg remarked after the end of the game: The
time for miracles is over, and a win in an end game with even pieces cannot be
forced. The game lasted three hours and forty-five minutes, of which Black
consumed one hour. The score is now: Steinitz, 4; Gunsberg, 2; drawn, 5.
D40/01 Queens Gambit Declined: Semi-Tarrasch
1.Nf3 d5 2.d4 Nf6 3.e3 e6 4.c4 Be7
**
Gunsberg: In all close openings the kings bishop is posted best at e7 for the
second player, as well as e2 for the first.
Steinitz: In conformity with the authorities and certainly superior to the
experiments made by Gunsberg with his bishop in previous games of the match.
5.Nc3 0-0 [0:02-0:06] 6.Bd3 c5
**Steinitz: The defense, in its chief features, is altogether of the same description as
was played by Steinitz against Zukertort in the match of 1886. It is an important
point for Black to get rid of the two middle pawns.
7.cxd5 cxd4
**Steinitz: Best; for if 7...Nxd5 8.Nxd5 Qxd5 9.e4, gaining important time.
8.Nxd4 Nxd5 9.Nxd5
**Steinitz: White could not well allow the adversary to exchange and separate the
pawns on the queens wing, nor could he afford to lose time to by either of the
knights to e2.
9...Qxd5 10.0-0 Nc6 [0:10-0:17] 11.Nxc6
**
Steinitz: As Black always threatened ...Bf6, which confined Whites queenside, it
was again of no use to waste time by retreating that knight.
11...Qxc6 12.Bd2 Bf6 13.Qb3 Bd7
**Gunsberg: A very good move, which frees Black of all difficulties his queen
might get involved in.
Steinitz: A very good move and the key to his best defense.
14.Rfc1 Qa4
**Steinitz: Undoubtedly the best way of offering the exchange which was
unavoidable.
15.Qxa4
**Gunsberg: If 15.Qxb7 then 15...Rb8, and if 15.Rc7, instead of the text move, then
15...Qxb3, followed by 16...Bc6 and the rook is imprisoned.
15...Bxa4 [0:34-0:39] 16.Bc3
**Steinitz: White gradually improves his position by these exchanges.
16...Bxc3 17.Rxc3 Bc6 18.b4 a6 19.a4 Rfd8
**Steinitz: 19...Rfc8, which he had to adopt subsequently, was undoubtedly much
better at this juncture.
20.f3
**Steinitz: It was necessary to give the king freedom. If, for instance, 20.Raa3 Kf8
21.b5 axb5 22.axb5 Be4 with a good game, for obviously White dare not take the
bishop on account of the impending mate on his first row.
20...Kf8 [0:56-0:46] 21.Raa3 h6
**Steinitz: As Black intended to bring his king into the center, he could not afford
long to leave that pawn unprotected, for, though he could confine the bishop
afterward by ...g6, White might have had an opportunity of releasing himself with
advantage by the advance of the h-pawn to h5, either before or after, supporting it
by pushing pawn to g4 according to circumstances.
22.Kf2 Rdc8 23.b5 Bd7 24.Rxc8+
**Steinitz: Instead of the exchanges that follow White ought to have played 24.Ke2.
24...Rxc8 25.bxa6 bxa6 [1:27-1:02] 26.a5
**Gunsberg: If 26.Bxa6 Black recovers the pawn by 26...Ra8, as White cannot
defend his pawn with 27.Bb5.
Steinitz: Obviously, if 26.Bxa6, Black recovers the pawn by 26...Ra8.
26...Bb5 27.Bxb5 axb5 28.Rb3 Rb8[2:00-1:40]
**Gunsberg: A draw was here agreed upon.
Steinitz: A long struggle would only ensue if White allowed Blacks king to come
near the b-pawn; in fact it would be rather dangerous for the former. The draw is
now easily effected by White advancing the pawn to a6, which will lead to an
exchange of Whites a-pawn for Blacks b-pawn, and the passed pawns being out of
the way each party can easily protect his own line with the rook and king.
29.a6 -.
**From the description in The Sun it appears that Steinitz did play 29.a6 before the
draw was agreed, although the gamescores from all three sources end with Blacks
28th move.-[Pope]
A DEFEAT FOR STEINITZ.
GUNSBERG WINS WITH AN EVANS GAMBIT.
AN ILL-CONSIDERED MOVE PROVES FATAL TO
THE CHAMPION.
:
The fact that Gunsberg yesterday, by playing an Evans Gambit, took up a challenge
thrown out by his opponent before the present match began, gave an unusual interest
to the twelfth game in the contest for the chess championship of the world, now in
progress between Steinitz and Gunsberg in this city. The challenge, made by Steinitz,
it will be remembered, was to the effect that he would undertake to play the defence
four times in an Evans Gambit in his match with Gunsberg, from a certain point
which had at that time been reached in his game against Tschigorin.
The members and visitors at the Manhattan Chess Club who yesterday afternoon
watched the giant board in the club-room were more than a little excited as they saw
the moves coming down one by one in exact agreement with those made in the Evans
cable game between Steinitz and Tschigorin. The whole play was quite familiar to
everybody, and the game was accordingly welcomed by many as an old friend, for it
is one which has perhaps been subjected to more scrutiny and criticism, comment and
analysis, than any game previously recorded in the annals of chess.
Both masters played pretty rapidly, Gunsberg more so than Steinitz. The first
fifteen moves were made in about fifty-eight minutes, of which Steinitz had
consumed forty-three minutes, although he made precisely the moves which he had
studied and analyzed over and over again before playing them against Tschigorin.
After Gunsbergs sixteenth move was recorded there was an unusually long pause, and
when Steinitzs reply finally came down Kt-Kt 5, as compared with 16 Kt-K 3 in the
cable game, naturally it gave additional material for analysis and discussion among
the spectators, who throughout the play were keps [sic] in a state of considerable
animation.
Soon this move was declared to be a bad one, and so it quickly proved. Gunsberg
got a chance to mass his minor pieces into attacking order against the adverse King,
and by a series of clever moves he forced Steinitz to resign after twenty-four moves.
The score now stands: Steinitz 4, Gunsberg 3, drawn 5.
AS IN THE CABLE MATCH.
GUNSBERG ACCEPTS STEINITZS CHALLENGE
AND WINS.
Twenty-four Moves Finished Steinitz - He
Varied the Defence from the Cable Game
Against Tschigorin - This was Bad, and
Gunsberg Scored in a Brilliant Way.
:
The twelfth game in the Steinitz-Gunsberg chess match, which was played
yesterday, will be no doubt seized upon and examined with avidity by chess
enthusiasts all the world over, and will at the same time be found unusually
interesting to every student and amateur players of the game. Had the habitues of the
Manhattan Chess Club known what was coming they would have assembled in much
larger numbers than was the case yesterday afternoon. As it was, the few who were
fortunate enough to have dropped in casually to witness the probably expected
Giuoco Piano or Ruy Lopez were thrown into a state of great animation and
excitement.
I wish Gunsberg would play an Evans Gambit.said a spectator for perhaps the
twentieth time, but from the tone in which he uttered it he evidently considered it a
hopeless and forlorn wish. The two masters had just then ascended to the room of
play on the floor above. The first three moves on either side were sent down rapidly,
and the despondent one began, figuratively speaking, to prick up his ears. When the
fourth move came down he uttered an exclamation of delight, for at last the desire of
many was realized, and an Evans Gambit formed the subject of battle.
After Gunsberg had made his fifth move Steinitz said: If you expect me to go on
with my defence, Ill do it. Gunsbergs reply was to the effect that if he had not
expected that Steinitz would play the defence he had adopted against Tschigorin in
the cable match he would never have ventured upon the Evans, and thereupon Steinitz
said, Very well then, I play Q-B 3. This is the incident as it was described by an
onlooker, but a somewhat different version is given by Steinitz himself. However it
may have been, most of the spectators in the large club room below were confidently
predicting that the veteran would vary his defence from that which he adopted in the
cable match, and ultimately this proved to be the case, but not until it had almost
reached the stage when the Steinitz-Tschigorin game was adjourned.
One of the most remarkable things about the early part of the game was the fact
that Steinitz again consumed much more time than his opponent, although he made
exactly the same moves as he did in his game against Tschigorin, over which he had
already spent a great deal of time in consideration and analysis. For example, he
deliberated fifteen minutes on his twelfth move, and then played as he had done
before. After fifteen moves on each side had been recorded Steinitzs clock stood at
forty-three minutes, while Gunsberg had only consumed ten minutes. It was only a
natural astonishment which prompted a spectator at this point to say: I cannot
understand why Steinitz should have used all this time upon exactly the same moves
as he made in the cable match.
Up to this time there had been no departure from the cable game, and Gunsbergs
next move was the same as that of the Russian master. But now came a deviation.
Instead of replying 16...Kt-K 3, as he did in the cable match, Steinitzs sixteenth move
was Kt-Kt 5, which, by the way, is one that does not seem to have been tried in any of
the numerous analyses of the game which have been made in New York chess circles.
The game was no longer Steinitz vs. Tschigorin,it became once more an encounter
between the Hungarian and his Bohemian rival, and in the end the young master
conquered, in a manner which will be readily seen by a glance at the score of moves.
The whole game was finished in two hours.
This is what Steinitz had to say about the game: In the opening of the game, before
I played 6...Q-B 3, I asked Gunsberg whether he thought I was morally bound, after
what I had published, to play exactly the same defence as I played against
Tschigorin. My object in asking this question was so that I could not be charged with
any deception, as what I had published might have misled Gunsberg into playing an
attack which perhaps he would not otherwise have attempted. He answered: "You are
not exactly bound, but the public will expect you to defend your own theories." or
words to that effect.
After that intimation I remembered I had pledged myself up to a certain point, but
could not exactly recollect up to which move, and I decided to play exactly the same
moves as in the match with Tschigorin up to and including blacks fifteenth move.
Knowing that all the stages of that opening had been well analyzed up to this point, I
essayed a new sixteenth move by Kt-Kt 5, which had not even been suggested before;
but no sooner had I made it than I saw that I had run, by a mere transposition of
moves, into one of the most dangerous variations for my side.
Gunsberg took advantage of it in a masterly manner by answering Kt-R 4, and
from that point, as the analysis shows, he had it all his own way.
At first sight one may be apt to think that the fact of Gunsberg having beaten
Steinitz in an Evanss [sic] Gambit, pursued up to a certain point in the same manner
as the cable game, is equivalent to the smashing up of Steinitzs theories. But a few
momentsconsideration will at once alter that view. In the first place it must be
remembered that in actual play upon the board the player has not that opportunity for
deliberation and analysis which he possesses in a correspondence match like the one
between Steinitz and Tschigorin, and this was very pertinently pointed out after the
close of yesterdays game by a spectator, who said that Steinitz would never have
played Kt-Kt 5 if he had more time to consider it. Upon this question Steinitz had
this to say last night:
There is a great deal of difference,he began, between a correspondence match with
a time limit of three days, and a match over the board, and I shall look into the game
and perhaps give Gunsberg notice, so as not to mislead him, that I shall alter the
defence at an earlier stage than I did to-day, for undoubtedly at the position which
was reached at the turning point the heavier burden is thrown upon the defence, and,
in a match over the board, I am not justified in handicapping myself to such an extent.
It is quite possible,he continued, that the move 16...Kt-K 3 which I made in my
match with Tschigorin was, after all, the best, for as far as I have been able to reckon,
I think I ought to get out with a drawn game, but it would be unwise to adopt it in a
match over the board with Gunsberg, for I would show my hand, and up to the
present nobody has found out the variation which I intend to play. When I said I
would play it four times it did not strike me that this would be the case, and under the
circumstances I think my best plan will be to give Gunsberg notice as I have already
suggested, as I have no right to compromise the interest of my backers in the match
with Tschigorin by playing that variation over the board at present, but I shall be glad
to do so after my match with Tschigorin is over.
However,said Steinitz in conclusion, before it is Gunsbergs turn to play, I shall
decide finally upon the matter.
The score now stands: Steinitz, 4; Gunsberg, 3; drawn 5.
VICTORY FOR GUNSBERG.
HE WINS A BRILLIANT EVANS GAMBIT
FROM STEINITZ.
The Score In the Chess Match Now
Stands: Steinitz, 4; Gunsberg, 3;
Drawn, 5 - Steinitzs Challenge
Accepted by the Londoner, who
Succeeds in Winning the Contest.
:
Ever since the beginning of the match between Messrs. Steinitz and Gunsberg,
chess players have eagerly expected the event which came off yesterday. Everybody
thought it would be a most interesting thing if Gunsberg were to play the Evans
gambit against Steinitz to enable the latter to adopt the same defense as in the
adjourned cable game against Tschigorin, which he maintains he should win even
against the best play. The press also joined in that appeal, and last but not least Mr.
Steinitz himself has on several occasions specifically stated by a way of a challenge
in the chess reports of various daily prints, and also in his own publication, the
International Chess Magazine, that he would undertake to adopt this defense should
Mr. Gunsberg offer an Evans gambit. At the time of writing access to the precise
wording of all of Mr. Steinitzs challenges, issued on several distinct occasioes [sic], is
not to be had, but the International Chess Magazine contains the following statement
by Mr. Steinitz. Speaking of his seventh move, Kt-R3, he said, some time in the early
part of November:
I offer to play that move against Mr. Gunsberg himself as often as he likes in our
forthcoming match over the board.
Subsequently, when discussing his sixteen [sic] move of Kt-K3, Mr. Steinitz was
understood to say that with the substitution of Kt-Kt sq he would play four times
against Gunsberg from this position. Again, on Dec. 12, Mr. Steinitz further confirms
this by a statement in a daily newspaper to the following effect: By many it was
expected that Gunsberg would offer an Evans-gambit to his opponent, who, it may be
remembered, stated some time ago that he would undertake to play the defense in the
Evans four times with Gunsberg from a certain position which at that time had been
reached in this game with Tschigorin.
The reason Gunsberg deferred till yesterday an acceptance of this challenge was
not because he ever doubted that the line of the play adopted by Mr. Steinitz offered
splendid opportunities for attack, for Gunsberg has all along stated that in due time he
would play the Evans-Gambit. His only object was to defer playing this opening until
the match should have reached a more advanced and interesting stage.
With eleven games played and the score standing four to two against him, Mr.
Gunsberg felt that it was high time to make an effort to check his opponents
victorious progress by taking whatever risk there was in playing against that
particular variation which Mr. Steinitz has made the subject of special study and
exhaustive analysis for the last two years.
Gunsberg gave apt expression to this train of thought when on his fourth move he
played P-QKt 4. He remarked to his opponent with an apologetic smile on his
countenance: A sick man may do anything. Great was his astonishment when he
perceived that playing the Evansgambit [sic] seemed to cause considerable mental
perturbation to his opponent.
Mr. Steinitz met Gunsbergs remark by another query, the gist of which was a
question of ethics, namely, whether his challenge was binding on him, and whether he
was compelled to adopt his own defense. Mr. Gunsberg, of course, declined to give a
definite answer to that delicate problem, and merely contented himself with
remarking in a general way: All the world expects you to play your defense, but of
course you can do as you please about it. Dr. Mintz, who up to the present has
faithfully watched the interests of both players as representative of the Club here,
kindly interposed by reminding Steinitz that he declared his intention to play this
defense four times in this match, upon which Mr. Steinitz, but not without reluctance,
proceeded with the well-known moves of the Cable games.
On his twelfth move Mr. Steinitz was again taken with some doubts as to his way
of proceeding, for he devoted half an hour to the consideration of his move, which,
after all, he did not alter. On the sixteenth move, however, Mr. Steinitz varied his
move. Instead of Kt-K s [sic] as played against Tschigorin he played Kt-K x 5 [sic].
This move is in accordance with formerly expressed views of Mr. Steinitz who had
signified his intention to modify his defense at that stage of the game. The remainder
of the story is amply told by the notes to the game below. Suffice it to say that from
this point, the sixteenth move, a sharp wrestle for the attack resulted, after only eight
moves, in the complete overthrow of the defense and the resignation of Mr. Steinitz
on the twenty-fourth move. The final collapse was brought about by a finely
considered and effective sacrifice of the Whites rook on the twenty-fourth move.
The scene in the club-room was most animated. Everybody expected that when the
Evans gambit was played a lively and interesting fight would result, but it was little
thought that the struggle would be so short, sharp and decisive, and everybody
present gave expression to their appreciation of the victors play by offering him their
hearty congratulations.
C52/01 Evans Gambit: Steinitz
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 [0:02-0:02] 6.0-0 Qf6
**Gunsberg: The normal defense is here 6...d6 7.d4 exd4 8.cxd4 Bb6. The move
above, with its subsequent line of play, is the invention of Steinitz, who first
introduced it in his match against the Russian champion, Chigorin, which was
played in Havana in the early part of 1889. Not less than ten games were played at
that opening, including one consultation game, of which the Russian master won
five to four and one draw. Steinitz has since improved his defense and an elaborate
and careful analysis thereof can be found in his Modern Chess Instructor. As will
be remembered, his new defense is put to a test in one of the two games played by
cable between him and Chigorin, which were both postponed during the duration
of the pending championship match.
7.d4 Nh6
**Gunsberg: In the first part of his Havana match Black played here 7...Nge7 and
retired afterwards ...Ncd8, but he now considers the move in the text a decided
improvement. The position arising of Blacks seventh move was the object of
Chigorins challenge, and from this point the game was played by cable.
8.Bg5 Qd6 9.d5 Nd8
**Gunsberg: In his book Steinitz recommends 9...Ne7 instead.
10.Qa4 Bb6 [0:04-0:09] 11.Na3 c6 12.Be2
**Gunsberg: Threatening Nc4, followed by pawn to d6 and Nb6, which would win
the exchange.
12...Bc7 13.Nc4 Qf8 14.d6 Bxd6 15.Nb6 Rb8 [0:10-0:43] 16.Qxa7
**Gunsberg: Up to this point the game is identical with the cable match mentioned
above.
16...Ng4
**Gunsberg: In the cable game Black played here 16...Ne6, but Steinitz
subsequently stated that 16...Ng8 was preferable. The move actually made should
enable White to win.
Steinitz: Up to this point the game was conducted in the same way exactly by both
parties as in the cable match between Steinitz and Chigorin. In the cable match
Steinitz played here 16...Ne6 and then remarked that 16...Ng8 was his best move at
this juncture. The text move was an ill-conceived deviation, which gives White at
once a strong attack and allows him to bring his minor pieces to bear against the
adverse kingside.
17.Nh4
**Steinitz: An excellent move.
17...Ne6
**Gunsberg: If 17...f6, then 18.Bc1. He might have, however, played 17...Nf6.
Steinitz: Under the circumstances the best. If 17...Nf6 18.Bxf6 gxf6 19.Nf5 Ne6
20.Rfd1 Bc7 21.Na8, and the position is similar to that which actually occurred.
8.Bxg4 Nxg5 19.Nf5
**Gunsberg: It was difficult to fix upon this move. A promising line of play
appeared to be, instead of this move, 19.Nxc8 Rxc8 20.Qxb7 Rd8 21.Rd1 or 21.
Nf5, with fair prospects of success.
19...Ne6
**Gunsberg: Necessary, as White threatens 20.Nxd6+ Qxd6 21.Rad1, followed by
Nxc8 and Bxd7+, etc. Had he, however, played 19...Nxe4 instead, White would
likewise continue with 20.Nxd6+ Qxd6 (if 20...Nxd6 then 21.Qxb8) 21.Rd1.
Steinitz: White threatened Nxd6+, followed by taking the other bishop with the
knight, and either of the rooks to d1 with a winning game, and Black had hardly
anything better than the text move, for if 19...Nxe4 20.Rfd1 Bc7 21.Nxc8 Rxc8 22.
Qxb7 Kd8 23.Qxc6 and wins.
20.Rfd1
**Gunsberg: It is important to play the f-rook and not the a-rook, as will be shown
on the next move.
20...Bc7 [0:37-1:10] 21.Na8
**Gunsberg: Best.
21...Rxa8
**Gunsberg: If, instead of this move, Black should attempt to defend his bishop
otherwise than by giving up the exchange - namely, by playing 21...Kd8 then
White would take the bishop and continue the attack later on by means of Nd6 and
Rab1.
Steinitz: If 21...Kd8 22.Nxc7 Kxc7 23.Nd6, followed by Rab1 and wins.
22.Qxa8 Kd8
**Gunsberg: Forced.
23.Rxd7+
**Gunsberg: An irresistible move.
Steinitz: A fine and powerful move which settles the game.
23...Kxd7 24.Rd1+ [0:40-1:15]1-0.
**Gunsberg: A singularly disastrous position, from which Black must emerge with a
lost game. If he attempts to defend by 24...Nd4 White plays 25.cxd4. If, then, 25...
Bb6 26.Qb8 wins; or if 25...Ke6 26.Nd6+ Kf6 (if 26...Kxd6, then 27.Qa3+ mates)
27.Nxc8 and wins. Then again if 24...Bd6 25.Qb8 Nd4 26.Nxd4+ Ke7 27.Nxc6+
and wins.
Steinitz: For after 24...Bd6, which was the only defense, White would proceed
with 25.Qb8, winning easily. If 24...Nd4 25.cxd4 Ke6 26.Nd6+, and wins; for if
26...Kxd6, White answers 27.Qa3+, and mates next move.
A VICTORY FOR STEINITZ.
GUNSBERG SUFFERS ANOTHER DEFEAT.
SCORE IN THE CHESS MATCH NOW STANDS:
STEINITZ 5, GUNSBERG 3, DRAWN 5.
:
In the chess match for the championship of the world now in progress between
Messrs. Steinitz and Gunsberg the thirteenth game was played yesterday at the
Manhattan Chess Club, in West Twenty-seventh-st. Steinitz had the move and again
selected the Zuckertort [sic] opening, Kt-K B 3. His opponent adopted a defence
different from the one he played in the eleventh game, and after eight or ten moves
had been made it seemed as though Gunsberg had not quite so good a position as on
the former occasion, because of the fact that his pieces could not be so readily
developed as before, while Steinitz had more freedom.
On both sides the game was conducted pretty rapidly. After a few more moves
Steinitz threatened an attack on the opposing Q B P, but Gunsberg was successful in
neutralizing the effect of this movement. Not only did he manage to develop his
pieces, but he appeared to avert all danger for the present. Meanwhile, however,
Steinitz prepared a strong attack on the Kings side by doubling his Rooks on the K B
file in readiness for an onslaught when the proper moment arrived. This was the state
of affairs after twenty-one moves had been registered.
Now the battle began to rage in earnest, for Steinitz began to threaten on both
wings-on the Queens side with his Q, and on the Kings side with his R and Kt. His
opponents play became difficult to manage, but just when he seemed to have got into
a bad position, at his twenty-fifth move, he played B-Kt 4 which at once seemed to
alter the state of affairs. At the adjournment, however, Steinitz was considered to
have the better of the fight.
On the resumption of play at 7 oclock the pace was forced by the move which
Steinitz had sealed upon the adjournment of the afternoon sitting. Still Steinitz had to
meet with great care a counter attack which Gunsberg managed to obtain by giving up
his centre pawns. When the 37th move had been reached, however, Gunsbergs play
became greatly hampered by the attack which he had to contend with from several
quarters. The deciding point seemed to be attained on Whites 38th turn, when Black
could no longer hold his citadel, and he had to resign after making one more move.
CONTESTING CHESS GAMES.
STEINITZ AGAIN IN THE LEAD BY TWO
GAMES.
The Veteran Played a Beautiful Zukertort
Opening Against the Youngster-
The Latter Fought Bravely, but in Vain.
:
The incident of last Monday in the match between Steinitz and Gunsberg, has
given a lively turn to affairs, and has brought into existence the neucleus of what may
ultimately grow to be the subject of a warm controversy between the two masters.
Before the commencement of yesterdays game, they had quite a lively, though not
unfriendly argument upon the matter.
The turn to open the game yesterday belonged to Steinitz, and he showed his
pertinacity of purpose by again playing Kt-K B 3, known as the Zukertort opening,
which, practically speaking, after a few moves became a Queens Gambit. In effect
every one of his openings so far has been virtually the same, and the frequent
repetition of similar openings cannot fail to have an instructive value to students, still
a greater variety would be more edifying to the general spectator. The early moves on
both sides were made very quickly. Gunsberg varied the defence somewhat, and
Steinitz also altered slightly his opening moves. The former castled on his fifth move,
and Steinitz adopted the same proceeding on the sixth.
Steinitz then proceeded with a very carefully directed attack on his opponents Q B
pawn, and almost at the same time he strengthened his K side by taking up a
threatening attitude with his rooks on the open K B file. Gunsberg got into a very
difficult position, but his defence was a clever one, and his twenty-fifth move, B-Kt 4,
seemed to turn things a little in his favor, although Steinitz was altogether of a
different opinion. However, after four more moves on either side, the game was
adjourned [...]
The move which Steinitz sealed on the adjournment proved to be a very fine one
when it was made known on the resumption of play in the evening. By it the pace was
accelerated. Gunsberg made a gallant but ineffective struggle, and after ten more
moves his position became so hopeless that he was finally obliged to resign, which he
did on his fortieth turn. The score now stands: Steinitz, 5; Gunsberg, 3; drawn, 5.
LEADING BY TWO GAMES.
Steinitz Again Defeats the Londoner in
the Chess Match.
:
The short and brilliant victory scored by Gunsberg in the Evans gambit has infused
a renewed interest to the chess contest, for even the home champions most ardent
admirers have to admit that the match will be by no means a one-sided affair. In
consequence thereof the rooms of the Club were crowded at an early hour yesterday,
and much speculation was indulged in whether the veteran would deem it advisable to
abandon his hitherto favored close openings, and if so whether he would resort to the
variation of the Ruy Lopez, which he had favored almost to the exclusion of any other
attack throughout the greater part of the London tournament in 1883, as well as in his
second match against the late J. H. Zukertort. A few Hotspurs, with whom the wish
fathered the thought, gave expression to their expectation that Mr. Steinitz would
venture that variation of the Vienna opening which bears his name.
As is generally the case with prophecies, none of the predicted events happened,
but Mr. Steinitz adhered for the third time to what is known as the Zukertort opening,
namely, beginning with 1.Kt-K B 3. Mr. Gunsberg succeeded in finding out a novel
and original defense, which seems also to be quite sound, but unfortunately he lost
time on several occasions by indifferent moves, while his opponent, who was in
excellent form, gained ground steadily.
After the seventeenth move he had the better position for the ending, according to
the doctrines expounded by the modern school, as he had four connected and well-
protected pawns on the Queen side, while the pawns of his opponent were dissolved
into groups of two. But he omitted the timely advance of his Q R P, which would
have given him the initiative, besides that white would not have been able to bring his
queen into play via Q R 6 and Q Kt. Both the eighteenth and nineteenth moves of
black lacked force, while white brought his pieces into a favorable array. As will be
seen by the notes on the game, the English player neglected twice to push his pawn to
K R 3, and, as is usually the case in difficult positions, began to be pressed for time.
On the twenty-seventh move he committed an irreparable error by offering the
exchange of knights, thereby submitting himself to the opening of his K Kt file and a
harassing attack, of which Mr. Steinitz promptly availed himself. When the time
arrived for the veteran to seal his move but few doubted that he would carry the day,
and the ultimate surrender of Mr. Gunsberg seemed only to be a question of time.
After resumption of play Mr. Steinitz, by way of threatening to win a piece or to
mate, compelled Mr. Gunsberg to abandon his Q B P, which white captured. Hereby
the Q P was rendered defenseless, and Mr. Steinitz had now two pawns to his credit.
On the thirty-sixth move he returned a pawn to bring matters to a settlement, and by
well-directed play forced Mr. Gunsberg, who could no longer save a piece, to resign
on his fortieth move.
This gives Mr. Steinitz again a lead of two games: the score being 5 to 3, and 5
drawn. To-day being the occasion of the annual general meeting of the Manhattan
Chess Club, the fourteenth game will be played on Friday.
Mr. Steinitz has notified Mr. Gunsberg that he will not play his defense in the
Evans gambit against him any more. That is to say, not further than 6.Q-B 3. As Mr.
Steinitzs two challenges, however, distinctly comprised also his move of 7.Kt-R 3 as
well as some of the subsequent moves played in his cable game, his declination, no
doubt influenced by the advanced stage of the match, amounts to a complete
retraction of his challenges. Mr. Steinitz is, of course, perfectly entitled to act as he
does in his own interest as regards the present match, also as regards the prospects in
his adjourned cable game with Tschigorin. Mr. Gunsberg himself feels that, and he
would be very sorry to take advantage of a rashly issued challenge, which, however,
ought never to have been made.
The interest taken in this match has caused several of the prominent chess clubs in
this country to invite Mr. Gunsberg to meet some of their strongest players and also to
give exhibitions of simultaneous play. Arrangements have nearly been completed
with chess clubs at: Philadelphia, Baltimore, Albany and other cities.
A46/04 Indian: Knights (Rubinstein)
1.Nf3 Nf6 2.d4 e6 3.e3 Bb4+
**Gunsberg: Black again varies his defense of this opening.
Steinitz: There is hardly any time lost by this odd move, unless, perhaps, White in
reply should decide to interpose 4.Nbd2.
4.c3 Be7 5.Be2 0-0 [0:08-0:04] 6.0-0
**Steinitz: White did not advance 6.c4, because Black had not advanced his d-pawn,
and in such situation Black might have answered 6...Bb4+; and if Whites knight
then interposed, he could have captured the knight and created a double pawn.
Black, after this, might proceed according to Winawers tactics, refraining carefully
from advancing ...d5, and playing for an ending in which the two knights would
have the advantage, because.
6...d5 7.c4 b6
**Steinitz: Most of the European masters adopt this turn into the Fianchetto di
Donna in this opening, but I have never looked upon it with favor.
8.Nc3 Bb7 9.cxd5
**Steinitz: In my own opinion best, though most of the experts, including Zukertort,
usually played here 9.b3, followed by Bb2.
9...exd5 10.Ne5 Nfd7 [0:12-0:15]
**Gunsberg: Black played the f-knight and not the b-knight, because after 11.f4
Nxe5 12.fxe5, he would have to retire that knight anyhow.
Steinitz: Hardly advisable, and under the circumstances 10...Nbd7, followed by ...
Re8 and ...Nf8 was probably his best plan.
11.f4 Nxe5 12.fxe5 c6
**Steinitz: Preparing for his next offer of an exchange, and also preventing pawn to
e4, and pawn to d5 eventually.
13.Bd2
**Steinitz: As White sees that the adversary enters on an exchanging plan, he simply
prepares an attack on the queenside and brings the rooks into communication.
Obviously 13.Bd3, which looks a good move, would only have lost time.
13...Ba6
**Gunsberg: In order to prevent White from posting his bishop at d3, which would
give him a strong attack. Black loses, however, time thereby.
Steinitz: This was now Blacks best plan, undoubtedly, for if 13...Na6 instead,
White would have opened a tremendous attack by 14.Bd3, which he could well
back up ultimately with the doubled rooks on the f-file, and those rooks could
afterward be brought accordingly to the g-file, or h-file.
14.Bxa6 Nxa6 15.Qa4 Nb8 [0:22-0:28] 16.Rac1 f6 17.exf6 Bxf6
**Gunsberg: If 17...Rxf6 White would continue with 18.e4. Black has now the better
position for the ending, as he has four connected pawns on the queenside, while the
white pawns are dissolved in groups of two. But Whites pieces are far better
developed.
18.Ne2 Re8
**Gunsberg: A weak move, instead of which he should have played 18...a5,
followed by 19...b5.
19.Rf3 Qe7 20.Rcf1 Rc8[0:35-0:54] 21.Bb4 Qe6
**Gunsberg: If 21...Qe4, then 22.Ng3, followed by Nf5 and Nd6.
Steinitz: If 21...c5 22.Qb3 Rd8 23.dxc5 bxc5 24.Nf4, and clearly Black dare not
take the bishop on account of the rejoinder 25.Nxd5, and both his center pawns will
become weak and must fall in the end.
22.Nf4 Qe4 23.Nh5 Nd7 24.Qa6
**Steinitz: Better than 24.Rc1 on account of the continuation 24...b5 25.Qa6 Bxd4
with the advantage.
24...Qe8
**Steinitz: Whereas now, if 24...Bxd4 25.exd4 Qxd4+ 26.Kh1 Qxb4 27.Qb7 Qd6 28.
Rf7 with a winning game.
25.Rh3 Bg5 [1:19-1:34]
**Gunsberg: 25...h3 instead of the last move seems to be much better.
26.Kh1
**Gunsberg: Intending to continue with Nxg7.
Steinitz: In order to prepare Re1 in case Black should take the e-pawn with his
bishop.
26...Nf6
**Gunsberg: He cannot capture the pawn because of the reply 27.Qd3. The move in
the text is a grave error, as will be seen forthwith. Blacks best play at this juncture
was still 26...h6.
Steinitz: Perhaps the best defense was 26...Bh6, followed by ...Nf8.
27.Nxf6+ gxf6
**Gunsberg: If 27...Bxf6 instead, White would win with 28.Rxf6, followed by 29.
Qb7.
Steinitz: Absolutely necessary. If 27...Bxf6 28.Rxf6 gxf6 29.Qb7, followed by 30.
Rg3 in reply to 29...Qg6 (the only move) and wins.
28.Qb7 Qg6
**Gunsberg: Perhaps it was better to play here 28...h6. The following continuation
was likely to occur: 28...h6 29.Rg3 Qf7 30.Qa6 Kh8.
29.Qd7 Kh8 [1:51-?:??] 30.Be7(Sealed) 30...Rg8 [1:51-1:46]
**
Gunsberg: White threatened 31.Bxf6+ Bxf6 32.Rxf6. Blacks last move prevents it,
but at the cost of two pawns.
Steinitz: He had hardly anything better and this opens to him some prospect of
attack against the kingside.
31.Qxc6 Rac8 32.Qxd5 Rg7 33.Bb4 Qd3 34.Qf3 Rc2 35.Bc3 Re7 [2:17-
2:13]
**The ChessBase for Windows demo has the move 35...Re2, which is clearly wrong.-
[Pope]
36.e4
**Gunsberg: Giving up the pawn in order to bring matters to a speedy termination.
Steinitz: The best way of getting rid of the adverse attack, as White had sufficient
to win in the ending and the e-pawn could not be saved anyhow.
36...Qxe4 37.d5 Qg6
**Gunsberg: The exchange of queens would likewise leave him with an untenable
position.
38.Rg3
**Gunsberg: Threatening to win by Rxg5.
38...Rf7 39.d6
**Gunsberg: Better than 39.h4 at once, to which Black had some defense by 39...
Qh6.
Steinitz: Obviously, if 39.Rxg5 Qxg5 40.Bxf6+ Rxf6 and wins, for clearly White
cannot retake twice on account of the mate ultimately pending by ...Rc1#.
39...h6
**Gunsberg: If now 39...Qh6, White pushes 40.d7 Rxd7 41.Rxg5 and Black cannot
reply with 41...Rxc3, for White would mate beginning with 42.Qa8+.
40.h4 [2:30-2:38] 1-0.
**Steinitz: Winning a piece with an overwhelming attack.
CHESS HONORS DIVIDED.
GUNSBERG AGAIN PLAYED AN EVANS
GAMBIT.
The Veteran Altered his Defence, and,
Although Gunsberg Played a Very Clever
and Brilliant Attack, he Could Not Win.
:
Again the Evans Gambit. This was the order of play yesterday in the
championship encounter between Steinitz and Gunsberg at the Manhattan Chess Club
in West Twenty-seventh street. But Steinitz, in accordance with the intention of
which he had already notified his opponent, declined to continue all through with the
same defence he had adopted in the cable game against Tschigorin. Of course,
Gunsberg knew quite well that the veteran would alter his method, and, therefore, in
again opening the Evans, Gunsberg manifested an enterprise at once admirable and
courageous.
Speculation became rife after the opening moves as to where Steinitz would first
depart from the cable game, and the spectators did not have to wait for long before
this point was decided. The game of Monday was adhered to up to the end of the
sixth move. On blacks seventh turn came the anticipated change. In his game by
cable with the Russian player, and also in the game played last Monday with
Gunsberg, Steinitz moved on his seventh turn Kt-K R 3. Yesterday he varied this
move by playing P-K R 3. A spectator who was present when this move was
recorded, stated that in tournament play a few years ago this same movement was
made by a strong amateur against Steinitz himself, who on that occasion was playing
white.
For some time the game was conducted on fairly even terms, Gunsberg pursuing
the initiative with marked vigor and ability. At length the opinion of the spectators
turned chiefly in favor of the Hungarians game, which was considered, long before
the adjournment, to be the superior of the two.
Steinitz took a long time to consider his reply, and was still thinking when the time
arrived for adjourning the afternoon sitting. At this time it was clear that he was
playing for his only hope-a draw.
The move which Steinitz sealed on the adjournment was one by which he attained
his object of drawing the game. When it had been opened and the move made on the
board of play, the veteran said to his younger opponent You may think it over and tell
me if you want to play for a win. After a few momentsconsideration, Gunsberg said
that if his opponents remark was intended to be an offer of a draw, he was willing to
accept it. The game was thereupon recorded as a draw, making the score now:
Steinitz, 5; Gunsberg, 3; drawn, 6. The greater part of Gunsbergs play was counted
by many as fine chess, and altogether he has proved a surprise.
Steinitz makes the following comments upon the game:
Gunsberg is certainly very plucky. He offered the Evans Gambit for the second
time, although I had given him notice that I thought myself at liberty to alter my
defence at any time. In his comments upon this notice he calls it a retraction of a
challenge that ought never to have been made, but I do not think that fair-minded
chess players will agree with him, for all challenges ought to be accepted formally
within a reasonable time, and Gunsberg could not expect that I should wait for his
convenience and be bound to a long series of moves, while he would be at liberty to
alter his tactics at any time or not play that opening at all.
However, I did not abandon the leading idea of my defence: I played 6...Q-B 3,
which was the original bone of contention between Tschigorin and myself. On the
seventh move I also advanced P-K R 3, which was the line of play I had intended to
adopt against Tschigorin before knowing that he had included in his conditions 7...Kt-
R 3. Gunsberg then proceeded with a sort of Ruy Lopez attack by 8 B-Kt 5, and
threatened to gain a pawn for two moves in successioa [sic]. Black lost patience on
the ninth move, and exchanged pawns in a manner that gave his opponent a good
centre attack, which could have been avoided by B-Kt 3 instead.
The fight for position soon afterward resolved itself into an attempt on whites part
to force on his K B P, while black parried that attack an attempted a counter
demonstration by the advance of his pawns on the queens wing. This was hardly
judicious, though it might perhaps have worked well, considering that black was a
pawn ahead, if he had on the twenty-seventh move simply protected the weakened Q
B P by Q-K sq. As it was, white won the queens centre pawn and obtained a passed
K P, which at the time of adjournment, looked threatening. However, black had some
compensation by the exposed position of the adverse king, while his own was in
security, and he had also more freedom of action for his rook on the open files.
STILL ANOTHER DRAW.
THE FOURTEENTH GAME OF THE CHESS
MATCH.
GUNSBERG OPENED AGAIN WITH THE EVANS
GAMBIT-ONLY SIX MORE GAMES
CAN BE PLAYED.
:
The rooms of the Manhattan Chess Club in this city were very well patronized
yesterday when Gunsberg opened the fourteenth game in the match for the chess
championship of the world. The Hungarian remained true to his intention to open
again with the Evans Gambit against the veteran, Steinitz.
The readers of The Tribune will remember that before the match started Steinitz
challenged Gunsberg to play the Evans Gambit against him, and undertook to play on
four occasions the defence which he had already adopted against Tschigorin on the
cable match up to a certain point. Gunsberg played the Evans Gambit for the first
time last Monday, winning the game after twenty-four moves. Meantime Steinitz
withdrew his challenge, one of his avowed reasons being that he was no longer bound
to keep it, since Gunsberg did not take it up at the beginning of their match. Another
reason which he gave was that if he played the same continuation against Gunsberg
he would be compromising the interests of his backers in the cable match.
He duly informed Gunsberg of his withdrawal, but in spite of this fact the latter
declared he would again play the Evans Gambit when his turn came to open, and this
he did yesterday. He conducted the attack with great spirit and skill, and at the same
time played, on the whole, pretty rapidly throughout. On the other hand, Steinitz
played in his usually careful and steady style, defending his position, particularly
toward the end, with great penetration and foresight.
After the eighteenth move the position was a very interesting one. As will be seen
from the score of the game which is appended, Steinitz varied his defence as early in
the game as the seventh move. On that move in Mondays game he played Kt-R 3,
instead of P-R 3. He succeeded in keeping the gambit pawn till a very advanced
stage of the game. In fact it was only on his thirty-third and last move that Gunsberg,
by clever play, managed to recover it, although for some time prior to this he had
possessed a superior game.
Steinitz sealed as his reply move, 33...Q-Q Kt sq., which assured the draw he had
for some time been aiming at. The proposal for a draw was made by Steinitz and
readily accepted by Gunsberg. The score now stands: Steinitz 5, Gunsberg 3, drawn
6, with six more possible games to be played.
A SPICY EVANS GAMBIT.
Another Interesting Contest Between
Two Great Chess Masters.
:
The extraordinary incident in the chess match of Mr. Steinitz withdrawing his
challenge, so confidently issued-the particulars of which have been narrated in THE
WORLD of Jan.6-warranted the unusual interest manifested in the fourteenth game.
Although the English player had been already told by his opponent that he will not
consider himself bound to adhere to his innovation in the defense of the Evans
gambit, a line of play which is considered unsound in every chess experts opinion but
in the authors, he nevertheless, relying upon his own resources, offered the pawn in
the fourth move, greatly to the delight of the numerous spectators, who naturally
enjoy a sprightly and spicy gambit more than all the finesses of the modern school.
After thirty-three moves the game was drawn. The score now stands: Steinitz, 5;
Gunsberg, 3; drawn, 6. The fifteenth game will be played to-morrow.
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 [0:02-0:01] 6.O-O
Qf6 7.d4 h6
**Gunsberg: In his book Steinitz declares 7...Nh6 the right move to be at this
juncture. It seems that his present move is a little better. A still better course
seems to be 7...Bb6.
Steinitz: Perhaps the safest plan, considering Blacks last move.
8.Bb5
**Gunsberg: White has an abundance of moves to continue with, as for example 8.
d5, or 8.dxe5 Nxe5 9.Nxe5 Qxe5 10.Qb3 with a view to continue afterwards with
pawn to f4, all of which give the player good attacking chances. The move
actually made seems, however, as good as, if not better than, as any.
Steinitz: If 8.Qb3, Black intended to play 8...Nge7 9.dxe5 Nxe5 10.Nxe5 Qxe5 11.
Bxd7+ Kd8 with an excellent game, though the pawns are even.
8...Nge7 9.Ba3
**Steinitz: Of course this prevents Black from castling for a little while, as in that
case White would answer 10.Bxe7, thereby winning a pawn.
9...exd4
**Steinitz: 9...Bb6 was preferable.
10.e5
**Gunsberg: It was perhaps better to retake the pawn first.
Steinitz: Though Black dare not take that pawn on account of the ultimate Re1, it
was far better to retake the pawn at once and leave the center pawns standing
abreast, with the option of advancing later on.
10...Qe6 [0:06-0:26] 11.cxd4 Bb4
**Steinitz: Hardly a good move.
12.Bb2
**Gunsberg: White could here recover the pawn sacrificed on the fourth move by
taking the c-knight and in reply to 12...Bxa3 (best) take either the Black b-pawn or
d-pawn. But White justly preferred to keep up his attack.
Steinitz: White could have won a pawn here by 12.Bxc6 Bxa3 (of course 12...
Nxc6 13.d5 with a winning attack) 13.d5 recovering the pawn with a good game.
12...d5 13.Nc3 O-O 14.Ne2 Ng6 15.Qb3
**Gunsberg: 15.Qa4 was also a strong continuation at this point.
15...Ba5 [0:32-0:40]
**Steinitz: If 15...Be7, White would probably have answered 16.Nd2.
16.Ne1 Nce7 17.f4 Qb6
**Gunsberg: 17...Bb6 instead and subsequently ...f6 would have been preferable.
Steinitz: 17...f5 at once was superior.
18.Ba3
**
Gunsberg: A good move, which effectually meets Blacks plan to force the
exchange of queens by 18...c6, for White would retire 19.Bd3, and if Black takes
the queen the pawn retakes. Blacks best move would then be 20...Bd8 as both
knight and bishop are menaced, and White has an excellent game by playing pawn
to f5. If Black, however, takes the knight at e1 instead of retiring the bishop to d8,
then White retakes with the a-rook and proceeds likewise with pawn to f5, Black
being compelled to play ...Re8.
Steinitz: A very fine rejoinder, which gives White the pull in a precarious-looking
position.
18...f5
**Gunsberg: He has to stop the advance of the adverse f-pawn, but this move leaves
White plenty of scope, for the array of his forces into an attacking position and
gives him a powerful passed pawn.
Steinitz: If 18...c6 19.Bd3 Qxb3 20.axb3, threatening 21.Bxe7 as well as 21.f5
with an excellent game.
19.Qa4 c6 20.Bd3 Qd8 [0:45-1:12] 21.Qc2 b5
**Steinitz: Maneuvering with the pawns on the queenside was not advisable. The
text move weakens the c-pawn, and although there is apparently no danger at
present, it is a source of trouble at a later stage.
22.Kh1 Bb6 23.g4 a5
**Gunsberg: Perhaps 23...Nh4 would have been preferable.
24.Rg1 b4
**Gunsberg: Not good, as the sequel shows.
Steinitz: Instead of this, Black would have done better to play 24...Qe8.
25.gxf5 Bxf5 [0:58-1:22] 26.Bxf5 Rxf5 27.Rxg6
**Gunsberg: A very good move, which at least wins a pawn.
27...bxa3
**Gunsberg: It is obvious that 27...Nxg6 28.Qxf5 would be in favor of White.
Steinitz: Black could again have improved his position here by 27...Qe8.
28.Rxc6
**Gunsberg: Here White might have kept up a promising attack by 28.Re6 or 28.
Nf3 instead.
Steinitz: White must have looked far ahead before taking this pawn, for in several
ways his game looked dangerous after this; but on examination it will be found that
his position remains sound.
28...Nxc6 29.Qxf5 Nxd4 30.Nxd4 Bxd4 [1:22-1:30] 31.Qe6+ Kh8 32.
Rd1 Bc3 33.Rxd5 (Adjourned)
**Gunsberg: At this point the time for adjournment had arrived. Steinitz devoted
nearly half an hour to the consideration of the extremely difficult situation before
sealing his reply. An examination of the highly interesting and complicated
position shows that Blacks choice of good moves is limited. Had he, for instance
played the very plausible looking 33...Qh4, White would have had in all probability
a winning game by 34.Ng2.
33...Qb8 (Sealed) -.
**Gunsberg: The exposed position of the white king now enables Black to draw by
perpetual check.
Steinitz: Probably better than 33...Qh4 34.Ng2 Qh5 35.Qc6 Rb8 36.Qxc3 Rb1+ 37.
Ne1 Rxe1+ (Black had no time for 37...Qe2, as White would mate in a few moves
beginning with 38.Qc8+) 38.Qxe1 Qf3+, and Whites king has more freedom,
although by best play it would also end in a draw. The probable continuation
would have been: 34.Rd1 Bxe1 35.Rxe1 Qb7+ 36.Kg1 Ra6, and the game could
hardly be won by either side.
ONE MORE DRAWN GAME.
FEATURELESS DAY IN THE CHESS MATCH.
STEINITZ OPENS THE PLAY FOR THE EIGHTH
TIME WITH THE QUEENS GAMBIT.
:
In the chess match for the championship of the world, now in progress under the
auspices of the Manhattan Chess Club in this city, Mr. Steinitz yesterday for the
eighth time opened the Queens Gambit or what comes practically to the same thing,
the Zukertort opening--Kt-K B 3. This game having already been played seven times
in this contest, it was only natural that the first few moves should be made rapidly on
both sides.
Gunsberg adopted again the Fianchetto do Donna style of defence, which is
scarcely approved by Steinitz. However, the Hungarian succeeded in getting a much
better development of his pieces in this game than in the thirteenth of the series, in
which he adopted a similar defence. In the latter part of the opening Steinitz essayed
threatening tactics on the Q side with his Queen, which were well neutralized by the
defence.
An exchange of Rooks followed, and it finally seemed as if Gunsberg would win a
Pawn. In this he succeeded on his twenty-sixth turn. A further exchange of Rooks
followed, and when, a few moves later, the game was adjourned for the usual two
hoursrecess, the position seemed a dead draw because of the likelihood which existed
of Bishops on oppositely colored squares being left on the board.
On the resumption of play at 7 oclock this anticipation was fulfilled, for Steinitz
exchanged one of his Bishops for a Knight. Although Gunsberg was still a Pawn to
the good there was nothing left to fight for, neither player having any prospect of a
win. Accordingly the game was agreed upon as a draw after thirty-nine moves,
making the score now : Steinitz 5, Gunsberg 3, drawn 7.
ANOTHER DRAWN GAME.
The Champions Discussed a Zukertort
Opening.
:
In their match for the chess championship yesterday Steinitz and Gunsberg again
discussed a Zukertort opening on the initiative of the older player, whose persistency
in this direction is becoming somewhat tiresome to many of the frequenters of the
Manhattan Chess Club. Virtually Steinitz has now made the same opening eight
times. Of course, he has varied the opening move by playing at one time P-Q 4, at
another Kt-K B 3, but the result after a few moves has been that, practically speaking,
the position arrived at has been the same.
Gunsberg managed on this occasion to get his pieces more readily into play than in
the thirteenth game, in which his queens side, it will be remembered, was very much
hampered. Eventually Steinitz made an excursion with his queen into her own
territories, and commenced a mode of attack which could hardly be reckoned as
satisfactory for his own game. The result was that ultimately he lost a pawn after a
fight which was pretty evenly conducted on both sides.
Gunsberg captured the pawn on his twenty-sixth move, and an exchange of rooks
followed. When the game was adjourned, after 28 moves had been recorded, the
position [...] indicated that bishops on differently colored squares would be left on the
board, and that the most likely issue then would be a draw.
This ultimately proved to be the case when Steinitz exchanged his Q B for the
opposing Kt, and a draw was announced after whites thirty-ninth move.
ANOTHER DRAWN BATTLE.
MAKING SEVEN THAT NEITHER
CHESS-MASTER COULD WIN.
The Game, Which Was Again Opened
Irregularly by Mr. Steinitz, Was One
of the Finest of the Series-Gunsberg
Gets Out of a Hole by a Good
Combination-Next Game To-morrow.
:
The Fifteenth game of the match, one of the finest battles over the chess-board, was
again opened irregularly by Mr. Steinitz. Like in previous games Gunsberg changed
his defensive tactics by after whites B P x Q P not retaking with the P but with the
Kt. Mr. Steinitz prepared his usual battle plan, namely, to mass forces on the Qs side
and as pointed out in the notes to the game below, the position assumed a rather
dangerous look for black. White, besides, incidentally threatening to win a piece,
was, to all appearance, at liberty, after advancing his centre pawns, to throw his forces
on the K side or to continue the pressure against the Qs wing. Black seemed to have
only a choice of evils. But black, by a deep and far-reaching combination, not only
averted all danger, but emerged with the better position, winning a pawn in the
twenty-sixth move. One move later, after the exchange of rooks, Mr. Steinitz
proposed a draw, but Mr. Gunsberg preferred to go on with the game. White, who
was a pawn behind, managed to remain with Q and a B of different color than his
opponents B. But notwithstanding Gunsberg could have probably won the game as
shown in the appended notes. The game lasted five hours, of which both consumed
an equal amount. The score now stands: Steinitz, 5; Gunsberg, 3; drawn, 7.
The next game will be played to-morrow.
D35/01 Queens Indian: Spassky
1.Nf3 Nf6 2.d4 e6 3.e3 b6
**Steinitz: It does not make much difference at which point the fianchetto is adopted
early in the opening by the second player, but usually this is deferred.
4.c4 Bb7 5.Nc3 d5 [0:05-0:06] 6.cxd5 Nxd5
**Gunsberg: In a somewhat similar position in the thirteenth game, Black retook
here with the pawn. The text move is better.
7.Bb5+
**Steinitz: It is generally a good plan to compel the adversary to close the diagonal
of his bishop in the manner done in the text.
7...c6 8.Bd3 Be7 9.e4 Nxc3
**Steinitz: This strengthens the adverse center, and 9...Nf6 was preferable.
10.bxc3 O-O [0:12-0:12] 11.O-O
**Steinitz: 11.Be3 was probably superior.
11...c5 12.Be3 cxd4 13.cxd4 Nc6 14.Rc1
**Steinitz: With a view of playing Bb1, followed by Qd3 with a strong attack.
14...Ba3
**Gunsberg: With a view of preventing White from carrying out his plan of
campaign, namely, to retire his bishop to b1 and to play his queen to c2 or d3,
either before or after pushing the pawn to e5, according to circumstances.
15.Rc3 Bb4 [0:26-0:21]
**Gunsberg: If 15...Bb2 instead White wins a piece by 16.Rxc6 and 17.Qc2.
Steinitz: 15...Bb2 was probably Blacks original intention, but he finds now that he
would lose two minor pieces for the rook by the reply 16.Rxc6, followed by Qc2,
winning one of the bishops.
16.Rc4
**Gunsberg: A very strong move which threatens to win a piece by pawn to d5 and
also to bring the rook over to the kingside.
16...Be7
**
Gunsberg: If 16...b5 instead, White would obtain a good attack against Blacks
loosened queens wing after retiring the rook.
17.Qa4
**Gunsberg: Had he now played 17.d5, Black would have obtained a good game by
17...exd5 18.exd5 Nb4.
17...Na5
**Gunsberg: A good move which, however, required the minutest forecalculation.
Blacks game was menaced in the extreme, and it was very difficult to steer clear of
all cliffs. Had he, for instance, played 17...Rc8 instead of the text move, White
would have obtained an overwhelming position by doubling rooks, followed by
pawn to d5. Besides, Black had to guard against pawn to e5 and Be4, or Bb5, after
retiring the rook. The move actually made was the fruit of a deep combination
which enabled Black to prevent his opponent from playing subsequently Bd2,
which would otherwise lose a pawn.
18.Rc2 Rc8 19.Rfc1
**Gunsberg: If 19.Rxc8, then Black retakes with the bishop threatening ...Bd7.
19...Rxc2 20.Rxc2
**Gunsberg: Steinitz remarked that 20.Qxc2 would have been superior.
Steinitz: 20.Qxc2 was much superior.
20...Qa8 [0:44-0:59]
**Gunsberg: This is the move upon which Black had relied in forming his defense.
It not only releases his queens wing from the pressure of Whites attack, but also
gives him the initiative.
Steinitz: A very fine move, which wins a pawn by force, at least temporarily.
21.Nd2 Bc6 22.Bb5 Bxe4 23.Nxe4 Qxe4 24.Rc7 Bf6
**Gunsberg: Better, perhaps, were 24...Bd6, with the following combination: 25.
Rxa7 Qb1+ 26.Bf1 Bxh2+ 27.Kxh2 Qxf1.
Steinitz: Black could have maintained the pawn by 24...Bd6 25.Rxa7 Qb1+ 26.Bf1
Bxh2+ 27.Kxh2 Qxf1, but his b-pawn would have remained weak.
25.Rxa7 Nc6 [1:15-1:19] 26.Ra8
**Gunsberg: If 26.Rd7, Black continues with 26...Ne7 and ...Nd5. It is obvious that
White cannot play 26.Bxc6.
Steinitz: If 26.Rd7, Black would answer 26...Ne7, followed by ...Nd5.
26...Nxd4 27.Rxf8+ Kxf8 28.Qa3+ Kg8
**Gunsberg: If 28...Be7, White would have likewise remained with bishops of
different colors.
29.Qa6 (Sealed) 29...g5 30.Bxd4[2:11-2:10]
**Gunsberg: Of course not 30.Qxb6 because of 30...Qb1+, winning the queen.
30...Bxd4 [2:11-2:18] 31.Bf1 Bc5 32.Qe2 Qd4 33.g4 Kg7 34.Qf3 Qa4
35.Qc3+ f6 [2:20-2:20] 36.Qc4 Qc6 37.Qe2 Qd6 38.Qf3 Qd4 39.Bd3 -
.
**Gunsberg: Here Black ought to have checked at a1 and captured the pawn, with
good chances to win. But he seemed to have overlooked the force of that move, for
he accepted here the renewed proposal of a draw.
Steinitz: Steinitz afterward pointed out that Black could have here proceeded with
39...Qa1+ 40.Kg2 Qxa2 41.Qb7+ Kf8 42.Qb8+ Kf7 43.Qc7+ Be7, and White dare
not take the b-pawn on account of the rejoinder ...Qd5+, winning the bishop.
However, if White then took the h-pawn he had fair prospects of making his
defense good, and though the adverse b-pawn would have been troublesome for
some time the game was hardly strong enough to win, especially if White did not
exchange queens.
GUNSBERG WINS A GAME.
STEINITZ FALLS INTO A TRAP
THE CHAMPION STILL ONE POINT AHEAD IN THE CHESS MATCH.
:
Gunsberg yesterday opened for the third time, in the match for the worlds chess
championship in this city, an Evans Gambit against Steinitz, and as the latter did not
feel well his defence was not up to his usual high standard. However, he made a
capital fight in the new variation which Gunsberg introduced on his eighth move.
After some give-and-take play on both sides the veteran forged ahead with a
somewhat premature attack on the Kings side, which Gunsberg defended with
considerable skill, and to that end had to bring some of his pieces from the Queens
wing over to the Kings side.
Just when the game was about to become highly interesting Gunsberg made a
move which was intended not only to drive the opponents Queen out of play, but also
in the other event to lead Steinitz into a trap by which he would lose his Queen.
Steinitz, without much hesitation, took the proffered pawn which was left en prise,
fell into the trap cleverly laid by his opponent, and had to resign on his twenty-first
move. The score now stands: Steinitz, 5; Gunsberg, 4; drawn, 7; and four games to
be played.
THE GREAT CHESS MATCH.
STEINITZ IS TRAPPED BY GUNSBERG
ON HIS TWENTIETH MOVE.
Gunsberg Opened Another Evans Gambit
and Won a Fine Game-Steinitzs Defence
was Somewhat Weak-He was About to
Lose His Queen When He Resigned.
:
After two and a half hoursplay the sixteenth game in the Steinitz-Gunsberg chess
encounter was decided yesterday in a most unexpected manner. It was an Evans
Gambit, which was again started by Gunsberg, and the spectators who were
assembled in the large room at the Manhattan Chess Club found in a short time a new
variation of the famous opening, which not only proved particularly interesting, but in
which Steinitz took up a line of defence superior to that which he played last
Saturday. At any rate, after nineteen moves had been made on either side there
seemed to be no particular danger threatening him.
Naturally, the early moves were made very rapid. The first deviation from the
fourteenth game was made by Gunsberg on his eighth move. With this exception
Gunsbergs attack in the opening was similar to that which he played in the previous
Evans Gambit. Steinitz deliberated twenty minutes on his thirteenth move, and after
another move on either side had been recorded [... it] was generally expected that
Gunsberg would now proceed with B x Kt and Q-Kt 4, threatening mate, but this
expectation was not realized, for he moved Q Kt-Q 2. The attack and the defence
were now conducted on fairly even terms. Steinitz succeeded in neutralizing the
attack of his opponent and entered upon a counter attack, for which, however, he had
not made full preparation.
Although at the time when the middle game was entered upon Steinitz had not been
able to castle, his king seemed to be in safe quarters, protected by pawns and minor
pieces, while his queen was engaged in an attack upon the opposing king.
On his twentieth turn Gunsberg made a move which was destined to at once change
the whole aspect of affairs. At first sight the object of this move, Kt-R 4, was simply
to drive back the adverse queen, at the risk of losing the pawn, which was thus left en
prise. But in reality is was a cleverly conceived trap which had for its object the
capturing of the queen, the B P being the bait. It is sufficient to say that Steinitz did
not see the trap until he had made the fatal move, and when his opponents reply came,
he at once gave up.
MR. STEINITZS MISTAKE.
HIS OPPONENT MOVED IN A WAY
THAT WAS NOT EXPECTED.
The Contest Finely Conducted and Full
of Interesting Postions-Gunsberg
Is Now Only One Game Behind the
Famous Chess Master and Seems to
Enjoy the Evans Gambit.
:
Yesterdays game of the contest brought about another Evans Gambit, which the
English player pluckily offered. Mr. Steinitz still clung to his new defense, which he,
like in the fourteenth game, improved by P-K R 3 on the seventh move. As will be
seen by the notes to the appended games, both the attack and the defense were finely
conducted, and the middle game was full of intricacies and interesting positions. It is
therefore to be regretted that the play, which promised to be a specimen of chess of
the highest order, was marred by a mistake on the part of Mr. Steinitz, who, by
capturing a pawn on the twentieth move, allowed his opponent to imprison his
Queen. Mr. Steinitz, who had only considered the eventuality of whites playing his
Kt to K B 3 on the twenty-first move, resigned immediately after Gunsbergs move, Kt
to K 4. The game lasted 2h. 48m., of which Gunsberg consumed 1h. 28m.
The victorious result of yesterdays game leaves the London player only one point
behind his famous opponent-one point in sixteen game. Mr. Gunsberg has so far
achieved the est results of all the experts who have ever antagonized the grand-master
of chess over the board. The score is now: Steinitz, 5; Gunsberg, 4; drawn, 7. The
seventeenth game will be played to-morrow.
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 [0:01-0:01] 6.O-O
Qf6 7.d4 h6 8.Qa4
**Gunsberg: In the fourteenth game White played Bb5 first. But as he had to play
his queen afterwards to a4 it occurred to him that the present continuation would be
better. It may be remarked here that had White now played 8.Qb3 Black could have
played 8...Nge7, and if 9.dxe5 Nxe5 10.Nxe5 Qxe5 11.Bxf7+ Kd8 with a good
position for the ending.
Steinitz: An alteration from game 14, which seems to strengthen Whites attack.
8...Bb6 9.Bb5
**Gunsberg: Here 9.d5 or 9.Be3 deserves to be considered. But it is doubtful
whether in either case White would obtain a better game than by the line of play
which he adopted. After 9.d5 in some variations White may bring about an
exchange of dark-squared bishops and may compel Black to retake with the c-
pawn, but that may hardly be deemed sufficient compensation for the pawn he has
sacrificed.
9...Nge7 10.Ba3 exd4 [0:17-0:16]
**Gunsberg: If 10...O-O, then of course 11.Bxc6 dxc6 12.Nxe5 would recover the
pawn; if 10...d6, then 11.d5 would win a piece. Black might have tried the odd
move of 10...Rb8 with a view of playing ...a6 to displace the bishop. White would
not do well to exchange both bishops for the sake of regaining the pawn, as he
would remain with two knights against two bishops. But there really is no seeming
objections against 10...Ng6.
Steinitz: This seems now Blacks best plan. If 10...Ng8 (or 10...O-O 11.Bxc6,
followed by 12.Nxe5) 11.Nbd2, followed soon after by Nc4 with an excellent game.
11.e5
**Gunsberg: The only way to continue the attack.
11...Qg6
**Gunsberg: White is here of the opinion that Black ought to have taken his chances
by 11...Nxe5. Steinitz does not believe that he could have done that. But in
practical play it would have been very difficult to find the right way to take
advantage of Blacks move. The best seems to be after 11...Nxe5 12.Nxe5 Qxe5 13.
Nd2 c6 14.Rfe1 Qxb5 15.Rxe7+ Kd8 and its now an open question whether the
best continuation for White would be 16.Qxb5 or 16.Qd1. In either case the burden
of proving the attack successfully is thrown upon White.
Steinitz: Evidently if 11...Nxe5 12.Re1 Nxf3+ 13.gxf3, and Black cant save the
piece.
12.cxd4 Nd5 13.Re1
**
Gunsberg: Best, for it still keeps Blacks game confined and provides for playing
Bf1 in certain contingencies.
13...Nf4
**Gunsberg: In the next few moves Black worked desperately hard to obtain a
counter-attack. However, 13...Nce7 seemed a good defensive move in this position.
Steinitz: This was probably premature, and 13...Nce7 appears to be the better play.
14.g3 Qg4 15.Nbd2
**Gunsberg: It was extremely difficult to decide on the right move here, as Black
threatened ...Nxd4. White ultimately found out that he could reply upon the
following variation: 15...Nxd4 16.Re4 Nxf3+ 17.Nxf3 Qxf3 18.Rxf4 Bxf2+ 19.Kf1
Qh1+ 20.Kxf2 Qxa1 21.Qc4 and wins.
15...Nh3+ [0:47-1:01] 16.Kg2 Ng5
**Gunsberg: If 16...Nf4+, with a view of drawing, then White plays 17.Kh1, and if
then 17...Nh3 again, Steinitz points out the following fine variation, showing that
White can defend by 18.Re2, as Black dare not continue with 18...Nxd4 on account
of the powerful reply of 19.e6 fxe6 20.Ne5 and wins.
Steinitz: This was Blacks best play. If 16...Nf4+ 17.Kh1 Nh3 18.Re2, and should
Black then play 18...Nxd4, then would follow 19.e6 fxe6 20.Ne5 with a winning
attack.
17.Bb2
**Gunsberg: Though relinquishing the line of attack, it is probably his best. There is
nothing much to be gotten out of 17.d5.
17...Ne7 18.Be2
**Gunsberg: In conformity with his last moves, White changes his tactics and brings
his pieces back to repel Blacks counter-attack, in order to be able to continue
afterwards the attack with better prospects.
18...Ne6
**Steinitz: Not a good move. Much better was 18...Qe6.
19.Kh1 Qf5 20.Nh4
**
Gunsberg: White has now attained the object for which he temporarily withdrew
his bishops. The only available square for Blacks queen is on R 2, where she would
be badly placed, and white could continue with 21 B-B 3, and his superior
development ought to tell soon.
Steinitz: A good move under any circumstances but also involving a trap into
which the opponent falls. It should be stated that at this point Gunsberg touched
the square at h4 with his knight, and then retracted the move, and after taking some
time to consider and shaking his head as if he had made a mistake, finally adopted
the move. Thereupon I took the pawn, and on seeing my opponents reply, 21.Ne4,
resigned. Then I taxed my opponent on the manner in which he had made his
twentieth move, which was calculated to mislead, and I reminded him that in his
match with Chigorin he had in a similar case brought a charge against the Russian
master. Gunsberg apologized, and gave his word of honor that he had not done it
wilfully.
20...Qxf2 [1:17-1:20]
**Gunsberg: An error which loses the queen.
21.Ne4 [1:17-1:20] 1-0.
**Gunsberg: If 21...Qe3, then 22.Bc4, and the queen has no more moves.
Steinitz: Of course the queen can only go to e3, and then follows 22.Bf1 and the
queen has no move.
PLAYING A DRAWN GAME.
STEINITZ STILL AHEAD OF GUNSBERG.
THE SEVENTEENTH IN THE SERIES FOR THE
WORLDS CHESS CHAMPIONSHIP.
:
The seventeenth chess game in the match between Steinitz and Gunsberg, for the
championship of the world, was played yesterday at the Manhattan Chess Club in this
city. On account of the bearing which this game would have upon the final issue of
the contest, its result was anxiously looked forward to by the spectators who had
gathered in the club-house, and no doubt a similar feeling would be experienced by
all chess players who are watching the encounter.
Another Queens Gambit was offered yesterday by Steinitz and declined by
Gunsberg in a rather novel fashion by Kt-K B 3. Queens were exchanged at a very
early stage, and Steinitz got slightly the advantage. On the fifteenth and sixteenth
moves Steinitz sacrificed two pawns for a Knight with the object of breaking through
the defence on the Kings Knights row, but the admirable defence set up by Gunsberg
frustrated this attempt on the part of the veteran, whose Knight got into a position
where it was shut up for some time.
A study of the moves from the twelfth up to the twenty-sixth, when an adjournment
was made, will disclose to the chess-player a series of incidents of a very interesting
character. White appeared to have very good chances before him after Blacks twenty-
fourth move, but moving rather hastily, he threw them away. The complicated
position at the adjournment after twenty-six moves had been made will be found
below. Steinitz sealed his twenty-seventh move, and when play was resumed after the
recess Gunsberg found it necessary to deliberate half an hour on his reply.
Both players had now to move rapidly under time pressure, and several exchanges
which followed considerably cleared the field, each player being left with one Rook
and a Bishop on opposite colors. Steinitz had the advantage of two pawns to one, and
as one of then [sic] was a passed pawn many of the onlookers thought this might
possibly give him the chance of a win. The majority, however, pronounced it to be a
drawn game, and this it resulted after fifty-six moves.
Altogether the game was one of the finest of the series. The score is now: Steinitz
5, Gunsberg 4, drawn 8.
D06/01 Queens Gambit: Marshall
Annotations by Steinitz
1.d4 d5 2.c4 Nf6
**Not a good way of declining this gambit.
3.cxd5 Nxd5 4.e4 Nf6 5.Nc3 e5 [0:04-0:06]
**As will be seen, Black gets the worst of the position in consequence of this advance.
6.dxe5
**Stronger than 6.d5.
6...Qxd1+ 7.Kxd1 Ng4 8.Nd5
**White obtains now an attack, which ought to have yielded more profit than it did.
8...Kd7 9.Nh3
**9.Bf4 Nxf2+ 10.Ke1, followed by 11.Rd1, had its points, but Black, by then
bringing out 10...Bc5, would have obtained a defensible game.
9...c6 10.Nc3
**10.Ne3 was much stronger.
10...Nxe5 [0:41-0:20] 11.f4 Ng4 12.Be2 Ke8 13.Kc2 Bc5 14.f5 Ne3+ 15.
Kd3
**The attack here obtained is worth the pawn given up.
15...Nxg2 [0:51-0:33] 16.b4
**This was hardly as good as 16.Na4.
16...Bxb4 17.Rg1 Nh4 18.Rxg7 Ng6
**18...Nxf5 19.exf5 Bxf5+ 20.Kc4 Bxc3 21.Kxc3 Bxh3 22.Bh5 or 22.Bc4 would
have given White an excellent attack, although he was three pawns behind.
19.fxg6 hxg6 20.Ng5 Be7 [1:14-1:00]
**A very fine move, which is extremely difficult to answer.
21.Rh7
**Probably best. If 21.Rxf7 Bxg5 22.Rc7 Na6, etc.
21...Rxh7 22.Nxh7 f6 23.Bf4
**Here 23.e5 at once was much better play.
23...Kf7 24.Rg1 Na6 25.e5
**Inferior to 25.Kc2.
25...Bf5+ [1:43-1:20] 26.Kd2
**26.Kc4 was now a much better defense.
26...Bb4 (Adjourned) 27.Rg3(Sealed) 27...Nc5 28.Kc1 Ba3+ 29.Kd1 g5
30.Bc4+ Ne6 [2:16-2:20] 31.Nxg5+ fxg5 32.Bxg5 Rg8 33.h4 b5 34.
Nxb5
**There was no necessity for this and White could have kept up the pressure by 34.
Bb3, threatening Ne2 or Rf3 with a fine attack.
34...cxb5 35.Bxe6+ Kxe6 [2:25-2:25] 36.Rxa3 Kxe5 37.Rxa7 Bd3 38.
Kd2 Bf1 39.Kc3 Rc8+ 40.Kb4 Rg8 [2:30-2:40] 41.Ra5 Ke4 42.Ra6 Kf3
43.Rf6+ Kg2 44.Rf5 Be2 45.Be3 Bd3 [2:35-3:05] 46.Rf2+
**46.Rd5 was much stronger.
46...Kg3 47.Rd2 Rg4+ 48.Kc5 Bc4 49.h5 Kf3 50.Bd4 Rg5+ [2:45-3:13]
51.Kb4 Rxh5 52.a4 Ke4 53.Bc5 Bd3 54.axb5 Rh1 55.Rb2 Kd5 [2:50-
3:33] 56.Bf2 Rb1 -.
STEINITZ HIMSELF AGAIN.
HE WINS THE EIGHTEENTH GAME IN THE
CHESS CONTEST.
GUNSBERG OPENS AGAIN WITH THE EVANS
GAMBIT-AN EXCITING STRUGGLE.
:
The eighteenth game in the championship chess match between Steinitz and
Gunsberg, which was played yesterday at the Manhattan Chess Club, proved
attractive for many reasons, first of all on account of its inevitable influence on the
ultimate outcome of the contest, and, in the second place because of Gunsberg again
opening an EvansGambit, the game upon which is centred an unusually keen and
widespread interest.
Up to Whites seventh move the game proceeded on the well-known lines, and then
Steinitz introduced a new form of defence by moving 7....K Kt-K 7 in place of the
move which he made in the fourteenth and sixteenth games of this contest, P-K R 3.
Gunsberg devoted twenty-three minutes of his time in deciding upon the reply, 8. Q-
R 4. Steinitz, however, emerged from the opening with his pieces intact. He castles
on his sixteenth move, and then proceeded with an advance of his pawns on the
Queens wing, driving his opponents pieces back and giving him considerable security
on this part of the board.
On his thirtieth move, however, the veteran seemed to overlook a possible
combination on the part of his opponent. By playing 30....P-K Kt 3, he lost the pawn,
and also allowed the Hungarian to disconnect the three strong pawns on the Queens
side. Six moves later the afternoons sitting was adjourned with the position again
slightly in favor of Steinitz.
On the resumption of play at 7 oclock the veteran improved the advantage which
he previously possessed. Gunsberg made a gallant fight, but to very little purpose, for
Steinitzs play, with one or two unimportant exceptions, was of the most masterly
character. He pursued the counter-attack which he had set up with all the vigor of a
young player combined with the skill of an experienced campaigner. The Hungarians
valiant resistance was much admired by the spectators, but long before he gave up it
was declared that his fight would prove unavailing. Gunsberg resigned on his fifty-
fifth move, making the score-Steinitz, 6; Gunsberg, 4; drawn, 8. Only two games
remain to be played, the first of which will be contested to-day and the other on
Saturday.
EVANS GAMBIT AGAIN.
GUNSBERG PLAYED THIS OPENING AT
YESTERDAYS CHESS MATCH.
Brilliant Tactics Shown by the Veteran,
Who Kept the Game Well in Hand Right
Through-Gunsberg Made a Gallant
Fight, but had at Last to Surrender.
:
Excitement and interest in the chess encounter between Steinitz and Gunsberg has
been growing apace in the interval between the seventeenth game, which was played
last Saturday, and the eighteenth game, which was contested yesterday. It being
Gunsbergs turn to open, there was much speculation as to whether he would again
offer an Evans Gambit or turn his attention to one of his two favorites-the Giuoco
Piano of Ruy Lopez.
What gave yesterdays game a deeper interest was the bearing which its result
would have upon the final issue of the match. Should Steinitz win it, it was
considered that the match would be decided in his favor, for it would require that
Gunsberg should win both the remaining games to even draw the match. Should the
eighteenth game be drawn there would remain a chance for Gunsberg to draw, if not
actually win the match, while if he should win this game his chances to make the
match a draw would be little short of a certainty and his hopes of winning it would be
raised considerably. It will thus be seen that the interest was enhanced to an almost
incalculable extent by these various considerations, and that the members and visitors
at the Manhattan Chess Club yesterday afternoon were fully en rapport with the
prevailing spirit of the fight.
When play was adjourned at 5 oclock the game [...] as will be seen, had again
turned somewhat in favor of Steinitz.
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 [0:01-0:01] 6.0-0 Qf6
7.d4 Nge7
**In the early games played between Chigorin and Steinitz at Havana this move was
always adopted by the defense: 7...Nh6, as in the cable match, was an afterthought
that came up in one of the consultation games at the end of the match.
8.Qa4 Bb6 9.Bg5
**Chigorin generally played here 8.d5 first, followed by 9.Qa4.
9...Qd6 10.Na3 exd4 [0:25-0:05]
**
Whites establishing a center is now much neutralized by having his knight at a3
and his being able to maneuver it to c3, his strongest post.
11.Nb5 Qg6 12.cxd4 a6
**Threatening ...axb5 followed by ...bxc4.
13.d5 Ne5 14.Nxe5 Qxg5 15.Nf3 Qh6[0:25-0:32] 16.Bb3 0-0 17.Rac1
c6 18.Nbd4 c5 19.Ne2 d6 20.Ng3 Bd8[0:45-0:45]
**A weak move; 20...Bc7 was much superior.
21.e5 b5 22.Qa3 c4 23.exd6 Nxd5 24.Bc2 b4
**Somewhat doubtful. It was perhaps more advisable to keep the pawns on the
queenside together.
25.Qa4 Qxd6 [0:58-1:05] 26.Be4 Nb6 27.Qc2 Rb8 28.Bxh7+ Kh8 29.
Rcd1 Qh6 30.Bf5 g6
**A grave error; 30...c3 was the correct play and he had then much less to fear from
the knight coming in at f5 after exchanging bishops.
31.Bxc8 Rxc8 32.Qb2+ Qg7 33.Qxb4 Bc7 34.Rd4 Rfd8 35.Rh4+
**Serious loss of time that greatly compromises his prospects of drawing.
35...Kg8 [1:10-1:50] 36.Ng5 Rd7 37.Re4 c3 38.Rfe1
**38.Rc1 at once was here much better.
38...Rdd8 39.Ne2 Nd5 40.Qa4 Qf6
**
This move releases the king and greatly strengthens Blacks attack.
41.Nf3 Bb6 42.Rc1 c2
**Quite decisive.
43.h3
**Perhaps 43.Kf1 was a better defense.
43...Qb2 44.Qb3 Qxb3 45.axb3 a5[3:05-2:55] 46.Rc4 Rxc4 47.bxc4
Nb4 48.g3 Bxf2+
**Quite good enough.
49.Kxf2 Nd3+ 50.Ke3 Nxc1 [3:30-2:56] 51.Nxc1 Rd1 52.Ne2 a4
**Not to let the adverse king pass at once and also gaining important time for
finishing quickly.
53.Nfd4 c1Q+ 54.Nxc1 Rxc1 [3:32-2:58] 0-1.
STEINITZ STILL CHAMPION.
GUNSBERG LOSES THE CHESS MATCH.
THE NINETEENTH GAME DRAWN-CONGRATULATIONS
FOR THE VETERAN.
:
The match between Steinitz and Gunsberg for the chess championship of the
world, which has been going on at the Manhattan Chess Club, in West Twenty-
seventh-st., since December 9, was definitely decided in favor of the veteran player
by the nineteenth game, which was contested yesterday. The result of Wednesdays
play still left it possible for Gunsberg to draw the match, but in order to do this he had
got to win consecutively the only two games which might still be played before the
maximum limit of twenty was reached. Yesterdays game being drawn, the score was
brought to this state: Steinitz 6, Gunsberg 4, drawn 9, which rendered it impossible
any longer for Gunsberg to divide championship honors with the veteran player, who
has remained unconquerable in match play for a quarter of a century.
This being the condition of affairs last night, it was decided not to contest the
twentieth game, which, no matter how it had resulted, would not have altered
Steinitzs position as winner of the match and possessor of the title of champion of the
world.
There did not appear to be any particular effort on the part of Gunsberg to win the
game, nor on the part of Steinitz either, except at one stage in the end play, when the
veteran worked his King out as far as the fifth square of the Q B file with some
effect. An earlier effort on the part of Gunsberg to utilize his King in the same way,
for purposes of attack on the Q side, proved of no value, and, indeed, it only
compromised his position and resulted in his being compelled eventually to retreat,
not only the King itself but the Bishop as well, right back to the first row.
Fianally [sic] a draw was agreed upon at the forty-second move, at which time
Steinitz was of opinion that he had the superior position, but considered it wise to
compound for a draw rather than risk the possibility of a mistake which might have
cost him the game and given Gunsberg still a chance to draw the match. The two
masters afterward played out the game for a small stake between themselves, and
after about the twelfth move Gunsberg resigned.
In the evening Steinitz received the congratulations of his various friends and
supporters in the Manhattan Chess Club on his ultimate success in retaining the title
of champion of the world.
STEINITZ BEATS GUNSBERG.
AMERICAS CHAMPION REMAINS THE
CHAMPION OF THE WORLD.
The Man who has Beaten All Comers for
Twenty-five Years Disposes of the Anglo-
Hungarian -- Beaten but Not Disgraced --
Gunsberg Made a Gallant Fight Through-
out and Played Fine Chess.
:
Steinitz was greeted on Wednesday night after he had won the eighteenth game in
his match with Gunsberg, as possessor of half the championship,and received the
congratulations of his friends and supporters on having at the very least insured a
draw by the brilliant victory which he had achieved. Yesterday, by drawing the
nineteenth game in the contest, he became once more his old self, the chess champion
of the world, which proud title he had held undisputed for a quarter of a century.
To the spectators at the Manhattan Club the interest in yesterdays game was
reduced to the question of whether Steinitz would succeed in either winning or
drawing it, and thereby secure the final victory, or whether Gunsberg would manage
to win and thus give the twentieth and concluding game of the match preeminence
over all the others in point of supplying chess players with matter which would excite
in them a lively interest and enthusiasm.
Having the turn to open, the veteran chose as his subject the Queens Pawns
opening, which ultimately was resolved into a regular Queens Gambit Declined. The
play was conducted very rapidly on both sides. Queens were exchanged on the tenth
move and some active manoeuvring followed.
Gunsberg did not seem to make any great effort to win, and from the nature of the
play it seemed as though Steinitz too, would be satisfied with a draw, although when
the game reached the end stage the spectators were of the opinion that he was making
an effort to win. He marched out with his fighting monarchas far as Q B 5, where he
surrounded him with the few remaining officers, while Gunsberg confined himself
almost entirely to defence, making very few aggressive moves in the end game. A
drawn position was finally arrived at, and this conclusion was agreed upon after forty-
one moves. The total time occupied in play was considerably short of three hours.
The remaining game will not be played, as it could not possibly affect the position of
either player, and the final score of the match, therefore, is: Steinitz, 6; Gunsberg, 4;
drawn, 9.
Here is what Steinitz had to say yesterday:
Naturally, as there has been some comment upon the frequent repetition of the
same opening on my part, the public ought to be reminded that in some of the best
matches this has also been the case. In the match between Staunton and St. Amant
each of the players, throughout the contest of over twenty games, played the Queens
Gambit; Morphy mostly played the Ruy Lopez, Kolisch the Giuoco Piano; Buckle,
the great historian, as first player, adopted the Giuoco Piano, and as second player the
French Defence. Numerous other instances might be cited. Now, I have never in my
life played the French Defence, which is the dullest of all openings, and only once, as
far as I can remember, the Sicilian, as second player. I always play an open game
when I am on the defence, and accept any gambits that are offered, but, as first player,
I have latterly adopted a safe and sound opening like the Ruy Lopez against
Zukertort, and the Queens Gambit against Tschigorin and Gunsberg, and I made up
my mind not to alter the openings until I was a good number games ahead. As all
those matches were pretty close I had little opportunity of varying, though in former
days, when I had a clearer memory, I ventured into a variety of attacks.
As the score stood in the present match it would have been simple folly in this
game to have hazarded a new line of play, and the opening proceeded in the usual
manner. There was no deviation of importance. On the fourteenth move black made
an attempt of a counter attack, which, however, was quickly repelled, and as the game
progressed it seemed almost as if black was playing for a draw himself, for he offered
opportunities for effecting various exchanges, including both rooks. The result was
that only two minor pieces were left on each side-bishop and knight-with even pawns.
At that stage I offered a draw, but Gunsberg said he would rather go on, and he
made some attempt at getting his king into play on the queens side, which, however,
greatly compromised his position, as his king and bishop were driven right back by
the adverse pawns, and white ultimately obtained the command of that wing, while
blacks centre was blocked. The game proceeded to the forty-second move, when
black offered a draw which white accepted.
After this Gunsberg proposed to Steinitz that they should finish the game, and the
latter assented to this proposal and suggested a small stake, at the same time giving
his opponent the odds of a draw. On this understanding they continued the game just
for pleasure, and after about a dozen moves Gunsbergs position became untenable,
and he resigned. Steintiz contends that nobody will blame him for having agreed to a
draw when he did, because, had he played on in the proper contest he might have
made a mistake, as he did on the previous day, and this might have cost him the game.
1.d4 d5 2.e3 Nf6 3.c4 e6 4.Nc3 Be7 5.Nf3 O-O [0:02-0:03] 6.Be2
**In the early part of the match Steinitz usually played 6.Bd3, but he has come to the
conclusion that it is of no use directing the bishop against the kingside, and that this
piece could be better employed in most variations at f3, after removing the knight.
6...dxc4 7.Bxc4 c5 8.O-O Nc6 9.dxc5 Bxc5 10.Qxd8 Rxd8 [0:05-0:05]
11.Bd2 a6
**Hardly a good move. It could have had no other sensible object than to advance ...
b5, and, as will be seen, this would have greatly weakened his queenside.
12.Rac1 Ba7
**Obviously, if 12...b5 13.Nxb5 axb5 14.Bxb5, and recovers the piece with at least
one pawn ahead, even if Black gets the a-pawn.
13.Rfd1 Bd7 14.Be1 Ng4 15.e4
**Black threatened either ...Bxe3 or ...Nxe3, which would have given him a rook and
two pawns for two minor pieces, which is rather more than an equivalent in the
majority of cases.
15...Nce5 [0:24-0:20] 16.Nxe5 Nxe5 17.Be2 Bc6 18.Kf1 Bd4 19.f3 Rd7
20.Bf2 Rad8 [0:43-0:26]
**If 20...Bxc3 21.Rxc3 Rxd1+ 22.Bxd1 Rd8 23.Be2 (best) 23...Rd2 24.Bg3, followed
either by exchanging the knight or, if the knight moves, by 25.Bxa6.
21.Bxd4 Rxd4 22.Rxd4 Rxd4 23.Rd1 Rxd1+ 24.Nxd1 Kf8 25.Ke1 Ng6
[0:45-0:30] 26.Ne3 Ke7 27.Kd2 Kd6 28.Kc3 Kc5 29.g3
**29.Nc4, though it looks strong, would have been answered by 29...Bb5, and White
could not get any advantage out if the position.
29...Bb5 30.b4+ Kb6 [0:54-0:40] 31.Bd1 Kc7 32.a4 Bd7 33.f4 Bc6 34.
Kd4 Ne7 35.Bb3 Be8 [1:15-0:45] 36.Nc4 Nc6+ 37.Kc5 Nd8
**Threatening ...b6+, followed by ...Nb7+ in case White takes the pawn.
38.Nb6
**
Stopping that maneuver and exercising a very commanding position on Blacks
crowded pieces.
38...f6 39.b5 axb5 40.axb5 Bg6[1:35-0:55] 41.Bc2 Bh5 [1:36-0:56]-.
**The game in my database says 41...h5, but the two sources I used clearly state 41...
Bh5.-[Pope]
Prologue
Apropos of the Steinitz-Lasker match, we call attention of our readers to the
following extract from a letter lately received from Mr. Steintiz, in which the
champion says: The announcement in various journals about my having consented
to a reduction of stakes from $3,000 to $2,500 is premature. No formal application
for the purpose has yet reached me and I have had, therefore, no opportunity of
deciding on the subject.
New York Recorder, 1894.01.14
Steinitz and Lasker had another conference at the Manhattan Chess Club on
Saturday and both seemed to be ready to sign articles for the proposed chess match
for the championship. They agreed upon all the rules and regulations to govern the
great contest, but did not place their names to the articles, because is has not been
settled where they are going to play. They are waiting for letters from certain clubs.
Lasker was seen at the City Chess Club by a SUN reporter on Saturday night. He
said: Tell the readers of THE SUN that there is not the slightest hitch in the matter as
far as the principals are concerned. Steinitz and I had many hoursconversation to-
day, and I am happy to say we have agreed on one and all points. As soon as the
clubs with whom we are in correspondence have arranged matters we shall sign
articles.
It was stated at the Manhattan Chess Club yesterday that Steinitz and Lasker would
sign articles to-day.
W. Steinitz and Emanuel Lasker have settled their little differences about playing a
match, and last Saturday night in the presence of Dr.E.W. Dahl, a director of the
Manhattan Chess Club, they signed articles. Some time ago THE SUN published the
articles as proposed by Lasker. After some alterations these have been agreed to.
The great masters will begin the match in this city on March 15, and contest eight
games, or until one of the players has won four games, draws not counting. Then
they will go to Philadelphia, where the match is to be continued until one of the
players has increased his score by two points, drawn games not counting, or until one
of the players has won three games. The match will be concluded under the auspices
of the Montreal Chess Club.
Arrangements are now being made by the players for hiring a hall in this city for
playing. There will be an admission fee of $1 per game; that is to say for the
afternoon sitting, from 3 to 6 oclock, and the evening sitting, from 8 to 11 oclock;
season tickets at the rate of $5 will be sold. About fifty season tickets have already
been disposed of.
The player who first scores ten wins, draws not counting, will be declared the
winner. The time limit has been fixed at fifteen moves an hour, while from three to
four games will be played weekly. The stakes, which were reduced to $2,000, must
be deposited with W. de M. Marlor, President of the Montreal Chess Club, on March
10. Each man has already posted $250 with the stakeholder. The winner will receive
the total amount of the stakes and will be the champion of the world.
In re the Steintiz-Lasker match for the championship of the world, the dreary stage
of negotiation has finally been passed and next Thursday evening is stated of the
opening game. The match is to be one of ten games up, exclusive of draws, with a
time-limit of fifteen moves an hour. The stakes are $2,000 a side. The match will be
played in New York, Philadelpia and Montreal, in the order named. In each city the
players will name two umpires or seconds and a referee. For New York, Messrs. J.W.
Baird and Showalter have already been chosen for umpires.
W. Steinitz, the champion of the world, and Emanuel Lasker, the young and
celebrated expert of Berlin, began their match for the championship of the world and
$2,000 a side at the Union Square Hotel yesterday. Wesley Bigelow, the Vice-
President of the Manhattan Chess Club, introduced the players to the spectators who
had assembled to witness the beginning of a contest which was looked forward to by
chess enthusiasts all over the world as a struggle which promised to be the most
exciting chess event since Morphy made a brilliant showing in Europe thirty-four
years ago.
Mr. Bigelow expressed himself as follows: To you. Mr. Steinitz, whose brow has
been decorated with the laurels of many victories, the chess world will look with
confidence for the highest illustration of our noble pastime, and to you, Mr. Lasker,
who have also garnered distinguished laurels, both on the other side of the water and
in this country, chess players will feel assured that your share in this match will be
one to excite the keenest interest and admiration. I wish you both excellent health,
not only for all time, but especially during this contest as upon your physical
condition depends much of your mental powers, and therefore the quality of your
play. Whoever wins can feel assured of receiving the hearty plaudits of the entire
chess community, and he who loses will have the satisfaction of knowing that he lost
only to a master.
The umpires, J.W. Baird and J.W. Showalter, drew for the move, and on the latter
(Laskers umpire) winning the toss, the Teuton selected the whites and opened the first
game of the match with a Ruy Lopez.
As a matter of course Steinitz selected his own defence 3...P-Q3, a move which has
not been endorsed by many living experts, but which has won the champion many
games. The game proceeded on well-known lines until Lasker, with 6.B-QB4,
introduced a novelty, which seemingly intended to put black on his guard as far as the
kings side of the board was concerned. Later on Lasker assumed a threatening
attitude with 12.P-KR4 after having prepared to retire with his king into safety on the
queens side by means of castling.
The game was now beautifully and correctly played on both sides, each at times
introducing fine and telling strokes. At 6 oclock the game was adjourned in a pretty
position. Steinitz having left his move. The game was resumed at 8 oclock, and it
soon became apparent that Lasker had the best of the bargain, inasmuch as he
succeeded in isolating a pawn of his antagonist. He also had a knight against a bishop
for the end game.
Little by little he improved his position, and he finally won a pawn at the forty-first
move. After this the position became very complicated indeed, and after fifty moves
the game stood adjourned, to be resumed to-day at 3 P.M.
When Steinitz and Lasker resumed play in the chess match for the championship
of the world at the Union Square Hotel yesterday afternoon there was a large
attendance of spectators. Neither Lasker nor Steinitz, when seen by THE SUN
reporter, cared to forecast the result.
It will be remembered that Lasker left his fifty-first move sealed, and it was well
known that this move would be the capture of the rook and that Steinitz would take
the knight. The fifty-second move, P-QB5, set Steintiz to thinking a great deal, and,
although he fought on gamely, he could not prevent a defeat. When he had to make
his sixtieth move he resigned. In speaking about the game and chess in general the
champion said:
I saw an article in a paper recently, in which a sort of parallel was drawn between
these matches and prize fighting, and it was pointed out, in a manner derogatory to
chess players, that the art of fighting in the ring seemed to be more popular.
Although I am a friend of athletic sports and to a certain degree, not oppoesed to prize
fighting. I cannot admit that chess is less popular. A game of chess between masters,
if well commented upon, attracts more general attention, though not of a local
character, than any kind of exhibition in common sports.
The public, however, scarcely realizes that the mental strain required for hard
match play at chess taxes the physical capacity of the contestants to a greater extent
than heavy athletic exercises. An eminent physician, whom I consulted during my
last match at Havana, said this to me: You have overworked yourself, both at chess
and at the gymnasium, I cannot imagine anything that so affects simultaneously all
the vital organs as the excitement of playing hard chess. It cannot, therefore, be
wondered at that the early part of a great chess contest very rarely draws out the best
form of both players, and this was the case with the game that has just been finished.
Nevertheless, some of the plays, especially on the part of my opponent, are entitled
to rank among the finest exhibitions. My belief is that I had the best of the game up
to my twenty-ninth move, namely, R-K4. The time limit might have expired at the
thirtieth move, and as it often occurs before the players work themselves into
condition, one or the other will get rattled under the apprehension of getting short of
time, even if he is not actually in that danger. This is what happened to me in this
instance, for I had several minutes to spare. I made a hasty move with the view of
saving some more time, and I overlooked a grand coup of Laskers, his thirtieth move,
P-KKt3, whereby he consolidated and compromised the kings side.
Under the influence of disappointment I made a bad move on my thirty-fourth turn,
isolating the queens pawn instead of retaking with the rook, which would have made
a clear draw.
Mr. Lasker then broke into my game in the most skillful manner. He won a pawn,
blocking my pieces, and he had things almost all his own way. He, however, gave me
another chance of a counter attack by dislodging his rook, but after the adjournment
he recovered ground, and the first move he made in answer to mine was one which
completely disorganized my game.
Lasker naturally feels elated over his victory, but prefers not to speak much about
it. To THE SUN reporter he said: I am willing to give you my notes, but please
pardon me for not saying anything further about the game.
1894.03.15 & 16 USA New York, NY (Union Square Hotel)
Annotations by Lasker & Steinitz
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 d6
**
Lasker: Steinitzs well-known defense.
Steinitz: The revival of this defense met with much opposition, but I have seen
nothing as yet to vitiate the equalizing effect, which, in my opinion, it possess.
4.d4 Bd7 5.Nc3 Nge7
**Steinitz: An important key move to this defense which I first adopted in my match
against Gunsberg.
6.Bc4
**Lasker: Apparently loss of time, but the good position of that bishop seems ample
compensation.
6...Nxd4 7.Nxd4 exd4 8.Qxd4 Nc6 9.Qe3 Ne5 10.Bb3 c6 11.Qg3 Ng6
**Steinitz: Of doubtful merit. 11...Be7 at once was preferable.
12.h4
**Lasker: 12.Be3 was strong enough in this position. However, the text move
embarrasses Blacks development of pieces.
12...Be6 13.Bxe6 fxe6 14.Bg5 Be7 15.0-0-0 e5 [0:45-0:50] 16.Be3 0-0
**Lasker: If 16...Bxh4 17.Qg4, and now Black cannot play 17...Qc8, as 18.Rxh4
would follow, and he cannot stir the bishop on account of 18.Rxh7.
Steinitz: If 16...Bxh4 17.Qg4 Be7 18.Rxh7, and should win.
17.Ne2 Rf7
**Steinitz: Again Black would expose himself to great danger by 17...Bxh4 18.Qg4,
followed soon by Qh5.
18.h5
**Lasker: It would have been risky to leave the pawn on its fourth, and to proceed
with an attack by means of 18.Kb1. It might, however, have been promising
enough.
18...Nf4 19.Bxf4 exf4 20.Qf3
**Steinitz: Obviously if 20.Nxf4 Rxf4, and the queen dare not retake.
20...Qa5 21.Kb1 Qe5 22.Nd4 Bf6 23.c3 Re8 24.Rhe1 Bd8 25.Qg4 Bc7
26.Nf3 Qf6 27.Nd2 Rfe7 28.f3 d5 29.Rh1 Re5
**Steinitz: 29...Qf7 was by far better.
30.g3
**Steinitz: A masterly coup, which relieves his position on the kingside, no matter
what Black reply.
30...Rg5 [1:45-1:59]
**Lasker: Of course if 30...fxg3 31.f4, and Black would do best to sacrifice the
exchange.
31.Qd7 Qf7 32.Qxf7+ Kxf7 33.g4 Bb6
**Steinitz: Inferior to 33...Rge5.
34.exd5 cxd5
**Steinitz: 34...Rxd5 is preferable, leading to a natural draw position, with which I
should have been content under the circumstances.
35.Nb3 Re6 36.Rhf1 Rge5 37.Nc1
**Lasker: This forces the win of a pawn.
37...Bc7 38.Nd3 Rg5 39.Nb4 Ree5 40.Rd4 Bb6
**Lasker: A very fine move, which nearly would have turned the tables.
41.Rxf4+ Kg8 42.Nd3
**Steinitz: Much inferior to 42.Nc2, which wins easily.
42...Re2 43.Rd1 Be3 44.Rb4 b6 45.Ra4 a5 46.b4
**Steinitz: This gives Black a chance for a counter-attack, which I believe should
have equalized the game at least.
46...d4 47.c4
**Lasker: White has nothing better as 47.cxd4 would be neutralized with 47...Rb5.
47...Bd2 48.b5 Bc3 49.Rg1 Rd2
**Lasker: Black intends to sacrifice his exchange and very nearly succeeds in
scoring the game thereby. As will be seen by the subsequent play, Black excels in
detecting means of attack, which could only be met by a series of difficult and
forced moves on the part of his antagonist.
Steinitz: Ill-judged. 49...Kf7 seems better, with the following probable
continuation: 50.f4 Rc5 51.Nxc5 bxc5, with better drawing chances.
50.f4 Rxg4 (Adjourned) [2:43-3:00] 51.Rxg4 Rxd3 52.c5
**Steinitz: Black cannot recover from the effects of this splendid move.
52...Re3
**Steinitz: If 52...Rd1+ 53.Kc2 Rd2+ 54.Kb3 (54.Kb1 drives by 54...d3) 54...bxc5
55.Kc4, and wins.
53.Rc4 d3 54.Rg1 d2 55.Rd1 bxc5 56.b6 Bd4 57.b7 Re8 58.Kc2 Rb8 59.
Rb1 Kf7 60.Ra4 [2:55-3:55] 1-0.
New York Recorder, 1894.03.17 & 18

C65/01 Spanish: Berlin
1894.03.19 USA New York, NY (Union Square Hotel)
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nf6 4.d3 d6 5.c3 Bd7
**Lasker: 5...g6 is here the more common continuation.
6.Ba4
**Steinitz: To prevent the exchange of bishops by 6...Na5.
6...g6 7.Nbd2 Bg7 8.Nc4
**Steinitz: Usually I play 8.Nf1 at this juncture. The text move is just as good; it
prevents 8...d5 at once.
8...0-0 9.Ne3 Ne7 10.Bb3 c6 11.h4
**
Steinitz: The usual course of attack against the kings fianchetto is here initiated.
11...Qc7 12.Ng5 d5 13.f3 Rad8 14.g4 dxe4
**Lasker: 14...h6 at once would have been better as White then would not have a
chance to place his queen on f3, as was actually done on the sixteenth move.
Steinitz: As matters turned out, White obtains a much stronger position in
consequence of the open file than he would have had by 14...h6 instead of this
exchange.
15.fxe4 h6 [0:45-0:42] 16.Qf3
**Lasker: A beautiful move, which turns the tables at once.
16...Be8
**Steinitz: This is evidently best, as White threatens 17.Nxf7 followed ultimately by
pawn to g5. If, however, 16...hxg5 17.hxg5 Nh7 18.Nf5 followed soon by Qh3!.
17.Bc2 Nd7
**Steinitz: Again if 17...hxg5 18.hxg5 Nh7 19.Nf5 gxf5 20.gxf5 f6 21.Bb3+
followed by 22.Qh5 or 22.g6 accordingly.
18.Nh3 Nc5 19.Nf2 b5
**Lasker: Premature. First 19...f6 would finally have led to a block on the queenside,
and White had then hardly any chance of an attack left.
I believe Lasker means a block on the kingside, but all three sources of Lasker
annotations state queenside.-[Pope]
20.g5 h5 21.Nf5
**Lasker: Very fine and good play. Black is now almost forced to accept the Grecian
gift, as otherwise 22.Nxg7 would follow, creating an ugly hole at f6.
21...gxf5 22.exf5 f6
**Lasker: Forced; for if 22...Nd5, 23.Qxh5 Bh8 24.Ng4 follows, threatening 25.Nh6
+ and 26.Nf7.
Steinitz: If 22...Nd5 then 23.f6 Bh8 24.Qxh5 threatening 25.Ng4 or 25.d4
accordingly.
23.g6 Nxg6
**Lasker: This move is also forced, as 23...Bd7 leads to a straight loss on account of
24.Qxh5 Re8 25.Qh7+ Kf8 26.h5, threatening 27.h6.
24.fxg6 Bxg6 25.Rg1 e4
**Lasker: A bad move in the nature of a blunder. With 25...Kh7 White seems hardly
to have anything better than to continue with 26.Rxg6, followed by 27.d4+;
although White wins thereby a piece, the two passed pawns and the exchange
should tell in the endgame.
Steinitz: This is absolutely a failure as a defensive measure. He had a much better
resource, namely: 25...Bxd3 26.Bxd3 Rxd3 27.Nxd3 e4! with a counter-attack
against which it would have been difficult for White to make good his superiority
of material.
26.dxe4 Kh7
**Lasker: A great blunder, which leaves no hope for Black. After this White finishes
the game in a remarkably energetic style.
Steinitz: His game was difficult to defend: 26...Qf7, however, was undoubtedly
better.
27.Rxg6 Kxg6 28.Qf5+ Kf7 29.Qxh5+ Kg8 30.Qxc5 Qe5 [1:42-1:35]
**Steintiz: Necessary to parry 31.Bb3+, followed by 32.Qh5+.
31.Be3 a6 32.a4 Rfe8 33.axb5 axb5 34.Qxe5 Rxe5 35.Ra6 Rc8
**Steinitz: If 35...c5, 36.Ng4 winning the f-pawn.
36.Ng4 Re7 37.Bc5 Ree8 38.Ne3 Bf8 39.Bd4 Kf7 40.h5 Be7 41.Bb3+
Kf8
42.Nf5 [2:10-2:05] 1-0.
**Steinitz: White threatens 43.Be3 and afterward Ra7.
The Brooklyn Daily Eagle, 1894.03.20
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 d6 4.d4 Bd7 5.Nc3 Nge7 6.Bc4 exd4 7.Nxd4
Nxd4
8.Qxd4 Nc6 9.Qe3 Ne5 10.Bb3 Be6
**Lasker: In the first game Steinitz played here 10...c6, as that move is made later on
it amounts to a reversal of moves.
11.f4 Nc4
**Steinitz: A sad waste of time. Four moves later this knight returns to d7, where it
should have gone at once.
12.Qg3 Nb6 13.Be3 c6 14.f5 Bxb3 15.axb3 Nd7 [0:28-0:45] 16.Bf4
**Steinitz: Of course he could not take the pawn with either rook or bishop, or the
latter would have been ultimately blocked out by pawn to b6.
16...Qc7
**Steinitz: If 16...Nf6 17.e5 Nh5 18.Qe3 Nxf4 19.exd6+ Be7 (or 19...Kd7 20.Qxf4
Bxd6 21.0-0-0 Kc7 22.Qc4 threatening 23.Nb5+ or 23.Qxf7+) 20.dxe7 Qxe7 21.
Qxe7+ Kxe7 22.0-0 with the superior game.
17.b4 f6
**Lasker: Very risky on account of the hole which is created thereby on e6 and
which the white knight at once tries to occupy. On the other hand, it is necessay for
the purpose of relieving the queen.
Steinitz: Sooner or later this move had to come in, but now it was so ill-timed as to
compromise the game seriously. 17...Ne5 was undoubtedly superior.
18.Ne2 Ne5 19.Nd4 Qb6 20.c3 0-0-0 21.Ne6 Rd7 22.Be3 Qb5
**Lasker: A grand conception, for if 22...c5 23.0-0 a6 24.bxc5 dxc5 25.b4, and
White wins a pawn with a perfectly safe and strong position.
Steinitz: Probably the best resource. If 22...c5, 23.Nf4 followed soon by 0-0 with a
powerful attack.
23.Rxa7 b6
**Steinitz: Desperate as this appears, Black had hardly anything better. If 23...Kb8,
24.Ra5 followed by 25.Ba7+, or if 23...Rc7 24.Ra8+ Kd7 25.Rd8+ Ke7 26.Bd4
with a winning game. As it is White obtains a strong attack for the material
sacrificed.
24.Ra8+ Kb7 25.Rxf8 Rxf8 26.Nxf8 Qd3 27.Rf1
**Lasker: Of course 27.Nxd7 only leads to a draw by perpetual check.
27...Qc2 28.Bd2 Re7
**Steinitz: After careful analysis, I think that Black should at least draw, and had
many winning chances had he played 28...Nc4. If then 29.Qf4 Rd8 20.Ne6 Ra8 31.
Ke2 Ra2 with a powerful attack. Other variations are still more favorable for the
second player.
29.Ne6 Qxe4+ 30.Qe3
**Lasker: The proper reply. 30.Kd1 would be bad on account of 30...Qb1+ 31.Bc1
Nd3 32.Qxd6 Nxb2+ 33.Ke2 Qe4+ 34.Be3 Qxe3+.
30...Qxg2 [1:56-1:51] 31.b3
**Lasker: If 31.Qe2 at once, 31...Qd5 follows with a very strong attack.
31...Re8
**Steinitz: 31...Qxh2 seems to give White much time for development by 32.b5,
followed by 33.Kd1.
32.Qe2 Qh3
**Lasker: Of course not 32...Qd5, as 33.c4 forces the exchange of queens.
33.Kd1 Ra8 34.Rf2
**Steinitz: Compulsory, to avoid a draw at least, and simple as it looks it is beautiful
play, which came quite unexpectedly.
34...Ra2 35.b5 c5 36.Nxg7 d5 37.Kc1
**
Steinitz: Another fine and quiet move in Laskers happy style. It practically forces
the exchange of queens.
37...Qd3
**
Lasker: A last attempt, and as such an ingenious resource. Whites material
advantage, however, must tell in the end.
38.Qxd3 Nxd3+ 39.Kb1 Rb2+ 40.Ka1 Rxb3 41.Rf3 c4 42.Ne8 Nb4
43.Rg3 Ra3+ 44.Kb1 Rb3+ 45.Kc1 Nd3+ (Adjourned) [2:50-2:57] 46.
Rxd3
**Steinitz: 46.Kc2 would have won quicker, for if 46...Rb2+ 47.Kd1 Nf2+ 48.Kc1
and wins.
46...cxd3 47.Nxf6 Rxb5 48.Ne8
**Steinitz: By no means as expeditious as 48.Nxh7.
48...Kc6 49.f6 d4 50.Ng7 dxc3 51.Bxc3 Rg5
**Steinitz: An awful blunder. There was still some chance of a draw by 51...Kd7.
After the text move the game is lost, for if 52...Rg1+ 53.K-moves Rf1 54.Ne6 wins.
52.f7 [3:09-3:25] 1-0.
**Lasker: For if 52...Rg1+ 33.Kd2 Rf1 34.Ne6, winning the rook.
The Sun, New York, 1894.03.22 & 23
The Brooklyn Daily Eagle, 1894.03.22 & 23
New York Recorder, 1894.03.22, 23 & 04.01

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.c3 Nf6 5.d4 exd4 6.e5 d5 7.Bb5 Ne4 8.
cxd4 Be7
**Steinitz: A good deal of surprise prevailed when I, as my debut in this game,
selected a Giuoco Piano. Not only because I heretofore have never been known to
adopt this opening, but moreover, because I chose a most universal form, which
practically has been given up by the masters. The new idea which I had in view did
not come to the surface, as Lasker was the first to make an alteration from the usual
line of play by 8...Be7.
9.Nc3 0-0 10.Bd3 f5 11.exf6
**Steinitz: My eleventh move proved a surprise, as I exchanged an apparently strong
passed pawn, and furthermore, deliberately isolated my d-pawn in order to keep up
an attack against the kingside.
11...Nxf6 12.Be3 Nb4 13.Bb1 Ng4
**Steinitz: On the thirteenth move Black initiated an ingenious counter attack and a
regular fireworks game of sacrifices.
14.a3 Nxe3 15.fxe3 Bh4+ [0:40-0:53] 16.g3
**Steinitz: After Black checked with his bishop, White perhaps, would have done
better to play 16.Kd2, which would have yielded him a clear pawn, as Black was
bound to retreat his knight, whereupon 17.Nxd5 would have been followed, which
Black evidently could not retake on account of 18.Ba2 winning the queen.
16...Bg4
**Lasker: Black sprung an attack upon his adversary early in the game, leaving two
pieces en prise,which, however could not have been taken, because Black would
have doubled his rooks on the f-file, and thereby forced a win. White thereupon
extricated himself skillfully and eventually he espied a variation by means of which
he secured a pawn.
17.0-0 Qe8 18.axb4 Qh5 19.Nxd5
**Steinitz: My nineteenth move was faulty; a subsequent examination showed that I
should have taken the bishop instead of the knight. It would have much sooner
extricated me from all difficulties.
19...Rxf3
**Lasker: Many players thought that with 19...Bxg3 I could have forced a win.
White, however, would have replied 20.hxg3 and if then 20...Rxf3 21.Qe1, and if
20...Bxf3 21.Rxf3 Rxf3 22.Kg2, and has the best of it.
20.Nf4
**Lasker: Now an end game of highly interesting, in which White seemed to have
the pull.
Steinitz: With my twentieth move I forced a series of exchanges which left me
with a simple end game and a pawn ahead. A long struggle followed.
20...Rxf4 21.Qb3+ Rf7 22.Rxf7 Qxf7 23.Ba2 Qxb3 24.Bxb3+ Kf8 25.
gxh4 Ke7 26.Bd5
**Steinitz: White missed several chances of finishing off the game in a more easy
manner. Notably, in the twenty-sixth move, where he should have played 26.b5,
instead of 26.Bd5.
26...c6 27.Be4 a6 28.Ra5 h6 29.b5 cxb5 30.Bxb7 Ra7 [1:21-1:14] 31.
Bc6 Bd7 32.Bxd7 Kxd7 33.Kf2 Kc6 34.Ke2 Kb6 35.Ra1 a5 36.Kd3 a4
37.e4 Rf7 38.e5 Rf3+ 39.Ke4 Rf2 40.Rb1 Kc6 41.d5+
**Lasker: Black defended himself all right to a certain point, but lost in the end by
an obvious blunder, when the game ought to have been a draw.
Steinitz: Lasker defended himself most ingeniously, and owing to some weak play
on the other side, it is by no means certain that White would have won, after having
neglected the forcible 42.Rg1.
41...Kd7 42.Kd4 Rd2+ 43.Kc5 Rc2+ 44.Kxb5 Re2 45.e6+ Kd6 [1:42-
1:55] 46.Rd1 Rxb2+ 47.Kxa4 Rxh2 48.Re1 Ra2+ 49.Kb3 Ra8 50.Kc4
g5 51.hxg5 hxg5 52.Kd4 Ra4+ 53.Kd3 Ra3+
**Steinitz: However, Lasker completely compromised his game on his fifty-second
and fifty-third moves by useless checks, which only helped White to bring his king
to the support of his pawns, which now marched on victoriously.
54.Ke4 g4 55.Kf5 Ra8 56.e7 Re8 57.Kf6 g3 58.Kf7 Kd7 59.d6 g2 60.
Rg1 [2:17-2:05] 1-0.

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 d6 4.d4 Bd7 5.Nc3 Nge7 6.Bc4 exd4 7.Nxd4
Nxd4 8.Qxd4 Nc6 9.Qe3 Be6
**Lasker: This seems better than 9...Ne5, as played by Steinitz in the first and third
games.
Steinitz: The whole variation arising from Whites sixth move is new. Black, after
different experiments, came to the conclusion that the text move is Blacks best
reply.
10.Nd5 Be7 11.Bd2 0-0 12.0-0
**Lasker: It is safer to castle on the kingside in this position.
12...Ne5 13.Bb3 Bxd5
**Lasker: An unpleasent necessity. White retains two bishops against bishop and
knight, which is considered an advantage.
Steinitz: Black has gained some moves by first attacking the bishop before
effecting this exchange. It is pretty obvious that White will have to retake with the
bishop.
14.Bxd5 c6 15.Bb3 Nd7 [0:24-0:50] 16.Rad1
**Lasker: Playing against the weak d-pawn.
16...a5
**Lasker: An ingenious departure in order to develop inactive pieces.
Steinitz: For defensive purposes to prevent Bb4, but for attacking purpose also.
17.c3 a4 18.Bc2 Re8 19.Qh3 Nf8
**Lasker: 19...g6 would weaken the position too much.
20.Be3
**Steinitz: White had not much prospect of an attack; for this reason, 20.Bc1,
fortifying the queenside would have been finer play.
20...Qa5
**Lasker: In order to get the queen to the kingside.
Steinitz: Not as good as 20...Qc7.
21.a3
**Steinitz: Uncalled for; since in reply to 21...a3, which White seemed to fear, 22.b4
was a satisfactory answer.
21...Qb5
**
Steinitz: Blacks counter attack is probably premature. He should have been
contented with having weakened the adverse queenside and retreated 21...Qc7,
followed by 22...b5.
22.Bc1 Rad8
**Lasker: This move ought to lose the game.
Steinitz: An oversight, which costs a pawn, 22...Ng6 instead would have given
him a capital game. Still, Black has acquired some superiority of position which
compensates him for the loss.
23.Rd4 d5 24.exd5
**Lasker: 24.Bxa4 would have been simpler and better.
24...Bc5 25.Rf4
**Lasker: Also here 25.Bxa4 and if 25...Qe2, 26.Rd2 would easily win; the text
move gives all the advantage away and Black gets the best of it.
Steinitz: By far superior was 25.Bxa4, and if 25...Qa6 then 26.Rf4 Ng6 27.Bc2,
and the attack would be worth the exchange which Black offers.
25...Ng6 26.c4
**
Steinitz: Although this blocks out Blacks queen for a time, it is very injurious for
the ending. The right play was 26.dxc6 bxc6 (best) 27.Re4. It should be noted,
however, that if Rxa4 on this or his previous move, Black would win by Bxf2+
followed by Qe2+, or Re1+ accordingly.
26...Qa6
**
The following comment goes somewhere between Blacks 26th move and Whites
30th move. The original source does not specify which move (or color).-[Pope]

Steinitz: This and the next two moves were made under pressure of time-limit; but
certainly without merit; P-QKt4 instead looks more feasible.
27.Bxg6 fxg6 28.Rh4 h5 29.Bg5 Rd6 30.dxc6 Qxc6 [1:59-1:58]
**Steinitz: It was thought by some experts that Black could win here 30...Bxf2+; but
White effects a narrow escape by 31.Kxf2 Qb6+ 32.Kg3 Rd3+ 33.Rf3 and wins.
31.Qf3
**Steinitz: He had nothing better, as Black threatened 31...Re2.
31...Qxf3 32.gxf3 Re2 33.Bc1 Rxf2 34.Rxf2 Rd1+ 35.Kg2 Bxf2 36.Kxf2
Rxc1 37.Kg3 b6 38.Rd4 Rc2 39.Rd8+ Kh7 40.Rb8 Rxb2 41.Ra8
**Steinitz: White is wriggling out of a difficult game with consumate skill.
41...g5 42.Rxa4 h4+ 43.Kh3 Rf2 44.Rb4 Rxf3+ 45.Kg4 Rxa3 [2:55-
2:40] 46.Rxb6 Ra2 47.Kxg5 Rxh2 48.Rb3 Rh1
**Steinitz: 48...Rc2 instead was the simplest way of drawing.
49.Rc3 h3 50.Kg4 (Adjourned), -
The Sun, New York, 1894.03.28 & 30

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.c3 Nf6 5.d4 exd4 6.e5 d5 7.Bb5 Ne4 8.
cxd4 Bb6
**Lasker: In the fourth game I played here 8...Be7; as, however, the c6-knight has
the intention of going to that square later on, this move seems superior.
Steinitz: The regular book move and superior to the experiment, 8...Be7, as Lasker
played in the fourth game.
9.Nc3 0-0 10.Be3 f5
**
Lasker: Necessary, in order to break Whites attack.
11.exf6 Nxf6 12.Rc1 Qd6
**Lasker: White threatened 13.Bxc6, followed by 14.Ne5.
13.0-0 Bg4
**Steinitz: Black develops rapidly. This is certainly better than 13...Ng4 14.h3 Rxf3
15.hxg4 Rf7 (best) 16.f3 etc., as pointed out by Pillsbury.
14.Be2 Rae8 15.h3 Bxf3 [0:45-0:57]
**Lasker: 15...Bc8 would have been just as good, but this move leads subsequently
to the weakening of Whites queenside.
16.Bxf3 Ne7 17.Ne2 Ng6 18.g3
**Lasker: Forced, as 18...Nh4 with a strong attack was threatening.
18...c6 19.Bg2 Ne4 20.Qb3 Qf6 21.a4 Nd6
**Steinitz: Several experts afterward pointed out that 21...Nd2 was much superior.
The most likely continuation was 22.Bxd2 Rxe2 23.Be3 Bxd4 24.Qxb7 Bxe3 25.
fxe3 Rf2, and play as White may, Black will remain with a superiority.
22.Qb4
**Steinitz: 22.a5 with a view to going on to the sixth, in case the bishop retreats,
would not have worked well, on account of 22...Bxa5 23.Bxd5+ cxd5 24.Qxd5+
Kh8 25.Qxa5 Qf3 followed soon by 26...Nf5.
22...Nc4 23.Rxc4
**Lasker: The turning point of the game was the sacrifice of the exchange; although
daring it relieved White considerably, and it appears that in no stage of the
subsequent play could Black force a win.
Steinitz: The sacrifice seems to be sound, as the sequel shows.
23...dxc4 24.a5 Bd8 25.Qxb7 Bxa5 26.Qxa7
**Steinitz: Perhaps a better plan was 25.Qxc4+, followed ultimately by pawn to a6.
26...Bd2
**Steinitz: Very ingenious.
27.Qc5 Bxe3 28.fxe3 Qe6 29.Rxf8+ Rxf8 30.e4 Qf7 [1:56-1:58]
31.Kh2 Rb8 32.Qxc6 Ne7
**Lasker: If, for instance, Black on his thirty-second move, had continued with 32...
Rxb2, then White would have replied: 33.Qc8+ Nf8 34.Nf4 g5 35.Qg4 and it
cannot be seen how Black could play for a win in this position, strong as his passed
pawn may appear.
Steinitz: 32...Rxb2 at once appears to be stronger. The game was likely to proceed
33.Qc8+ Nf8 34.Nf4 g5 35.Qg4 c3 36.Qxg5+ Ng6 37.Nd3 Qa2.
33.Qc7 Rxb2 34.Nf4 g5 35.Nd5 Nxd5 36.Qd8+ Kg7 37.Qxg5+ Kh8 38.
exd5 Re2 39.Qd8+ Re8 40.Qg5 Qg7 41.Qd2 Qf6 42.Qc3 Rc8 43.Bf3
Rb8 44.Bg2 Rc8
**Steinitz: The last moves were made under pressure of time limit.
45.h4 Qd6 [2:50-2:57]
**Lasker: If there was any chance later on with a line of play suggested by
Showalter, namely 45...Qf5 instead of 45...Qd6, I could not take advantage of such
a line of play because I was pressed for time, and could not possibly study out all
the variations at my disposal.
46.Bh3 (Adjourned) 46...Rc7 (Sealed)
**
Im under the impression Steinitz means 46...Rb8 and not 46...Rg8, but I am not
certain.-[Pope]
Steinitz: R-Ktsq seems to give Black more chances of attack. Whites best answer
would have been B-Bsq.
47.Be6 Qf8 48.Kg2 Qf6 49.Qa5 Re7 50.Qc5
**Steinitz: To drive the king out to h6 was of no use. It was more important to get rid
of the dangerous c-pawn.
50...Re8 51.Qxc4 Rf8 52.Qe2
**Steinitz: No better was 52.d6 Qf2+ 53.Kh3 Rf3 54.Qc8+ Rf8 55.Qc7 Qf1+ etc.
52...Qxd4 53.d6 Rd8
**
Lasker: The position after the forty-fifth move was rather to Whites advantage,
which he increased very nicely on his fifty-third turn by the offered sacrifice of his
passed pawn. Of course I could not take it, as his queen would have given a neat
mate on b2. However I could sacrifice the exchange, which White had to accept,
because, if 54.Qf3 Qb2+ 55.Kh3 Qe5 and it would lead to a draw.
54.d7 Rxd7 55.Bxd7 Qxd7 56.Qe5+ Kg8 57.h5 Qg7 58.Qe8+ Qf8 59.
Qxf8+ Kxf8
**Steinitz: After this a regular book position arises.
60.Kf3 Kf7 [3:25-3:45] 61.Kg4 Kg7 62.Kg5 Kf7
**Steinitz: It is noteworthy that 62...Kg8 would lose by 63.Kh6 Kh8 64.g4 Kg8 65.
g5 Kh8 66.g6 hxg6 67.hxg6 Kg8 68.g7 wins.
63.Kh6 Kg8 64.Kg5
**Lasker: After the exchange of queens on the fifty-ninth move the game got to a
well known book position, in which White lacked a tempo to win. For instance, if
64.g4 Kh8 65.g5 Kg8 66.g6 Kh8 and draws.
Steinitz: It will be seen that by advancing the pawn only a stalemate would result.
64...Kf7 65.Kf4 Kg7 66.Kf5 Kf7 67.g4 h6 68.Ke5 Ke7 69.Kd5 Kf6 70.
Ke4 Ke671.Kd4 Kf6 [3:39-3:59] -.
The Sun, New York, 1894.03.30 & 31

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 d6 4.d4 Bd7 5.Nc3 Nge7 6.Be3
**Lasker: The game proceeded on novel lines from the fifth move, when, in order to
get more advantage out of the position, I changed my line of attack completely.
The fundamental difference of the two treatments consisted in the early castling on
the queenside and playing for an attack on the kingside.
Steinitz: A novel line of play for the attack.
6...Ng6 7.Qd2 Be7 8.0-0-0 a6 9.Be2 exd4 10.Nxd4 Nxd4 11.Qxd4 Bf6
12.Qd2 Bc6 13.Nd5 0-0 14.g4
**Lasker: It seems, however, that I overreached my attack when playing 14.g4. A
quiet move like 14.f3 first would have greatly solidified my position.
14...Re8 15.g5
**
Steinitz: This advance is premature, He evidently overlooked Blacks coming
scheme. 15.f3 was better.
15...Bxd5 [0:45-0:46] 16.Qxd5
**Steinitz: This is bad and should have lost; 16.exd5 was the correct move.
16...Re5 17.Qd2 Bxg5 18.f4
**
Steinitz: This results in the loss of a second pawn, but is Whites best chance of
attack now.
18...Rxe4
**
The following note appears between Whites 18th move and Blacks 23rd move.-
[Pope]
Steinitz: A kingside attack was here his only chance and White now plays a rather
ingenious one.
19.fxg5 Qe7 20.Rdf1
**Lasker: Steinitz, by a very finely laid trap, gained two pawns, and, although I
could have won at least one of them back by 20.Bf3, I preferred to go on with my
attack.
20...Rxe3 21.Bc4 Nh8
**Lasker: Apparently Black underrated the game, otherwise he would have played
21...Rf8.
22.h4 c6 23.g6
**Lasker: Perhaps my twenty-third move was unexpected to him. When I sacrificed
a third pawn he did not see his way clear to accept the offer, because I would have
forced an open h-file.
Steinitz: A little consideration ought to have shown Black that he could safely
capture, 23...hxg6, followed by pawn to g5 upon the advance of Whites h-pawn to
the fifth.
23...d5 24.gxh7+ Kxh7 25.Bd3+ Kg8 26.h5 Re8 27.h6 g6 28.h7+ Kg7
29.Kb1 Qe5 30.a3 c5 [1:58-1:50] 31.Qf2 c4 32.Qh4
**Steinitz: At first glance it would seem that White could win by 32.Bxg6. But this
does not realize if Black simply plays 32...fxg6 33.Qh4 Nf7 34.h8Q+ Rxh8 35.Rxf7
+ Kxf7 36.Qxh8 Qxh8 etc.
32...f6
**
Lasker: On Steinitzs thirty-second turn I expected 32...Kf8, whereupon again 33.
Bf5 would have left me with good chances for a draw, as the bishop could not well
be taken on account of 34.Rhg1. My opponent preferred to play 32...f6 instead,
which was a trifle risky. In consequence I held a very strong position, which
should have been a warning for Black not to attempt to force the win. In the end
Blacks winning chances were almost annihilated, if indeed White had not the best
of the bargain.
33.Bf5 Kf7 34.Rhg1 gxf5
**Steinitz: 34...g5 was probably better.
35.Qh5+ Ke7 36.Rg8 Kd6 37.Rxf5 Qe6 38.Rxe8 Qxe8 39.Rxf6+ Kc5
**Steinitz: Now 39...Kc7 was much better.
40.Qh6 Re7 41.Qh2 Qd7
**Lasker: However, Steinitz, still playing for a win, committed a great blunder on
his forty-first move, lost the queen and knight or rook, and resigned shortly
afterward.
Steinitz: Disastrous. Black was, however, under pressure of time limit hereabouts.
He should have played 41...Re6.
42.Qg1+ d4 43.Qg5+ Qd5 44.Rf5 Qxf5 45.Qxf5+ Kd6 [2:55-2:52] 46.
Qf6+ [2:56-2:53] 1-0.

C10/12 French: Paulsen (Rubinstein)
1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4
**Lasker: Perhaps not as strong as the usual continuation 3...Nf6. It has the
advantage of creating a free game in the center.
Steinitz: First brought into public notice by the late J. H. Bauer in a local
tournament in Vienna.
4.Nxe4 Nd7 5.Nf3 Ngf6 6.Ng3 c5 7.Be2
**Lasker: The bishop cannot well be played to d3 as it would constantly be harassed
on that square by the black knights.
7...cxd4 8.Nxd4 Bc5 9.Nb3 Be7 10.0-0 0-0 11.Bd2 Qc7 12.c4
**Lasker: Partly to keep the black pieces from d5, partly a preparation for a
queenside attack. The text move gives White a little pull.
12...Ne5 13.Qc2
**Steinitz: 13.Rc1 was superior.
13...Ng6
**Steinitz: Hardly as good as 13...Nc6.
14.Rfe1
**Stenitz: More consistent with the queenside attack which he had in view was 14.
Rfc1.
14...Bd7 15.Rac1 Rfc8 [0:52-0:45]
**Steinitz: Black also loses time.
16.Bf1 Ba4 17.Bc3 Ng4
**Lasker: Laying a trap. If White advances 17...Ng4 18.h3 Bxb3 19.axb3 Bc5 20.
hxg4 Qxg3 21.b4 Nf4 22.bxc5 Nh3+ 23.Kh1 Nxf2+ 24.Kg1 Nxg4 and should win.
Steinitz: This move is wasted, as will be seen.
18.Qe2 Nf6 19.Nd4 Bd7 20.b4 Rd8 21.Qb2 Rac8 22.Nb3 Qf4 23.Bd2
Qb8
**I suspect that that in the following note 25.Kt-B5 is 25.Ndf5 but I have no proof.-
[Pope]
Steinitz: Black sees in time that nothing could be gained by 23...Q-R5 24.Kt-Q4 B-
B3 25.Kt-B5, winning a very strong pawn.
24.b5
**Lasker: This move gets White into difficulties. 24.Bc3 would have been
preferable. Whites object ought to have been to maintain a pressure on the
adversarys kingside, while the c-pawn ought to have been pushed first.
Steinitz: This advance was probably premature. The two pawns abreast are much
stronger than in the present situation.
24...b6 25.Bc3 Ne8 26.Nh5
**In the following note I believe Steinitz means 28.a3 instead of 28.a4. See next note
by Steinitz.-[Pope]
Steinitz: 26.Ne4 was obviously much stronger and in fact there seems to be no
satisfactory answer. If then 26...f6 27.c5 bxc5 28.Ba5 Nc7 29.Nbxc5 with a
winning advantage. Or 26...f5 27.Ned2 followed by 28.a4 and 29.Bb4.
26...f6 27.a4
**Steinitz: Again wrong. He should either not advance it at all or only one square.
27...e5 28.a5 Bg4 29.Ng3 Be6 30.Nd2
**
Lasker: Hardly a move to my liking, inasmuch as it crowds Whites pieces too
much. Why not 30.Bd2?
30...Nf4 [1:55-1:55] 31.Qb1 Bf7 32.Nf5 Bf8 33.Bb4 Nd6 34.Nxd6 Bxd6
35.Ne4
**Steinitz: Time pressure becomes evident from this point up to the forty-fifth move.
White could have obtained an excellent attack by 35.Bxd6 Rxd6 36.Ne4 Bg6 37.
axb6 axb6 38.Nxd6 Bxb1 39.Nxc8 Bg6 40.Nxb6 Qxb6 41.c5 and it will be found
by close examination that White wins.
35...Bxb4 36.Qxb4 Rd4 37.axb6
**Lasker: Here 37.Rcd1 was preferable, because the black rooks threaten to become
rather dangerous on that file, and it would have been advantageous for White to
exchange a least one of the rooks and to continue his attack with Qe7.
37...axb6 38.g3
**Lasker: An error in judgment; it weakens the kingside and allows Black to
exchange his knight for bishop, a piece which added much toward solidifying
Whites game. Now White loses a pawn by force.
38...Nd3 39.Bxd3 Rxd3 40.c5 Rd4
**Lasker: 40...Rb3 would probably lead to a draw, namely: 41.Qa4 bxc5 42.Nxc5
Rxb5 (if 42...Qxb5 instead, White continues 43.Nxb3) 43.Nd7 Rxc1 44.Rxc1 Qb7
45.Nc5, and so on.
41.Qb1 bxc5 42.Nxc5 Rc4 43.Nd7
**Lasker: Giving up the piece for two pawns would have been the best course to
adopt, but for the consequences of Whites thirty-eigth move. Any other
continuation loses the b-pawn by force.
Steinitz: Hazardous in the extreme. 43.Na6 Rxc1 44.Rxc1 Rxc1+ 45.Qxc1 Qxb5
46.Qc8+, and though Black is a pawn ahead White ought to draw.
43...Qb7 44.Rcd1 Be6 45.Nxe5 fxe5 [3:00-2:54]
**Steinitz: This desperate resource was the only one.
46.Rxe5 (Adjourned) 46...Bh3 (Sealed) 47.Red5 Rc1 48.Qd3 h6
**Lasker: If 48...Rxd1+ 49.Qxd1 Rc1 50.Rd8+ Kf7 51.Rd7+ Qxd7 52.Qxc1, and
matters for Black would have been made more difficult. Although White makes a
gallant fight, he could not possibly prevent the ultimate loss.
49.g4
**Steinitz: White is completely tied up, and this is the only way to give him
temporary relief. If 49.f3 Qb6+ 50.Kh1 (or 50.Rd4 Rxd1+ followed by 51...Rc4)
50...Rxd1+ 51.Qxd1 Qf2 52.Rd8+ Rxd8 53.Qxd8+ Kh7 54.Qd3+ g6 and wins.
49...Bxg4 50.f3 Rxd1+ 51.Qxd1 Be6 52.Rd6 Qe7 53.b6 Rc1 54.Qxc1
Qxd6 55.Qe3 Bd5 56.Kg2 Qg6+ 57.Kf2 Qc2+ 58.Kg3 Qg6+ 59.Kf2 Qc2
+ 60.Kg3 Qg6+ [3:15-3:50] 61.Kf2 Bb7 62.Qb3+ Qf7 63.Qd3 Qd5 64.
Qe3 Qd6 65.Kg2 Kf7 66.h4 Qe6
**Steinitz: The ending is beautifuly played by Lasker.
67.Qf4+ Kg6 68.Qg3+ Kh7 69.Qf2 Qg4+ 70.Kh2 Qxf3 71.Qc2+ Qe4 72.
Qf2 Qf3 73.Qc2+ Be4 74.Qd2 Qf6 75.Qe3 Qxh4+ [3:40-4:20] 76.Kg1
Qg5+ [3:40-4:20] 0-1.
The Sun, New York, 1894.04.06 & 07
New York Recorder, 1894.04.06, 07 & 29

1894.04.14 USA Philadelphia, PA (Franklin Chess Club)
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 d6 4.Nc3
**Lasker: The fourth move of White inaugurated not a mere transposition of the
succession of moves, as were played in former games, but it left White with the
additional advantage of playing Bc4 either before or after pawn to d4.
Steinitz: Played by Chigorin vs. Steinitz in match at Havana in 91, with the
continuation: 4...Bd7 5.d4 Nge7 6.Bg5 f6 7.Be3.
4...a6 5.Bc4
**Steinitz: White could hardly exchange and 5.Ba4 would have cut him off from the
kingside. Black has therefore evidently gained a move in the development as
compared with similar positions.
5...Be6
**Steinitz: Either this or 5...Be7 was now indispensable.
6.Bxe6
**
Lasker: The opening, after Blacks fifth move, into well-known lines of the
Philidor defense. It is doubtful whether the exchanging of bishops, or the retiring to
b3, is preferable.
6...fxe6 7.d4 exd4 8.Nxd4 Nxd4
**Steinitz: Too much simplification was the result of this exchange and 8...Qd7 was
probably the best way to avoid this.
9.Qxd4 Ne7 10.Bg5 Nc6
**
Lasker: Blacks tenth move was practically forced, as White threatened 11.Bxe7
with a very strong position.
11.Bxd8 Nxd4 12.0-0-0 Nb5
**Lasker: Black evidently overrated his attack when he offered the exchange of
knights on the twelfth move.
Steinitz: As second player, Black should have been content with the slight
advantage arising from doubling the pawns by 12...Nb3+, followed by 13...Rxd8.
In trying to do more he seriously compromises his position. Although he recovers
the sacrificed pawn, his doubled b-pawns become the source of trouble.
13.Nxb5 axb5 14.Bxc7 Rxa2
**Steinitz: The better plan was anyhow 14...Ra6 15.e5 d5 16.a3 Kd7 17.Bd6 Bxd6
18.exd6 Rf8 etc.
15.Bb6
**Steinitz: Obviously he could not take the pawn on account of the check, and Black
threatens ...Ra6.
15...Be7
**
Steinitz: Feeble as compared with 15...b4, which would have rendered Whites
game very difficult.
16.c3 Kf7
**
Lasker: Probably 16...Ra4 and if 17.Rhe1 b4 was Steinitzs strongest line of play,
as this was really his only chance to dissolve his doubled pawn during the whole
game. After this omission White got a slight pull.
Steinitz: A grave error of judgment to which the loss of the game may fairly be
ascribed. 16...Kd7, followed soon by Kc6, would have brought the necessary
support to the weak pawns on the queenside. If then, 17.Bd4 Rf8, or 17.Bc5 Kc6
18.Ba3 Ra1+ 19.Kc2 Rxd1, with at least an even game.
17.Kc2 Rha8 18.Kb3 R2a4 19.f3 R8a6
**Steinitz: Only driving the bishop to a better square. Much superior was 19...g5
either on this or the next move.
20.Bd4 g6 21.Rd3 Ke8 22.Rhd1 e5
**Lasker: On account of the weakness of his d-pawn Black seemed compelled to
push his e-pawn on his twenty-second turn.
Steinitz: Black overlooked the force of Whites twenty-fourth move. 22...g5 was,
under any circumstances, much better.
23.Be3 Kd7 24.Bc5
**Steinitz: A beautiful key move to splendid ending play in a series of fine moves
carried through by White in a style that can hardly be improved upon.
24...Ra1 25.R1d2 Ke6 26.Ba3
**Lasker: Now on my twenty-sixth move I might have avoided many complications
by advancing 26.h3, although 26...h5 would have been a very strong rejoinder on
the part of Black.
26...g5 27.Rd5 Rb6 28.Kb4 g4 29.Ka5
**Steinitz: All in grand style. Black will gain nothing now by 29...Bd8, as White
seems to answer 30.Rxb5.
29...Ra6+ 30.Kxb5
**Lasker: In actual play I had to make a very tedious maneuver in order to win the b-
pawn. While I was thus engaged in my scheme Black initiated a strong attack upon
my kings flank in a truly marvellous manner and I had to give my entire attention
to it, although I had a decisive superiority of pawns.
30...h5
**
Lasker: On Steinitzs thirtieth move he might have continued 30...Rh1 31.fxg4 Re1
32.h3 Rxe4 33.c4; but he evidently thought that in this variation Whites kingside
pawns would prove to be too dangerous.
Steinitz: Lasker himself was of the opinion that 30...Rh1 gave Black drawing
chances. After the text move there appears to be no hope and Lasker plays the
ending with his accustomed accuracy.
31.Rd1 Rxd1 32.Rxd1 gxf3 33.gxf3 Ra8 34.Kb6 Rg8 35.Kxb7
**Lasker: Had I, at my thirty-fifth move, continued with 35.Rd2, then my opponent
would have replied with 35...Rg7, thus saving his b-pawn, and he would have
threatened to push his h-pawn, which, in some variations, would have given him
even a chance to win.
35...Rg2 36.h4 Rh2 37.Kc6 Bxh4 38.Rxd6+ Kf7 39.Kd5
**
Lasker: My thirty-ninth move was probably forced, as Blacks h-pawn could
advance, for if 39.Rh6 Bg5 40.Rh8 Kg7 41.Re8 Bf4 42.Bd6 Kf7 43.Rh8 Kg7 44.
Re8 Kf7 45.Re7+ Kf6 46.Rh7 Kg6 and it is very doubtful, indeed, whether White
could win.
39...Bf6
**Lasker: Black could have won my bishop by 39...Rd2+ 40.Kxe5 Rxd6 41.Bxd6
Bg3+ 42.f4 h4 43.Bc5 h3 44.Bg1 h2, but my pawns would have won.
40.Rd7+ Kg6 41.Ke6 h4 42.Rd1 h3 43.Rg1+ Rg2 44.Rxg2+ hxg2 45.
Bc5 Bd8
46.b4 Kg5 47.Kd7 Bf6 48.b5 Kf4 49.b6 1-0.
The Sun, New York, 1894.04.15 & 16

Annotations by Lasker & Jackson Showalter
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.f3
**Lasker: As far as I know Steinitz first introduced his fourth move, 4.f3, in his
match against Gunsberg, in similar positions. The object of the move is to establish
a strong center by means of afterward playing pawn to e4. Of course Blacks
rejoinder, 4...c5, seems therefore practically forced.
Showalter: Steinitz first tested this experiment in his match against Gunsberg, if
our memory is not at fault, and with better results than in the present instance. But,
critically considered, this move seems by no means favorable to White giving him
an awkward form of development and practically throwing away at once the
advantage of the move.
4...c5
**Showalter: No doubt the correct and best reply, and one that to our way of
thinking speedily exposes the weakness of Whites fourth move. White is
practically forced to exchange the pawns now as 5.e3 is an unfavorable alternative
and results in the isolation of the d-pawn with a weakened pawn position on the
kingside; or, if 6.Qxd4 in reply to 5...cxd4, the gaining of important developing
time by 6...Nc6 attacking the queen; either contingency being unfavorable to White.
5.dxc5 Bxc5 6.cxd5 Nxd5 7.e4
**Lasker: Some of the spectators expected that Steinitz would take the knight on his
seventh turn, but like myself he probably thought that the pawn, although isolated,
was not at all weak; to the contrary, it might have been very troublesome to White.
Showalter: 7.Nxd5 Qxd5 8.Qxd5 exd5 isolates a pawn on the d-file for Black, but
at the same time leaves White with the inferior game as his e-pawn is weak and he
is behind in development. It will be seen that in this case White must play 9.e3 (if 9.
e4, 9...dxe4 etc.) at once, as Black threatens by pawn to d4, to permanently block
the white pawns advance. Black then proceeds by 9...0-0 and ...Re8, or ...Nc6, with
decidely the better game. However, even the text move (7.e4) is not free from
disadvantages, in that it seriously weakens Whites queenside pawns, but it is
obviously the best under the circumstances.
7...Nxc3 8.Qxd8+ Kxd8 9.bxc3 Nc6
**Showalter: Black has two pieces in the field and an intact pawn position on either
side, while the white pieces are unmoved as yet. This, in addition to the
disadvantages mentioned in preceding note. The outcome of the opening thus far is
in itself sufficient commentary on 4.f3.
10.Nh3 Kc7 11.Nf4 Rd8 12.Nd3 Bd6 13.f4
**
Lasker: Nothing need be said about the following five moves, but Whites
thirteenth move, 13.f4 was hardly to be recommended. His object ought to have
been to bring about a quick development of his pieces, as for instance, 13.Be2 and
0-0, rather than go in for a useless attack, which seriously compromised his e-pawn.
13...b6 14.Nf2 Bc5 15.Be2 Bb7 [0:45-0:32] 16.Nd3 Bf8 17.f5
**
Lasker: The champions seventeenth move was a well laid trap, for had I played
17...exf5, I would have removed Whites weakness from e4, and would have given
him a free game for attacking purposes. I therefore selected 17...e5 as my reply,
which kept my pawns well joined and in a good position.
Showalter: If 17.e5 Ne7 18.0-0 Ba6 19.Rd1 Rd7 20.Ba3 (20.Bb2 Rad8 21.Nc1
Bxe2 22.Rxd7+ Rxd7 23.Nxe2 Rd2 and wins) 20...Nd5 21.Bxf8 Rxf8 22.g3 Ne3
23.Rd2 Rfd8 24.Kf2 Ng4+ 25.Bxg4 (best) 25...Rxd3 26.Rxd3 Rxd3 and should
win.
17...e5 18.Bg5
**Showalter: Why this strengthening of the e-pawn instead of 18.Be3 at once is not
clear, except upon presumption of pressure of time limit. Perhaps, however, White
had visions of posting a bishop at e6. The knight could not readily reach that
square.
18...f6 19.Be3 Rac8
**Lasker: My nineteenth move, 19...Rac8, was preparing ...Na5, to be followed by ...
Nc4; if then the knight would have been taken, I should have retaken with my rook
and would certainly have received my adversarys e-pawn. That this line of play
could not have been prevented will best be seen on Whites twenty-first move.
20.0-0-0
**Showalter: Bad indeed. The weakened queenside menaced by hostile rooks on
open files affords very uncertain security for the white king. He had much better
have castled kingside, afterward playing 21.Rfc1 and advancing the c-pawn and a-
pawn with some prospect of attack.
20...Kb8 21.Nf2
**Lasker: If, for instance: 21.Kb2 Na5 22.Nf2 either 22...Rxd1 followed by 23...Ba3
+ etc., as pointed out by Steinitz after the game, or simply 22...Bd6 followed by
23...Nc4+, would have decided the game in favor of Black.
Showalter: If 21.Kb2, the following was a likely continuation: 21...Na5 22.Nf2
Ba3+ 23.Kc2 Bc6 etc., but, though Black has a fine attack, he does not necessarily
win the pawn.
21...Nd4
**Lasker: My twenty-first move, 21...Nd4, was the simplest way of forcing the win,
as obviously White was bound to lose at least one pawn, while Black still kept his
superiority in position.
22.Bxd4 exd4 23.Bd3 dxc3 24.g4 Ba3+ 25.Kc2
**Showalter: Forced; as, if 25.Kb1 Rxd3 and wins.
25...Bc6 26.Kb3 Bc5 27.Nh3
**Showalter: This unfortunate knight, which has been rolling porpoise like to and
fro between h3 and d3 (via f2 and f4) at intervals all through the game, has this
time sufficient grounds for a return to the old love at h3. If 27.Rhf1 Bxf2 28.Rxf2
Bxe4 winning easily.
27...Be3 28.Bc2 Bd2 29.Nf2
**Showalter: Floundering back to d3! But there is now nothing else. The game is
hopeless.
29...Rd4 30.Ka3 Be8
**Showalter: Black pushes his attack with consummate skill. Every move tells. He
now forces White to give up the e-pawn by the threat of ...b5 and ...b4, followed
by ...Bf7+ etc.
31.Nd3 Rxe4 32.Nb4 Rd4
**Showalter: A beautiful finish!
33.Bb3 a5 34.Nc2 b5 0-1.

1894.04.21 USA Philadelphia, PA (Union League Club)
Annotations by Lasker & Jackson Showalter
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Nf3 Be7 5.e3 0-0 6.Bd3 c5 7.dxc5 dxc4 8.
Bxc4 Qxd1+ 9.Kxd1
**Showalter: The sacrifice of the castling privilege is of little moment in this
opening, generally speaking, while in the present instance the position of the king
in the center even proves of great advantage to White in the later stages of the
game. The newly crowned king of chess evidently approves of the Steinitzian
maxim that the king is also a fighting piece. It is significant that the overthrow of
the apostle of the modern schoolwas accomplished by that disciple who has shown
in his play the keenest appreciation of modern schoolprinciples and who has
adhered to those principles with more tenacious consistency than any other master
who has yet appeared, not even excepting the great founder of that schoolhimself.
9...Nc6 10.a3 Bxc5
**Lasker: With the one exception of White leaving his king in the center, the
opening is played up to the tenth move on conservative and well-known lines,
resulting in an even position.
11.b4 Bb6
**Showalter: Probably reserving the square at e7 for the retreat of the knight.
12.Ke2 Bd7 13.Bb3 Rac8 14.Bb2 a5
**Showalter: Creating subsequent difficulties. 14...Rfd8 looks much better and more
consistent.
15.b5 Ne7 [0:32-0:45]
**Lasker: On his fifteenth move Black, as the sequel shows, made a premature
move, and got into a rather difficult game; for instance, if he had played 15...Kh8,
White would have answered 16.Na4 Bc7 17.Nc5, with a decided advantage.
16.Ne5 Be8
**Showalter: For now this bishop, which Black is loath to give up for the opposing
knight, temporarily blocks the development of the f-rook.
17.a4
**Showalter: Black threatens now to win the pawn by ...Ned5, etc.
17...Bc7 18.Nc4 Bd7 19.Rac1
**Lasker: Of course, when I had to consider my nineteenth move, I did not proceed
with 19.b6 Bd8 20.Nxa5 Bxb6 21.Nxb7 on account of 21...Rb8 22.Nd6 Bxe3
recovering his material.
Showalter: If 19.b6 Bd8 20.Nd6 Rc6, winning the pawn at least; or 20.Nxa5 Bxb6,
and Black presently gets an advantage.
19...Ned5
**Showalter: Which turns out badly, ...Rfd8 is now out of the question, however, on
account of pawn to b6, etc. We believe that the proper course was 19...b6.
20.Nxd5 Nxd5 21.Ne5 Bxe5
**Showalter: The only alternative was 21...Nf6, and that seems to give Black a bad
game by 22.Nxd7 Nxd7 23.Rhd1 or 23.Rc2. 21...Be8 loses at once by 22.Bxd5
exd5 23.Ba3 etc., or by 22.Ba3 Nb4 23.b6; while 21...Rfd8 is bad on account of 22.
Nxd7 Rxd7 23.Bxd5 Rxd5 or 23...exd5 24.b6.
22.Bxe5 f6 23.e4 fxe5
**
Lasker: Blacks twenty-third move was forced; if, for instance, 23...Ne7 24.Bc7
Ra8 25.Bd6, followed by 26.Rc7. On his next turn Black played the best possible
variation, for, if 24...Rxc1 25.Rxc1 Re8 26.dxe6 Bxe6 27.Rc8 and wins the
exchange.
Showalter: This is certainly bad, but Blacks game is already somewhat
compromised. His best chance, however, was certainly 23...Ne7. If, then, 24.Bd6,
Black seems to come off with an even game by either 24...Kf7 or 24...Rxc1 25.
Rxc1 Rc8 etc.; and if 24.Bc3 Ra8 (not 24...b6 25.Rhd1 to which there is no
defense, as the bishop cannot be supported by either rook without the loss of a
piece) 25.Rhd1 Bc8, and though Black has the inferior position he may yet hope to
draw. Of course all other moves with the knight are weak and lose at least a pawn.
24.exd5 Kf7 25.Rhd1 Ke7
**Lasker: Many people thought that Steinitz could have proceeded on his twenty-
fifth turn with 25...Rxc1 then the following variation would have been the result:
26.Rxc1 Rc8 27.dxe6+ Ke7 28.Rxc8 Bxc8 29.Ke3 Bxe6 30.Bxe6 Kxe6 31.Ke4
and White would have probably won. For instance, let us continue 31...b6 32.h4
g6 33.h5 Kd6 34.hxg6 hxg6 35.g4 Ke6 36.f3 Kd6 37.f4 exf4 38.Kxf4 Ke6 39.Kg5
Kf7 40.Kh6 Kf6 41.Kh7 Kg5 42.Kg7 Kxg4 43.Kxg6 Kf4 44.Kf6 Ke4 45.Ke6 Kd4
46.Kd6 Kc4 47.Kc6 Kb4 48.Kxb6 Kxa4 49.Kc5 and wins.
Showalter: He should now have played 25...Rxc1 by all means. The next move
increases his difficulties most seriously.
26.d6+ Kf6 27.Ke3 Rxc1
**Showalter: Again bad. The position is peculiar and simplification aids White
materially. Blacks only hope to draw was in keeping the rooks on the board, or at
least one of them.
28.Rxc1 Rc8 29.Rxc8 Bxc8 30.Bc2 (Adjourned)
**Showalter: A beautiful move, against which Black has no defense.
30...Kf7 [1:09-1:05]
**
Lasker: My opinion is that at his thirtieth move Steinitzs best play was 30...e4, but
should lose after 31.Bxe4 e5 32.d7, etc.
Showalter: If 30...h6 31.Be4 Kf7 (31...g5 32.g4 or 31...h5 32.h4) 32.Bf3 Kf6 33.
Kd3 Kf7 (33...Kf5 34.Bxb7 and wins, or if 33...b6 34.Bc6 and wins.) 34.h4 Kf6 35.
Kc4 Kf7 36.Kc5 Ke8 37.Kb6 Kd7 38.Bxb7 and wins.
31.Bxh7 b6
**Lasker: If 31...g6 32.Ke4 Kg7 33.Kxe5 Kxh7 34.Kf6 e5 35.Ke7 and wins.
Showalter: 31...g6 32.Ke4, and Black dare not win the bishop, as the white king
meanwhile marches to d8 and wins the other bishop and the game.
32.Ke4
**Showalter: Here White, who has played with consummate skill throughout, misses
his shortest course to victory, viz., 32.Be4 Ke8 (forced) 33.Bc6+ Kd8 or 33...Bd7
34.Ke4, etc.
32...Kf6
**
Lasker: About Blacks thirty-second move little can be said. The remaining moves
are not of special interest, as Whites superior forces must win.
33.g4 g5 34.Kf3 Kf7 35.Be4 Ke8 36.h4 Kd7 37.h5 Ke8 38.Ke3 1-0.
New York Recorder, 1894.04.23 & 07.15

D60/01 Queens Gambit Declined: Orthodox
1894.05.03 CAN Montreal, PQ (Cosmopolitan Club)
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 Be7 5.Nf3 0-0 6.e3 Nbd7 7.c5
**In a similar position against Chigorin the same blocking move was adopted, the
difference being that Whites dark-square bishop had not been developed on the
kingside but stood at its original square. Further experiment must show whether
this line of play is applicable under these altered conditions.
7...c6 8.Bd3
**More consistent with the plan initiated on the previous move was 8.b4. Still Black
could then effect exchanges on the queens wing by ...b6 and ...a5 before attempting
to open the center.
8...h6
**
Necessary in pursuance of Blacks plan. If 8...e5 9.dxe5 Ne4 10.Bxe4 Bxg5 11.Bb1
Nxc5 12.h4 Be7 13.Ng5 h6 (if 13...g6 14.f4 with a strong position) 14.Qc2 g6 15.
Nxf7 winning three pawns for the knight and remaining with four united passed
pawns on the kingside.
9.Bh4 e5
**If this should prove sound after repeated practical and analytical investigation, it
becomes a remarkable novelty of great igenuity and depth at this early stage of the
opening.
10.dxe5
**The block on the queenside cannot well be maintained. If, for instance, 10.Be2 Ne4
etc.
10...Ne4 11.Bxe4 Bxh4 12.Bc2
**12.Bb1 leads to most complicated variations in which White gains material but
subjects himself to a powerful attack: 12.Bb1 Nxc5 13.Qc2 g6 14.Nxh4 Qxh4 15.
Nxd5 cxd5 16.Qxc5 Qg5 17.Qxd5 Rd8 18.Qe4 (18.h4 Qxe3+, with a superior
position, or if 18.Qf3 Bg4 and wins) 18...Bf5 19.Qxb7 Rab8 20.Qc6 Rb6! and
should win.
12...Nxc5 13.Qd4 Be7 14.0-0-0 a5 15.h4
**Having castled on opposite sides each player throws forward his pawns against the
adverse king and weaknesses for the ending are thus created in both camps. White
might have done better here as a preparatory move by 15.Qf4 threatening pawn to
e4.
15...b5 16.Ne2 b4 17.g4 b3
**Probably the only method to continue the attack. 17...a4 would be met by 18.Bf5.
18.axb3 Rb8 19.Qc3
**If White attempted to preserve the pawn on the kingside the game might have
proceeded 19.g5 Nxb3+ 20.Bxb3 Rxb3 21.gxh6 g6 followed in most cases by 22...
Rb4.
19...Bxg4 20.Nfd4 Qb6 21.f3 Bd7 22.Nf4
**White adopted this move in preference to 22.Rdg1, apprehending 22...f6 as the
answer to that move. But on subsequent examination I find that in such case I could
proceed with 23.f4, keeping up a strong pressure against the kingside.
22...Qb4 23.Rdg1 Qxc3 24.bxc3 Rfc8 25.Nh5
**The immediate attack on the kingside is perhaps not effective enough, and White
might have done better by 25.Kd2, opening an option of operations with the rooks
on the queens wing.
25...g6 26.Nf4 Bf8 27.Nfe2 Bg7 28.h5 g5 29.f4 Ne4 30.Rg2 c5 31.Nf3 c4
32.bxc4 Rxc4 33.Nd2 Nxd2 34.Kxd2 f6 35.exf6 Bxf6 36.fxg5 Bxg5 37.
Rb1 Rxb1 38.Bxb1 Kf8 39.Nd4 Ke7 40.Ba2 Rc5 41.Kd3 Kd6 42.Rb2
Bg4 43.Rb6+ Kc7 44.Ra6 Kb7 45.Rd6 Kc7 46.Ra6 Kb7 47.Rd6 Kc7 48.
Ra6 Kb7 49.Rd6 Kc7 50.Ra6 Kb7 -.

C68/01 Spanish: Exchange (Steinitz)
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6
**Probably fully as good as 3...d6, and also adopted on the presumption that White
was probably not so well prepared for it.
4.Bxc6
**A favorite combination of Winawer; but most masters prefer 4.Ba4.
4...dxc6 5.d4
**Winawer castled at this point, and other masters prefer the slow development by 5.
d3 and 6.Be3.
5...exd4 6.Qxd4 Qxd4 7.Nxd4 c5
**This is new and probably of greater value than the usual 7...Bd6, which places this
bishop too much in the way of the hostile pawns. But still better would be the
simple 7...Bd7.
8.Ne2 Bd7 9.Nbc3 0-0-0 10.Bf4
**A premature attack which subsequently costs time; the bishop should at once have
been posted at e3.
10...Bc6 11.0-0 Nf6 12.f3 Be7 13.Ng3 g6 14.Rfe1
**14.Bg5 and if 14...h6 15.Be3; or else 14.Rfd1, both afterward suggested by Lasker
were undoubtedly superior to the text.
14...Nd7 15.Nd1
**Mere demonstrative tactics were evidently out of order, and White retreats his
pieces with a view to concentration for operations in the center.
15...Nb6 16.Nf1 Rd7 17.Be3 Rhd8 18.b3 c4
**Black could not allow the opponent to advance pawn to c4, as sooner or later it
would have enabled White to plant one of his knights at d5 with great effect.
Moreover, Black obtains a strong attack for the pawn sacrificed.
19.Bxb6 cxb6 20.bxc4
**
It was Whites best policy probably not to accept the proffered pawn, but to
continue 20.Nde3 instead.
20...Bb4 21.c3 Bc5+ 22.Kh1
**Obviously if 22.Nfe3 Rxd1 and wins, and if 22.Nde3 Rd3 23.Rac1 f5! with a
strong attack.
22...Rd3 23.Rc1 a5
**23...f5 would be premature, and this more quiet advance does important service on
the queens wing in the ending. White is in the mean time much hampered.
24.Nde3 f5 (Adjourned)
**Now correctly timed and extremely difficult to meet.
25.exf5 (Sealed)
**25.Nd5 might have prolonged resistance, but would hardly equalize the game: e.g.
25.Nd5 fxe4 26.fxe4 Rf8 27.Rc2 h5, with a strong attack.
25...gxf5 26.h3
**If 26.Nxf5 Rxf3 27.Ne7+ Bxe7 28.gxf3 Bxf3+ 29.Kg1 Bc5+ 30.Ne3 Rd2 31.a4
Rg2+ 32.Kf1 Rxh2 and if 33.Rc2 Rh1+ 34.Kf2 Rxe1 and wins.
26...Rg8 27.Nd5
**27.Nxf5 would be again disastrous on account of the same rejoinder, 27...Rxf3.
27...Bxd5 28.cxd5 Rxd5 29.Rcd1 Rxd1 30.Rxd1 f4
**This and the following series of moves give Black a winning superiority in
position. The white knight is a prisoner, and the end can be only a question of time.
31.Kh2 Re8 32.a4 Kc7 33.h4 Kc6 34.c4 Bb4 35.Kh3 Re1 36.Rxe1 Bxe1
37.Kg4 Kc5 38.Kxf4 Kxc4 39.Ke4 Bxh4 40.g3 Bd8 41.Ne3+ Kb4 42.
Kd3 Kxa4 43.Kc2 Kb4 44.f4 Kc5 45.f5 Kd6 46.g4 b5 47.Nd1 Ke5 48.
Nc3 b4 49.Na4 Kd4 50.Nb2 b5 51.Kb3 Be7 52.g5 a4+ 53.Nxa4 bxa4+
54.Kxa4 Ke5 55.Kb5 Kxf5 0-1.

D46/30 Semi-Slav: Meran (Chigorin)
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 c6
**Steinitz: An old idea revived by Chigorin and Gunsberg, and also adopted by
Lasker against Blackburne in a similar position. It practically prevents the
development of Whites c1-bishop on the kingside, but it has its drawbacks, notably
that it exposes Black to an attack in the center, as in the game.
4.e3 Nf6 5.Nf3 Bd6 6.Bd3 Nbd7 7.0-0 0-0
**Steinitz: If Black here advanced 7...e5 White would have exchanged both pawns,
creating an isolated pawn in the adverse center.
8.e4 dxe4 9.Nxe4 Nxe4 10.Bxe4 h6
**Steinitz: He could not now advance the e-pawn without losing a pawn, as White
would have exchanged twice, followed by Bxh7+, etc.
11.Bc2 f5
**Lasker: Although this advance weakens the e-pawn, it paves the way for a strong
attack on the kings wing.
Steinitz: If now 11...e5 12.Qd3 f5 13.Qb3 Kh8 14.dxe5 Nxe5 15.Rd1, with a
strong attack. The text move, however, weakens his center at once.
12.Re1 Nf6 13.Bd2 Bd7 14.Bc3 Qc7 15.Ne5 Be8 16.Qd3 g5
**Steinitz: Black, no doubt, on his eleventh move speculated upon this attack.
However, it will be seen that it does not compensate for the weakness of his e-
pawn.
17.Qh3 Qg7 18.Rad1
**
Lasker: White has skillfully prepared a strong attack in the centre of the board if
an opportunity arrives. He threatens now P-Q5, and if then 19...PxP 20.PxP KtxP
and 21.RxKt PxR followed by a discovered attack on the queen.
18...g4
**
Lasker: Playing Whites game, it merely drives the queen from a harmless post to a
most threatening position. Black was under the impression that he could continue
with 19...Qg5, but saw too late that White could then gain a clear pawn by 20.
Nxg4. Black should have played 18...Bh5 and if 19.f3 g4 or if 19.Rd2 Rae8 and his
position would have been excellent.
19.Qe3 Bh5 20.Nxc6
**Steinitz: The soundness of the sacrifice here involved is shown by the sequel.
20...Bxh2+ 21.Kxh2 g3+ 22.Qxg3
**
Lasker: The combination selected in the text is by far superior to the alternative 22.
K-Q, because there might follow PxP.
22...Qxg3+ 23.fxg3 Bxd1 24.Bxd1
**Steinitz: Better than 24.Ne7+ Kf7 25.Bxd1 Rfe8 26.Bb4 Rxe7 27.Bxe7 Kxe7 28.
d5 Ne4 etc.
24...bxc6 25.Rxe6 Ne4
**Lasker: This seems to be the only move to prevent White from playing 26.d5.
Steinitz: If 25...Rac8, White intended to continue 26.Bf3 Ne4 27.Rxh6 (or 27.
Bxe4). It should be remembered that 26.d5 would not work well on account of the
continuation 26...Ne4 and if 27.Rg6+ Kh7 28.Rg7+ Kh8 29.Bd4 c5 30.Be5 Rfe8
etc.
26.Rxc6 Nxc3 27.bxc3 Kg7
**The following note is not a direct quote from a single source. My first source gives
superiorin place of inferior, and then gives matingwhere the second source has
waiting. So for the sake of clarity I have merged the two sources to provide a
single ambiguous rook-quote.-[Pope]
Lasker: By far inferior to R-K. White could hardly then have taken the KRP on
account of the close confinement of his king, and if Black can force the entrance of
his rooks into the enemys camp it would be at least very difficult to avoid a mating
position.
28.Ra6 Rf7 29.c5 Rd8 (Sealed)
**Lasker: Far superior would have been 29...Re7. Although White would have had a
chance to extricate himself on account of the three moves that Black had lost, by
means of pawn to g4, followed eventually by Ra4, yet the maneuver would have
made the win more difficult for White.
30.Kg1
**
Steinitz: The only danger to Whites game now was that the opponent should
double rooks on the eighth file, and the move adopted tends to prevent the
formation of any possible mating position of this nature, but creates other
difficulties which might have been obviated at once by 30.Re6 followed by 31.Bf3,
after which the advance of the pawns could not be hindered.
30...Re7 31.Kf2 Rb8 32.Bb3 Rbe8 33.Bc4 Rb8 34.Bd3 h5 35.Kf3 Rb2
36.Bxf5 Rf7 37.Ke4
**Lasker: The crossing of the king into the support of his pawns practically ends the
battle.
37...Re2+ 38.Kd3 Rxg2 39.Rg6+ Kf8 40.Be4 Rg1 41.d5 Rg7 42.Rxg7
Kxg7 43.c6 Kf6 44.c7 Rxg3+ 45.Kd4 Rg8 46.d6 1-0.

A special telegram from Montreal states that Lasker has requested that he be
allowed a separate table in future games of the contest. He claims that Steinitz
annoyed him and made him nervous by continued sipping of lemonade and orange
water through a straw. The management decided that the match should go on as
heretofore, and Laskers request was therefore not granted.
MONTREAL, May 15. - Steinitz is 58 years old to-day. A few of his personal
friends in this in this city, in commemoration of the event, presented him with a silver-
mounted walking stick at the Cosmopolitan Club this afternoon. The crook of the
stick is beautifully decorated with miniature kings, rooks, and other chess symbols of
appropriate inscription.
D60/04 Queens Gambit Declined: Orthodox (Lipschtz)
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Nf3 Be7 5.e3 0-0 6.Bd3 c5 7.0-0
**In the eleventh game of the present match Lasker proceeded with 7.dxc5 dxc4 8.
Bxc4 Qxd1+ 9.Kxd1 etc.
7...cxd4 8.exd4 dxc4 9.Bxc4 Nbd7
**In the early stages of the match Steinitz-Zukertort (1886) I adopted this line of play
in similar positions, but afterward played 9...Nc6, which is undoubtedly stronger.
10.Bb3 Nb6 11.Bg5 Bd7 12.Qd3 Rc8
**12...Bc6 with a view of fixing that bishop at d5 as soon as possible seems superior.
13.Ne5 Bc6 14.Nxc6 Rxc6 15.Rfd1 Nfd5
**It would have been better to advance 15...h6 first, making room for the king.
16.Bxe7 Nxe7 17.Bc2 Ng6
**Not as good as 17...g6, keeping a better hold on the isolated pawn.
18.Qf3 Nd5 19.Be4 Nxc3 20.bxc3 Rb6 21.c4 f5 22.Bc2 Qf6 23.c5 Rc6
**
Blacks original intention was to continue 23...Rb4 24.Qc3 a5 25.a3 Nf4 26.Kf1
Qh6 27.h3 (best) 27...Nd5. However, as White could now force the exchange of
queens by 28.Qd2 followed soon by Rb1, Black abandoned the idea.
24.Rab1 Nh4 25.Qe3
**25.Qb3 appears still stronger.
25...Rc7 26.f4 Ng6 27.Bb3 Re7 28.a4 Rd8 29.a5 a6 30.Ba4 Qh4
**The work of the time limit and not well considered. 30...Nf8 was more likely to be
of good service.
31.g3 Qg4
**Faulty in the extreme and really the cause of the almost immediate loss of the
game. The queen should have retreated to f6, followed at once by 32...Rc8 and
thence to c7.
32.Rd2 Nf8 33.Bd1 Qg6 34.d5
**
After this Blacks struggles are hopeless. The latter part of the game has been
conducted by Lasker with the utmost ingenuity and is a grand example of chess.
34...Rf7 35.d6 Qf6 36.Rdb2 g5 37.Rxb7 gxf4 38.Rxf7 Qxf7 39.gxf4 Qg7
+ 40.Kh1 Ng6 41.Qxe6+ Kh8 42.Qe3 Rg8 43.Bf3 Nh4 44.Bd5 1-0.

In the event of Steinitz losing the match, his backers in this city say that they are
again prepared to pit him against Lasker for $2,000.
D60/01 Queens Gambit Declined: Orthodox
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 Be7 5.Nf3 Nbd7 6.e3 0-0 7.c5 Ne4
**A new and highly ingenious method of dealing with the blocking idea, which
seems a perfect answer to it.
8.Nxe4 dxe4 9.Bxe7 Qxe7 10.Nd2 Nf6
**
An excellent part of Blacks line of development.
11.Nc4
**If 11.Qc2 e5 12.Nxe4 exd4 13.Nxf6+ Qxf6 with the better game.
11...b6 12.b4 Nd5 13.Qb1 f5 14.Ne5 a5 15.Nc6 Qg5 16.h4 Qf6 17.cxb6
f4! 18.Qxe4 fxe3 19.f3 Bb7
**A very ingenious trap.
20.b5
**If 20.Ne5 Nxb4 21.Qxb7 Qf4! 22.Qe4 (best) 22...Qxe4 23.fxe4 Nc2+, with a
winning game. And if 20.Nxa5 Rxa5 21.bxa5 Nb4 22.Qxb7 Qxd4 23.Rd1 Nc2+ 24.
Ke2 Qc4+ 25.Rd3 Rd8 26.Qe4 Rd4 or 24.Ke2 Qc2+ 25.Kxe3 Qxd1 with a
powerful attack.
20...Bxc6 21.bxc6 cxb6 22.Bd3 Qh6 23.g3 Rac8 24.Rc1 Rc7 25.0-0
**There were objections in some variations to 25.Ke2, for White could not then
advance pawn to f4 without allowing the queen to check at h5; and at a latter stage
the rook could not occupy the b-file on account of the knight checking at c3.
25...Rd8 26.f4
**The kingside is much weakened by this advance, and 26.Rfe1 was much better; 26.
Rc4, however, is met by 26...e2.
26...Qg6! 27.Qxg6 hxg6 28.Bxg6? Ne7 29.Be4 Rxd4 30.Bf3 Nf5 31.
Rfe1 Kf7 32.Rb1 Nxg3 33.Rxb6
**
It was probably Whites best plan to get rid of the adverse e-pawn, in which case
Black would have no doubt answered 33...Nf5, followed by 34...Ke7.
33...Nf5 34.Rb7 Rxb7 35.cxb7 Rb4 36.Rc1 Nd4 37.Kg2 Rb2+ 38.Kg3
Rxb7 39.Bxb7 Ne2+ 40.Kf3 Nxc1 41.Kxe3 Nxa2 42.Kd4
**White here misses his final chance. 42.f5 leads to a clear draw! Obviously the
pawn cannot be taken (on account of 43.Bd5+ winning the knight), and after White
exchanges pawns his king crosses to the queenside and draws with ease.
42...Kf6 43.Kc5 Nc3 44.Kc4 Ne2 45.Kb5 Nxf4 46.Kxa5 Ng6 47.h5 Nf4
48.Bf3 Kf5 49.Kb4 e5 50.Kc3 e4 51.Bd1 e3 52.Bf3 Kg5 53.Kc2 Kh4 54.
Kd1 Kg3 0-1.

Six local chess enthusiasts have deposited $600 toward a second match between
Lasker and Steinitz, the first part to be played at Montreal, and the final portion at
New York. Chess players here are confident that they will be able to raise another
$1,500 or $2,000 for Steinitz.
C50/04 Italian: Four Knights (Pianissimo)
1894.05.19 & 20 CAN Montreal, PQ (Cosmopolitan Club)
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.d3
**Lasker: A solid, well-known variation of this opening.
4...Nf6 5.Nc3
**Steinitz: A slow form of a slow opening, transposing the position into a well-
known variation of the Four Knights game.
5...d6 6.Be3 Bb6
**Steinitz: As matters turn out, this only loses time. In this and similar positions I
consider 6...Bxe3 at once superior.
7.Qd2 Na5 8.Bb5+
**Lasker: In view of the probable intention of the second player to force the attack
on the queenside. This, however, seems somewhat inferior to 8.Bb3 at once.
Steinitz: Tactics of a similar sort have been heretofore adopted in like positions by
great masters with a view to weakening the adverse queenside; but since Blacks
best subsequent plan seems to be to attack on this wing, and inasmuch as he also
creates a doubled pawn on this side for the opponent, it is doubtful whether the text
move can be relied on as the best attacking measure.
8...c6 9.Ba4 Bxe3 10.fxe3
**Lasker: The doubled pawn causes trouble afterward and White seems unable to
obtain a compensating file. 10.Qxe3 seems perhaps safer.
Steinitz: In entire accordance with theoretical and practical precedence in similar
positions, but the progress of the present game will probably tend to indicate that
the open f-file does not outweigh the disadvantage of the doubled pawn in the
center.
10...b5 11.Bb3 Qb6 12.0-0 Ng4 13.Rae1 f6 14.h3 Nh6 15.Ne2 Nxb3 16.
axb3 0-0 17.Ng3 a5
**Lasker: Black forces matters on the queenside without loss of time, while White in
the mean time is unable to obtain any advantage either in the center or on the kings
wing.
18.d4 Nf7 19.Qf2 Ra7
**Lasker: If 19...a4 at once, White might well answer with 20.Ra1, thereby breaking
the force of the attack.
20.Rd1 a4 21.b4 Qc7
**Steinitz: Black could not at once advance the c-pawn on account of the
continuation; 22.bxc5 dxc5 23.dxe5 fxe5 24.Nxe5 etc.
22.Ne1 c5 23.Qd2
**Lasker: The only move at his disposal. 23.Nd3 c4 24.Ne1 c3 was still more
unsatisfactory.
23...Be6 24.d5 Bd7 25.Ra1 cxb4
**Steinitz: 25...Rc8 in many ways was preferable.
26.Qxb4 Rc8 27.Qd2 Qc4 28.Rf2 Ng5
**Lasker: The time lost here with the knight is finely compensated for by the
increased weakness on Whites kings wing after driving the knight away.
Steinitz: A sort of non-committal move of a character sometimes adopted in order
to add a move to the average allowed under the time limit. However, it serves a
good turn, as this knight cannot be dislodged without the weakening of Whites
kingside. But probably 28...Rac7 was still stronger.
29.Qd3 Rac7 30.h4 Nf7 31.Qxc4 Rxc4 32.Rd2 g6 33.Kf2 Nd8 34.b3
R4c7 35.Rdd1 Nb7 36.Rdb1 Kf7
**Steinitz: In order to neutralize any attack on the d-pawn by 37.bxa4 bxa4 38.Rb6,
which would render the knight temporarily inactive.
37.Ke2 Ra8 38.Kd2 Na5
**Lasker: Threatening 39...axb3 40.cxb3 Nxb3+, winning the exchange.
39.Kd3 h5 40.Ra2 Raa7
**Lasker: Again threatening the combination 41...axb3 42.cxb3 Nxb3 43.Rxa7 Nc5+
with a winning game. The reply in the last seems, therefore, forced.
Steinitz: Threatening 41...axb3 42.cxb3 Nxb3 43.Rxa7 Nc5+ etc.
41.b4 Nc4 42.Nf3 Ra8 43.Nd2 Nb6 44.Rf1 Rac8 45.Nb1 Ke7 46.c3 Nc4
47.Raf2
**Lasker: At least, a grave miscalculation. If, however, 47.Na3 Nb2+ 48.Kc2 Rxc3+
49.Kxb2 Rb3+ 50.Ka1 Rxe3 51.Rf3 Rxf3 52.gxf3 Rc3 winning a third pawn for
the piece, and owing to the indefensible nature of Whites remaining pawns, his
game would be untenable.
Steinitz: Anyhow weak, but 47.Na3 would allow the continuation 47...Nb2+ 48.
Kc2 Rxc3+ 49.Kxb2 Rb3+ 50.Ka1 Rxe3 51.Rf3 Rxf3 52.gxf3 Rc3 with a winning
ending as Whites remaining pawns seem indefensible.
47...Na3
**Lasker: This appears to win by force. If 48.Rxf6 Nxb1 49.Rf7+ Kd8 50.Rf8+ Be8
51.Rxb1 Rxc3+ and should win.
Steinitz: This appears to win by force.
48.Ne2
**Steinitz: If 48.Rxf6 Nxb1 49.Rf7+ Kd8 50.Rf8+ Be8 and wins.
48...Nxb1 49.Rxb1 Bg4 50.Rc1 Rc4
**Steinitz: Threatening of course Bxe2+, followed by Rxb4.
51.Rc2 (Adjourned) 51...f5 (Sealed) 0-1.
**
Lasker: After Whites fifty-second move the win of two pawns, as pointed out by
Mr. Steinitz, is forced, for if 51...f5 52.Ng3 fxe4+ 53.Kd2 Bd7 54.Rc1 Be8 55.Ne2
Bf7 56.Rcf1 Bxd5 57.Rf6 Rg8 and eventually wins.
Steinitz: At this stage the game was adjourned for the day, Black sealing the text
move. When the game was resumed Lasker resigned without continuing, the game
being beyond remedy. If, for instance, 52.Ng3 fxe4+ 53.Kd2 (best) 53...Bd7 54.
Ne2 Be8 55.Rc1 Bf7 56.Rcf1 Bxd5 57.Rf6 Rg8 followed by pawn to a3 soon, and
must win.
The Sun, New York, 1894.05.20 & 23
D67/01 Queens Gambit Declined: Capablanca
1894.05.22 & 23 CAN Montreal, PQ (Metropolitan Club)
Annotations by Jackson Showalter
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 Be7 5.Nf3 0-0 6.e3 Nbd7 7.Rc1 c6 8.Bd3 dxc4
9.Bxc4 Nd5 10.Bxe7 Qxe7 11.e4 Nf4 12.g3
**12.0-0 followed by 13.Ne2 looks like a satisfactory continuation.
12...Ng6 13.0-0
**Here we prefer 13.h4 with flattering prospects of a kingside attack later.
13...Rd8 14.Qe2 b5 15.Bb3 Bb7 16.Qe3 a6 17.Ne2 Rac8 18.Rfd1 Re8
**For the obvious purpose of advancing and exchanging the rather weak c-pawn thus
opening the diagonal for the bishop at the same time.
19.Ne1 c5 20.dxc5 Nxc5 21.Bc2 Rc7 22.f3 Rec8 23.Bb1
**23.Nd3 permits of many exchanges and soon reduces to a probable draw. Black has
thus early overcome the slight disadvantage of the move against him and the
struggle for pointsfor the ending has already begun.
23...Ne5 24.b3
**Necessary to prevent the threatened loss of a pawn by 24...Nc4, and at the same
time keeping a hostile knight from a point of vantage at a4.
24...f6 25.Rc2 f5 26.exf5 exf5 27.Qf2
**Black threatens to win a pawn by 27...Nxf3+ etc.
27...g6 28.Nf4 Ncd7 29.Nd5 Qd6 30.Rcd2 Rc1 31.Ne3 Rxd1 32.Nxd1
Qe6 33.Kf1 Rc5 34.Qe3
**Threatening Rxd7 as well as pawn to f4.
34...Rd5 35.Rxd5 Qxd5 36.Nc3 Qc6 37.Kf2 Kg7 38.Ne2 Qd6 39.Nd4
**Again White was threatened with the loss of the f-pawn.
39...Qf6
**But now if 39...Bxf3 (neither knight can retake on account of 40...Ng4+) 40.Bxf5
with the better game.
40.Ng2 Nc6
**Why not 40...Bxf3 now is not clear. Both players seem to overlook points
hereabouts, perhaps under pressure of time limit.
41.Ne6+ Kg8 42.Bc2 Qe5 43.Ngf4 Qxe3+ 44.Kxe3
**After this a draw is the rational and almost necessary outcome of the position.
44...Nb4 45.Bb1 Ne5 46.Nd4 Kf7 47.a3 Nd5+ 48.Nxd5 Bxd5 49.Bd3
Ke7
50.Be2 Kd6 51.f4 Nd7 52.g4 fxg4 53.Bxg4 (Adjourned) 53...Nb6
(Sealed)
**Forcing another exchange of pieces with a drawing certainty.
54.h4 Bb7 55.Be6 Nd5+ 56.Bxd5 Kxd5 57.Nf3 Bc8 58.Ng5 h5 59.Ne4
Bf5 60.Nc3+ Kc5 61.Ne4+ Kd5 -.
The Sun, New York, 1894.05.23 & 24

1894.05.26 CAN Montreal, PQ (Metropolitan Club)
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Nf3 Be7 5.e3 0-0 6.Bd3 c5 7.dxc5 dxc4 8.
Bxc4 Qxd1+ 9.Kxd1 Nc6 10.a3 Bxc5 11.b4 Rd8+
**Materially different from the eleventh game of the present match, where Black here
continued 11...Bb6.
12.Ke2 Bf8
**Quite a new plan; with the object of bringing the knight into more attacking play
via e7, but possibly a waiting, defensive policy like 12...Be7 is fully as good,
especially as it leaves the king untrammeled.
13.Bb2 Bd7 14.Rhd1 Rac8 15.Bb3 Ne7 16.Nd4 Ng6 17.Rd2 e5
**Hardly a commendable plan, as it weakens the center. Far superior was 17...Ne5 18.
Rad1 Be7 (not 18...Nc4 19.Bxc4 Rxc4 20.Nf3 followed by Ne5 and pawn to g4
with a winning attack) 19.Ndb5 Ne4 with an excellent game.
18.Nf3 Bg4 19.Rxd8 Rxd8 20.h3 Bxf3+
**After this capture troubles increase for Black, mainly due to the strength of the
adverse combined bishops. 20...Bd7 21.Rd1 Be7 preserved equality with greater
ease.
21.gxf3 Be7 22.Rc1 Kf8 23.Na4 b6 24.Nc3 Bd6 25.Rd1 Ne8 26.Nb5
Rd7
**A fatal error, which utterly ruins his game. 26...a6 was now the only correct move
for Black to preserve material equality, and by careful play on both sides the
balance of position could have been well defended and Whites broken pawns on
the kings wing would have deterred him from adopting attacking measures.
27.Bc2 Ke7 28.Bf5 a6 29.Bxd7 Kxd7 30.Nc3 f5
**Also very bad. If anything were yet to be done 30...Ne7 followed by 31...f6
furnishes undoubtedly a much better defense. The weakness of the e-pawn leaves a
mark for the breaking in by Whites combined forces, which soon renders resistance
hopless.
31.b5 axb5 32.Nxb5 Ke6 33.Bc3 Ne7 34.Nxd6 Nxd6 35.Bb4 Nd5 36.
Rc1 Nf7 37.Bd2 Nd6 38.Kd3 Kd7 39.e4 Nf6 40.Be3 fxe4+ 41.fxe4 b5
42.f3 Nc4 43.Rc3 Ne8 44.Bc1 Ncd6 45.Rc5 Nc7 46.Rxe5 Ne6 47.Rh5
h6 48.Re5 g5 49.h4 gxh4 50.Rh5 Kc6 51.Rxh6 Nc5+ 52.Kc2 1-0.
Epilogue
Mr. Steinitz favors us with the following correspondence bearing upon the
projected returnmatch for the championship of the world:
W. STEINITZ, Esq.
Dear Sir: In reply to your late favor, I beg to state that Mr. W. M. de
Visser has kindly consented to act as my second.
I am not certain of the date of my return, as I intend to make a trip
around the world; but I shall be at your disposal whenever I shall be back
from my journey. Yours very truly, wishing you a cordial good-bye,
E. LASKER.
W.M. de Visser, Esq., Brooklyn:
My Dear Mr. De Visser - Mr. Lasker has notified me that you have
accepted the office of his second, and I beg to express, in the first place,
my warmest approval of his selection and my fullest confidence that you
will conduct negotiations on his behalf in the most honorable manner.
From Mr. Laskers last letter to me, of which I inclose a copy, as well
as from my previous correspondence with him on the subject. I can only
conclude that he has given you pienary powers to make binding
preparations for the contemplated match with one exception, namely, in
regard to the time for the commencement of the contest, which he now
desires to be extended until his return from an intended trip round the
world. As you may be aware Mr. Lasker had already, in a previous letter
to me, dated June 15, positively fixed the beginning of the match for the
end of the current year, and I must strongly enter my objection against
his making such a serious modification of our agreement without my
consent.
However, in order to meet Mr. Laskers wishes as much as possible, I
am willing to postpone the beginning of the match until the middle of
March, of 1895, at the latest. You will, no doubt, understand that I
cannot bind myself and my backers for an indefinite period, and that I
cannot make any further concession on the point, as otherwise the match
is not likely to be finished before the hot Summer season, which is utterly
unsuitable for such a contest. Very truly yours,
W. STEINITZ.
Steinitz Issues Another Challenge to Lasker.
MONTREAL, Oct. 5. - William Steinitz, the ex-champion chess player of the
world, has issued a challenge to Emanuel Lasker for another series of games for the
championship. The challenge will remain open until Oct. 15. The place of meeting is
to be Montreal. If Lasker declines Steinitz will challenge Tarrasch, the Russian
champion [sic], for a series of games here.
Chess Player Steintiz has received the following letters regarding the proposed
return chess match for the championship:
London, Sept. 26, 1894.
W. Steintiz, Esq.
DEAR SIR: In reply to your letter of Aug. 10 I beg to repeat what I
said in June, viz., that I shall be very pleased to play a return match with
you. I did not mention any date in my letter, but I will do so now, and fix
Oct. 1, 1895, for the beginning of the match. Chess and other
engagements that I have entered into do not allow me to play sooner. If
this does not suit you I am very sorry.
I do not reply to your other, in my opinion, irrelevant remarks: besides,
I do not claim to be a match for you in a newspaper fight, but I am, until
beaten on the checkered board, the chess champion of the world.
Kindly send communications to Mr. de Visser as heretofore, as he will
always know my address.
Yours very truly,
EMANUEL LASKER.
New York, Oct. 8, 1894.
MY DEAR MR. STEINITZ: I have to-day received a letter from Mr.
Lasker from London, enclosing a personal reply to you of your letter to
me of Aug. 10, which I herewith beg to hand you.
Inasmuch as you have announced your intention of claiming the
championship unless Mr. Lasker agreed to begin play in the return match
by March 17, 1895, and as this Mr. Lasker plainly declines to do, I
presume there can be at present no further need of my services to the
latter as his second: and as much as I regret to forego the pleasure of
further correspondence with you. I must request that should you have
any communications to make to Mr. Lasker you will address him
personally and directly.
I have no doubt Mr. Lasker will keep me posted as to his whereabouts,
and I shall be happy at any time to give you his address if you require it.
Regretting exceedingly that the chess world has for the present at least
lost the expected opportunity of witnessing another contest between two
such masters of the royal game, I remain, with kind regards, very truly
yours.
W. M. DE VISSER.
Selected U. S. Chess Libraries
compiled by Allan Savage
This was prepared and distributed by CC-IM Allan Savage for his lecture Caissa's
Legacy: The Great Chess Librariesat the June 1998 Chess Festival (sponsored by
ThinkersPress) in Moline, Illinois.
Library
Special
Collection
Volumes Highlights
Cleveland Public
325 Superior Avenue
Cleveland, OH 44114
(216)-623-2818
www-catalog.cpl.org/marion
John G. White
M-F: 9-6
Sun: 1-5
35,000
Largest collection
in the world. 180
current
periodicals.
Manuscripts,
newspaper
columns,
incunabula.
Princeton University
Firestone Library
Princeton, NJ
jamesw@princeton.edu
libweb.princeton.edu:2003
E. B. Cook
M-F: 8:30-4:30
3,000+
16th and 17th
century history,
problems, U.S.
chess club history,
New Jersey history.
Princeton University
Spackman
M-Th: 8-11
F: 8-8
Sat-Sun: 12-8
500+
Post-1915
tournament books,
bulletins
Louisiana State Univ.
Hill Memorial Library
Baton Rouge, LA 70803
(504)-388-6547
notebs@unix1.sncc.lsu.edu
Gladney
M-F: 8-5
Sat: 9-1
300+
Best on Paul
Morphy. Also
strong on U.S.
books from 1930s
and 1940s.
Colorado College
Tutt Library 1021
N. Cascade Ave.
Colorado Springs, CO 80903
(719)-389-6668
www.cc.colorado.edu
Justice
M-F: 9-12 & 1-4
300+
16th to 19th
century history.
Cessolis, Greco,
Lolli, Philidor,
Ponziani, Sarratt,
Staunton.
Philadelphia Free
1901 Vine Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
(215)-686-5416
Willing
M,W: 9-9
Th-F: 9-6
Sat: 9-5
1700+ **
University of Louisville
Ekstrom Library
Louisville, KY 40292
(502)-852-6792
dsbuie01@gwise.louisville.edu
Muir-
Hogenauer
M-F: 10-4
Th: 10-8
500
Complete BCM.
Montigny, Twiss.
(Entire Muir
library pending;
complete catalog in
preparation)
Harvard University
Rare Books
Houghton Library
(617)-495-2442
Charles Gilberg
M-F: 9-5
Sat 9-1
2,800+ **
US Library of Congress
Washington, DC 20540
www.lcweb.loc.gov/catalog
M,W,Th: 8:30-
9:30 T,F,Sat :
8:30-5
1,800+
Excellent on old
periodicals. Very
strong on 1960s
and 1970s
San Diego Public
820 E Street
San Diego, CA 92101
M-Th: 10-9
F-Sat: 9:30-5:30
Sun: 1-5
850+
Extensive foreign
periodicals
Mechanics Library
57 Post Street
San Francisco, CA
(415)-421-1752
M-Th: 9-9
F: 9-6
Sat: 10-5
Sun: 1-5
1,000+
Up-to-date
selection of
modern titles; some
older
Conserving the Past:
Chess Life as a Historical Vehicle
Of Mid-Twentieth Century American Chess
by John S. Hilbert
For many of us Chess Life is simply the magazine that we receive along with the right
to play in USCF rated tournaments. It may or may not be read. It may have sixty
pages an issue one year, or eighty pages the next. And regardless of how we view the
current magazine, very few of us consider its earlier incarnations, or the significance
of Chess Lifes role in documenting the history of chess in the United States since its
first issue, dated September 5, 1946.
And what can these early Chess Lifes provide us with? Just how valuable are they in
regard to our nations chess history? Examining one year, taken mostly at random, say
1956it happens to be one of the years for which I have all the issuescan give us some
insight into this newspaper as a historical artifact.
For Chess Life did start its existence as a newspaper. While the years saw changes in
size and shape, as well as number of pages, by 1956 the voice of the United States
Chess Federation appeared in a small newspaper format, with pages approximately
ten inches wide and thirteen inches tall, eight of them, usually, published on the fifth
and twentieth of each month, and thus twenty-four times a year. The issues from
1956, like each years production, were split between two volume numbers, in this
case the tenth and eleventh volumes in the series. Each new volume started on the
anniversary date of Volume I, Issue Number 1. Thus, Volume 10 of Chess Life ended
with Issue 24 on August 20, 1956, while Volume 11 began with the next issue, on
September 5, 1956.
Chess Life began and ended 1956 with the same single issue cover price: fifteen
cents. USCF membership dues, including subscription to Chess Life, semi-annual
publication of national chess rating, and all other privileges,were set at a whopping
five dollars a year. Subscription to Chess Life alone was three dollars annually. If you
subscribed in 1956, you sent your money to Kenneth Harkness, the Business
Manager, in New York City. Checks, like today, were made payable to the USCF.
And the Editor of Chess Life, the only editor during the papers first ten years of
existence, Montgomery Major, received directly all communications regarding
editorial matters at his home address in Oak Park, Illinois.
Montgomery Major was himself a Dickensian character, in ways almost a caricature
of the curmudgeon editor, and would fully deserve an article in his own right. His
fights during the middle 1950s included an ongoing battle, heated and
uncompromising, with Norman T. Whitaker, who is himself the subject of a recently
released biography and games collection. Strong willed and opinionated,
Montgomery Major had a knack for making enemies as well as friends. His own
background is forgotten today, though for the first ten years Chess Life was largely, if
not solely, his creation. He would have been the first to mention it, too. But during his
last few years with the newspaper, Majors tenure was anything but assured, both from
the perspective of other USCF officers and from his own. At one point, late in 1954,
when he felt he might be leaving soon, he finally offered readers some insight into his
life. Thus it is largely thanks to his own writing that what little is known about him
remains for us today.
According to his own account appearing in the October 20, 1954, issue, Major was
born in Chicago and lived in the area most of his life, though time and opportunities
also sent him around the country. He originally was expected to earn a law degree,
but instead he exhibited his natural perversity early in life by concentrating on
Romance languages and literature instead.Major played for the Harvard chess team
before leaving school and becoming an assistant editor for a community newspaper.
He later was an editor for a juvenile book publisher, and later still edited Motor Life
and Store Equipment and Supplies, two trade publications. He would also serve time
as a Sears, Roebuck copy writer and even work in the accounting department of the
Pullman Company.
Majors associations with chess were largely organizational in nature, rather than as a
player. As he wrote it, speaking of himself in the third person, for eight years he was
Executive Secretary of the Chicago City Chess League, while simultaneously active
as Secretary or Vice-President of the Illinois State Chess Association. He was one of
the organizing directors of the American Chess Federation (a fore-runner of the U.S.
Chess Federation).George Sturgis, President of the USCF, in early 1941 persuaded
Major to edit the USCF Yearbooks, and he did so in 1941, and 1944 through 1946,
before being asked to design and edit Chess Life. Major also made it a point to note,
at the end of his article, that he no longer plays chess.
Such was the background of the man directing matters during the first decade of the
USCFs newspaper. Majors presence in the newspaper was even more pervasive than
simply his editorial control, as he also wrote columns under pseudonyms, most
notably as William Rojam,or Major,spelled backwards. In the January 5, 1956,
issue, Majors editorial column was devoted to slamming those who felt they could
influence policy decisions for Chess Life. That the ones seeking to influence those
policy decisions happened to be the other officers of the USCF made no difference to
Major. As is the case even today, nearly forty-five years later, the role of Chess Life
was coming into question. Should the newspaper be the voice of the organization, in
close step with the views of the officers of the Federation, or should it be an
independent entity, free to criticize the very organization that gave it life and breath?
Major, for one, left no doubt as to his own view. There have been attempts,Major
wrote, to stifle the independent voice of Chess Life, and it is no secret that prior to the
USCF annual meeting at Long Beach the USCF Ways and Means Committee made a
futile and clandestine attempt to replace the Editor with someone more subservient to
their mandates. This conspiracy to gag Chess Life failed; and other like attempts will
fail just so long as the membership at large combines in insisting upon an independent
voice, representing them equally with management.Apparently Major viewed the
role of Chess Life as that of an independent entity, free to condemn or applaud
management, membership, or any other interest group associated with chess in the
United States. What he didnt seem to understand, however, was the deep resentment
engendered in those who felt Major used Chess Life as his own soapbox, draping his
own biases and political views with the protective cloak of freedom of the press. By
the end of 1956, and in part due to a membership tired of the bickering and infighting
seen among its officers, Major would resign his position, and with the start of 1957
Fred Wren would take his place.
But well beyond the idiosyncrasies of its editor, Chess Life offered members of the
USCF information about the international, national, and local doings of the chess
world. And today, for the chess historian, these early issues of the Federations
newspaper magazine offer insight into the times and culture of chess, invaluable in
their richness and texture.
One feature in the early Chess Life quite popular with readers was the Whats the Best
Move?column, a column that under various guises and editorships has continued for
many years. At the start of 1956 the column was conducted by Russell Chauvenet, of
Silverspring, Maryland. Curiously enough, it happens to be Chauvenets own copies of
Chess Life for 1956 that I now own, and in fact I have had extensive communication
with Mr. Chauvenet, who still lives in Silverspring, and who has been quite helpful
concerning a wide variety of chess history projects. For his January 5, 1956, column,
which appeared on the first page of the newspaper, Chauvenet offered the following
position:
Position Number 176

Back to play
And that was it. No alternative moves. No hints. Readers were asked to send their
solutions directly to Chauvenets home address. Later in the year Irwin Sigmond took
over the column. For contemporary readers of Chess Life, solutions generally
appeared three issues later, in this case in the February 20, 1956 issue. The solution to
the position above appears at the end of this article.
Of course, each issue of Chess Life would have a lead story. In the first issue of the
year the major headline read Mednis Takes Collegiate,and the story involved the
victory by a then young New York University student by the name of Edmar Mednis,
who won the United States Intercollegiate Championship title with a score of 5-1
on tiebreak over Fordham University student Anthony Saidy. There are, of course,
occasional problems and contradictions in any such source that need correcting. Here,
in the first paragraph of the story, Mednis is referred to as a freshman, while in the
very next paragraph we read that Mednis is a sophomore in chemical engineering at
the Bronx campus of New York University.Whichever college class he belonged to,
Mednis had already begun to build a solid chess reputation for himself, winning the
New York State Championship that year and the year before finishing as runner up in
the World Junior Championship. The Intercollegiate Championship, that year an
individual rather than a team event, was held in John Jay Hall at Columbia
University, and was sponsored by the Intercollegiate Chess League, the USCF, and
Columbia University. President of the Intercollegiate Chess League at the time was
another very strong, young player named Eliot Hearst. Twenty-six players competed
from seventeen universities, and in addition to Mednis and Saidy, anyone reading the
list of participants might well notice the name of Shelby Lyman, then a Harvard
University student, who in fact defeated Mednis in the third round. Saidy would win a
rapid transit tournament played during the same intercollegiate event, scoring a
perfect 11-0 to win first prize, a $12.50 gift certificate. Both Hermann Helms
reporting for the New York Times, and Robert Cantwell, for Sports Illustrated,
followed the college tournament. Such details, of course, without a source like Chess
Life, would be lost to the ages. So to would be lost the obvious hint that anyone
interested in writing about this college event should also check back issues of the
Times as well as Sports Illustrated. The next issue, January 20, 1956, ran on its front
page a picture of Mednis playing Charles Witte of Columbia. The back page of the
same issue ran the entire Swiss System crosstable for the twenty-six player event.
Later issues would include annotated games from the tournament.
Another story running on the front page involved the curious attempt by Argentine
players Panno, Najdorf, and Pilnik to introduce a prepared variation in the Sicilian
Defense against Geller, Keres, and Spassky, respectively, in the 1955 Goteborg,
Sweden, Inter-Zonal tournament. Unfortunately for the players from South America,
a counter preparationhad been cooking in the Soviet camp all along. The key position
follows:

Position after 12 Kf8.
All three games had reached this position by way of 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.
Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Bg5 e6 7.f4 Be7 8.Qf3 h6 9.Bh4 g5 10.fxg5 Nfd7 11.Nxe6
fxe6 12.Qh5+ Kf8. At this point, all three Soviets played the startling 13.Bb5!, and as
reported in Chess Life, this was the Russian coup, placing the problem bishop where
it will hurt, and threateningmaybemate. Up to this point the conspiring Argentinians
and clairvoyant Russians (all three games)were playing the same game. Now,
however, Geller - Panno veered off from the other two games, finishing up quickly
with 14.Bg3 Bxg5 15.0-0+ Ke7 16.Bxe5 Qb6+ 17.Kh1 dxe5 18.Qf7+ Kd6 19.Rad1
+ Qd4 20.Rxd4+ exd4 21.e5+ Kc5 22.Qc7+ Nc6 23.Bxc6 1-0. The other two games
continued twinning, until the following position was reached:

Position after 22 Rxa2
The two games had proceeded as follows: 13...Kg7 14.0-0 Ne5 15.Bg3 Ng6 16.gxh6
+ Rxh6 17.Rf7+ Kxf7 18.Qxh6 axb5 19.Rf1+ Ke8 20.Qxg6+ Kd7 21.Rf7 Nc6 22.
Nd5 Rxa2. Now, finally, Keres Najdorf went its own way with 23.h4 Qh8 24.Nxe7
Nxe7 25.Qg5 1-0, while Geller Panno took a slightly longer route: 23.h3 Qh8 24.
Nxe7 Nxe7 25.Qg5 Ra1+ 26.Kh2 Qd8 27.Qxb5+ Kc7 28.Qc5+ Kb8 29.Bxd6+ Ka8
30.Bxe7 Ra5 31.Qb4 1-0. The result, as it turned out, was a 3-0 shellacking of the
Argentine contingent.
Other events were of course also mentioned, including the Second Rosenwald
tournament, held December 18, 1955 through January 2, 1956, and won jointly by
twenty-seven year old Arthur Bisguier and Larry Evans, then only twenty-four. Both
players would be awarded the International Grandmaster title the following year. The
Second Rosenwald was a double round affair, with a mere eleven games out of thirty
having decisive results. The other contestants, in their order of final finish, were
Reshevsky, Horowitz, Shipman, and Lombardy.
The last named, William Lombardy, had only the month before turned eighteen, on
December 4, 1955. The next year he would win his International Masters title, with
the Grandmaster title following three years after that. Following the conclusion of the
Second Rosenwald tournament, however, Lombardy was a guest annotator for
perhaps the most popular of all Chess Life columns in 1956, John CollinsGames by
USCF Members.Two of Lombardys efforts as an annotator appeared in the first issue
of 1956, and help show the diversity of play appearing then in the newspaper.
Franklin S. Howard Dr. Juan Gonzles
B62 Sicilian: Richter
1955 (Marshall Chess Club vs. Capablanca Chess Clubs) USA New York, NY
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 d6 6.Bg5 e6
We have now reached a standard position in the Rauzer Attack.
7.Nxc6?!
An over-aggressive continuation which should lead to a slightly better position for
Black.
7...bxc6 8.e5 Qa5
Also good is 8...dxe5 9.Qf3. White cannot exchange Queens because he would be a
pawn down. 9...Be7 10.Qxc6+ Bd7 11.Qf3 Rb8 and Black is slightly better
because his development is better, he is active on the b-file, and he controls
necessary central squares.
9.Bb5 cxb5
Forced!
10.exf6
10 h6??
This move practically loses by force. Best is 10...b4 and if 11.Ne4 Qe5! 12.Qe2
Bb7 13.fxg7 Bxg7 14.Nf6+! Bxf6 15.Bxf6 Qxf6 or (15...Qxe2+ 16.Kxe2 Rg8) 16.
Qb5+ Kf8 17.Qxb7 Qe5+ 18.Kd2 Qd4+ 19.Kc1 Kg7 and Black has the upper hand.
11.Qf3! Rb8 12.Bd2! Qc7 13.0-0-0!
Black, as will presently be seen, is completely lost. He is vulnerable on both open
center files and on his f6 and e7 squares. He is also sorrowfully lagging in this
development.
13...Bb7 14.Qh5!
Threatening both Rhe1 and Qxb5+.
14...a6 15.Rhe1 g6 16.Qg4 Rc8 17.Be3 h5 18.Qh4 Bxg2 19.Kb1 Bb7 20.
Ka1 d5
21.Nxd5!!
A deadly stroke which brings the game to a neat and swift conclusion. There is no
defense.
21...Bxd5 22.Rxd5 Qxc2 23.Rdd1 Qf5 24.Qd4 Qd5 25.Qxd5 exd5 26.
Rxd5 Bb4 27.Bd2+ 1-0.
Chess Life, January 5, 1956, p.6
And here is the second game then United States MasterLombardy annotated for the
same issue, the winner having been awarded the International Master title the year
before:
Frank R. Anderson Maurice Fox
C84 Spanish: Closed (Center Attack)
1955 (Canadian Championship) CAN Ottawa
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.d4
Keres questions this move because it opens up the game prematurely, but since it is
a rare sidelight of the main line of the Ruy, it may be used as an effective surprise
against an unwary adversary, besides which there is no disadvantage incurred by
White for playing 5.d4.
5...exd4
Relatively best. 5...Nxe4 is also playable, but 5...Nxe4 leads to trouble after 6.Qe2
f5 7.d5 Nb8 8.Nxe5 Qf6 9.Nd3 Be7 10.Bf4 b5 11.Bb3 d6.
6.0-0 Be7
6...Nxe4 7.Re1 d5 8.Nxd4 Bd7 9.Bxc6 bxc6 10.f3 etc.
7.e5 Ne4 8.Nxd4 0-0 9.Nf5 d6?!
9...d5 should be played without loss of time since this move is forced by White
eventually.
10.Bxc6 bxc6
10...Bxf5 11.Bxb7.
11.Nxe7+ Qxe7 12.Re1 d5 13.f3
White quickly seizes the initiative by driving out Black's advanced knight.
13...Nc5
13...Ng5 might be better because after 14.b3 Rd8 15.Ba3 c5 Black's d-pawn is
defended.
14.b3 Ne6
Now Black loses a pawn but he could not allow the devastating pin on the knight
with Ba3.
15.Ba3 c5 16.Qxd5 Rb8 17.Nc3 Bb7
White is a pawn ahead and has fully completed his development. There should be
no problem in winning and White proves this by his remarkable technique which
masters the position.
18.Qd2 Rfd8 19.Qe3
Relentless in applying the pressure on Black's position.
19...Rd4 20.Rad1 Rbd8 21.Rxd4 Nxd4
21...cxd4 does not help. 22.Bxe7 and White wins the exchange.
22.Rd1!
The winning move. White threatens Rxd4 and if the knight retreats the c-pawn falls.
22...Nxc2 23.Qxc5 Rxd1+
Trading off into a completely lost endgame due to the unfortunate position of the
Black knight. But in this kind of position one is not too anxious to waste his time
and therefore submits to the inevitable...
24.Nxd1 Qxc5+ 25.Bxc5 a5 26.Kf2
The knight is completely without communications. 26...Ba6 One might note in this
position that Black also cannot do very much with his King except wait for the ax
to fall.
27.Nc3 c6 28.f4
Giving Black no counter chances whatsoever. What for? Black will eventually
hang himself! There need be no further comment.
28...g5 29.f5 h5 30.Ne4 Nb4 31.Bxb4 axb4 32.Ke3 Bc8 33.Nd6 Ba6 34.
Kd4 Kf8 35.Kc5 Bf1 36.g3 Bd3 37.Kxb4 1-0.
Chess Life, January 5, 1956
The Collins column offered usually four or more well annotated games an issue, and
at times the games were annotated by one of the players involved. Here is another
example, with the winner, Herzberger, offering the notes:
Erich W. Marchand Max J. Herzberger
A28 English: Four Knights
1955 (Rochester City Championship) USA Rochester, NY
1.c4 e5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.d4 exd4 5.Nxd4 Bb4 6.Nxc6 Bxc3+ 7.
bxc3 bxc6
The books recommend ...dxc6 with equality, but I did not relish the sequence: 7...
dxc6 8.Qxd8+ Kxd8 9.Ba3 with 10.0-0-0+ to follow. On the other hand, the text
continuation, if followed by 7...bxc6 8.Ba3 d6 9.c5 d5 gives Black as recompense
for the pawn structure good squares for all his pieces, and, as I thought a playable
game after 10...Qe7, etc. White discarded the book maneuver too, because he felt
the bishop had little scope on the queenside.
8.Qd4 Qe7 9.Bg5 c5 10.Bxf6 Qxf6 11.Qe4+?
Too rash! 11.Qcf6 would have led to an even game; now Black gets the advantage.
11...Kd8 12.Qd3 Rb8 13.e4 Re8 14.f3 Rb6 15.Be2 Qg5 16.Kf2
16 f5?
Wins a pawn, but gives White great counter-play which he uses very cleverly.
Correct was 16...Rd6 for instance 17.Qe3 (best) 17...Qxe3+ 18.Kxe3 f5 winning
the pawn with overwhelming play. If now 19.Rab1 fxe4 20.Rb8 exf3+ 21.Kxf3
Rf6+ etc.
17.Qd5 Rg6 18.g3 fxe4 19.Qxg5+ Rxg5 20.f4 Rf5 21.Ke3
The picture has changed. The threat to the e-pawn gives White more territory and
powerful counter-play which Black has to meet with great care.
21...Rf6 22.Rab1 Rb6 23.Rhd1 Bb7 24.a4! c6 25.a5 Rxb1 26.Rxb1 Kc7
27.Ra1 a6 28.Rb1
White created a weakness for Black on b6, but Black has an iron in the fire, by
preparing the victorious advance of the center pawns.
28...d5 29.Rb6 Rd8 30.Bg4
If instead 30.cxd5 cxd5 31.Bxa6 d4+! but after the text move Black gets more of
the White squares.
30...g6 31.Be2 Rd6 32.Rb1 Bc8 33.Rd1 h5 34.Rd2 Be6 35.Bf1
So far, so good; but how shall Black proceed?
35...Rd8!
The only move, threatening ...Rb8 and winning in all variations.
36.cxd5 cxd5 37.Bxa6 Ra8 38.Bb5 Rxa5 39.Be8
A good try, but the center pawns now carry the day. There is no saving move. 39.
c4 is answered by 39...Rh3+.
39...Ra3 40.Bxg6 Rxc3+ 41.Ke2
Forced.
41...Bg4+ 42.Ke1 d4
The e-pawn cannot be taken, because of ...Re3+.
43.Ra2 e3
Threatens mate.
44.Rc2 Rxc2 45.Bxc2 c4 46.Bd1 Bxd1 47.Kxd1 d3 48.h3 c3 0-1.
The continuation could be: 48...c3 49.f5 e2+ 50.Ke1 c2 51.Kd2 e1Q+ 52.Kxe1 c1Q
+ etc.
Chess Life, January 5, 1956, p6
The early Chess Life issues also include a wealth of information explaining matters
not directly apparent from the game scores now available in the huge, commercially
available computer databases. For example, in the following position, anyone playing
over the game from a database score may well wonder why the great Samuel
Reshevsky overlooked a mate in one:

Position after 39 Kg7
Reshevsky Evans
Second Rosenwald Tournament
New York 1955
Reshevsky missed 40.Qg8 mate, playing instead 40.Be4?, and the game continued
another twenty-three moves before the older player scored the full point. Why? Chess
Life explains: The failure of Reshevsky to checkmate his opponent by 40. Qg8 has
caused considerable comment; the oversight came when Reshevsky was hard pressed
for time, his fortieth move simultaneously with his turn to play. With Evan's reply the
game was adjourned for further play.
In addition to offering explanations such as the above, the early issues of Chess Life
also provide a rich source for materials that might well be lost, including games by
one-time United States champions. For example, Herman Steiner, who had won the
national title in August 1948 playing at South Fallsburg, in what was admittedly one
of the weaker national title tournaments of the times, died suddenly while playing in
the California State Championship on November 25, 1955, in Los Angeles. Chess
Life gave Steiners final chess game, finished a mere two hours before his death.
Chances are the following game doesnt appear in any of the million game plus
databases that exist nowadays, despite the game being a very hard fought draw
against future International Master William Addison, who would turn twenty-two a
mere three days after Steiners death. As Major wrote of it in the pages of Chess Life,
this stubborn struggle, ending in a hard-fought draw, was the final game played by
Herman Steiner in the California State Championship; he died two hours after
finishing this game. The State Tournament in which he was participating was
cancelled by the wish of the other players as a gesture of sorrow. The only other
major tournament that was ever left unfinished, as far as the records show, was the
Mannheim Tournament in 1914, interrupted by the inception of World War I.
Herman Steiner William Addison
D61 Queens Gambit Declined: Orthodox (Rubinstein)
1955 (California State Championship) USA Los Angeles, CA
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 Nbd7 5.e3 c6 6.Qc2 Be7 7.Rd1 0-0 8.
Nf3 Re8 9.Be2 dxc4 10.Bxc4 Nd5 11.Bxe7 Rxe7 12.0-0 Nf8 13.e4 Nb6
14.Bb3 Bd7 15.Ne5 Be8 16.Ne2 Rc8 17.Nd3 Rec7 18.Qd2 Qh4 19.Qe3
Nbd7 20.Rc1 b6 21.Bc4 c5 22.d5 exd5 23.Bxd5 Nf6 24.Nc3 Ng4 25.Qg3
Qxg3 26.hxg3 Nf6 27.Bc4 Bc6 28.f3 Rd7 29.Ne5 Re7 30.Nxc6 Rxc6 31.
Rfd1 Rc8 32.Nb5 Ne8 33.a4 Ne6 34.e5 Kf8 35.f4 g6 36.Rd2 a6 37.Nd6
Rd8 38.Bxa6 Nxd6 39.exd6 Red7 40.Rcd1 Nd4 41.Kf2 Rxd6 42.Bc4
Ra8 43.b3 h5 44.Re1 Rad8 45.Red1 Ke7 46.Rd3 Kf6 47.R1d2 R8d7 48.
Ra2 Nf5 49.Rxd6+ Nxd6 50.Bd3 Nb7 51.Bc4 Rd4 52.Ke3 Nd6 53.Bd3
Rb4 54.Ra3 Nf5+ 55.Kf2 h4 56.gxh4 Rxf4+ 57.Kg1 Rb4 58.a5 bxa5 59.
Rxa5 Rxb3 60.Bxf5 Kxf5 61.Rxc5+ Kg4
62.Rc7 -.
Steiners very last chess move in this world.
Chess Life, January 5, 1956
Anyone reading carefully may well have guessed by now that every game and
position in this article appeared in the January 5, 1956, issue of Chess Life. And in
presenting them I have not exhausted the games and problems appearing in that one
issue, let alone the stories and commentary surrounding the play and players from
over forty-four years ago. What I wanted to illustrate is in fact just what riches do
appear in the early Chess Life newspapers, each issue of which offers extraordinary
details for the person interested in chess history. Long forgotten photographs also
appear in nearly every issue. The issues of 1956, for example, offer at least three
photographs of a very young Bobby Fischer, ones rarely seen today. Though grainy
and difficult to preserve from the issues, they are nevertheless interesting to see (for
the studious, they appear in the following issues: July 20, 1956, p.6; August 20, 1956,
p.7; and December 5, 1956, p.3). A quick survey of the issues from 1956 alone
suggests that over 110 games were included deeply annotated, along with another 40
or more unannotated games. In addition, over 120 chess problems appeared during
the year. Multiply these numbers times fifteen, the number of volumes appearing in
newspaper format, and it becomes clear what a rich source of material this vast
storehouse of information represents.
The problem is the vast storehouse is crumbling away, and the remains are in danger
of becoming available only to those who travel significant distances to visit research
centers such as the John G. White Collection, housed in the Cleveland Public Library.
Even the holdings at the White Collection, which I have seen, are in serious need of
attention. Money is rarely available for such projects, even for the greatest chess
collection in the world. The paper used for the early newspaper version of Chess Life
was very poor. Issues still around today are usually yellow with age, brittle, and ready
to collapse into the dust of time, taking with them easy access to our games American
chess history, certainly from 1946 through 1960, the years when Chess Life appeared
in newspaper format.
Conservation methods are needed, and needed soon, if this marvelous source of
American chess history is to remain readily available for generations to come. Ideally,
forms of preservation such as microfilming and the creation of computer CDs should
be used. Imagine every issue of Chess Life, from September 1946 to 1960, or even to
the present, housed on a few, small compact disks! Whether anyone, including the
financially strapped USCF, might ever come forth with such a project, remains to be
seen. In the meantime all we can do is try and preserve as best as possible the paper
issues that still remain. And hope, of course, that some way to conserve this important
record of our own recent chess past is eventually found.
Solution to Whats the Best Move?Position Number 176: taken from Crisovan
Naef, Luzerne 1953 1...Nxf1 Incorrect is 1...Nd4 in view of 2.Qxd2 and now Black's
winning chances are negligible. 2.Bxd6 Nd4! 3.exd4 To be sure, White can prolong
the game by 3.Rxc8 Nxe2+ 4.Kxf1 Rxc8 5.Kxe2 Rc2+ but Black's advantage of the
exchange is quite enough to win. 3...Rxc1 4.Qb2 Ng3+ 5.Qxc1 Ne2+ 0-1.
Chess Life, February 20, 1956, p8
John S. Hilbert 2001 All Rights Reserved
Norman Tweed Whitaker
and the
Search for Historical Perspective:
A Tale Full of Genius and Devil
by John S. Hilbert
Little is ever as straightforward as it looks. In the near future, Caissa Editions will release my book
entitled Shady Side: The Life and Crimes of Norman Tweed Whitaker, Chessmaster. Based on
approximately 1,500 to 2,000 documents salvaged from Whitakers estate papers, enough paper to fill five
crates, the book chronicles not only the life of Whitaker, including his extensive chess play, but also his
personal life and his criminal activity. Never have I seen a chess player of approximately international
master strength so clearly composed of both great promise and grave faults. Whitaker was by training a
patent attorney. He came from a very good Philadelphia family, and regularly was praised in the press
during his teens as one of the strongest young chess players to emerge in the United States. And yet
Whitakers multiple convictions for interstate car theft, his conviction for attempting to bilk the Washington
Post heiress and then owner of the Hope Diamond out of thousands of dollars, claiming falsely to be able to
return Charles Lindberghs kidnapped infant; his conviction for sending narcotics, namely morphine, through
the mails; and certainly his conviction at age sixty for sexually molesting a minor, denote the mind of a
confirmed, career criminal.
With thousands of documents, with the FBI files and prison records from Alcatraz and Leavenworth, the
hundreds of scoresheets in his possession at the time of his death, the parking tickets, the income tax returns,
the personal and often very private correspondence, the rage and bitterness, the generous impulses, and the
cast of characters including not only Charles Lindbergh, but J. Edgar Hoover, Al Capone, United States
Senators, a New Jersey Governor, and chess officials ranging from Franklin Chess Club President Walter
Penn Shipley to USCF President Frank Graves, and the rest, with all of this, are we any closer to the truth of
who Norman Tweed Whitaker was, and what the forces in his life, mixed with his volatile personality, made
of him?
In one sense, of course we are. Shady Side includes a three-hundred page biography devoted precisely to
unveiling, in all its shame and glory, the life, the times, and the crimes of a chess player often hated and
often loved, but rarely, if ever, ignored. Whitaker was nothing if not an accomplished conman, playing his
tactical moves in life as much as over the board. His problem, one he ultimately never solved either on the
board or off, was how to concentrate on accumulating the small advantages that can result, eventually, in a
strategic victory. A brilliant tactician, he could be outmaneuvered by an equally talented master versed
more deeply in strategy, either in chess or in life. Whitakers blindness to his own inability to recognize the
importance of strategy was, in a very real sense, the source of his downfall. And thus Shady Side explores
the hitherto hidden recesses of the ultimate conman of chess, who at times could con himself, as well.
But in another sense, any biographical work, and especially one as rich in primary sources as Shady Side,
can in truth only begin to touch the surface of all that goes into the heart and mind of a man such as
Whitaker. No matter where one looks in such a work, despite three-hundred pages of pure biographical
material, and an additional nearly two hundred pages offering 570 of his chess games, more could be said,
more could be done. For biography, like any story, is as much a record of what is omitted as what is
included. A biography must by necessity take some shape, one partially imposed by the author and,
assuming the author is at all sensitive to his subject, one partially imposed by the person about whom he
writes. The failure to impose orderto systematically include as well as excludereduces the biographical act
to the mere recitation of a laundry list of events, names, dates, and circumstances. The resulting work, while
perhaps an unsurpassed source book, fails to convey a unified whole. It fails to stand as a portrait fully
rendered.
Though any biography must almost by definition exclude material, or to say it another way, must
emphasize some aspects of its subject over others, that does not mean the material excluded is somehow
necessarily less useful, less compelling, than what is retained. Indeed, such material, when seen from
another perspective than within the context of a fully realized biography, can be highly entertaining. An
example from Shady Side should illustrate the point.
In Shady Side, near the end of Chapter Six, Life Between Prisons (1927-1931),I dealt with Whitakers
anger at the National Chess Federation, and in particular with Maurice Kuhns, its President, because of the
latters failure to select Whitaker as a member of the United States team to go to either Hamburg 1930 or
Prague 1931, the latter the Fourth Chess Olympiad. The 1931 team, composed of Frank Marshall, Isaac
Kashdan, Herman Steiner, Al Horowitz, and a very young Arthur Dake, won the Prague Olympiad,
beginning the series of Olympiads in the 1930s when the United States dominated that event.
Whitakers general movements during this time are, of course, chronicled in the book, and the following
brief statement appears at page 111 of the final draft: By the end of May 1931 Whitaker was in St. Louis,
where on May 30, 1931, Decoration Day, he gave an eleven board simultaneous display at the St. Louis
Chess Club, winning seven, losing one, and drawing three. The next day at the local YMCA he gave
another eleven board exhibition, finishing with nine wins, one loss, and one draw.
But is this really all we know of Whitakers movements at the end of May and beginning of June, 1931?
No. Much more could be given to illustrate just how bitter Whitaker was concerning the perceived slight to
his ability as a chess player, as well as to his person. And his movements during those few days so long ago
could also be used to illustrate the very forces he faced, and outraged, within organized chess in the United
States.
Perhaps it would be best to briefly sketch the context for the quoted passage above. Whitaker, by 1931,
had already served a prison term at Leavenworth Federal Penitentiary for interstate car theft. He had been
tried in a court in Los Angeles in 1924 for the theft of a doctors car in Ocean City, New Jersey, which he
and other members of his family, along with friends, drove to California. Whitaker led the expedition, one
that also saw the Mann Act violated, insurance fraud perpetrated, and, almost in passing, some good chess
played. Although Whitakers younger brother, Roland, also a patent attorney, was ultimately found not
guilty at the same time Norman Whitaker was sentenced to two years in prison for masterminding the theft,
and although charges had been dropped earlier against his two sisters, Dorothy and Hazel, the arrest of all
four Whitaker siblings proved too much for their father. Dr. Herbert Whitaker, a high school principle in
Philadelphia, died from a heart attack a week after his four children were charged with the crime. Norman
Whitakers arrest, trial, and conviction were known to a number of chess players as well as chess organizers,
and the battle lines a few years later were drawn between those who wished Norman would just disappear
from chess, and those who felt that since he had served his time, he deserved a chance to redeem himself,
however he could, including competing for high chess honors both nationally and internationally.
Complicating such divergent views was the fact that, regardless of what others thought, Whitaker had
only a few months after his release from Leavenworth won the championship of the newly created National
Chess Federation (NCF) at a small tournament held in Kalamazoo, Michigan, in 1927. There Whitaker
defeated a young Samuel Reshevsky, as well as players such as Kupchik, Steiner, Factor and Mlotkowski.
Thanks to the help of Jack OKeefe, a Michigan chess historian, all of Whitakers games from Kalamazoo
have finally been recovered. Happily they appear in Shady Side, with some of them, including his defeat of
Reshevsky, annotated by Whitaker himself.
Whitakers reign as NCF champion, however, was to be short lived. Unlike Frank Marshall, whose title as
United States champion, conferred by way of match play against Jackson Whipps Showalter in 1909, was
respected by most chessplayers until he finally retiredin 1936, Whitaker found his NCF title was merely an
annual one, and hence by design a title retained by the NCF. His title would thus expire with the 1928
championship, unless Whitaker retained it through winning that event. Marshall could pick and chose who
he cared to face for his title, and indeed managed in the mid-1930s to avoid his strongest challenger, Isaac
Kashdan, because of the latters inability to raise the $5,000 purse demanded by the champion, and as
required under published match rules made during more congenial economic times. Whitaker, as NCF
champion, did not have the luxury of resting on his laurels. All the more irritating to Whitaker, then, was
his failure to receive even an invitation to Bradley Beach 1928, site of the second annual NCF
championship, where Abraham Kupchik won the title. Rightly or wrongly, Whitaker blamed Kuhns for this
snub. And Whitaker was not one to forget what he considered a wrong.
Although it largely went unspoken, Maurice Kuhns and others involved with the NCF had not wanted
Whitaker to participate, as his personality rubbed many of them raw and his past criminal record, many felt,
disgraced organized chess. Whitaker was clearly aware of this, and responded in kind. Indeed, Whitaker
retained some pull in the old Western Chess Association, an organization that had affiliated with the NCF at
one point, but which would resurface as others became disenchanted with the relative inactivity of the NCF
after Bradley Beach 1928. And the disenchantment was to some degree understandable, since a number of
players away from the East coast, or even outside the large cities along the East coast, such as New York
and Philadelphia, and as far west as Kuhnsown Chicago, did not believe that Middle America was receiving
sufficient attention from the quasi-quiescent, largely New York City dominated NCF. Officers of that
federation continued to add their input, both officially and unofficially, in the selection of team members
sent to the FIDE Olympiads. At one point there was even a movement, largely whipped on by Whitaker, to
have the Western Chess Association become a second United States affiliate of FIDE, thus setting itself up
in direct competition with the NCF. Needless to say, Kuhns and his friends found such activity
meddlesome, and their distaste for Whitaker and his ways only grew accordingly.
Such were the dynamics that by mid-1931, shortly before selection of the Prague team was to be
announced, much of Whitakers activities were directed toward fueling his own and others distaste of the
NCF.
Thus, when Whitaker visited St. Louis on May 30, 1931, it was not his scheduled simultaneous exhibition
alone that occupied his thoughts. And while Shady Side itself does not detail all the events of that Memorial
Day weekend nearly seventy years ago, that certainly doesnt mean there isnt much to learn about the history
of American chess politics from that time, and that place.
Correspondence found in the White Collection of the Cleveland Public Library, the worlds largest
repository of chess books and chess related materials, throws additional light on Whitakers trip to St. Louis
as well as his ulterior motives for traveling to that city. (I am indebted to Jeffrey Martin, Special Collections
Librarian for the White Collection at the Cleveland Public Library, for making available to me copies of the
correspondence quoted throughout the remainder of this essay.) Those papers also reveal the etiology of one
mans dislike for Whitaker. The remainder of this essay will delve deeply into those documents, and attempt
to illustrate just how rich such primary sources can be for the chess historian, who must, again, decide at
each turn of the page what to include, what to exclude.
* * * * * * * * * *
To understand what took place behind the scenes when Whitaker arrived in St. Louis for his simultaneous
displays around the end of May 1931, we must first travel part way round the world, where a letter dated
June 1, 1931, was just being composed. Directed to Maurice Kuhns, President of the NCF, the letter very
clearly set out Whitakers intentions. Mr. Whitaker,so the writer stated, wrote me several times and
officially about the application of the Western [Chess] Association as a regular Member of FIDE. Though I
am and while I am on good terms with Mr. Whitaker, I explained to him the undesirability if not
impossibility of the representation of the United States by two different bodies. But, unless the Western
[Chess] Association gives up their request, I should feel obliged to put the question to the Prague meeting,
strongly advising to hold to the NCF as I wrote to Mr. Whitaker in this sense.
Who was the man writing to Kuhns in such terms, who was clearly quite familiar with Whitakers
relationship with the Western Chess Association and the attempt to undermine the role of the NCF as sole
representative of the United States before FIDE, the International Chess Federation? His name was Dr.
Alexander Reub. Forty-eight at the time he wrote Kuhns, Reub had been President of FIDE since 1924, and
would remain its leader for an astonishing twenty-five years, until 1949, when Folke Rogard finally replaced
him in that role. A student of law and political science at the University of Leyden, Reub had returned to his
place of birth, The Hague, where he practiced law starting in 1908. He would hold the presidency of his
local club, the Netherlands Chess Association, and, ultimately, the International Chess Federation. In 1951
Reub would become an international judge of chess compositions, and would in fact publish a five volume
work on his first love, chess studies.
Reub clearly did not want the Western Chess Association, through which Whitaker was attempting to
work, subverting the established authority of the NCF by calling into question the latters authority to
represent United States chess interests before the international body. Whitaker, though, hardly limited
himself to attacking Kuhns and the NCF from one direction. And indeed, curiously enough, President Reub
was not the only individual writing Maurice Kuhns on June 1, 1931, concerning Whitakers machinations.
Back in St. Louis, one man was breathing somewhat easier, as he wrote Kuhns on June 1, 1931, that he
had heard nothing more of Whitakers appearance here on Saturday [May 30, 1931]. I did not go around to
the Club at all. Was at the office in the forenoon, however, but if Whitaker got around to the Building at that
time of the day he did not deign to make me a calland I was greatly relieved that he did not. It being
Decoration Day and a double header at the ball park, I fancy there was a slim attendance at the Chess Club,
and I saw nothing further in the paper about his performance.
The second writer directing correspondence to Kuhns on June 1, 1931, was Horace E. McFarland, whose
office, from where he wrote, was in the Missouri Pacific Building in St. Louis. McFarlands obituary in the
American Chess Bulletin in 1940 would announce that he had been employed long by the Missouri Pacific
Railroad,though by then he had also long been retired from his job. Although the Bulletin could only say
that McFarland was well over sixtyat the time of his death, Horace Edmund McFarland, according to his
death certificate, as reported by Jeremy Gaige in Chess Personalia, was in fact over seventy-six. McFarland
was sixty-seven when he reported to Kuhns that he feared Whitaker would approach him concerning his
anger with the NCF.
McFarland, of course, had good reason to fear Whitaker would seek him out to make his case against the
national organization. For McFarland had recently replaced Edward Lasker as Secretary of the NCF, a
position he continued to hold until that organization merged with the American Chess Federation at the end
of the decade to form the United States Chess Federation of America, more commonly known today as the
USCF. Hermann Helms would later write of McFarland that for a long period he was in close cooperation
with M.S. Kuhns of Chicago, president and founder of the National Chess Federation, through which the
United States became affiliated with the International Chess Federation.
And McFarlands knowledge of Whitaker predated his relationship with the NCF. As Helms would also
state, before taking up the responsibilities of the national secretaryship, he had been Associate Editor of The
Gambit, the organ of the Missouri Pacific Chess Club, to which he contributed many valuable articles based
on a comprehensive knowledge of chess history and indefatigable research. McFarland would refer to his
association with The Gambit when writing Kuhns in a later letter, dated July 16, 1931. There McFarland
wrote that several years ago I had had considerable correspondence with Whitaker, but when my connection
with The Gambit was severed, Whitaker simply dropped me. This detail, besides suggesting McFarland felt
Whitakers interest in him was only to the extent he could be used for purposes of disseminating in print
Whitakers views, also suggests a basis for McFarlands own developing distaste for the chess player. After
all, no one looks very kindly on those they feel are using them merely for their own ends. And such personal
matters easily can, and do, shade political alignments.
Whitaker no doubt planned to talk with McFarland during his trip to St. Louis. On May 30, 1931,
Whitaker gave his simultaneous exhibition at the Missouri Pacific Chess Club, housed in the very building
in which McFarland worked, and where he reported to Kuhns he first missed seeing Whitaker. Whitaker did
not, however, leave St. Louis immediately. I thought I had been lucky,McFarland wrote Kuhns early in
June 1931, in not having a call from Whitaker, but he did not leave here Sunday, as I thought he would, but
played Sunday at the YMCA [chess club] and stayed over, calling on me this noon. His visit to St. Louis is
no doubt to enlist support for his effort to go over to Europe as a member of this years team [in Prague], and
his call on me to air his grievance against the NCF and perhaps see if I would not use my influence in his
behalf.
The Gambit for June-July 1931 announced that Whitaker had not only given an eleven board
simultaneous exhibition at the Missouri Pacific Chess Club on May 30, 1931, finishing with seven wins, one
loss, and three draws, but also reported that the next day, May 31, 1931, Whitaker had given a second eleven
board exhibition at the local YMCA, there finishing better, with nine wins, one loss, and one draw. In many
of his simultaneous exhibitions, unlike other masters, Whitaker would offer his opponents the choice of
playing White or Black. The game that follows, published in the same issue of The Gambit, at page 39,
shows Whitaker playing the Black pieces. Unfortunately, The Gambit only mentioned the game was from
an eleven board St. Louis simultaneous exhibition, and thus, given both simultaneous displays in St. Louis
involved eleven opponents, it is impossible to know whether the game was played on May 30 or May 31,
1931.
Melrose Whitaker,NT
D03/05 (2ed) Queens Pawn: Torre
1931.05 (11 board simultaneous exhibition) USA St. Louis, MO
1.d4 Nf6 2.Bg5 c5 3.Nf3 Qb6 4.b3 e6 5.e3 Nc6 6.c3 d5 7.Bd3 Bd7 8.Nbd2 Be7 9.Qc2 Rc8
10.h4 cxd4 11.Nxd4 Nb4 12.Qb1 Rxc3 13.Be2 Bc5 14.Bd1 Bxd4 15.exd4 Rc1 16.Nc4 dxc4
17.Bxc1 Nd3+ 18.Kf1 Bc6 19.Be3 Nd5 20.Bc2 Nxe3+ 21.fxe3
21...cxb3 22.Bxb3 Qb5 23.Qc2 0-0 24.Ke2 Be4 25.Bc4 Qh5+ 26.Kd2 Rc8 27.Qb3 Nf2 28.
Rh2 Ng4 29.Rhh1 a6 30.Raf1 Qa5+ 31.Ke2 b5 32.Bxe6 Rc2+ 33.Qxc2 Bxc2 34.Bxf7+
Kh8 35.Bb3 Bxb3 36.Rf8+ Bg8 37.Rc1 Qxa2+ 38.Kf3 Nxe3 39.Rcc8 Nxg2 40.Rxg8+
Qxg8 41.Rxg8+ Kxg8 42.Kxg2 b4 0-1.
The Gambit, June-July 1931, p39
McFarland wrote Kuhns about Whitakers visit on Monday, June 1, 1931. The details of the letter
illustrate one of Whitakers methods of attempting to sow discord among chess officials: making a multitude
of largely unsupported accusations against a third party, while simultaneously trying to ingratiate himself
with his companion of the moment. But McFarland, for one, did not like Whitakers company. I was
obliged, of course, to treat him decent,McFarland wrote, and especially as it is the Railroad Companys
office, but considering all the charges he made, I would have been glad if I had been in a position so that I
could have shown him the door. As it was, all I could do was to let him air his complaint, and say what he
had to say, and in reply say that the National would be able to do things if it had the support to which it is
entitled.
Ironically, McFarlands deafness actually allowed him to report to Kuhns the precise words of Whitakers
argument, words he might have been hard pressed to quote accurately had he been forced to rely on hearing
and recollection alone. About everything he said to me was written down on a scratch pad,McFarland
confided to the NCF President, because I do not hear, and I preserved the slips, or the most of them, and so I
have it in black and white, which I am quoting for your information.
Among Whitakers gripes was the selection of the team sent to Hamburg in 1930 to play in that years
Olympiad team tournament. Helms, as chronicler of the NCF in the pages of the American Chess Bulletin,
gave a great deal of coverage to the event. In his May-June 1930 issue, Helms noted the composition of the
team: Frank Marshall, captain, Harold M. Phillips, manager, Isaac Kashdan, Herman Steiner, and J. Allan
Anderson, the last named of St. Louis, Missouri. Andersons inclusion on fourth board, though not explicitly
stated, no doubt was made to avoid a clean sweep for New York City, the town the other three players as
well as the team manager called home. Unfortunately the United States could finish no higher than sixth out
of eighteen teams, scoring 41-26. While Marshall scored 12-4, and Kashdan an exceptional 14-3,
Anderson managed to hold his own, with three wins, two losses, and seven draws through the first twelve
rounds, only to lose his last five games. The American Chess Bulletin for July-August 1931 emphasized
how well Anderson had played early on, and reported it was surprisingto learn he had dropped his last five
games. Allowance must be made,said the Bulletin, for the unusual amount of work put upon a player
inexperienced in international activities. A photograph of the team and its manager belatedly graced the
pages of the Bulletins December issue.
Whitaker had hoped to play for the United States at Hamburg 1930, and he attributed his failure to be
selected to the personal animus Kuhns and other officials of the NCF held for him. He considered the
inclusion in 1930 of Anderson on fourth board as improper, as he believed he was much more qualified to
fill the slot.
But explaining this and other matters to the Secretary of the NCF, himself a St. Louis man, and while in
St. Louis, could at best be said to be impolitic on Whitakers part. In any event, McFarland began piecing
together Whitakers points, literally, from his trash can, and conveying them to Kuhns. He said the National
had had no tourney since 1928; no election of officers; no activity; dirty politics; nothing whatsoever since
1928 except sending picked, unqualified teams to Europe. And then came the jab against St. Louisown
Anderson. Last year [the NCF] sent several unqualified men, neither members of NCF or strong American
players. The team was regarded as a joke. All NCF did was to donate $100 for the five men, or $20 each.
Anderson, Steiner and others not members of NCF, I am a member, but neither Steiner or Anderson. More
politics this year about Prague. Kuhns wants to keep me off, even though 1. I am a member NCF, 2. I am
champion NCF, 3. Champion (equally) WCA, 4. Champion Penn., 5. U.S. Citizen. I am willing to pay my
own way and NCF didnt give me a dollar when I represented it and NCF in 1928 in Hague.
When I told him that the Western decided not to go along with us,McFarland continued, he said: we did
go in, but got no representation whatsoever. We affiliated with NCF, in 1927 at Kalamazooto our sorrow.
He also said, in reply to a remark I made that the National would be able to do things if supported: Neither
clubs or Western will ever support with Kuhns. I know.
But Whitaker had not finished bad mouthing Kuhns. Of course I said that I did not agree with him and to
his estimation of you, and that you deserved a great deal of credit for establishing the Federation. In reply
he said: Factor did more than Kuhns to start it. After it started Kuhns threw out Factor as a director. He
wants no one in NCF if they disagree with his politics. Also in the course of the conversation he said: You
dont know and neither do other good directors of the dirty stuff going on, it has ruined the NCF and power it
could have.
Whitaker encouraged McFarland to join with other directors to restrain Kuhns and his alleged domination
of the NCF. Whitaker also told McFarland he was returning to Chicago the next morning to talk with other
chess officials. McFarland speculated it was another attempt by Whitaker to influence the composition of
the team being sent to Prague, and that as he believed Whitaker was traveling by automobile, he expected
him to arrive in Chicago Thursday morning. McFarland also thought he might have some of Whitakers
remarks out of order, as he was crumpling and throwing into the trash can each one as it was written, so
Whitaker would not think he was saving them. McFarland added that we now know beyond any doubt, if we
did not before, just how he stands and that there should be no compromise with him whatever. I am
satisfied that we can make a success of the Federation without Whitaker and his crowd, and we will continue
to work to that end. Thus did Whitaker inflame another foe.
McFarland knew Kuhns was aware of much of Whitakers animus against him, and thus felt confident he
could send a copy of his letter to Hermann Helms. McFarland had not mentioned Helms or any of the New
York crowdto Whitaker once he learned precisely how Whitaker felt about the NCF. And McFarland
wanted his letter to Kuhns and its copy sent to Helms treated in confidence, as I have no desire, of course, to
get into any controversy with Whitaker, as I consider that I would be belittling myself to follow up the
matter with such a man as he is.
McFarland apparently did copy Hermann Helms on his letter to Kuhns, for by June 8, 1931, McFarland
was writing a return letter to the man who was, among other things, publisher of the American Chess
Bulletin and chess columnist for the Brooklyn Daily Eagle. Helms was then sixty-one years old, and would,
amazingly, remain active on the New York chess scene for another thirty-two years. McFarland confirmed
for Helms that you are correct in saying that the interview with Whitaker was embarrassing; but there is the
satisfaction that I know just what he is and how he stands. I told Anderson what Whitaker said about the
last years team, and also one or two more of the boys here, and I fancy Whitakers evaluation did not set very
well. What a damn fool thing to say about the team that was sent over! Certainly it was a damn fool thing
for Whitaker to say to a St. Louis man clearly not sympathetic to his argument, and one who obviously
would have opportunity, and reason, to take the tale back to Anderson himself.
With this information in hand from McFarland about Whitaker and his attempt to gain affiliate status in
FIDE for the Western Chess Association, bypassing and thus undermining the authority of the NCF,
Maurice Kuhns wrote FIDE President Reub. Because of the financial problems plaguing the NCF as well as
the nation as a whole (1931 was, of course, in the heart of the Great Depression), no representative from the
NCF would be able to attend the meeting at Prague. Kuhns did, however, gratefully accept Reubs offer to
represent the NCF at that meeting, sending him credentials authorizing that representation. In addition, and
most revealingly, he wrote Reub that the Executive Committee of the NCF did hereby authorize you to
present our resignation from FIDE, if the Congress should vote to admit the Western. We do this because
FIDE interests in the USA would not be served if two units were permitted here; for that reason, we are
quite content to allow the Congress to decide and beg that you act in accordance with our request as stated
above. He mentioned as well, in what only would have been confirmation for Whitaker of Kuhnsbias had
he known of the matter, that the NCF never considered sending Whitaker to either Hamburg 1930 or Prague
1931, as he was an enemy of the Federation. Kuhns then enclosed for Reub an unnamed newspaper item
concerning Whitaker.
In all likelihood the unnamed newspaper item Kuhns sent FIDEs President involved the same matter that
was the subject of a brief exchange between McFarland and Helms, also found in the White Collection
documents. In a letter dated July 9, 1931, McFarland wrote Helms saying that I am sure you will greatly
appreciate Mr. Kuhnsreaction to your Eagle article on the hold upaffair, especially his reference to the false
telephone slugs,which is richindeed. Whitaker had been arrested at a drug store in Pleasantville, New
Jersey, the year before on December 5, 1930, for putting slugs in a telephone pay station. He had told the
police he was a lawyer from Haddon Heights, New Jersey, at the time of his arrest, but this was not true.
Whitaker had been disbarred in both New York and the District of Columbia, where he had held licenses to
practice law, not long after he began his first interstate car theft conviction under the Dyer Act at
Leavenworth in 1925. He posted three hundred dollars bail in Pleasantville, which was declared forfeit on
June 13, 1931. It may well be that Helms had learned of the bail forfeiture in June and had either mentioned
it in one of his chess columns or else had written an independent article for the Brooklyn Daily Eagle
concerning the matter.
Nor would this be Helmsonly attempt to make more public Whitakers prison record. Other
correspondence in the authors possession indicates Helms wrote the warden at Leavenworth on July 18,
1931, seeking information on the cause of Whitakers prior imprisonment, as well as his time of entrance and
discharge at the well known federal penitentiary. Four days later, by letter dated July 22, 1931, the Record
Clerk at Leavenworth wrote Helms that the rules of the Department of Justice prohibit giving information of
the nature requested, except to near relatives or duly authorized officers of the law. As Helms was neither,
he received nothing.
Although Whitakers attempt to discredit Maurice Kuhns and the National Chess Federation came to
naught, as did his efforts, by way of the Western Chess Association, to have that organization named as a
second United States affiliate with FIDE, his behavior earned him the growing scorn of the likes of Horace
McFarland, who thus joined the chorus of chess organizers and officials who wished to have nothing to do
with Whitaker or his causes. Whitaker, as the years passed, was quick to recite the harms others caused him,
yet had a decided talent for overlooking his own contributions to engendering hard feelings. Whitakers
efforts in the late 1920s and early 1930s to wrestle power in chess organizations, however, would be cut
short by his additional convictions for interstate car theft, conspiracy to defraud, and the sending of narcotics
through the mails. Indeed, it would not be until 1948, when he was nearly sixty years old, that Whitaker
would again jump fully into chess politics. And as recounted in detail in Shady Side, his attempt then was
on a much larger scale, publicly aired, and one eventually involving law suits in multiple states.
To return, then, to the brief quotation from Shady Side given earlier in this essay, that mentioned only in
passing Whitakers stop in St. Louis at the end of May 1931. A reader might well ask, Why wasnt this
information about Whitaker talking with Horace McFarland included in the text? Why wasnt McFarlands
dislike of Whitaker, and how it influenced his comments to Kuhns, who in turn passed along his dislike of
Whitaker to the President of FIDE, as well as McFarlands remarks to Helms, who in turn published
information about Whitakers criminal background, put in the book?
The answers to such questions are both simple and endlessly debatable. On one level, perhaps the most
practical, I realized as author that if every instance of Whitaker metaphorically stepping on the toes of chess
officials were to be included, the book would no doubt have grown to a four volume set. As it is, the
biographical chapters included in Shady Side required over three hundred pages to give Whitakers story.
Thus, as does any biographer, whether he admits it to his readers or not, I had to carefully evaluate and
chose materials. And the process of selection, as noted above, involves both inclusion as well as exclusion.
In this case, I felt McFarlands distaste for Whitaker was but another example of how Whitaker alienated
chess organizersa story often told in Shady Side, and thus neither novel nor distinct for that reason. For
every person in chess Whitaker cultivated as a friend, and there were many, he managed to raise the blood
pressure of as many more. Many of those stories appear in Shady Side, and well illustrate Whitakers
character in that respect. And so Whitakers conversation with McFarland as well as other details
surrounding his brief St. Louis trip were excluded.
On another level, though, whether such a story as the McFarland correspondence suggests should have
been included in Shady Side or not raises fundamental issues of focus, and, potentially, authorial bias, that
no biographer can fully avoid. Even the selection of a title for a biography is not entirely free of such
concerns.
Indeed, the title Shady Side: The Life and Crimes of Norman Tweed Whitaker, Chess Master, did not
escape a certain introspection, as well as a request for explanation. Early on in my review of Whitakers
papers, I realized in order to do the job well I would need to contact as many people as I could who, at one
time or another, had known Norman Whitaker. I was quite fortunate in May 1998 to contact noted chess
historian Walter Shipman, a California resident and chess player who many years ago knew Whitaker. As a
matter of fact, I came to learn that Walter Shipman knew Whitaker for over twenty years, and had defeated
him in the 1948 United States Championship as well as in the 1954 New Jersey Open, their only two
tournament games (both games appear in the book, of course). Shipman quite graciously answered my
questions and provided his recollections of Norman Whitaker, as did many others. But in Shipmans case, as
a historian, another set of questions came to mind, ones he in turn asked me: just how was I viewing
Whitaker, given my working title included not only lifebut crimes? Would I condemn Whitaker? How
balanced would I be?
Shipmans questions were sharp, and indeed critical to an evaluation of my own focus and possible
authorial bias. In a letter dated May 24, 1998, I tried my best to address his concerns, and a few of those
remarks are suitable for inclusion here . I wrote him that the working title, I hope, suggests the full-bodied,
living contradiction of a brilliant mind often unable to tolerate authority or authority figures and whose
actions were both in part commendable and contemptible. Whitaker really was Dickensian in nature, full of
genius and devil, and I hope to give the man in as close to three dimensions as I can.
Shipmans questions are important ones, and in retrospect I believe that to the best of my abilities I have
honored my commitment to Shipman the chess historian as well as to Shipman the man, who knew
Whitaker and indeed considered him a friend. For it is certainly true that the lifeof any man, or woman, is
not merely equivalent to their crimes. No more so than are a persons virtuous acts the sum total of his or her
life, perhaps even for the life of a saint. And thus I can say, with some degree of heartfelt if not scientific
truth, that in writing about Norman Tweed Whitaker the choices I made concerning what material to
include, what material to exclude, and what emphasis to give the whole, were formed by my desire to set
forth in all sincerity a life full of genius and devil. It will remain the task of others to someday judge how
successful my efforts have been.
Most of the Whitaker family in happier days, probably around 1910, and probably in Ocean City, New
Jersey. Norman Whitaker is the young man kneeling next to his mother, Agnes Tweed Whitaker.
Normans father, Herbert Whitaker, is standing. The two younger women are Hazel and Dorothy
Whitaker, Normans younger sisters. Missing is Roland Whitaker, the baby of the family.
(This photo is an exclusive to Chess Archaeology, and does not appear in the book)
John S. Hilbert 2000 All Rights Reserved
John Hilberts Shady Side: The Life and Crimes of Norman Tweed Whitaker, Chess Master, can be ordered
directly from the publisher, Caissa Editions, P.O. Box 151, Yorklyn, DE 19736 for $46, which includes
shipping and handling.
More Recovered Chess Games:
Steinitz, Pillsbury, Lasker and Capablanca
by John S. Hilbert
I have written elsewhere of my passion for rediscovering forgotten chess games of
the great masters of the past.(1) The discoveries are there to be made, awaiting the
efforts of the dedicated searcher. Through rolls of microfilm and dusty collections of
chess columns one can perceive, on occasion, an effort of a great mind of the past,
forgotten for decades or a century or more, left waiting to be brought forth again,
hopefully someday to be reunited with that masters canon.
Anyone who has actually gone to the trouble of attempting to track down such
games realizes how often hopes are disappointed. Dozens if not hundreds of games
might be examined before possibly a few, newly found, remain to pass the gauntlet of
the collections of the past. Even then, some games that have passed such rigorous
examination may fall by the wayside once the researchers discoveries are shared with
his or her colleagues, and especially with the experts in the field of a particular
master, period, or place.(2)
As with any pursuit worth the effort, though, the researchers findings must survive
such scrutiny in order to be considered true additions to a masters canon. What
follows is a small collection of newly recovered games played by four of the greatest
chess minds in the world. The group spans a period of nearly thirty years, running
from 1883 to 1911, and though not exclusively, do for the most part come from the
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania region.
Steinitz
The largest collection of games played by Steinitz, incorporating previous works, is
Sid Pickards The Games of Wilhelm Steinitz (Pickard & Son: 1995). Over a thousand
games, specifically 1,022, are included by Pickard. The book does not suggest it is
complete, which is readily understandable. Collecting and checking all known
Steinitz games would require extensive labors in chess and popular journals,
newspapers, and other collections. And even then, of course, no claim to
completenesscould be made. Not even Ludwig Bachmann, in his seminal
Schachmeister Steinitz (C. Brgel & Sohn, 1920-28, 4 vols.), pretended his work was
complete. Nor does any other reputable scholar, writing about the great masters of
the past.
But the time has come when the games of our great players of the past require such
exceptional efforts as would be needed for more exhaustive collections. Leonard M.
Skinner and Robert G. P. Verhoeven have set a new standard for compilations with
their extraordinary Alexander Alekhines Chess Games, 1902-1946 (McFarland:
1998). Other writers have also done excellent jobs in putting together materials on
past great players, including Kenneth Whyld on Emanuel Lasker and Nick Pope on
Harry Nelson Pillsbury, to name but two. But Steinitz continues to lack a truly
exhaustive, and accurate, treatment. Not only are there many games played by
Steinitz not included in the Pickard collection, but details as to events surrounding the
play, the context in which the games appeared, is also lacking, at least in relation to
Steinitzs canon as a whole. Games played by Steinitz during his early days in the
United States are, for example, one area where much more work needs to be done.
Steinitz sailed to America on board the American Steamship Companys Indiana,
arriving in Philadelphia on November 7, 1882. He stayed in the City of Brotherly
Love until December 27, 1882. After leaving Philadelphia, Steinitz traveled first to
Baltimore and then to New Orleans, where from December 28, 1882, through January
28, 1883, he played various club members at the New Orleans Chess, Checker and
Whist Club, as well as visited, briefly, Paul Morphy. Neither Bachmann nor Pickard
include the following game at odds, one of four played between Steinitz and Labatt
during the first week of his visit, early in January 1883. Steinitz won by the score of
3-1, and thus this game was Labatts only victory:
Steinitz,W Labatt,LL
<Nb1> Odds of knight
1883.01 USA New Orleans, LA
1.f4 c5 2.e3 b6 3.Nf3 Bb7 4.b3 e6 5.Bb2 Nf6 6.Qe2 Nc6 7.0-0-0 d5 8.h3
a5 9.a4 Be7 10.g4 d4 11.e4 Nb4 12.d3 Na2+ 13.Kb1 Nc3+ 14.Bxc3
dxc3 15.Qe1 b5 16.axb5 a4 17.Qxc3 Nxe4 18.Qe1
18 Nc3+ 19.Qxc3 Bxf3 20.Be2 Bf6 21.Qxc5 axb3 22.c3 Qa5 23.Kc1
Qa2 0-1.
Philadelphia Times, 1883.01.07
Steinitz did not settle in the United States right away. Instead, he returned to
Europe later in 1883, only to decide to move his family to this country not long
thereafter. By the end of 1883 he was back in Philadelphia, where he played a
number of offhand games, including the following hitherto forgotten game against
one of Philadelphias most respected chess elders.
Steinitz,W Elson,J
1883.12 USA Philadelphia, PA (Philadelphia Chess Club)
Annotations by G. Reichhelm
1.e4 e6 2.e5 d5 3.exd6 Bxd6 4.d4 Nc6 5.f4
White plays on the principle of keeping the e-pawn and queens bishop hemmed in.
5...Nf6 6.Nf3 0-0 7.c3 Nd5 8.g3 b6 9.Bd3 Bb7 10.0-0
On 10.Bh7+ Kxh7 11.Ng5+, Black moves ...Kg6.
10...Nce7 11.Ng5 h6 12.Ne4 Rc8
A subtle trap. Against an ordinary adversary the game would probably have
continued with 12...Rc8 13.c4 Nb4 14.c5 bxc5 15.dxc5 Bxc5+ 16.Nxc5 Qd4+ and
Black has won a pawn.
13.Qe2 c5 14.dxc5 Bxc5+ 15.Nxc5 Rxc5 16.Nd2 Nf6 17.Nf3 Qd5 18.
Be3 Rcc8
19.Rad1
Made with the idea that he could let the a-pawn go and then recoup himself with
the advantage of an open file by returning to the corner with his rook. There is a
subsequent point, however, in the proceedings, calculated upon by Mr. Elson, that
had escaped the analysis of Mr. Steinitz.
19...Qxa2 20.Ra1 Bxf3
This is the move that Black relied on and secures the pawn that had been taken.
21.Rxa2 Bxe2 22.Bxe2 Rc7 23.Rfa1 Nfd5 24.Bd2 a5 25.Kf2 Rd8 26.
Ra4 Nb4 27.Be3 Nbd5 28.Rd1 Rcd7 29.Bc1 Nf6 30.Re1 -.
Black is still a pawn ahead, but as it would be very difficult to win with his
advantage against the two White bishops, the game was declared drawn.
Of Elson, Reichhelm added that it is a subject worthy of note that one of the most
creditable, if not the most creditable, scores in America made against Champion
Steinitz was achieved by Mr. Jacob Elson, of this city. Mr. Elson played, in all, three
games against Steinitz during his two visits to this country, and out of these three
games he achieved two draws and lost but one game. We, of course, do not pretend
to lay any undue stress upon this performance, but as it is a most creditable showing
we deem it worth this passing notice.
During the same stay in Philadelphia Steinitz played the following game, one
Reichhelm said was one of the last played by Champion Steinitz [during his recently
finished stay in Philadelphia], though it is not a good exhibit of the strong play
usually exhibited by his young adversary.
Steinitz,W Miller
C29/01 Vienna Gambit
1883.12 USA Philadelphia, PA (Philadelphia Chess Club)
1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nf6
This defense is faulty, as it allows the first player to offer the gambit with
advantage.
3.f4 exf4 4.e5 Ng8 5.d4 Qh4+ 6.Ke2
We have a sort of Steinitz gambit variation now.
6...g5 7.Nf3 Qh5 8.g4
Taking a leaf out of old Anderssens book. A similar line of play was adopted by
that celebrated master in the so-called immortal gameagainst Kieseritzky.
8...Qg6 9.h4 gxh4 10.Rxh4 Be7 11.Rh2 Qxg4
Blacks play in this game is by no means up to his usual form.
12.Bh3 Qg3 13.Qh1 Qg6 14.Bxf4 c5 15.d5 c4 16.d6 Bf8
17.Rg1
The position is very remarkable, indeed. Black has a check, it is true, but his game
is lost.
17...Qxc2+ 18.Ke1 ( ), 1-0.
And wins, for, on ...Qd3, White plays Rd2, etc.
Another Steinitz game not included in any known collection of the world
champions games is the following miniature. Unfortunately, the game is merely
introduced as showing how Steinitz gives the rook,without even mentioning where or
when the game was played.
Steinitz Amateur
<Ra1> Odds of rook
188[3]
1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.f4 exf4 4.e5 Qe7 5.Qe2 Ng8 6.Nf3 d6 7.Nd5 Qd8 8.
exd6+ Be6 9.Nxc7+ Kd7 10.Nxe6 fxe6 11.Ne5+
11 Kc8 (# in 4), 1-0.
Mate in four moves: 12.Qc4+ Nc6 13.Nxc6 bxc6 14.Qxc6+ Kb8.
Skipping ahead a few years, we find Steinitz again visiting the Philadelphia area, at
which time he gave a twenty-three board simultaneous exhibition at the
Workingmens Institute Hall in Germantown, on Wednesday, December 7, 1887.
According to Reichhelm, writing in the Philadelphia Times for December 11 of that
year, Steinitz won twenty games and drew three, with no losses. The three draws
were made by Shipley, Young, and Magee. Pickard includes two games from this
exhibition in his book on Steinitz, both draws: numbers 897 (Magee) and 898
(Young).
Two additional games from the Germantown simultaneous exhibition have now
been found. Reichhelm also offered some general commentary about the event:
Punctuality is the courtesy of chess kings as well as minor potentates and Herr
Steinitz was therefore promptly on time, escorted by Mr. W. Penn Shipley. His
adversaries were all on hand and arranged around him in what is easiest described as
an oblong square. On board number one Mr. John Welsh Young, with the radiance of
a full front, boldly inaugurated a secret counterplot, which engaged the full attention
of the champion. Mr. Young kept his eyes carefully riveted on the board, so as not to
be too much moved by the plaudits of the spectators. Mr. Young gallantly achieved a
draw. Board number two, Mr. R. T. Tatum, made a short but creditable defense, but
on the neighboring table (number three), Mr. R. O. Benson was seen with his pale
caste of thought elaborating the most polished combinations. Mr. Benson played a
tremendous game and Mr. Steinitz himself acknowledged that at one period Mr.
Benson had the better of him. Mr. Bensons game, however, lingered too long and
finally, at 1:30 am, Her Steinitz again scored. Messrs. J. Fischer Wright and
Mordecai Morgan played very attractive games, while Mr. W. Penn Shipley, on table
number six,secured what Reichhelm called a brilliant draw.
Steinitz,W Shipley,WP Simul (1:23)
C52/05 Evans: Compromised (Anderssen)
1887.12.07 USA Germantown, PA
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 6.d4 exd4 7.0-0
Reichhelm: This is the so-called compromise defenseof the EvansGambit, but the
preponderance of evidence is now in favor of its soundness.
7...dxc3 8.Qb3 Qf6 9.e5 Qg6 10.Nxc3 Nge7 11.Ne2
11 b5
Reichhelm: This counter sacrifice is a necessary feature of this defense, although
authorities differ as to the exact time when the pawn should be offered. With his
surplus of pawns Black can afford to give one back to divert the champions attack.
12.Bxb5 Rb8 13.Nf4 Qe4 14.Nd3 Qd5 15.Bxc6 Rxb3 16.Bxd5 Rxd3 17.
Bc4 -.
Hilbert: Note that the New York Clipper for January 7, 1888, gives the same game
score, but ends the game with 17.Be4, not 17.Bc4.(3)
Reichhelm: And the game was by mutual consent abandoned by both players.
Reichhelm then continued his description of the Germantown simul: Next to Mr.
Shipley sat the gallant Mr. Stokes, who had bounded into the arena early in the
evening. Mr. Stokesmoves were complex and pleasing. Following him Mr. J. Evans
and Mr. J.W. Barker played sturdily, and further, at board number ten, sat the rising
Germantown chess phenomenon, Master August Beckman, aged 15. Herr Steinitz
opened with a Giuoco Pianisimo on the queens side, but the boy defended himself so
ably that not a piece or pawn was exchanged on either side for many moves and even
the old players looked on and marveled at the boy. Finally, however, the old master
secured an advantage over the young one. Passing over the well digested games of
Carroll Smyth and H. S. Williams we come to the main body of the Juniorcontingent
[i.e., players from the so-called Junior Chess Club, who in fact represented some of
the strongest players not only of the Franklin Chess Club, but of the city itself,
regardless of ageJSH] on tables thirteen to seventeen. J. P. Morgan held out bravely
until after 2:00 am, and next to him sat President Magee, of the Juniors,who played
another of the star games of the evening ... At this point it was after 2:00 am, and Herr
Steinitz, remarking that he was very tired, asked Mr. Magee to draw on account of the
lateness of the hour. Mr. Magee gallantly acceded. ... The next players, Messrs. W.
H. Schultz, Henry S. Jeanes and S. W. Bampton, all had finally to catch trains...and at
the last, but by no means least, board number twenty-three, sat Herman G. Voigt ...
Voigt was especially unfortunate in losing his game by a mistaken touch and move
after having an equal game.
In his January 1, 1888, chess column, Reichhelm gave another example of Steinitzs
play from the same Germantown, December 7, 1887, simultaneous exhibition.
Reichhelm considered it an excellent game.
Steinitz,W Wright,MF Simul (1:23)
C51/01 Evans: Declined
1887.12.07 USA Germantown, PA
1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Bc5 3.b4 Bb6
Had Lieutenant Wright taken the pawn Herr Steinitz would doubtless have
proceeded with 4.f4, offering McDonnells celebrated double gambit.
4.Nf3 Nc6
Arriving by a transposition of moves at one of the variations in the EvansGambit
evaded.
5.c3 a6 6.d3 Nge7
It is nearly always preferable to post the knight at f6.
7.Ng5 d5 8.exd5 Nxd5 9.Qf3 Be6 10.Nxe6 fxe6 11.Nd2 Rf8 12.Qh5+ g6
13.Qxh7 Bxf2+
Through Whites eleventh move Black now obtains a winning position.
14.Kd1 Ne3+ 15.Ke2 Qf6 16.Ne4 Qf5 17.Qh3 Nxc4 18.Qxf5 exf5 19.
Nxf2 Nd6 20.Bg5
20 Kd7
Beginning a series of remarkable king moves with which to hoist Steinitz with his
own petard.
21.a4 e4 22.d4 b5 23.a5 Ke6 24.Nh3 Kd5 25.Nf4+ Kc4 26.Ra3 Rae8 27.
g3 Nf7
White cannot take the g-pawn on account of ...Rg8.
28.h4 Nxg5 29.hxg5 Rh8 30.Rh4 Rxh4 31.gxh4 Ne7 32.Kf2 e3+ 33.
Kxe3 Nd5+ 34.Kf3 Nxf4
34...Re3+ is answered by 35.Kf2.
35.Kxf4 Re4+ 36.Kg3 Re3+ 37.Kf4 Re4+ 38.Kg3 Kd3 39.Ra1 Kxc3 40.
Rc1+ Kxb4 41.Rc6 Kxa5 42.Rxg6 b4 43.Rg8 Ka4 44.Kh3 b3 45.Rb8
Rxd4 46.g6
46 Rb4
This loses him a won game. Lieutenant Wright indeed saw that ...Rg4 would win,
but made a mistake in thinking the move in the text a quicker way of doing it.
47.Rxb4+ Kxb4 48.g7 b2 49.g8Q Ka3
The further moves were not recorded, but Herr Steinitz won.
1-0.
The modus operandi of winning in this position would be about as follows: 50.Qf8
+ Ka2 51.Qf7+ Ka1 52.Qf6 Ka2 53.Qxa6+ Kb3 54.Qd3+ Ka2 55.Qc2 Ka1 56.Qa4
+ Kb1 57.h5 etc.
Another Steinitz game has surfaced from apparently the following year, 1888. The
difficulty in assigning the game a more precise place and time in Steinitzs canon
stems from the vagueness of Reichhelms introductory comment, given here in full:
Mr. Voigt of the home club, sends us the following instructive game he had with
Steinitz. As Reichhelms references to players of the home clubgenerally involved
their play when not in Philadelphia, the location of this game, much less its precise
date, is not known. Perhaps it was played in New York, and perhaps in July or August
1888, given the date of the column in which it appears. In any event, the game
involves one of Voigts pet openings, the Sicilian.
Steinitz,W Voigt,HG
B46/03 Sicilian: Barnes (Russian)
188[8] [USA]
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 a6 4.d4 cxd4 5.Nxd4 e6 6.g3 g6 7.Nxc6 bxc6 8.
e5 d5 9.exd6 Qxd6 10.Qf3 Bb7 11.Bd2 Bg7 12.0-0-0 Qb4 13.a3 c5
A very neat retort.
14.Qe2 Qb6 15.Rg1 Rd8 16.Na4 Qd6 17.Qc4 Qd4 18.Qxd4 Bxd4 19.
Be3 Bc6
20.Nxc5
Steinitz nods. Black now very cleverly wins the exchange.
20...Bxb2+ 21.Kxb2 Rxd1 22.f4 Ne7 23.Bxa6 Rxg1 24.Bxg1 0-0 25.Nb3
Rb8 26.Bd3 Ba4 27.Bd4 Nd5 28.Ka2 h5 29.Nc5 Bc6 30.Be5 Ra8 31.
Kb2 Ne3 32.Bd4 Nd5 33.Bc4 f6 34.Bb3 Kf7 35.a4 Ke7 36.Ka3 h4 37.
Ne4 hxg3 38.hxg3
38 Nxf4
By this plausible-looking capture Mr. Voigt gives away his slight chance of
winning and enables Mr. Steinitz to draw by perpetual check in a very peculiar
manner.
39.Bc5+ Kd8 40.Bb6+ Ke7 41.Bc5+ Kd8 -.
And the game is drawn. If Black attempts to alter his moves then White gets the
chance to check with his knight and win a piece.
Few offhand games from Steinitzs last years have made their way into anthologies.
No doubt the field is quite ripe for numerous additional finds. Here, for instance, is
an offhand game the great master played against Max Judd, one of the strongest
players to reside in Americas Midwest. The game, however, was played in Vienna,
where Judd had at one time been United States Consul. As with the other games in
this article, this one has not yet made its way into the Steinitz canon.(4)
Judd,Max Steinitz,W Offhand
1897 AUT Wien
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 d6 4.d4 Bd7 5.Nc3 Nge7
Now White should proceed with Bg5, etc. The move in the text, however, which
follows is recommended by Lasker.
6.Bc4 exd4 7.Nxd4 Nxd4 8.Qxd4 Nc6 9.Qe3 Be6 10.Nd5 Ne5 11.Bb3
c6
This, with the consequent flippant advance on the queenside, shows that Mr.
Steinitz did not take the game very seriously.
12.Nf4 Bd7 13.Qg3 a5 14.a3 Qb6 15.0-0 a4 16.Ba2 h5
Now he goes for him on the other wing. Mr. Steinitz is evidently on the sunny side
of the street.
17.h4 Ng4 18.Nd3 Be6 19.Bxe6 fxe6 20.Bg5 Qc7 21.Rad1 Qf7 22.f3
Nh6
The veteran must now begin to fight, but Mr. Max has a win in hand.
23.Rd2 Qc7 24.Nf4 Qf7 25.Rfd1 Ng8
The sacrifice which follows is good, and should have won the game.
26.Rxd6 Bxd6 27.Rxd6 Nf6 28.Nxe6 Rg8 29.Nc7+ Qxc7 30.Qe5+ Qe7
31.Re6 Qxe6 32.Qxe6+ Kf8 33.Bxf6 gxf6 34.Qxf6+ 0-1.
The remaining moves are not recorded, but Mr. Judd in some way managed to lose
the game.
In the spring of 1898, Steinitz once more came to Philadelphia, where on April 23,
1898, he gave a twenty-one board simultaneous exhibition at the Franklin Chess
Club. As Emil Kemeny described it two days later in his Philadelphia Public Ledger
column, W. Steinitz, who for twenty-eight years held the championship of the world,
Saturday evening gave a brilliant exhibition of simultaneous play. He met a strong
team of twenty-one local players, but D. Stuart [Robinson] was the only one who
succeeded in defeating him. Play commenced at 7:30 pm. Shortly before midnight
play was stopped, and the unfinished games were adjudicated. The final score was:
Steinitz won ten, lost one, and drew ten. Kemeny also noted that perhaps the best
game of the series was the one won by D. Stuart [Robinson]. It was a Sicilian
Defense. The local player, in the middle game, obtained a powerful kingside attack,
enabling him to win brilliantly.
Steinitz,W Robinson,DS
Simul
(1:21)
B20/01 Sicilian: Philidor
Annotations by E. Kemeny
1.e4 c5 2.Bc4
2.Nf3 followed by 3.d4 is considered stronger.
2...Nc6 3.Nf3 e6 4.Qe2 Be7 5.Nc3 a6 6.a4
To avoid the threatening ...b5 and ...c4, winning the bishop. White might have
played 6.d3 instead of 6.a4.
6...d6 7.0-0 Bf6 8.d3 Nge7 9.Nd1 0-0 10.Bd2 Ng6 11.Bb3 d5 12.a5 Rb8
13.Re1 d4 14.Rf1 e5 15.Ne1
15 Bg5
A powerful move. White intended to move f4, in order to break up Blacks strong
center. The text move prevents this play, or at least necessitates the g3 preparatory
move, which weakens Whites kingside.
16.g3 Kh8 17.f4 exf4 18.gxf4 Bh6 19.Ng2
He could not well move 19.f5, for ...Bxd2 and ...Nge5 would have given Black the
preferable game. The text play enables Black to move ...Bh3, ...Bxg2, and ...f5,
with a very satisfactory position since Whites king is somewhat exposed.
19...Bh3 20.Qh5
He could not well guard the pawn. The text play seems very promising, since
White will win the c-pawn. The play, however, has serious disadvantages. White
gets his queen out of play, while Black, with ...Qh4, will be enabled to establish a
powerful kingside attack.
20...Bxg2 21.Kxg2 f5 22.Kh1 fxe4 23.dxe4 Bxf4 24.Bxf4 Nxf4 25.Qxc5
Qh4 26.Nf2 Ne2
A powerful move, which leaves White without a satisfactory defense. ...Ng3+ is
threatening, as well as ...Rxf2.
27.Kg2 Rf6 28.e5
There was no better play. Black threatened ...Rbf8 and mate in a few moves.
28...Rg6+ 29.Kf3 Qh5+ 30.Ke4
30 Nc3+ 0-1.
Brilliant and decisive. White is obliged to capture the knight, for otherwise ...Qe2
mates. After 31.bxc3, Black forces the win with 31...Qe2+ 32.Kd5 Rd8+ 33.Qd6
Rdxd6+ 34.exd6 Rg5 mate.
Philadelphia Public Ledger, 1898.04.25

Steinitz, in losing to D. Stuart Robinson, had lost to one of the Franklin Chess
Clubs strongest members. He had, however, drawn with John Welsh Young, another
strong club man, as well as with Herman G. Voigt, who soon would be recognized as
one of the nations strongest. Voigt competed in no less than nine of the Anglo-
American Cable Match contests, starting in 1899, and would in years to come draw
his individual games with the likes of Atkins and Blackburne. The complete list of all
twenty-one of Steinitzs simultaneous exhibition opponents appeared in the April 25,
1898, Philadelphia Public Ledger.
Kemeny annotated another Steinitz game from the masters simultaneous exhibition
for his chess column in the Ledger. The columns introductory remarks reported that
the game between Messrs. Steinitz and Stark in Saturday nights simultaneous
exhibition at the Franklin Chess Club was won by the former most brilliantly, and it
may be said that it is a rare exception when the simultaneous player is enabled to
display such skill as did the veteran ex-champion on this occasion. Stark declined to
accept a Kings Gambit, but, failing to make the strongest moves, his opponent was
enabled to establish a powerful Kings side attack. Starks game soon became
hopeless, and Steinitz followed up his advantage with skill. The play from the twenty-
third move to the end was a chain of brilliant moves, and Stark was obliged to
surrender on the thirty-second turn, as his game then was a hopeless one.
Steinitz,W Stark,E Simul (1:21)
1.e4 e5 2.f4 Bc5 3.Nf3 d6 4.Bc4 Nc6 5.c3 Bb6
Loss of time. 5...Bg4 or 5...Nf6 should have been played.
6.Qe2 Qe7
6...Bg4 or 6...Nf6 was still in order. The text move is too conservative.
7.d3 Nf6 8.f5
Which gives White a decided advantage. Blacks queen bishop is shut out, and
White, by the subsequent g4 and h4 play, will obtain a powerful kingside attack.
8...Bd7 9.Ng5
A powerful move. The object in view is to prevent Black from castling queenside.
This is accomplished whether Black answers ...0-0 or ...Nd8. Black might have
moved ...Rf8, which in all probability was superior.
9...Nd8 10.Nd2 c6 11.Nf1 h6 12.Nf3 0-0 13.Bd2 d5 14.Bb3 a5 15.a4
Ne8 16.0-0-0 dxe4
Inferior play which opens the d-file for the adverse rook.
17.dxe4 Nc7 18.g4 Kh8 19.h4 f6 20.Qg2 Nf7 21.Ng3 Na6 22.g5 Nc5 23.
Nh5
A brilliant move. Should Black capture the bishop, White would answer 24.Kb2,
threatening to play gxf6, winning the queen or mate on the move.
23...Rg8 24.g6
If Black now plays 24...Nxb3+ and 25...Nxd2, then 25.Kc2 and 26.Qxd2, followed
by Qxd7, with a winning attack. It would have been superior, however, to the
continuation adopted.
24...Nd6 25.Bxg8 Rxg8
26.Bxh6
A decisive move. Black cannot capture the bishop, for g7+ would win speedily.
Black has no satisfactory answer; the ...Bc8 move is made in order to continue
with ...Nd7 and eventually ...Nf8.
26...Bc8 27.Nxf6
Another brilliant play. If ...Qxf6, then Bg5, h5, and h6 wins; if, however, ...gxf6,
then White proceeds with Rxd6.
27...gxf6 28.Rxd6 Re8
He could not capture the rook, for g7+ and queen mates would follow.
29.Ng5 fxg5 30.hxg5 Kg8
Necessary, since White threatened Bf8+, Rh8+, Qh3+, and Qh7 mate.
31.f6 Nb3+ 32.Kc2 1-0.
Causing Black to surrender. He cannot capture the rook, for f7+ and Bf8 mate is
threatening.
Pillsbury
Although never world champion, Harry Nelson Pillsbury was clearly the strongest
native born chess player in the United States during the latter half of the 1890s, in
addition to being one of the half dozen strongest masters in the world. By the time
Pillsbury came to Philadelphia in 1899 for one of his many trips through that city, he
had been United States chess champion for over a year, and had long held the
reputation as being one of the worlds finest blindfold and simultaneous exhibition
players.
Pillsburys chess career, and in particular his tournament and match play, has been
the subject of Jacques N. Popes Harry Nelson Pillsbury, American Chess Champion
(Pawn Island Press: 1996), the largest collection of Pillsbury games published to
date. Popes work is a welcome resource for the person searching for forgotten games
played by Pillsbury. Pope, however, made no attempt to be as inclusive as possible
concerning Pillsburys informal games, including those played blindfold, in
consultation, or during simultaneous exhibitions. And not unexpectedly, some newly
discovered games have come to light.
Pillsbury logically enough began his late 1899 chess tour in the United States with
a stay in Philadelphia, by then his home. On Saturday night, October 7, 1899,
Pillsbury opened the season for the Franklin Chess Club with a simultaneous
exhibition of eighteen boards, winning fifteen, losing two, and drawing one. Walter
Penn Shipley earned his draw at board nine, while the exhibitioner lost to D. Stuart
Robinson on board ten and George H. Stout on board two.
Stout was by far the most successful of Pillsburys opponents during his first tour
stop. He not only won at the Franklin Chess Club simultaneous exhibition on
October 7, 1899, but on the next Saturday, October 14, 1899, Stout was able to draw
with Pillsbury when he played a twenty-three board exhibition at the Mercantile
Library, winning seventeen, losing two, and drawing four (of which two, at boards
seventeen and eighteen, were checkers games instead of chess).
Gustavus Reichhelm, Philadelphias chess chronicler for nearly fifty years,
published Stouts win at the Franklin exhibition in the pages of the Philadelphia
Times. The game does not appear in Popes collection.
Pillsbury,HN Stout,GH Simul (1:18)
C30/01 Kings Gambit Declined
1.e4 e5 2.f4 Nc6 3.Nf3 Qf6
Not a recognized book defense. Black subjects himself to a loss of time or a
crowded development.
4.Nc3 d6
On 4...Nge7 White would move 5.Nb5.
5.Bb5 Bd7 6.Nd5 Qd8 7.c3 Nf6
Now White should have castled.
8.Nxf6+ Qxf6 9.d4 exd4 10.Nxd4 Be7 11.0-0 a6
After which the champion should retire Ba4. The plain English of it is that he
underrated Blacks resources.
12.Bxc6 bxc6 13.e5 dxe5 14.fxe5 Qxe5 15.Bf4 Qd5 16.Qe2
16 c5
Mr. Stout recognizes the true strategic move of the present position. He makes the
coup juste.
17.Rae1 0-0 18.Qxe7 cxd4 19.Bxc7 Bc6 20.Qe2 dxc3 21.Be5 Rae8
From which the champion attempts to extricate himself by an adroit maneuver, but
the game is lost.
22.Qf3 Qc5+
If 22...Rxe5 White plays 23.Rxe5.
23.Qe3 Rxe5 24.Qxc5 Rxc5 25.bxc3 Rxc3 0-1.
And won in a few moves.
The following year almost to the day found Pillsbury once more in Philadelphia,
and once more conducting a simultaneous exhibition to open the season at the
Franklin Chess Club. As Reichhelm described it, the opening of the chess season was
well celebrated by a simultaneous sance of twenty-one boards by Champion Harry
Nelson Pillsbury, at the rooms of the Franklin Chess Club last evening. The single
performer was introduced by Dr. Persifer Frazer, president of the Franklin and ... then
the business of playing single hand against more than a score of strong players was
undertaken by the American Champion.
Pillsbury had already played that week a series of games of checkers with G. H.
Kearns, then a well-known Philadelphia checker player. The chess champion showed
his mettle at checkers, too, annihilating his opponent by a score of nine wins to none,
with eleven draws. But it was Pillsburys simultaneous chess exhibition that saw him
facing some of the strongest opposition in the country, outside of New York City,
with the likes of Voigt, Shipley, D. Stuart Robinson, John Welsh Young and others
sitting at boards around the room. Despite the relative strength of his opponents,
Pillsbury won sixteen games and drew the remaining five, finishing the exhibition
without a loss. Reichhelm added that the surest game of the evening was with veteran
Doerr, who made all his moves while you waited, and is always satisfied with the best
moves.
Pillsbury,HN Doerr,FW Simul (1:21)
C26/01 Vienna: Falkbeer (Mieses)
1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.g3
The fianchetto form of the Vienna opening, but Mr. Doerr pays but little attention
to the subtleties as he plays the Irishmans gambit of hitting a head whenever he
sees it.
3...Nc6 4.Bg2 Bb4 5.Nge2 d6 6.h3 Be6 7.Nd5 Bxd5 8.exd5 Ne7 9.c3
Bc5 10.d4 exd4 11.Nxd4 Bxd4 12.Qxd4 0-0
Moving into easy street and preparing for brand new exchanges.
13.Bg5 Ng6 14.0-0-0 h6 15.Bxf6 Qxf6 16.Qxf6 gxf6 17.Rhe1 Rae8 18.
f4 Re7
The proper caper, White must exchange to prevent Black taking a double-up on the
e-file.
19.Rxe7 Nxe7 20.Re1 Re8 21.h4 Kf8 22.Kd2
22 Nf5
Good again. Insuring a pawn win.
23.Rxe8+ Kxe8 24.g4 Nxh4 25.Be4 Ng6 26.Ke3 Ke7 27.c4 a5
Excellent judgment. It puts a quietus on the queenside pawns operation.
28.b3 b6 29.Bd3 Nf8 30.Kf3 Nd7 31.Kg3 Nc5 32.Bc2 Kf8 33.Kh4 Kg7
34.Kh5 Nd7 35.Kh4 Nc5 36.Bf5 -.
New faces were also appearing at the Franklin Chess Club, and Pillsbury would
find himself, soon enough, across the board from them. The following year, in 1901,
Pillsbury played another simultaneous exhibition at the Franklin, where one of his
opponents was a twenty-year-old by the name of Stasch Mlotkowski. Mlotkowski
would grow up as a player in the Philadelphia area before moving to the west coast,
where among other things he would tie for first place with Norman Whitaker for the
Western Chess Association title at stake at San Francisco 1923. In 1901 in
Philadelphia, however, even though he was twenty, he was still referred to as the boy
wonderwhen he sat down at board fifteen to play against the United States Champion.
As Reichhelm wrote of the encounter, in these days of pawn grubbing and French
and Sicilian defenses gambits are a rarity, but on the occasion of Champion Pillsburys
recent simultaneous sance in the Franklin Chess Club a real live Kieseritzky gambit,
trimmings and all, was in evidence. It was on board fifteen, where the champion met
the boy wonder, Mlotkowski.
Pillsbury,HN Mlotkowski,S Simul (1:?)
C39/02 KGA: Kieseritzky (Paulsen)
1901.10 USA Philadelphia, PA (Franklin Chess Club)
1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 g5 4.h4 g4
Here is a fork in the trunk from which two gambits spring. Were White now to
move 5.Ng5 it would be the Allgaier gambit. But with 5.Ne5, actually made, it is
the Kieseritzky.
5.Ne5 Bg7
This defense introduced by Paulsen and considered the best but for offhand chess,
the counter attack of ...d6, followed by ...Be7, gives the most interesting positions.
6.Nxg4 d5 7.Nf2 dxe4 8.Nxe4 Nf6 9.Nbc3 0-0 10.d3 Nxe4 11.Nxe4 Re8
12.Be2 Nc6
Menacing ...Nd4, ...Nxe2, etc.
13.c3 Bf5 14.Bxf4 Bxe4 15.dxe4 Rxe4 16.0-0 Qxh4 17.g3 Qe7 18.Bd3
Re6 19.Qh5 h6 20.Bf5 Re2 21.Bd3
21 Re6
Must return to protect his h-pawn. Had Pillsbury, however, taken the h-pawn on
move 21 Black would simply have traded bishops and then queens through ...Qe3+.
22.Qf5 Ne5 23.Bc2 Nd7 24.Rf2 Qc5 25.Qxc5 Nxc5 26.Bxc7 Be5
As a net result of all the maneuvering White has won his gambit pawn back and
nothing more.
27.Bxe5 Rxe5 28.Raf1 Rf8 29.Rf6 Kg7 30.g4 Ne6 31.Bb3 Ng5 32.Kg2
Re3 -.
And both players recognized the fact that only a draw was possible. A good, clean
game.
As time passed, of course, Pillsburys ultimately fatal disease sapped his playing
strength. By 1904, at the time the following game was played, his ability to sustain
the rigorous concentration needed for top flight chess had been severely impaired.
Yet Pillsbury continued to play, and not all his games from this period are marred by
the blight that would in two years end his life.
Pillsburys doings remained significant chess news, regardless of his waning
strength. Reichhelm, writing in the pages of the North American for January 10,
1904, would note that for the last week Champion Harry N. Pillsbury, who had been
starring in the West, took a holiday rest in this city. Being a constant visitor to the
Franklin Chess Club, he took occasion to indulge his favorite pastime. With Mr.
Herman G. Voigt he played at one session two notable games. In the first, opened by
Voigt, the champion made a beautiful combination, which forced the win, although,
in fact, he fluked it afterwards. Pope gives the game in his book on the champion as
number 525. But until now the second notable gameof Pillsburys playing session
with Voigt, one of Philadelphias strongest players and a veteran of numerous Anglo-
American Cable Match contests, had not appeared.
Reichhelm wrote of this game that in their second partie, a Queens Pawner, by
Pillsbury, play ran along smoothly, when the champion was a little too quick in his
kingside attack. Voigt was keen to observe the precipitation, and was quietly sawing
wood on the queenside. At the critical juncture after his attack had all but succeeded,
Pillsbury was obliged to defend with his Queen, and Voigt won out with a series of
deft pawn-winning checks.
Pillsbury,HN Voigt,HG
D60/04 QGD: Orthodox (Lipschtz)
1904.01 USA Philadelphia, PA (Franklin Chess Club)
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 Be7 5.e3 0-0 6.Nf3 Nbd7 7.Bd3 c5 8.
cxd5 Nxd5 9.Bxe7 Qxe7 10.Nxd5 exd5 11.0-0 c4
A declaration for a queenside attack, which White regards lightly.
12.Bc2 Nf6 13.Ne5 b5 14.Qf3 a5 15.Rfe1 Ra6 16.Kh1 Qe6 17.Rg1 Ne4
A move well taken. If Pillsbury wins the pawn he must expect ...f6.
18.Qe2 f5
19.a4
Made to weaken the Black pawn chain. At the same time it makes Whites game
more difficult.
19...b4 20.g4 b3 21.gxf5 Qxf5 22.Bxe4 Qxe4+ 23.f3 Qc2 24.Qe1
A bid for direct attack. 24. Qxc2 was the conservative move.
24...Qf5
Of course he cannot play 24...Qxb2 on account of 25.Rg2.
25.Qh4 Raf6 26.Rg5 Qh3 27.Qf2 Bf5 28.Rag1 g6 29.R1g3
Burning his bridges behind him.
29...Qh6 30.Kg1
Intending h4, and on ...Qxh4, Rxg6+ etc.
30...Qg7 31.Qd2 Qc7 32.h4
32 c3
Fine play, as it makes Whites queen inoperative.
33.bxc3
Must.
33...Rb6 34.Qb2 h6 35.Rxf5
Hobsons choice.
35...Rxf5 36.f4 Kh7 37.Kf2 Qe7 38.Rg4 h5 39.Rg5 Rxg5 40.hxg5 Qe6
41.e4 Qh3 42.Qa3 Qh2+
Again remarkable. Black must take one or the other pawn with a check.
43.Ke3 Qg1+ 44.Kf3 Qf1+ 45.Kg3 Qe1+ 46.Kh2 Qf2+ 47.Kh3 Qe3+ 48.
Kg2 Qxe4+ 49.Kg1 Rb7 0-1.
The North American, 1904.01.10
Lasker
In considering Emanuel Lasker, the long-time world champion, those searching for
forgotten games have the advantage of consulting Kenneth Whylds The Collected
Games of Emanuel Lasker (The Chess Player: 1998), without question the most
comprehensive compilation of Laskers games, both formal and informal, ever
produced. In addition to the 1,390 games appearing in the book, Whyld has provided
an equally valuable treasure for the researcher in his detailed listing of all known
simultaneous displays Lasker gave, listing when available date, location, number of
games played, and how Lasker faired in terms of wins, losses, and draws. This listing
occupies four and a half pages of very small, double columned print at the front of the
book, and can quickly give the researcher information not so readily available
anywhere else. Attempting to search for additional Lasker games without Whylds
book would be foolish.
By providing such an extensive list of Laskers simultaneous exhibitions, Whyld
has also allowed researchers to begin to fill in gaps in the record. For example,
according to Whyld, Lasker was known to have played a simultaneous exhibition at
the Mercantile Library Association in Philadelphia in the spring of 1905. Although a
date of May 23, 1905, was suggested by Whyld, this date appears questionable.
Reichhelm, in a column written for The North American and dated, by hand, in a
scrapbook in the White Collection at the Cleveland Public Library as May 7, 1905,
informs us that at the Mercantile exhibition, Champion Lasker won fifteen, drew
three (with H.J. Chilton, George H. Stout and Lewis Hopper) and lost one to Sydney
T. Sharp. As there is no suggestion Lasker played two such simultaneous exhibitions
at the Mercantile Library Association in the spring of 1905, it appears an earlier date
for the exhibition is in order, one either near the end of April or the beginning of May
of that year.
Reichhelm added that the losses of men like Morphy or Lasker are always
entertaining,and then gave Sharps victory over the champion, a game not yet among
Whylds 1,390 contests played by Lasker. The condensed language Reichhelm used
for his notes in this game was one of his less fortunate trademarks, but
understandable, at least when space was limited for his column.
Lasker,Em Sharp,ST
Simul
(1:19)
C39/06 KGA: Kieseritzky (Berlin)
1905.0[4] USA Philadelphia, PA (Mercantile Library)
1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 g5 4.h4 g4 5.Ne5 Nf6 6.Bc4 d5 7.exd5 Bd6 8.d4
Here Lasker could have played the Rice Gambit by 8.0-0 and sacrificing the piece.
8...Nh5 9.Nxg4
9.Nc3 is better, but even then Black has game for choice.
9...Ng3 10.Rh2 Qe7+ 11.Ne5
Relatively best. White relies on an after-attack.
11...f6 12.Bxf4 fxe5 13.Bg5 Qf7 14.Nc3 Rf8 15.Qf3 exd4 16.Nb5 Bb4+
17.c3 dxc3
Misses a chance. Should have traded queens.
18.Qe3+ Kd7 19.bxc3
19 Bc5
If 19...Re8, then 20.Qe6+. Move in text gives piece back for new lease in position.
20.Qxc5 Re8+ 21.Kd1 Na6 22.Qd4 Re4 23.Qh8 Re8 24.Qf6 Qxf6 25.
Bxf6 Nf5 26.Kd2 Ne3 27.Bb3
With new attack in view.
27...Ng4 28.Nd4 Nxf6 29.Ba4+ c6 30.dxc6+ Kc7 31.Rf1 Ne4+ 32.Kc2
b5 33.Nxb5+ Kb6 34.Nd4 Nac5 35.Bb3 Bg4 36.Rf7 h5
A move toward Easy street.
37.Ba4
Needs explanation. Lasker had touched bishop, with idea of going to c4, but saw ...
Nd6 in reply. He then played move in text, because on ...Nxa4 it left b7 open for
rook check.
37...Nxa4 38.Rh1 Rf8 39.Rhf1 Rxf7 40.Rxf7 Rd8 41.Rb7+ Ka6 42.Nb5
Rd2+ 43.Kb3
All up, anyway, now. If 43.Kb1 then ...Nac5 and Whites attack, 44.Nc7+ Ka5 45.
Rb5+ Ka4, amounts to nothing.
43...Nac5+ 0-1.
The North American, 1905.05.07
As with the exhibition by Lasker above, for which Whyld had not yet been able to
give some of the specifics, another exhibition Lasker gave in Philadelphia six years
later can now be elaborated on. Lasker appeared in Philadelphia on November 11,
1911, Armistice Day, and gave a twenty-one board sance, as a number of annotators
of the day liked to call such simultaneous displays. So much had been known before.
Now, however, thanks to another chess column, this one appearing in a Philadelphia
paper, possibly, though unlikely, the Philadelphia Inquirer, for November 26, 1911,
(5) we learn that in fact Laskers November 11, 1911 Philadelphia simul was played at
the Franklin Chess Club and that Lasker won seventeen games, drew two, and lost
two.
Shipleys loss to Lasker from this exhibition was published on December 3, 1911,
in what appears to be the same newspaper. Interestingly enough, this game was
played twenty-four years after Shipleys simultaneous exhibition draw against Steinitz,
included earlier as game number five, thus suggesting something of Shipleys
longevity in Philadelphia chess circles.
The author of the chess column wrote that below will be found the game won by
Dr. Lasker from the president of the Franklin Chess Club. Black adopted his favorite
defense in the Queens Gambit and one, so far as we are aware, that was first played
by Dr. Lasker on his first visit to this country, against A. B. Hodges. The opening of
the game will be found of interest to the student, as Dr. Lasker adopted the strongest
attack against the defense, one first analyzed, we believe, by the late H. N. Pillsbury,
who considered that it yielded White the advantage.
Lasker,Em Shipley,WP Simul (1:21)
D52/07 QGD: Cambridge Springs
Annotations from unattributed newspaper clipping.
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 c6 5.e3 Nbd7 6.Nf3 Qa5
The foregoing moves constitute the line of defense referred to in our introduction.
Unless White conducts the attack with considerable skill, Black will speedily
obtain a powerful counter attack.
7.Nd2
This move was suggested by Pillsbury and likely is the strongest method of
meeting Blacks line of play.
7...Bb4 8.Bxf6 Nxf6
It is a question whether Black should now capture with the knight or with the
pawn. In the game above referred to played by Lasker against Hodges, Lasker
captured the bishop with the pawn, thus opening the g-file for attack, should White
castle on the kingside.
9.Qc2 Bd7 10.Bd3 0-0 11.0-0 dxc4 12.Nxc4 Qh5 13.Ne2 Be7 14.Ne5
Rfd8 15.f4 g6 16.Rf3 Qh6 17.g4 Qg7 18.Kh1 c5
19.f5 Bd6 20.Nxd7 Nxd7 21.Raf1 exf5 22.gxf5 g5 23.f6 Qh6 24.Ng3
Bxg3 25.Rxg3 Nxf6 26.Qxc5 Nd5 27.Rf5 Rac8 28.Rgxg5+ Kh8 29.
Rxd5 Re8 30.Qd6 f6 31.Rg1 Rxe3 32.Rh5 1-0.
Microfilm of Philadelphia chess columns, John G. White Collection, reel for 789.4 P531,
column dated 1911.12.03
Capablanca
One game by later world champion Jos Ral Capablanca has also been recently
recovered. Unlike most of the earlier games presented here, in which local
Philadelphia papers supplied more detailed information, and games, of masters
against Philadelphia chess players than available elsewhere, the game that follows
was played in Buenos Aires, though reported in the pages of the Philadelphia
Inquirer.
The finding of a hitherto forgotten game played by Capablanca in Buenos Aires in
the pages of a local Philadelphia chess column appears less surprising when one
remembers that Walter Penn Shipley was editor of that column, published in the
pages of the Philadelphia Inquirer. Shipley and Capablanca had long been friends.
Indeed, Capablanca, on March 3, 1911, several months before the game below was
played, had very happily provided Shipley, then about to take a trip to Cuba, with a
letter of introduction to Sr. Dn Paredes, the President of the Havana Chess Club.(6)
That Capablanca in another letter might have himself supplied Shipley with the
following game, for publication in Shipleys Inquirer column, is certainly the most
logical hypothesis for a hitherto forgotten simultaneous game from Buenos Aires
appearing in a Philadelphia paper.
Shipley wrote that the following game was played recently by Capablanca at
Buenos Ayres, South America, in his great simultaneous exhibition in that city.
Capablanca played against thirty opponents, winning twenty-five, drawing four,
losing one. A glance at Hooper and Brandreths excellent work, The Unknown
Capablanca (Dover, Second Revised Edition: 1993), shows this exhibition was
played on May 7, 1911. The brief notes that follow are Shipleys.
Capablanca,JR Nollman Simul (1:30)
C14/02 French: Classical (Alapin)
1911.05.07 ARG Buenos Aires
Annotations by W. P. Shipley
1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 Be7
The McCutcheon Defense of 4....Bb4 yields Black a more aggressive defense.
5.e5 Nfd7 6.Bxe7 Qxe7
7.Nb5
Hardly as good as f4, Qd2, Nd1, etc.
7...Na6
We prefer ...Nb6 or ...Qd8.
8.c3 0-0 9.f4 f6 10.Nf3 fxe5 11.fxe5 Rf7 12.Bd3 Nf8 13.0-0 Bd7 14.Na3
Nb8 15.Qd2 h6 16.Rf2 c5 17.Raf1 cxd4 18.cxd4 a6 19.Nc2 Nc6 20.Ne3
Qb4 21.Qd1 Kh8 22.Bb1 Ne7 23.Nh4 Rxf2 24.Rxf2 Nh7 25.a3 Qa4 26.
Bc2 Qb5 27.Rf7 Nf5 28.Nexf5 exf5 29.Bxf5 Be8 30.Re7 Qxb2 31.Bxh7
Kxh7 32.Nf5 Rc8 33.Rxg7+ Kh8
34.Rg8+ Kh7 -.
Drawn at the suggestion of Capablanca. He cannot avoid the threat of ...Rc1 except
by the perpetual check.
Philadelphia Inquirer, 1911.07.09
The seventeen recently recovered games presented here by four of the worlds finest
chessplayers from the turn of the last century form merely a small contribution to the
ever-expanding canons of these players. Much work is left to be done. Many more
such games are waiting to be discovered by those who are willing to take the time
required to seek them.
(1) See, for example, Recovering the Past: Capablanca, Pillsbury, and Lasker,The
Chess Journalist, June 1999, pp. 3-6; Stalking the Blue-Eyed Chess Score,at The
Campbell Report, an On the Square article, released April 28, 1998, http://
correspondencechess.com/campbell/index.htm; and Examining the Past:
Essential Tools for Exploring Chess History,Lasker & His Contemporaries No. 5,
1997, pp. 52-58.
(2) The author is grateful for the help of a number of chess historians, most notably
that of Jacques N. Pope, in the preparation of this article.
(3) Jacques N. Pope has also recovered this game, in his case from the New York
Clipper for January 7, 1888, but as noted above, the final move varies between the
Clipper and the Times.
(4) Although the game appears here as published in the Philadelphia Times,
Jacques N. Pope informs me he also recovered this game from The Field for May
29, 1897. It is included here because for most readers it remains unknown, the
game having appeared neither in Bachmann nor Pickard.
(5) The column alluded to above was found on a microfilm reel at the John G.
White Collection. The reel, under call number 789.4 P531, is entitled Chess
columns of the Philadelphia Papers,but a note indicates that the clippings come
from various Philadelphia paper, principally the Philadelphia Inquirer. The same
November 26, 1911, column, however, speaks in quite glowing terms of a group of
local chessplayers, including, by name, Walter Penn Shipley. Knowing of Shipleys
Quaker modesty and reserve, I find it unlikely this particular column was taken
from the Philadelphia Inquirer, as Shipley was himself that columns editor.
(6) I am indebted to Nancy Shipley Rhoads, granddaughter of Walter Penn
Shipley, for use of the family records to obtain this information. Shipleys extensive
association with chess is the subject of a full length work in progress by this author,
tentatively entitled Walter Penn Shipley: Philadelphias Friend of Chess.
2000 John S. Hilbert. All rights Reserved.
Alekhines Simultaneous Exhibition:
Sofia, Bulgaria April 1936
by Tomasz Lissowski
Champion Alexander Alekhines visit in April 1936 to Sofia was a memorable event for the many
Bulgarian chess amateurs who saw him. The maestro came to the capitol of Bulgaria with his wife,
Mrs. Grace Wishart, and her inseparable Siamese cat, the famous Chess. The couple, in the company
of some representatives of Sofia chess circles, toured the city. The main point of the great players
schedule, however, was a simultaneous chess exhibition, where Alekhine met a strong field that
included, to name only two, Tsvetkov and Kiprov, who later played in the 1939 Chess Olympiad in
Buenos Aires (Buenos Aires was the first appearance for the Bulgarian team in such an event; if we
ignore the non-FIDE Olympiad held in Munich 1936.)
The event, played on April 13, 1936, saw Alekhine facing forty opponents, two of them blindfold.
He won twenty-seven games, drew nine, and lost four. As so often happens with such displays, the
games preserved disproportionately include the single players draws and losses. In this case, of the
five games that have been found, Alekhine lost two and drew the other three. None of his victories
have so far been recovered.
Alekhine,A Tanielian,A Simul
A40/09 Irregular Queens Pawn: Owen
1936.04.13 BUL Sofia
1.e4 c6 2.d4 b6 3.c4 Bb7 4.Nc3 e6 5.d5 exd5 6.cxd5 Bb4 7.Bd3 cxd5 8.exd5 Bxc3+ 9.
bxc3 Bxd5 10.Nf3 Nf6 11.Ba3 Qc7 12.0-0 Nc6 13.Re1+ Be6 14.Ba6 Ne7 15.Bd6 Qc6
16.Bxe7 Kxe7 17.Nd4 Qc5 18.Qf3 Rhd8 19.Rab1 Kf8 20.h3 Qc7 21.a4 Bd5 22.Qd3
Re8 23.Nb5 Qc5 24.Qg3 Ne4 25.Qh4 g5 26.Qxh7 Qxf2+ 27.Kh2 Qg3+ 28.Kg1 Nf6 29.
Rxe8+ Rxe8 30.Qc2 Be4 0-1.
Alexander Alekhines Chess Games, 1902-1946, Skinner & Verhoeven 1998, p558
Alekhine,A Tsvetkov,A Simul
1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.Nxe4 Nd7 5.c3 Ngf6 6.Ng3 c5 7.Nf3 Be7 8.Be3 0-0 9.Bd3
Qc7 10.Qc2 b6 11.Ng5 h6 12.Nh7 Re8 13.Nxf6+ Nxf6 14.0-0 Bb7 15.dxc5 Qc6 16.f3
Nd5 17.Bf2 Bxc5 18.Rae1 Rad8 19.Ne4 Bxf2+ 20.Rxf2 Nf4 21.Bf1 Qd5 22.Rd2 Qxa2
23.Bb5 Rf8 24.Nd6 Bd5 25.Ne4 Qa5 26.Bf1 b5 27.g3 Qb6+ 28.Kh1 Ng6 29.Bg2 a5 30.
b3 Rc8 31.Qb2 Rc7 32.h4 Rfc8 33.h5 Ne7 34.Rd3 Nf5 35.Kh2 Rc6 36.f4 Qc7 37.Qd2
Bxe4 38.Bxe4 Rxc3 39.Rd7 Qb6 40.g4 Ne3 41.Rg1 Rc2 42.Bxc2 Rxc2 43.Qxc2 Nxc2
44.g5 Ne1 45.Rg3 hxg5 46.fxg5 Kf8 47.Rd2 Qc6 48.Rf2 Qe4 49.Kh3 Nd3 0-1.
Alekhine,A Kiprov,A Simul
D06/01 Queens Gambit: Marshall
1.d4 d5 2.c4 Nf6 3.cxd5 Nxd5 4.e4 Nf6 5.Nc3 e6 6.Nf3 c5 7.Bb5+ Nbd7 8.0-0 a6 9.Be2
Be7 10.d5 exd5 11.exd5 Nb6 12.Bg5 Nbxd5 13.Nxd5 Qxd5 14.Qxd5 Nxd5 15.Bxe7
Nxe7 16.Ne5 0-0 17.Bf3 Rb8 18.Rfe1 Be6 19.Nd3 Nf5 20.Nxc5 Nd4 21.Be4 Rfc8 22.
b4 Nc6 23.a3 Rc7 24.Rac1 Nd8 25.f4 Rbc8 26.Rcd1 g6 27.Rd6 Kf8 28.Rb6 a5 29.Kf2
axb4 30.axb4 Bd7 31.Bd5 Nc6 32.Rc1 Be8 33.Nxb7 Ne7 34.Rxc7 Rxc7 35.Be4 Nc8 36.
Ra6 Rc4 37.Bd5 Rxf4+ 38.Ke3 Rxb4 39.Nc5 Ne7 40.Bf3 Nf5+ 41.Kd2 Nh4 -.
Alekhine,A Voinov,N Simul
B83/02 Sicilian: Scheveningen
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 e6 5.Be2 d6 6.0-0 Nf6 7.Nc3 Be7 8.b3 a6 9.Bb2
Qc7 10.Kh1 Nxd4 11.Qxd4 b5 12.a4 e5 13.Qd3 b4 14.Nd5 Nxd5 15.exd5 f5 16.a5 Bf6
17.Qd2 0-0 18.Bc4 Qc5 19.c3 bxc3 20.Bxc3 Rb8 21.Qe2 Bd7 22.f4 e4 23.Bxf6 Rxf6 24.
Bxa6 Rxb3 25.Bc4 Rc3 26.a6 Rf8 27.Rfc1 Rxc1+ 28.Rxc1 Bb5 29.a7 Bxc4 30.Qxc4
Qxa7 31.h3 Qe3 32.Rf1 Qc5 33.Qxc5 dxc5 34.Rc1 Rc8 35.d6 c4 36.Kg1 Kf7 37.d7
Rd8 38.Rxc4 Rxd7 39.g4 Ke6 40.Rc5 fxg4 41.hxg4 Re7 42.Re5+ Kf6 43.Rf5+ Ke6 44.
Kf2 Kd6 45.Ke3 Kc6 46.Ra5 -.
Alekhine,A Radoslavov,A Simul
B14/11 Caro-Kann: Panov
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 cxd5 4.c4 Nf6 5.Nc3 e6 6.Nf3 Be7 7.Bd3 dxc4 8.Bxc4 a6 9.0-0
0-0 10.Re1 b5 11.Bd3 Bb7 12.Bf4 Bd6 13.Ne5 Nc6 14.Nxc6 Bxc6 15.Be5 Qe7 16.Qe2
Bxe5 17.dxe5 Nd5 18.Qe4 g6 19.Qg4 Nxc3 20.bxc3 Bd5 21.a4 Rac8 22.axb5 axb5 23.
Rac1 Bc4 24.Be4 Rc5 25.f4 Bd5 26.Qe2 Bxe4 27.Qxe4 Rc4 28.Qe3 Rfc8 29.h3 Qc5 30.
Rb1 Rxc3 31.Qxc5 R3xc5 32.Kf2 Rb8 33.Rb4 Rc4 34.Reb1 Rxb4 35.Rxb4 f6 36.Ke3
fxe5 37.fxe5 Kf7 38.Kd4 Rd8+ 39.Ke4 Rd5 40.Rb2 Ke7 41.h4 Kd8 42.g4 Kc7 43.h5
gxh5 44.gxh5 Kb6 45.Kf4 -.

As we see, the courteous Bulgarians did not want to tortureAlekhine, and here or there accepted
draws despite holding a material advantage.
The scores printed above are well known and perhaps by themselves are not worthy of detailed
recollection. Here, though, they are the essential background for publishing, for the very first time, a
collection of photographs that might well be entitled Alekhine in Sofia. The story about how the
collection came into existence is told by its owner, Polish journalist Stefan Rusiecki:
One of my ancestors, Stanislaw Rusiecki, emigrated from Poland in 1863 for
political reasons. Many refugees chose France for exile, some chose England, but he
escaped to Romania. Stanislaws grandson, Ryszard Rusiecki, whose mother was
Polish, was born in Bucharest in 1900. He was my grandfather. He finished his studies
in the Academy of Economics in Varna, and could speak fluent French, Russian and
German, besides Polish and Bulgarian. After graduation he worked as an employee of
a certain German companys representative office and later was nominated Commercial
Attach in the newly opened Polish Embassy in Sofia. In the 1930s my grandfather
was very keen on chess composition. He probably had earlier played some practical
chess, though he never mentioned it. Here are two of his best works, from a total of
130:
R. Rusiecki
Match Sofia - Province 1953
Mate in 2
1. Place

Key: 1. Na4
R. Rusiecki
SVTVS 1953
Mate in 3
4. Honorary mention

Key: 1. Nf7 (1...Rxf7 2.Qxb7+; 1...Be3 2.Qxc5)
In grandfathers old photo album rests more than ten photographs documenting
Alekhines visit to Sofia. One of them, the largest, was made in a professional studio,
and shows Alekhine surrounded no doubt by Bulgarian officials and players, my
grandfather among them. At the bottom appears Alekhines autograph and the date:
April 16, 1936.

A. Alekhine with Bulgarian chess players and officials; To his left, R. Rusiecki.

Alekhine, his wife, and their famous cat, Chess,arrive in Sofia.

Arrival in Sofia. Mrs. Wishart with her cat and flowers.
On her right hand, R. Rusiecki; in the middle, A. Alekhine.

From left to right: R. Rusiecki, A. Alekhine, Mrs. Wishart, NN.

Sightseeing in Sofia. From the left: R. Rusiecki, Mrs. Wishart, A. Alekhine, NN.

Sightseeing in Sofia. From the left: R. Rusiecki, A. Alekhine, Mrs Wishart, NN.

Simultaneous exhibition in Sofia - the beginning of the display.

Simultaneous exhibition in Sofia - Alekhine in the middle.

Simultaneous exhibition in Sofia - Alekhine in the middle.

Simultaneous exhibition in Sofia - the last games.
As can be seen, my grandfather guided Alekhine and his wife in touring the city. His
skill with languages obviously proved useful in this instance.
Ryszard Rusieckis mission in Sofia ended in 1953. Both before the second World War as well as
after he edited various chess columns in Bulgarian newspapers and magazines: Niva (1929-1931),
Kamboma (1934-1935), Dnes (1935-1936) and Rebus (1947-1948). He died on December 25, 1986, in
Warsaw. The photographs collected by this businessman, diplomat and chess composer, form a
worthy addition to the story of the fourth world chess champion.
The New York State Chess Associations
Mid-Summer Meeting at
Saratoga Springs 1899
by John S. Hilbert
The New York State Chess Association (NYSCA) had, even before time took its
sharp turn into the Twentieth Century, an established history of holding what it
referred to as mid-summerassociation meetings. The term mid-summeris set off by
quotation marks to emphasize that, by 1899 at least, the meetings were held at the end
of August and beginning of September, and hence could hardly, even under the most
charitable calendar reading, be considered near the middle of summer. Such events
were frequently, if not invariably, held outside of New York City, and often were
held at summer resorts such as the meetings at Thousand Islands 1897 and Lake
Keuka 1898. In 1901, for another example, the associations mid-summer meeting
was held in Buffalo, New York, then the scene of the 1901 Pan-American
Exposition. Seven years earlier, play had also been held in the Queen City, and in
later years other upstate locations, including Rochester, would be the summer
playgrounds of the NYSCA.
The events held in the late 1890s, however, are unusual for another reason. Rather
than remaining purely the province of New York players, players from other state
associations, notably Pennsylvania, but also Massachusetts, were actively lobbied to
attend the NYSCAs mid-summer sessions. Indeed, a lively interstate rivalry
developed between the players of New York and those of Pennsylvania.
The genesis of interstate rivalry involving New York and Pennsylvania is
explained in large measure by the fact that, at one time, the group was originally the
New York and Pennsylvania State Chess Association. Only later did this group
merge in the NYSCA. And according to Gustavus Reichhelm, then chess editor for
the Philadelphia Times and author of Chess in Philadelphia (1898), the original
members,including all the Pennsylvania players, retained their right of membership.
Thus players such as Kemeny, Shipley, Bampton, Voigt and others, though residents
of Pennsylvania, were permitted entry into NYSCA events.
And the Philadelphians often participated successfully. In September 1886, for
example, a small, double round tournament sponsored by the combined state
association in Cooperstown was won by Shipley. At Skaneateles in August 1892,
Shipley and Voigt tied for top honors, with Voigt entering the handicap event to
determine the overall winner of the Association when Shipley had to return to his
home in Germantown. At Buffalo 1894, Shipley again won the Association title,
though the meeting is much better remembered for the Mastersevent, where
Showalter managed to out point Pillsbury, Albin, and Buffalos own representative,
George C. Farnsworth. S. W. Bampton emerged the winner as Skaneateles 1895, and
repeated his achievement the next year at Ontario Beach, with Shipley trailing him by
a mere half point.
An innovation occurring in 1897 would have significant consequences for the
NYSCA during the remaining years of the century. Walter Penn Shipley wrote the
Board of Managers of the NYSCA that spring, suggesting that instead of a purely
individual event, the 1897 meeting, held at the Murray Hill Hotel in Thousand Islands
from August 2-7, 1897, be a modified team event. The seven players selected from
each state organization would, in the course of seven rounds, meet all seven of the
other teams players. Individual prizes would be given for the best scores made, while
the aggregate score of each state would serve to determine who won the interstate
match.
Shipleys idea was taken up and Thousand Islands
saw what was undoubtedly the strongest of the
interstate meetings, notably because of the presence
of United States Champion and internationalist
Harry Nelson Pillsbury as well as former champion*
Albert B. Hodges in the ranks of the New York
players. While Pillsbury and Hodges between them
amassed a notable 12-1 score, with Pillsbury
giving up only a draw to Shipley and Hodges tasting
defeat but once, against Charles John Newman, the
New York team managed to win the team event by
the much smaller margin of 25-23.
A. B. Hodges
Certainly Shipley deserved his draw against Pillsbury, then one of the finest
players in the world. According to the Philadelphia Public Ledger for August 28,
1897, where the game appeared in Emil Kemenys column, it was noted that Mr.
Shipley was the only one on the Pennsylvania team who succeeded in holding his
own against Pillsbury. The game was a splendidly contested one. Pillsbury, to some
extent, gained the upper hand, and for a number of moves it looked as though he
would win. Mr. Shipley, however, defended skillfully, and when forty-six moves
were made a draw was offered and accepted. The game abounded in interesting
complications, and the play was a very creditable one to both parties. Additional
notes from Reichhelms Chess in Philadelphia are separately identified in the game
below.
Shipley,WP (Pennsylvania) Pillsbury (New York) Round 1
C45/05 Scotch: Schmidt
1897.08.03 USA Thousand Islands, NY (Interstate Team Match)
Annotations by Emil Kemeny & Gustavus Reichhelm
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nxc6 bxc6 6.Bd3 d5
Kemeny: Better than 6...d6, which gives Black a rather slow development.
7.Qe2 Be7 8.exd5 cxd5 9.Bb5+
Reichhelm: Playing conservatively against so powerful an adversary.
9...Bd7 10.Bxd7+ Qxd7 11.0-0 0-0 12.Nd2 Rfe8 13.Nf3 Bd6 14.Qd3
Rab8 15.b3 c5 16.Bg5 Ne4
17.Rfe1
Kemeny: White could not play 17.Qxd5 on account of 17...Bxh2+ and 18...Qxd5.
The text move is a pretty strong one, yet 17.Rad1 attacking the d-pawn was a more
aggressive one. Black had hardly any better reply than ...d4, and White might have
obtained the superior position by continuing 18.Rfe1 and eventually c3. White
having selected the more conservative 17.Rfe1 play his opponent has time to
answer ...Qc6 and ...c4 with a good game.
17...Qc6 18.c3 c4
Reichhelm: Characteristically making a push for a win, but Mr. Shipley meets it
with great accuracy.
19.bxc4 dxc4 20.Qc2 Nc5 21.Rxe8+ Rxe8 22.Re1 Rxe1+ 23.Nxe1 Qe4
Kemeny: Well played. White cannot exchange queens, for he would be unable to
guard the c-pawn.
24.Be3 f5 25.Qd2 Qe6 26.Bxc5 Bxc5 27.Nf3 h6 28.Kf1 Qe4 29.Ne1 Be7
30.Qe2 Bf6 31.Qxe4
Reichhelm: Foreseeing that he can regain the pawn lost by this.
31...fxe4 32.Nc2 Bxc3 33.Na3 Kf7
Kemeny: As a rule, a knight is of more value in the endgame than a bishop. In the
present position White should have the advantage mainly on account of Blacks
weak e-pawn. Yet Black, having his king in commanding position, can pursue
aggressive tactics, and it requires skill and accuracy on Whites part to avoid defeat.
34.Nxc4 Ke6 35.Ne3 Kd6 36.Ke2 Kc5 37.Kd1 Kb4 38.Kc2 Bd4 39.Nd1
g5 40.Ne3 h5 41.h3 a5 42.Nd1 g4 43.hxg4 hxg4
44.g3
Kemeny: An important move, which enables White to maintain the Ne3 play. Had
he move 44.Ne3 at once Blacks answer would have been ...g3, with a winning
game.
44...a4 45.Ne3 Bxe3 46.fxe3
Reichhelm: If Black now moves 46...Kc4, White responds 47.Kd2, and keeps the
black king out.
-.
Chess in Philadelphia, Philadelphia 1898, p115
In addition to the interstate match up, Thousand Islands 1897 featured competition
for the Staats Zeitung Chess Cup, an event then in its seventh year. The cup itself had
been donated by the New Yorker Staats Zeitung, a German language newspaper based
in New York City. Only three players competed for the cup at Thousand Islands,
each representing their home chess club, but the three were certainly among the
strongest players in the United States: ex-world champion William Steinitz
represented the Staten Island Chess Club, while S. Lipschtz, from the Manhattan
Chess Club, and the sixteen year old phenomenon, William Ewart Napier, from the
Brooklyn Chess Club, made up the field. A wonderful photograph of the three of
them, with Steinitz and Lipschtz playing a game and Napier sitting by the board,
with among others the Philadelphians Shipley and D. Stuart Robinson looking on,
graces the pages of the August 1897 issue of the American Chess Magazine.
The interstate aspect of the 1897 mid-summer meeting was so popular that the
following year, at Lake Keuka, New York, the NYSCA repeated its experiment. The
Associations mid-summer meeting at Lake Keuka was held August 8-13, 1898, and
though neither Pillsbury nor Hodges, nor even Shipley, attended that gathering, strong
and entertaining play took place nevertheless. A young Frank J. Marshall
participated, but found himself largely outclassed, losing to five of the seven
Pennsylvania players, and indeed the New York squad as a whole was severely
manhandled, losing the team event by a lopsided 30-19.
While Pillsbury didnt play, he did annotate the following game for the pages of the
September 1898 American Chess Magazine.
Kemeny,E (Pennsylvania) Delmar,E (New York) Round 6
C41/10 Philidor: Jaenisch (Hanham)
1898.08 USA Lake Keuka, NY (Interstate Team Match)
Annotations by Harry N. Pillsbury
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 Nf6 4.Nc3
The attack by 4.dxe5 Nxe4 5.Qd5 would be premature, for after 5...Nc5 Black
threatens to gain important time for development by either 6...c6 or 6...Be6,
followed by 7...d5. Any attempt by White to force matters by 6.Ng5 would fail: 6...
Qe7 7.Bc4 f6!! 8.Qf7+ Qxf7 9.Nxf7 b5, Black eventually remaining with two
pieces for rook.
4...Nbd7 5.Be3 Be7 6.Bd3
6.Bc4 followed by Qd3 and a4 seems a more aggressive development. Black could
hardly continue 6.Bc4 Nxe4 7.Bxf7+ Kxf7 8.Nxe4 etc., as White obtains the first
attack in the center.
6...c6 7.Ne2 Qc7 8.c3 d5 9.Qc2 dxe4 10.Bxe4 Nxe4
Blacks eighth move fully equalized matters, but here he goes wrong. Simply 10...0-
0 reserving the capture of the bishop, gave a good game.
11.Qxe4 0-0
It was far preferable to continue 11...exd4 12.Bxd4 (12.Bf4 Qd8 13.Bd6 Nf6 etc.)
12...f6 13.Nf4 Nb6 retaining equal forces, although White still has the better game.
12.dxe5 b6 13.Ned4 Bb7 14.Nf5 Rae8 15.0-0-0 Bf6 16.Rxd7 Qxd7 17.
Qg4 Qe6 18.exf6 g6 19.Nh6+ Kh8
20.Qxe6
White could also win by 20.Ng5 Qxf6 21.Qd7 etc., or by 20...Qxg4 21.Ngxf7+
Rxf7 22.Nxf7+ Kg8 23.Nh6+ etc. But it was simply a question of methods, as
either way wins easily.
20...Rxe6 21.Ng5 c5 22.Nxe6 fxe6 23.Rd1 1-0.
American Chess Magazine, 1898.09
Of course, such a drubbing at Lake Keuka demanded revenge, and so in late
August 1899 the New York team was looking to take the measure of their colleagues
from further south. One additional feature for the 1899 event, however, was the
attempt to include a team from Massachusetts, thereby making the competition a
three-way quest for victory.
Indeed, as late as July 1899 the proposed three way match involving New York,
Pennsylvania, and now Massachusetts was being touted in the pages of the American
Chess Magazine. Gustavus Reichhelm introduced a chart in the same issue of the
magazine allowing for what he called adequate and evenly balancedcompetition
among three, seven man teams through the play of seven full and two supplementary
rounds.
But Saratoga Springs 1899 was much more than merely an interstate chess team
match. In addition to the ninth annual Staats-Zeitung Chess Cup competition, there
were to be a series of class tournaments as well. And chess was hardly the only
feature used to attract additional members of the NYSCA to take a summer holiday at
Saratoga Springs. A circular issued by the Board of Managers of the NYSCA noted
that the twelfth midsummer meeting and the thirty-first tournament will be held
during the week commencing August 28 at the United States Hotel, Saratoga Springs,
New York. The beauty of Saratoga Springs, the many attractions for the members
who may not enter the tournaments, and the United States Hotel, one of the greatest
hotels in this country, all promise well for the meeting of 1899.
Attractions were emphasized not only for tournament players, but for spouses and
others just interested in getting away. Mention was made of the hundreds of mineral
springs, the beautiful cottages, the park and the drive to the lakeare all in themselves
sufficient to repay all who attend the meeting. Hotel rates were three dollars a day,
reduced from the usual five, and easy transportation could be arranged by way of the
Delaware and Hudson Railroad, which serviced Saratoga Springs by way of the state
capital, Albany. Special rates were also offered for those arriving by train.
A special call was sent out to chess clubs for representatives for the Staats- Zeitung
Chess Cup. The rules under which the cup was donated specified that the first club to
win it five times would retain possession of it permanently. The Manhattan Chess
Club had successfully won it on four occasions, in 1891, 1894, 1896 and 1898, and
thus would take the cup for good unless someone stepped forward to prevent that
happening. No other club had won the cup more than once. Competition in the class
tournaments would see, among other things, the determination of the winner of the
Farnsworth Cup in the First Class event. The Farnsworth Cup had been given two
years earlier by the widow of George Farnsworth, the latter having competed at
Buffalo 1894 and who had died prematurely of a heart condition in 1896.
Farnsworth, the American Chess Magazine reported in its August number that year,
was one of the most active and earnest supportersthe NYSCA ever had.
The Board of Mangers hoped at least seven or more club representatives would
play in the ninth Staats-Zeitung Chess Cup contest. The year before, at Lake Keuka,
only two players, the young Marshall and the veteran Lipschtz, had appeared, and a
crushing, 3-0 victory by the latter had given the Manhattan Club its fourth leg of the
five needed to retain the ornate, English made silver cup, shaped like a chess rook.
The August issue of the American Chess Magazine also remarked that Aristidez
Martinez, then President of the Manhattan Chess Club, has offered a sterling silver
smoking set for the best game played in the interstate team match, New York
Pennsylvania - Massachusetts. It is composed of a tray, cigar-holder, ash receiver and
match safe in the finest patterns and valued at eighty dollars. To whom the smoking
set should be awarded would become the subject of some conflict and a great deal of
paper and ink in the weeks ahead.
On Monday, August 28, 1899, at ten in the morning, competition for the Staats-
Zeitung Cup commenced. The Board of Managers, however, were no doubt seriously
disappointed by the turn out. They had hoped for representatives from at least the
Manhattan, Brooklyn, Albany, Rochester, Staten Island, New York City and Buffalo
chess clubs, in order to reduce the chances of the Cup being permanently taken out of
competition. What they in fact witnessed was an exact repetition of the year before at
Lake Keuka. Only two players entered the lists, Lipschtz once more representing
the Manhattan Chess Club, and Frank Marshall once again representing the Brooklyn
Chess Club.
It was decided that the player to win a five game match would take the cup home to
his club, but like the year before, only three games were required to decide who
would possess the Staats-Zeitung Cup. There had, though, been some hope Marshall
would in this, his second chance, make a better showing against the much more
experienced Lipschtz. Emil Kemeny, for example, writing on August 29, 1899, in
his column in the Philadelphia Public Ledger, had said that while it was true the older
man had beaten Marshall decisively the year before, Marshall since has established
quite a reputation for himself by winning first prize in the London Minor Tourney,
and the Brooklyn Chess Club hoped that he would square accounts with Lipschtz.
The Brooklynites, however, were to be seriously disappointed.
The American Chess Magazine for September 1899 provided all three games with
significant annotations, though from the color sequence and other sources, notably the
New York Sun for September 10, 1899, which also ran the scores of the three games,
the American Chess Magazine had mistakenly switched games one and two. But
regardless of the precise ordering of the first two games, Lipschtz jumped out to an
early lead over his opponent.
Lipschtz,S (Manhattan) Marshall,FJ (Brooklyn) Game 1
C29/03 Vienna Gambit
1899.08.28 USA Saratoga Springs, NY (Staats-Zeitung Cup Tournament)
Annotations from the American Chess Magazine
1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.f4 d5 4.fxe5 Nxe4 5.Nf3 Bg4 6.Be2
So far a generally accepted version.
6...Bc5
To draw on the d-pawn and get it within reach of the c-pawn. White might
otherwise play d3 and effectively dislodge the knight from e4.
7.d4 Bb4 8.Bd2 c5 9.0-0 Nc6 10.a3 Ba5
10...Bxc3, followed by ...c4, would not improve his position to any extent,
although apparently causing a block. As will be seen, Black later on regains the
pawn he now relinquishes.
11.dxc5 0-0 12.Nxe4 dxe4 13.Bxa5 Qxa5 14.b4 Qc7 15.Ng5 Bxe2 16.
Qxe2 Qxe5 17.Qe3
17.Nxe4 would cost him a piece, as Black then plays ...Rae8, ...Qd4+, and ...f5 in
due order.
17...Rae8 18.Rae1 Nd4
Guarding against the check at b3 in reply to the contemplated ...f5.
19.Rf2 h6
20.Nh3
Fearing the complications attending the capture of the e-pawn, White retreats
circumspectly. In this he was wise, as the following interesting variations show: 20.
Nxe4 f5 21.Rd2 (21.Rd1 Ne6 also leaves Whites knight open to capture.) 21...Nc6
22.Qb3+ Kh8 and the knight cannot be saved.
20...Nf5 21.Qf4 e3
He is forced to advance the pawn or else lose it at once. Advanced thus far its
chances for longevity are very slim, however.
22.Rfe2
He could also play 22.Qxe5 exf2+ 23.Kxf2 Rxe5 24.Rxe5 the rook getting to the
seventh a move or two later. But, instead of 22...exf2+, Black could retake the
queen at once and gain time for the defense of the e-pawn. Moreover, the text
move of White enables him more quickly to compass the downfall of the disputed
pawn.
22...Qxf4 23.Nxf4 Re4 24.Nd5 Rfe8 25.Nc3 R4e6 26.Nb5 R8e7 27.c3
Nh4 28.Nd4 Re4 29.g3
Forcing his hand and Black must either move the knight or resort to the move in
the text. It is doubtful whether the latter is the wiser course, inasmuch as Whites
pawns are undoubled and strengthened in the process. Black retains his e-pawn,
but he, nevertheless, finds himself a good way behind in the race.
29...Rxd4 30.cxd4 Nf3+ 31.Kf1 Nxe1 32.Rxe1 Re4 33.d5 Kf8 34.Ke2
Re5 35.Rd1
Better than advancing the pawn, the Black king being held longer in check.
35...Ke8 36.c6 bxc6 37.dxc6 Re7 38.b5 f5 39.a4 g5 40.a5 Rc7
41.Rd6
Evidently he does not propose to take any chances and is making assurance doubly
sure. He could also play 41.Kxe3 and if 41...a6 42.b6 Rxc6 43.b7 f4+ 44.gxf4 gxf4
+ 45.Ke4 and Whites b-pawn cannot be stopped.
41...f4 42.Rxh6 Rf7 43.gxf4 gxf4 44.Kf3
Again, he could advance the pawn to b6, but there is no reason why, with the game
in hand, he should not adopt the more conservative course. The rest now becomes
plain sailing, the victory being in every respect well earned.
44...Kd8 45.b6 axb6 46.axb6 Rf8 47.Rh7 Kc8 48.Ra7 Kd8 49.Ra8+
Ke7 50.Rxf8 1-0.
New York Sun, 1899.09.10
After being outplayed in a rook and pawn endgame, Marshall turned to the Scotch
Gambit to try and reverse his fortunes. The result, however, was hardly the one he
was hoping for.
Marshall,FJ (Brooklyn) Lipschtz,S (Manhattan) Game 2
C44/05 Scotch: Gambit (Haxo)
1899.08 USA Saratoga Springs, NY (Staats-Zeitung Cup Tournament)
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.d4 exd4 5.0-0 d6
5...Nf6 would lead to the Max Lange Attack proper, White continuing with 6.e5.
Its adoption by Black, however, entails exposure to a somewhat harassing attack.
In view of the fact that there are still new variations cropping up from time to time
it is safer to avoid it in important games.
6.c3 dxc3 7.Qb3 Qd7
Best, for if he plays 7...Qe7 White continues with 8.Nxc3 Nf6 9.Bg5 and if then
9...0-0 10.Nd5 Qd8 11.Nxf6+ gxf6 12.Bh6 and he cannot save the exchange.
8.Qxc3 f6
8...Nf6, instead of the text move, was not bad at this stage, but Black disliked the
prospect of Bg5 on the part of White in reply. In that case, however, he could have
continued with ...Qe7, since there was no knight handy to enter at d5.
9.a3
Marshall is of the opinion that this and the next move lost him much valuable
time. 9.h3 followed by Nh4 would have given him quite a strong game.
9...Nge7 10.b4 Bb6 11.Be3 Ng6 12.Nbd2 Nd8 13.Bxb6
13.Nd4 at once was to be preferred.
13...axb6 14.Nd4 Ne5 15.Bb3 Nef7 16.f4 0-0
It has required considerable maneuvering to enable Black finally to castle, but now
to all appearances, the king is safely housed.
17.Rf3
The deployment of the rook meets with no success and merely causes White to lose
ground. The piece would have been better posted at c1. 17.Nf5 would likewise be
much to the point.
17...Qe7 18.Rg3
Even now Nf5 is excellent because if Black counters with ...Bxf5, White will get
the open e-file and sooner or later, entrench a piece at e6 with telling effect.
18...Kh8 19.Bc2
19.f5 is necessary here to hold the position, though the move has theoretically an
uninviting look.
19...Nh6 20.Qd3
20 c5
Very appreciably opening up his position, which so far had been not a little
cramped. From now on he gains at every step.
21.Nb5 cxb4 22.Nxd6 Be6 23.e5 Bg8
The king is now cornered, but quite inaccessible and his retreat is pretty thoroughly
covered.
24.N2c4 fxe5 25.Re3
25.fxe5 at once was better, though Black in any event retains his hold on the game.
25...Nc6 26.fxe5 bxa3 27.Rxa3 Rxa3 28.Qxa3 b5 29.Nd2 Nxe5 30.Nxb5
Qf6 31.Nf3
Fatal, of course, but he had no alternative, Black threatening the destructive check
at f2.
31...Nc4
The surest method of winning quickly. If 31...Nxf3+ 32.Rxf3 Qb6+ 33.Qe3 Qxe3+
34.Rxe3 Bc4 35.Bd3 and he still has a fighting chance for his life.
32.Qe7 Nxe3 33.Qxe3 Ng4 34.Qd4 Qxd4+ 35.Nfxd4 Bc4 36.Bf5
There is no good move now left to him. 36.g3 is met by 36...Rf1+ 37.Kg2 Rf2+ 38.
Kh3 h5 threatening both the mate and the win of the piece by ...Bxb5 and ...Rxc2.
36...Bxb5 37.Nxb5 Rxf5 38.Nc3 b5 39.h3 Ne3 0-1.
With a commanding 2-0 lead, Lipschtz could have easily coasted into victory for
the Staats-Zeitung Cup by drawing the third game, but the Manhattan Club players
juggernaut was not about to be stopped by Marshalls play, which many considered
radically below the form he had shown earlier in the year when he won the Minor
tournament at London 1899 with a score of 8-2 over a field that included the likes
of Mieses and Marco. But whatever his form, Marshall stood no real chance against
Lipschtz, who at Saratoga would give up only one draw among his many games.
Lipschtz,S (Manhattan) Marshall,FJ (Brooklyn) Game 3
D00/04 Queens Pawn: Stonewall (Showalter)
1899.08 USA Saratoga Springs, NY (Staats-Zeitung Cup Tournament)
1.d4 d5 2.e3 e6 3.Bd3 Bd6 4.f4 f5 5.Qh5+
This following the leadergame might be kept up indefinitely in this opening
without serious injury to either party, but White concludes to try another tack. His
purpose in checking is to post his queen on the kingside, handy in case opportunity
for an onslaught offers itself.
5...g6 6.Qh3 c5 7.c3 Nc6 8.Nf3 cxd4 9.exd4 Qc7
Threatening both ...Bxf4 and ...Nb4.
10.Ne5
At once defensive and offensive. White in turn threatens Nxg6.
10...Bxe5 11.dxe5
Forced; otherwise Black wins the d-pawn with knight.
11...Qb6 12.Na3 Bd7 13.Qe3
13.Nb5 would be met by ...Nxe5, etc. White, when this game was played, had the
advantage of being able to play for a draw, hence he is not backward about offering
an exchange of queens. In fact, he practically forces it here.
13...Qxe3+
He cannot afford to retreat, because White would in that case force an entrance
with his knight at d6.
14.Bxe3 a6 15.0-0 Rc8 16.Rad1 Nge7 17.Be2
Preventing Black castling for the time being, at least. Should Black castle next
move, White continues with Nc4, and either reaches d6 or wins a pawn.
17...Na5 18.Rd2 b5
White might have hindered this advance by posting his bishop at b6. The
subsequent play works out, however, to his advantage.
19.Rfd1 Nc4 20.Nxc4 bxc4 21.Rc1
Having a theoretical advantage in the possession of two bishops, he proceeds to
create avenues to develop fully their usefulness.
21...a5 22.b3 Bb5
Evidently to induce the advance of the a-pawn, but he later errs in capturing this
same pawn at an inopportune moment.
23.a4 Bd7
Had he retired the bishop to a6 the following variation might have occurred: 23...
Ba6 24.b4 axb4 25.cxb4 c3 26.Bxa6 cxd2 27.Rxc8+ Nxc8 28.Bxd2 and an
interesting struggle to obtain the upper hand on the queenside would ensue, in
which White at least could do no worse than draw.
24.bxc4 Bxa4
Decidedly not as good as 24...dxc4, which would have left him with a fairly
playable game. In that case Whites best course would be to occupy d6 with rook.
25.Bb6 dxc4
26.Bxc4
Pretty play. Black, of course, cannot retake bishop on account of Rd8+ winning
the kings rook.
26...Kf7 27.Ba2 Bb5
White threatened Rd6, hence Black must let the a-pawn go.
28.Bxa5 Bc4 29.Bxc4 Rxc4 30.Rd7 Rhc8
Poor; 30...Rb8 was the proper move and would have somewhat retarded White,
though not seriously, as the doubling of the rooks, followed by Bb4, would leave
the position still in Whites hands.
31.Rb1
The beginning of the end, Black being utterly unable to ward off the impending
blow.
31...Ke8 32.Rbb7 Ng8 33.Rg7 Kf8 34.Bb4+ Rxb4 35.cxb4 Nh6 36.h3
Ng8 37.Rbf7+ 1-0.
And so after three games, and a 3-0 shellacking of the Brooklyn representative, the
Manhattan Chess Club took permanent possession of the Staats-Zeitung Chess Cup,
winning it for the fifth time in the nine years the cup was in competition. Both
Lipschtz and Marshall played in the interstate match as well, though there is no
suggestion their dual play in both the Cup and interstate matches compromised eithers
form.
The interstate match, so grandly announced beforehand to be a three way
competition, also found itself somewhat less than hoped for, in that the Massachusetts
players did not materialize. According to the American Chess Magazine, the
withdrawal of the Massachusetts contingent was a source of sincere regret and
undoubtedly militated in some degree against the success of the meet, but not
seriously so, thanks be to the gods. For indeed the competition between New York
and Pennsylvania in truth more than made up for the absence of the third state
contingent.
First Round, Tuesday, August 29
New York Penn.
Karpinski 0-1 Kemeny
Weeks 0-1 Robinson
Hanham 0-1 Young
Roething 1-0 Voigt
Marshall 0-1 Bampton
Halpern - Shipley
Lipschtz 1-0 McCutcheon
Total NY 2 PA 4
W. P. Shipley
Play during the interstate meet was arranged so that
the players are scheduled for games during the morning
and evening hours, the afternoons being given to
recreation. This schedule was considered neither taxing
nor irksome. But after the conclusion of the first round,
no doubt the New York contingent felt they might be in
for another drubbing like they had received the year
before at Lake Keuka. Three games have been
recovered from the first round. The first, the draw
between Halpern and Shipley, appeared in the Brooklyn
Daily Eagle for August 31, 1899.
Halpern,JC (New York) Shipley,WP (Pennsylvania) Round 1
C42/28 Petrov: Classical
1899.08.29 USA Saratoga Springs, NY (Interstate Team Match)
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 d6 4.Nf3 Nxe4 5.d4 d5 6.Bd3 Be7 7.0-0 Nc6 8.
c3 Bg4 9.Bf4 0-0 10.Nbd2 f5 11.Qc2 Bd6 12.Bxd6 Qxd6 13.Ne1 Qf4 14.
Nb3 Bh5 15.f3 Nd6 16.Qf2 Rae8 17.Nc2 Bf7 18.Nc5 Be6 19.Ne3 Qh6
20.Nxe6 Qxe6 21.Rfe1 f4 22.Ng4 Qf7 23.Qh4 h6 24.Qh3 Rxe1+ 25.
Rxe1 Re8 26.Ne5 Nxe5 27.dxe5 Qe6 28.Qh5 Re7 29.Re2 Nf7 30.g3
fxg3
31.f4 gxh2+ 32.Kxh2 Nh8 33.f5 Qf7 34.Qg4 Kf8 35.Kg1 c5 36.f6 gxf6
37.Qc8+ Qe8 38.Qxc5 Qc6 39.Qf2 Qb6 40.Qxb6 axb6 41.exf6 Rxe2 42.
Bxe2 Kf7 43.Bf3 Ke6 44.Kf2 Nf7 45.Ke3 Ne5 46.Bg2 Ng4+ 47.Kd4
Nxf6 48.c4 -.
Brooklyn Daily Eagle, 1899.08.31
The Brooklyn Daily Eagle, not surprisingly, also published Lipschtzs win over
McCutcheon in the same, August 31, 1899, column.
Lipschtz,S (New York) McCutcheon,JL
(Pennsylvania)
Round 1
C12/01 French: McCutcheon
1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 Bb4 5.exd5 Qxd5 6.Nf3 Ne4 7.Bd2
Bxc3 8.bxc3 Nxd2 9.Qxd2 c5 10.Be2 cxd4 11.cxd4 Nc6 12.0-0 0-0 13.c3
Bd7 14.Rab1 Na5 15.Ne5 Bc6 16.Bf3 Qd6 17.Nxc6 bxc6 18.Qe2 Rab8
19.Qa6 Rxb1 20.Rxb1 Rb8 21.Ra1 Qc7 22.g3 Rb5 23.a4 Rg5
24.h4 Rxg3+ 25.fxg3 Qxg3+ 26.Bg2 Qe3+ 27.Kh1 g6 28.Rb1 Qxc3 29.
Qxa7 Nc4 30.Rf1 f5 31.Rb1 Nb2 32.Qb8+ Kg7 33.Qxb2 1-0.
A third game from this round was published in the Philadelphia Public Ledger for
September 20, 1899. Like all the games from the Ledger, this one was annotated by
Emil Kemeny, who not only could appreciate the quality of play he saw, but was
himself deeply involved in the interstate match. The introduction in the Ledger stated
that the game between Bampton and Marshall in the Interstate contest, held at
Saratoga, was won by the former. Marshall adopted the Max Lange Attack. On his
sixteenth turn he failed to select the strongest move, and Bampton quickly took
advantage. The continuation was very lively, and the Philadelphian soon obtained the
attack, which he pursued vigorously, bringing about a win in the shortest possible
order.
Marshall.FJ (New York) Bampton,SW (Pennsylvania) Round 1
C55/05 Two Knights: Lange (Marshall)
Annotations by Emil Kemeny
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.d4 exd4
Safer is 4...Bxd4. White then continues 5.Nxd4, 6.0-0, and 7.f4, with some attack.
The play selected leads to a lively variation, in which White used to win a piece for
three pawnsa result quite satisfactory to Black. Of late, however, a stronger
continuation has been found for White, which seems to win.
5.0-0 Nf6 6.e5 d5 7.exf6 dxc4 8.Re1+ Be6 9.Ng5 Qd5
The only move he has. 9...Qxf6 would have lost a piece, since Nxe6, followed by
Qh5+ and Qxc5 was threatening.
10.Nc3 Qf5 11.Nce4 Bb6 12.fxg7 Rg8 13.g4 Qg6 14.Nxe6 fxe6 15.Bg5
A powerful move, which prevents Black from castling. The play was successfully
adopted by Chigorin against Teichmann in the first round of the London tourney.
15...Rxg7 16.Nf6+
Premature play, which gives Black a winning game. The correct play was Qf3,
White then threatens Nf6+ and eventually Rxe6.
16...Kf7 17.Bh4
It is quite noteworthy that Qf3 could not be played now. Black answers ...Qxg5,
and if White continues Ne4+ or Nh7+, then Black moves ...Qf5. Black thus would
win a piece.
17...Qh6 18.Qe2 e5 19.Qxc4+ Kf8 20.Qe6
White loses a piece, but there was no way of saving it. The bishop could not be
guarded, and, if White retreats the bishop, his knight will be unguarded. The play
selected is the best, for White gets the exchange.
20...Qxh4 21.Nd7+ Rxd7 22.Qxd7
22 d3
Well played. This aggressive move opens the diagonals for the bishop, enables
Black to bring his knight into action and forces White to the defense.
23.Kh1 Rd8 24.Qf5+ Kg7 25.Rad1 Rf8 26.Qxd3 Rxf2 27.h3 Nd4 28.
Rf1 e4
Much better than ...Nf3, which would have been answered by Qd7+, giving White
a winning game.
29.Qe3 Rxf1+ 30.Rxf1
30 Ne2
The decisive move, which completely demolishes the White position. The queen is
attacked and White must guard against Qxh3 mate. If White moves Qb3 or Qa3,
then ...Ng3+ wins the rook.
0-1.
Second Round, Tuesday, August 29
Penn. New York
Kemeny 0-1 Lipschtz
Robinson - Karpinski
Young 0-1 Weeks
Voigt - Hanham
Bampton 1-0 Roething
Shipley - Marshall
McCutcheon 0-1 Halpern
Total PA 2 NY 4
The evening session proved as much a disaster for the Pennsylvania players as the
morning one had for the New Yorkers. Lipschtz defeated Kemeny, perhaps his
strongest competitor, to increase his interstate score to 2-0. By defeating Roething,
Bampton, on the Pennsylvania side, matched Lipschtz by maintaining a perfect
record, but his victory was the only one his team could boast of that night. And
Marshall finally scored a half point, drawing with Pennsylvania team captain Walter
Penn Shipley. The tired combatants went to bed with the overall score deadlocked at
7-7.
One game has survived from this round, and not
surprisingly, it involved perhaps the two strongest
players at the event. Kemeny himself annotated his loss
for his readership in his September 15, 1899,
Philadelphia Public Ledger column. The Ledger
introduced that contest, noting that the game between
Lipschtz and Kemeny in the recent interstate contest
held at Saratoga was a Ruy Lopez, resulting in victory
for the former. The game was strongly contested, and
resulted in a pretty even ending. From the fortieth
move to the fifty-second Kemeny had many
opportunities to draw the game, but he partly avoided
and partly missed them. Lipschtz thus won a pawn
and the game. Lipschtz played the ending flawlessly. S. Lipschtz
Lipschtz,S (New York) Kemeny,E (Pennsylvania) Round 2
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nf6 4.0-0 Nxe4 5.d4 Be7 6.Qe2 Nd6 7.Bxc6
bxc6 8.dxe5 Nb7 9.Nc3 0-0 10.Bf4
10.Re1 is considered stronger. The text move is answered by ...Nc5, Black
threatening ...Ba6. The White bishop will subsequently be attacked by ...Ne6.
10...Nc5 11.Rfe1 Ne6 12.Qd2 Rb8 13.Rab1 f6 14.exf6 Bxf6 15.Be3 a6
16.Nd4 Nxd4 17.Bxd4 d5
18.Ba7
18.Na4 might have been played, followed eventually by b4, weakening the Black c-
pawns. Black, however, had the open b-file, and by playing ...a5, followed
eventually by ...Ba6 or ...Rb5, he might have relived his position. The play
adopted is hardly inferior to Na4.
18...Ra8 19.Bc5 Re8 20.Rxe8+ Qxe8 21.Re1 Qf7 22.Ne2 Bd7
22...Bxb2 could not be played on account of 23.c3 winning a piece.
23.Nd4 Re8 24.Rxe8+ Qxe8 25.Qe3 Qxe3 26.fxe3 Kf7 27.c3 g5 28.Nc2
h5 29.g3
Better perhaps was 29.h3. The move selected gives Black an opportunity to
establish some attack on the kingside.
29...Be5 30.Bd4 Bd6 31.Kf2 h4 32.b4 Kg6 33.Ne1 h3 34.Nf3 Kf5 35.
Nd2
35.g4+ followed by Ne5 would have drawn the game, since bishops of opposite
colors would remain on the board.
35...Be8 36.a3 Bh5 37.c4 dxc4 38.e4+ Ke6 39.Nxc4 g4 40.Nd2
40.Nxd6 followed by Ke3 would have drawn the game. White, of course, could
not play Ke3, for ...Bxg3 would follow.
40...Bg6 41.Be3
An inferior move which gives Black an advantage, e5 should have been played,
giving up the pawn. White then with a knight against bishop could easily draw the
game, especially since the Black pawns are doubled.
41...Be5 42.Nc4 Bc3 43.e5
43.Bd2 would have still drawn the game. If Black answers ...Bd4+, then Be3 is
played by White. If, however, ...Be5, then Nxe5 and Ke3 follow. The text move
compromises the White game and will cause the loss of the e-pawn.
43...Bd3 44.Na5 Bb5 45.Nb3 Bxe5 46.Bf4 Bb2 47.a4 Bc4 48.Nc5+ Kd5
49.Nd7 Bc3 50.Bxc7 Bd4+ 51.Ke1 Ke4
He could not well play 51...Bg1 and ...Bxh2, for White will move Kf2, and the
bishop is closed in. Nor could he well play 51...Bc3+ and ...Bxb4, for in that case
White has the Nf6+ continuation on hand, winning the g-pawn. The text move is
the strongest play he had.
52.Bb6
A disastrous mistake which loses the b-pawn and the game. Instead of Bb6 he
should have played Bd6, and Black could make no headway. If he moves ...Kf3
or ...Kd3, then Ne5+ follows. If, however, Ke3, then Bb6 brings about an
exchange.
52...Bc3+ 53.Kf2 Bxb4 54.a5 Bc3 55.Bc7 Bd4+ 56.Ke1 c5 57.Bb6 Kd5
58.Bd8 Kc6 59.Nf6 Be6 60.Nh5 Bc3+ 61.Ke2 Kb5 62.Kd3
The game at this stage is hopeless. White cannot guard the a-pawn, and with two
pawns to the good, Black forces a win quite easily.
62...Bxa5 63.Bxa5 Kxa5 64.Kc3 Kb5 65.Nf4 Bf7 66.Nd3 a5 67.Ne5 Be6
68.Nd3 a4 69.Nf4 Bf7 70.Nd3 a3 71.Nc1 a2 72.Kb2 Bc4 73.Ka1 Kc6 74.
Nxa2 Bxa2 75.Kxa2 Kd5 76.Kb3 Kd4 77.Kc2 Kc4 0-1.
Third Round, Wednesday, August 30
New York Penn.
Halpern - Kemeny
Lipschtz 1-0 Robinson
Karpinski 0-1 Young
Weeks - Voigt
Hanham 0-1 Bampton
Roething - Shipley
Marshall 1-0 McCutcheon
Total NY 3 PA 3
The third round, played Wednesday morning, saw no change in the team standings,
as the round was evenly split, 3-3, resulting in another tie for the teams in total
score as well, at 10-10. Lipschtz furthered his perfect record to 3-0, as did
Bampton. Shipley increased his string of draws to three, and he wasnt done yet.
The finest game of the round, and a game that was destined to cause some discord
among the players who were submitting their games for consideration for the best
played game prize, the Martinez silver smoking set, was Lipschtzs effort. It is the
only game from round three that could be found. According to the Ledger, the game
between Lipschtz and D. Stuart in the recent Interstate Tourney, held at Saratoga,
was a lively contested one, resulting in a victory for the former. Stuart was not in his
best form and his opponent soon obtained the preferable game. Lipschtz, with his
thirty-third move, started an attack, which was quite promising, yet by correct play,
Stuart could have held his own. The critical point came about on the thirty-eighth
turn; by playing ...Qa7+ a draw could have been secured, while the move selected by
Stuart gave his opponent a win.
The game was annotated by multiple sources, including Emil Kemeny in the
Philadelphia Public Ledger for September 22, 1899, and the New York Evening Post,
as republished in the American Chess Magazine for Oct.-Nov. 1899, p.146.
Lipschtzs opponent was David Stuart Robinson, though in many chess events he
identified himself only as D. Stuart. Precisely why Robinson resorted to this
stratagem is unknown. As will be seen, both Kemeny and the annotator for the Post
were less than enthusiastic about the merits of the game.
Lipschtz,S (New York) Robinson,DS (Pennsylvania) Round 3
B73/01 Sicilian: Classical Dragon
Annotations by Emil Kemeny and quoted from
the New York Evening Post by the American Chess Magazine
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 g6 6.Be3 Bg7 7.Be2 d6
8.0-0 0-0 9.h3 Bd7
Kemeny: Better, perhaps, was 9...d5, which would have relieved the Black
position.
Post: The opening has been conducted on both sides on conventional lines. Black
intends the advance of his pawns on the extreme queenside, to which end the
knight must be supported. This purpose, however, would be better served by 9...
a6, followed by ...Qc7, and eventually ...Bb7. Another plan would be to proceed
here with 9...d5, which would equalize the position forthwith.
10.Qd2 a6 11.Rad1 b5 12.Nxc6 Bxc6 13.f3 Rc8
Kemeny: 13...Nh5, followed by ...Ng3 or ...Bxc3, was a more promising
continuation.
Post: 13...Qc7 was still in order, leaving him the option of playing ...Rfc8. The
queen rook might have been reserved for b8, or left at a8 in support of the
advancing a-pawn.
14.Nd5 Bxd5 15.exd5 Nd7
Kemeny: 15...Nh5 was still in order. Black then threatens ...Bxb2 as well as ...
Ng3, followed by ...Nxe2+.
16.c3 Nb6 17.Bd4 Bxd4+ 18.Qxd4 Na4 19.Qd2
Post: Avoiding the exchange of queens which otherwise would have been offered
by 19...Qb6.
19...Qc7 20.Rf2
20 Rfd8
Post: Tantamount to losing a valuable move, since White by preventing the
obviously intended ...e5, furthers his development, whereas Blacks rook play is
simply shelved at d8. Blacks subsequent play is aimless and shifting in the
extreme, giving the enemy an abundance of time to build up an irresistible attack.
Here, as well as later on, he ought to have prepared for the advance of the a-pawn.
21.f4 Nc5 22.Bf3 Qd7 23.Qe3 Rc7 24.g4 f6 25.Bg2 Kg7 26.Re2 Re8 27.
Qd4 Kf7 28.Rde1 Na4
Kemeny: Loss of time. Better was ...a5, followed eventually by ...a4 and ...a3. It
must be admitted, however, that Blacks game was somewhat compromised.
29.Qf2 Nc5 30.Qh4 Kg7 31.g5 f5 32.Qh6+ Kg8 33.h4
Kemeny: Not good, as Blacks ...Nd3 reply demonstrates. White had an
overwhelming advantage in position, and he could have easily delayed the advance
of the h-pawn. He should have played Re3. If Black answers ...Na4, then R1e2
may be played. This play may be followed up by h4 and h5. Black then will have
no other defense than giving up the e-pawn, which should decide in Whites favor.
33...Nd3
34.Rf1
Kemeny: Very feeble. Having once let in the hostile knight, which easily could
have been excluded by 33.Re3, without impairing his attack, since Blacks forces
are helplessly dislocated, White should not shy at a petty matter like the loss of a
pawn, but boldly go on with his rush. Not only would he then have won in better
style, but made sure of victory besides, whereas his own continuation left the issue
in doubt. In substantiation we give the main variations: 34.h5 Nxf4 if (34...Nxe1
35.Re6 with an overwhelming attack) 35.Re6 Nxh5 (if 35...Nxe6 36.Rxe6 wins) 36.
Bf3 Ng7 37.R1e2 followed by Rh2 and wins.
Post: Blacks best defense seems 34...e5 with the following likely continuation: 35.
dxe6 Qg7 36.Rf1 or 36...Rc4 (36...Rce7 37.Rd2 Nc5 38.Rxd6 Nxe6 39.Bd5 Qxh6
40.gxh6 gxh5 41.Re1 Kf7 42.Rxa6 and wins) 37.e7 Nxf4 38.Rxf4 Rxf4 39.Bd5+
Kh8 40.Qxg7+ Kxg7 41.h6+ Kh8 42.Bf7 and wins.
34...Rc4 35.h5
Post: Now 35.Re6 Nxf4 36.Rxf4 Rxf4 would but lead to a draw, for White no
longer can advance h5, because of the crushing rejoinder ...Qa7+. But even if the h-
pawn does not advance Black would still play ...Qa7+, followed by ...Qf2,
whereupon White must avail himself of the perpetual check by Rxg6+. One sees
how the first player has jeopardized his game.
35...Nxf4 36.Rxf4 Rxf4 37.hxg6 e5 38.dxe6
38 Qg7
Kemeny: A disastrous error, which loses the game. He should have played ...Qa7
+, followed by ...Qg7, which would have easily drawn the game.
Post: Messrs. Kemeny, Stuart, and other Philadelphia players rightly pointed out
that prior to this move Black should have checked at a7; White then would have
been deprived of his most formidable continuation.
39.gxh7+ Qxh7 40.e7
Kemeny: The winning move, but it could not be made if Black had played ...Qa7+,
first forcing the king to the h-file. White now would have to guard against the
threatening ...Rh4+ winning the queen.
Post: For with Whites king standing on the h-file this move would have been
impossible, because of the reply ...Rh4+. The contention of the Philadelphians that
the game then would have been a draw was admitted by the judges, with the
qualification that the draw is a difficult one and not easy to see. Herein we concur;
the draw is quite difficultfor White.
40...Rg4 41.Kf1 Rxg2 42.Kxg2 Rxe7 43.Qxh7+ Rxh7 44.Kg3 Kf7
Kemeny: 44...Rh1 should have been played. If White answers Rf2, then ...Kg7,
and if Rxf5, then ...Rg1+, followed by ...Rg2 or ...Rb1. In fact, Black had still
drawing chances.
Post: Again going amiss. His right play was ...Rh1, whereupon an absolute win for
White cannot be demonstrated.
45.Kf4 b4
Kemeny: 45...Rh1 was still in order, though the game could hardly be saved. The
play selected gives White an easy win.
Post: Blacks play from beginning to end is amateurish in the extreme. With ...Rh1
instead, he at least would have died harder.
46.Kxf5 Rh4 47.g6+ Kf8 48.Re4 1-0.
American Chess Magazine, 1899.10-11, p146
Fourth Round, Wednesday, August 30
Penn. New York
Kemeny - Marshall
Robinson - Halpern
Young 0-1 Lipschtz
Voigt 1-0 Karpinski
Bampton - Weeks
Shipley - Hanham
McCutcheon 1-0 Roething
Total PA 4 NY 3
The Pennsylvania team finally broke the deadlock on the evening of Wednesday,
August 30, 1899, when they managed to win the round by a score of 4-3, bringing the
total team points to 14-13. Although four games were drawn, Pennsylvania won
two of the remaining three, one involving McCutcheon (of the McCutcheon Variation
of the French Defense) defeating Roething, while Voigt defeated the hapless
Karpinski. New Yorks sole winner, of course, was once more Lipschtz, who now
had extended his score to 4-0 and clearly was the favorite to win the overall first prize
for individual scoring. Unfortunately, no games from this round have been recovered.
Fifth Round, Thursday, August 31
New York Penn.
Roething 0-1 Kemeny
Marshall 1-0 Robinson
Halpern 1-0 Young
Lipschtz 1-0 Voigt
Karpinski 1-0 Bampton
Weeks 0-1 Shipley
Hanham - McCutcheon
Total NY 4 PA 2
Pennsylvanias small lead from the day before was quickly extinguished as the New
York delegation won four, lost two, and drew one and thus themselves took a one
point team score lead after five rounds, 18-17. Lipschtz continued to run roughshod
over his opponents, winning his fifth game in a row (eight, if the three Staats-Zeitung
games against Marshall were included). Shipley finally won a game, after four
consecutive draws. Kemeny too won, bringing his score to 3-2. Marshalls win over
D. Stuart Robinson left him with the same score as Kemeny, and for the first time on
the positive side of the ledger.
Marshalls win was annotated in the pages of the October November issue of the
American Chess Magazine, by I. Gunsberg. The notes were in all likelihood reprinted
from another source, but none was given.
Marshall,FJ (New York) Robinson,DS (Pennsylvania) Round 5
B34/02 Sicilian: Accelerated Dragon (Simagin)
Annotations by Isidor Gunsberg
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 g6 6.Bc4 Bg7 7.Nxc6
bxc6 8.e5 Ng8 9.Qe2 Qa5 10.Bf4 d5
The game follows on the lines of some Sicilian defenses played by Janowski.
Blacks move is ingenious. He can safely pass the pawn, for if 11.exd6, Bxc3+
would be a winning reply.
11.Bb3 Ba6 12.Qd2 e6 13.0-0-0 Ne7 14.Kb1 Qc7
If 14...0-0 15.Nxd5 Qxd2 16.Nxe7+ and wins.
15.Rhe1 Rb8
15...0-0 at once is preferable with a view to advancing the c-pawn afterward. If
White worries by 16.Bh6 then 16...Nf5 is the reply.
16.Bg5 Bxe5 17.Rxe5 Rxb3
Better than ...Qxe5, whereupon 18.Bf4 would win back the rook with advantage.
18.Bf6 Rxc3 19.Qxc3 Rg8 20.Bxe7 Kxe7
21.Rdxd5
Breaks the game to pieces. After neglecting to castle, Black never got a chance,
owing to Whites forcible tactics.
21...Rb8 22.Ra5 Bf1
White threatened Qa3+, therefore ...Qb7 was not a good defense for Black.
23.Qc5+ Kf6 24.Qd4 Qb6 25.Rf5+ Ke7 26.Rxa7+
Black resigns, as mate in a few moves is inevitable.
1-0.
American Chess Magazine, 1899.10-11
In addition to Marshalls win, Kemenys victory over Roething has also been
recovered. Kemeny annotated his win for the pages of the September 12, 1899,
Philadelphia Public Ledger. The Ledger wrote that the game between Kemeny and
Roething in the recent interstate contest held at Saratoga was splendidly contested and
resulted in a victory for the former. Roething adopted a variation of the Ruy Lopez
involving the temporary sacrifice of a piece and a fairly even game came about. On
his fourteenth turn, however, he did not select the strongest move, and by playing Be3
instead of Bf4, he gave Kemeny an opportunity to gain the upper hand. The struggle
from this point was a very interesting one. The critical stage came about on the
twenty-third turn. The Philadelphian then could win a pawn, which, however, would
hardly have secured a win. Instead of winning a pawn Kemeny selected a more
forcible continuation, leading to the exchange of both pawns, which gave him a
winning endgame. After thirty-three moves, Roething was obliged to acknowledge
defeat. The game was entered in the competition for the special brilliancy prize.
Roething (New York) Kemeny,E (Pennsylvania) Round 5
C67/09 Spanish: Open Berlin (lHermet)
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nf6 4.0-0 Nxe4 5.d4 Nd6 6.dxe5
The unusual continuation is 6.Bxc6 followed by dxe5. The text move involves the
temporary sacrifice of a piece, and leads to interesting complications. By correct
defense, however, Black seems to obtain the preferable game.
6...Nxb5 7.a4 d6
7...Nd6 would win a pawn, but would badly compromise the Black game. The text
move, followed by ...Nxe5, is the best play for Black.
8.axb5 Nxe5 9.Re1 Be7
If Black tries to maintain his pawn by playing 9...f6, White may continue Nh4, and
he secures a powerful, if not winning, attack. The text move is superior. Black
gives up the pawn, but holds two bishops, which gives him a slight advantage in
the end game.
10.Nxe5 dxe5 11.Qxd8+ Bxd8
11...Kxd8 is considered stronger, for it gives Black better chances to guard the c-
pawn.
12.Rxe5+ Be6 13.Nc3 0-0 14.Be3
Decidedly better was 14.Bf4. White tries to attack the a-pawn, whereas he should
have brought his forces to bear on the c-pawn. The text move has also the
disadvantage of preventing the retreat of the rook.
14...Bf6 15.Rc5 Rfc8 16.Bf4 c6 17.bxc6 b6 18.Rb5 Rxc6 19.Bd2
Necessary, since ...Bxc3 followed by ...Rxc3 was threatened.
19...Rd8 20.Bg5
20.Ne4 could hardly be played. Black might have answered ...Rxc2 or ...Be7,
followed eventually by ...f5.
20...Bxg5 21.Rxg5 Rd2 22.Rc1
He could not play Rxa7 on account of ...Rxc3, Black winning a piece.
22...f6 23.Rg3
23 b5
Black might have played ...Bf5, winning a pawn, which, however, would not have
been as effective as the play adopted. White, by answering Re3, and eventually
Rce1, would have had excellent chances of holding his own. The text move
virtually forces a win. White cannot capture the b-pawn, for ...Rcxc2 and
eventually ...Bc4 follows. Nor can he play b4, for ...a5 and ...axb4 or ...b4 would
lead to a win. There seems to be no other reply than Re4, which leads to an
exchange of both rooks, and Black comes out with a winning endgame, White
being unable to stop the pawn on the queenside without sacrificing the knight.
24.Rd3 Rxd3 25.cxd3 b4 26.Ne2 Rxc1+ 27.Nxc1 a5 28.Kf1
28.b3 would be answered by ...a4, followed by ...b3, ...b2, and ...Ba2, Black
winning the knight.
28...a4 29.Ke2 b3
An important move. Had Black played ...a3, White could answer b3, and he easily
stops the pawns. The text move threatens ...a3, and White has no valid defense.
30.Kd2
30 a3
The winning move. If White plays bxa3, which evidently was his strongest play,
then ...b2 follows, and Black wins the knight, coming out with a bishop against the
two scattered pawns. If, however, White plays Nxb3, then ...axb2 and ...Bxb3
follows, Black having a piece against a pawn. In either variation the win is an easy
one. White, of course, could not play Kc3, for ...a2 would win.
31.Nxb3 axb2 32.Kc2 Bxb3+ 33.Kxb2 Bd5
After this move White surrendered. A further struggle would be quite useless,
for ...Kf7, ...Ke6, and eventually ...Kf5 would win easily.
0-1.
Sixth Round, Thursday, August 31
Penn. New York
Kemeny 1-0 Hanham
Robinson - Roething
Young 0-1 Marshall
Voigt 1-0 Halpern
Bampton 0-1 Lipschtz
Shipley - Karpinski
McCutcheon 0-1 Weeks
Total PA 3 NY 4
New York added to its one point lead in the evening session on Thursday, thus
taking into Fridays final round a two point team lead, 22-20. Though Pennsylvania
was not mathematically eliminated from winning the interstate contest, to do so they
would need a 5-2 final round victory over their rivals, or at least a 4-2 win to tie
the match. How this would be accomplished appeared difficult to conceive.
Lipschtz won again in round six, extending his point total to an invincible 6-0. At
the end of play Thursday, after his victory over Bampton, he was guaranteed first
prize for his individual achievement. Pennsylvanias only hope was that Shipley, who
had not been beaten in the team match, though he sported only a 3-2 score, might
help slow the New Yorker down. Marshall, too, had improved his record to 4-2,
matching Kemeny, the best scorer for the Pennsylvania team, and thus along with
Lipschtz accounted for ten of New Yorks twenty-two points at the end of round six.
H. G. Voigt
Hermann Voigt, the very strong Pennsylvania
player, whose form had been terrible during the
tournament, won his sixth round game against
Halpern. Gustavus Reichhelms annotations to the
game, no doubt from his column in the Philadelphia
Times, appeared in the October - November issue of
the American Chess Magazine.
Voigt,HG (Pennsylvania) Halpern,JC (New York) Round 6
C01/03 French: Exchange (Svenonius)
Annotations by Gustavus Reichhelm
1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.exd5 exd5 5.Nf3 Bd6 6.Bd3 0-0 7.0-0 c6 8.
Ne2 Ne4 9.c4 f5
Here 9...Be6 is safer. Against the move in the text Whites best course is Qb3.
10.cxd5 cxd5 11.Qb3 Kh8
Protecting the pawn, for its capture would entail loss of the queen, through ...Bxh2
+.
12.Bf4 Qc7 13.Rac1 Nc6 14.g3 Be6 15.Bxd6 Qxd6 16.Qxb7 Bd7 17.
Ne5 Nxe5 18.dxe5 Qe6 19.Nf4 Qe8 20.Qxd5
The slight advantage obtained by White in the opening is improved step by step
and culminates in a brilliant win.
20...Rd8 21.e6 Bc8 22.Qc6 Ng5 23.Qxe8 Rdxe8 24.Bb5 Re7
25.Rxc8
The beginning of a fine and sound coup.
25...Rxc8 26.Bd7 Rd8 27.h4 Nf3+ 28.Kg2 Nd4 29.Nd5 Rdxd7 30.exd7
Rxd7 31.Rc1 Kg8 32.Ne3 g6 33.Rd1 Rd6 34.a4 Kf7 35.f4 Ke7 36.Nc4
Rd7
He should have retried ...Rd8, but even then Black could not have saved the game,
as White would equally reply with Ne5.
37.Ne5
The position is as pretty as a problem. On the Black rook moving, White rejoins
with Rxd4, followed by Nc6+ on the rook retaking.
1-0.
Kemeny annotated his win against Hanham for the
pages of the September 5, 1899, issue of the
Philadelphia Public Ledger. His annotations were
reprinted in the American Chess Magazine for October
- November 1899. If there had been talk about
Kemenys fifth round win against Roething being
submitted for the best game prize, his win in the next
round against Hanham was thought by many to be sure
to win the award. The Ledger introduced the game by
writing that up to the twenty-fourth move the play was
extremely conservative on both sides, the
Philadelphian, however, securing the preferable
development. The play became complicated when
Kemeny on the twenty-fifth turn advanced the a-pawn,
which induced his opponent to sacrifice a pawn.
Hanham calculated to win the exchange, for
apparently the rook had no retreat. Kemeny, however,
had quite a brilliant continuation on hand when on his
thirty-first turn he offered the sacrifice of a knight.
This completely demolished Hanhams defense. He
J. M. Hanham
soon lost the g-pawn and h-pawn, and on the forty-
third turn he surrendered. The game is quite likely to
be awarded the special prize offered by President
Martinez for the winner of the best contested game.
While the Ledgers assumption the game would win the silver smoking set was
premature, the game Kemeny had played was quite attractive in its own right.
Kemeny,E (Pennsylvania) Hanham,JM (New York) Round 6
C41/02 Philidor: Hanham
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 Nd7 4.Bd3 Be7 5.Be3 Ngf6 6.c3 c6 7.Nbd2 Qc7 8.
Qc2 0-0 9.0-0 Re8 10.Nc4 Bd8 11.a4 Nf8 12.a5 Ng6 13.b4 Be6 14.dxe5
dxe5 15.Rfd1 Nd7 16.Be2 Be7 17.Rd2 Ndf8 18.Rad1 h6 19.Nd6 Red8
20.Nf5 Rxd2 21.Nxe7+ Qxe7 22.Qxd2 Nd7 23.Qd6 Qxd6 24.Rxd6
24 Kf8
Black evidently should have played ...a6, in order to stop the threatening a6. It is
quite likely, however, that Black intended to give up the c-pawn expecting to close
in the White rook. It must be admitted, however, that White at this stage had the
preferable game; the two bishops are powerful and the rook occupies the open file,
and if Black moves ...a6 his b-pawn becomes rather weak.
25.a6 b6 26.Rxc6 Ke7 27.h4 Nb8 28.Rc7+ Kd6
He could not play 24...Kd8, for White answers 25.Rxa7. If then 25...Rxa7, White
continues 26.Bxb6+ and 27.Bxa7, or if Black interposes the rook, then 27.a7 and
queening of the pawn follows.
29.Rb7 Nc6 30.h5
30 Nge7
Black now threatens ...Nd8 or ...Bc8 winning the exchange. White, however, has
the Nd4 continuation on hand, which wins. If Black plays 31...exd4, then 32.Bf4+
and cxd4 follow; if, however, 31...Nxd4, then 32.cxd4 leads to a similar
continuation. Black cannot avoid this play. If he moves 31...Bc8, then 32.Nb5+
Ke6 33.Nc7+ wins the rook.
31.Nd4 Nxd4 32.cxd4 f6 33.dxe5+ fxe5 34.f4 Nc6 35.b5 Na5 36.Rxg7
Nc4 37.fxe5+ Kxe5 38.Bxh6 Nd6 39.Rg5+ Kd4 40.Bg7+ Ke3 41.Bf3
Rc8 42.Rg6 Re8 43.h6
Causes Black to surrender; he cannot stop the h-pawn without sacrificing a piece.
1-0.
Seventh Round, Friday, September 1
New York Penn.
Weeks - Kemeny
Hanham 1-0 Robinson
Roething 1-0 Young
Marshall - Voigt
Penn. New York
Bampton - Halpern
Shipley - Lipschtz
McCutcheon - Karpinski
Total NY 4 PA 2
So as not to favor either team by awarding their whole squad the White pieces for
the fourth time in seven rounds, the seventh and final round of the interstate match
was divided as to who had White, with four New York players and three
Pennsylvania players retaining that small opening advantage. But the allocation of
colors did not really change the situation. The Pennsylvania team could not reach at
least 4-2 in order to tie the match, let alone the 5-2 score needed to win it. Instead
they found themselves losing the round by a two point margin. For the first and only
time, one team, Pennsylvania, did not score a win in a round. On the other hand,
Lipschtz was prevented from traveling home with a perfect record. Pennsylvanias
team captain, Shipley, held him to a draw. As Lipschtz acted as New Yorks team
captain, perhaps the draw was not fully unexpected between the two. New York thus
won the match by a score of 26-22. No games from the seventh and final round
have survived.
In terms of individual scoring, Lipschtz received the forty dollar first prize for his
exceptional score of 6-. Marshall and Kemeny divided second and third prizes
(twenty-five and twenty dollars, accordingly), for their scores of 4-2 each.
Shipley, Halpern, and Bampton, at 4-3, were left to divide the fourth and fifth prizes
of ten and five dollars. As is well known, however, Shipley never accepted a cash
prize for his chess play in any event during his long career, and so in all likelihood
Halpern and Bampton were left to divide the last two prizes. The one hundred dollars
in prize money had been raised through each state chess association placing fifty
dollars in the prize fund.
Besides the fight for the Staats-Zeitung Chess Cup as well as for the third annual
New York versus Pennsylvania team match title, a General Tournament was held by
the NYSCA during the midsummer meeting at Saratoga Springs. The General
Tournament was itself divided into three separate classes, and the winner of the First
Class tournament was W. J. Ferris of Newcastle, Delaware, a member of the Franklin
Chess Club. Only five players entered the First Class event, and the deciding game
was between Ferris and Waller, one of the players who tied for second and third prize
in the event. The final round game that follows gave Ferris the Farnsworth Cup for
the year.
The Philadelphia Public Ledger for September 8, 1899, reported that the game
between Ferris and Waller in the final round of the New York State tourney recently
held at Saratoga was a French Defense, won by the former. Waller failed to select the
strongest moves and he lost a valuable pawn on the twenty-first turn. Ferris pursued
his advantage vigorously; he won an exchange and subsequently a piece. Waller
surrendered on the forty-third turn, when his position was a hopeless one. By
winning this game Ferris secured first prize. The annotations are by Emil Kemeny.
Ferris,WJ Waller,DW
C16/01 French: Advance Winawer
1899.09 USA Saratoga Springs, NY (General Tournament, First Class)
1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Bb4
The usual play is 3...Nf6, which in all probability is superior to the text move.
4.e5 a6 5.Qg4 Bf8 6.Nf3 h6 7.Bd3 Nc6 8.a3 Nge7 9.Ne2 Nf5 10.Ng3 g6
11.c3 Bd7 12.h4 Nxg3 13.Qxg3 Ne7 14.Qf4 Bg7 15.g4 c6 16.Qg3 Qc7
17.h5 g5 18.Nh2 0-0-0 19.0-0 Rdf8
Better was 19...f6. If White plays exf6, then ...Bxf6 and eventually ...e5 follows.
If, however, White answers f4, then ...fxe5 and ...Rdf8 leads to an even game.
20.f4 f5
20...f6 was still in order. The play adopted by Black causes the loss of a valuable
pawn.
21.fxg5 hxg5 22.Bxg5 Ng8 23.Rf3 Bh6 24.Bxh6 Rxh6 25.Be2 Nf6
To guard against the threatening g5. The move, however, is inferior, for White
plays Qf4, which forces away the knight. Better, perhaps, was ...Be8. If then
White plays g5, Black may play ...Rxh5 and then sacrifice the exchange.
26.Qf4 Ng8 27.g5 Rh7 28.Rg3 Be8 29.g6 Rg7 30.Rf1 Ne7 31.Rf2 Rfg8
32.Rfg2 Kb8 33.Nf3 c5 34.Nh4 cxd4 35.cxd4 Ka7 36.Nf3 Qd7 37.Ng5
37 Bxg6
Black had a rather difficult game to defend. White threatened Nh7 and Nf6, after
which the advanced pawns could hardly be stopped. The sacrifice, while not
sound, gives some chances of escape. If White answers hxg6, then ...Nxg6 and
eventually ...f4 may follow. White, however, selects a more forcible continuation.
By moving h6 he wins the exchange with an overwhelming attack.
38.h6 Rh7 39.Nxh7 Bxh7 40.Rg7 Ng6
He could not save the piece. If ...Rxg7, then White answers Rxg7 and eventually
h7. The text move may be answered by Rxd7, followed by Rxg8, and eventually
by h7, or by R2xg6. Either play wins easily.
41.R2xg6 Rxg7 42.Rxg7 Qe8 43.Qg5
Had White played 43. Rxh7, then ...Qg6+ and ...Qxh7 might have prolonged the
battle. The text move virtually ends the game. Black is a rook behind and cannot
save the bishop.
1-0.
Thus ended the NYSCA midsummer meeting at Saratoga Springs in late August
and early September 1899. But the end of the meeting did not mean the end of
controversy. There was still the matter of the prize for the best played game.
William de Visser and Philip Richardson, both of Brooklyn, were named as a
committee of two to determine who should receive Manhattan Chess Club President
Ariztides Martinezs special prize for the best played game at Saratoga. After
examining the various game scores submitted for the silver smoking set, de Visser
and Richardson originally decided that Emil Kemeny of Philadelphia deserved the
prize for his sixth round victory over Hanham.
The problem, it developed, was that not every score originally set aside for
consideration had actually been seen by de Visser and Richardson. Fourteen of the
forty-nine games played were in fact intended for submission for the prize, but only
thirteen made their way to the committee. The score of Lipschtzs victory over D.
Stuart Robinson had in fact been mislaid, and not turned over to the two men. To
complicate matters further, before learning the Lipschtz game had not been
submitted, de Visser had spoken with someone associated with the press stating that it
appeared the Kemeny game would win the prize, though he asked the reporter not to
divulge this information until after the official announcement had been made. Either
through bad faith, or, at least, a misunderstanding,several newspapers announced that
Kemeny would win the smoking set.
But once the Lipschtz Stuart Robinson game score was found (in fact, Robinson
had to be written concerning the matter, and he graciously sent along from
Philadelphia a copy of his own scoresheet), de Visser and Richardson considered that
game to be superior in merit to the Kemeny game, and thereafter officially announced
that Lipschtz, and not Kemeny, would receive the special prize for the best played
game.
The matter of the mislaid game score aside, the reports of the midsummer meeting
at Saratoga Springs were uniformly favorable, but for one by Marshall, who grumbled
at one point that because his room fronted toward a railway terminus which caused
the puffing and blowing of the locomotives to scare the wits out of Morpheus,he had
no sleep during the event.
Marshalls complaint, or excuse, depending upon how one wishes to read it, was not
directly remarked on by the editor of the American Chess Magazine. The editor did,
however, note that it had come under question whether the famous resort is exactly
the proper place for this meeting,and that he had heard players attribute indifferent
success on the board to the gayety of the surroundings, the general restlessness in the
atmosphere and to too much style. The general editorial conclusion, though, was that
considering that a fair proportion of the contestants accomplished excellent results,
this argument cannot very well be entertained and it must be taken for granted that
there was something, either in the temperament or ability of the players themselves,
to account for the non-success of which they complained. Or to put the matter
another way, essentially every chess player faced the same challenge a stay at a
popular summer resort offered.
Saratoga Springs 1899 produced no opening novelties. It was not of international
master standards, nor did it intend to be. What it did illustrate, however, was how
much fun could be had, if only for a short time, in an interstate meeting of
chessplayers united in their love of the game and in their mutual respect for the
abilities of their compatriots and their fellow competitors, alike. That good chess in a
number of games took place was, to some extent, secondary to the communal sense of
a united effort. And perhaps, just perhaps, at the club level, that is how much of
chess should be played, and enjoyed.
* Whether Albert Beauregard Hodges ever legitimately held the title of United
States Champion should be a subject of some controversy among American chess
history scholars. I am indebted to Nick Pope for first bringing the issue to my
attention. The generally held view is that Hodges did hold the title, but this
conclusion is based upon the assumption that Lipschtz, the previous title holder,
had in fact given up his crown when he moved out West for reasons of health.
Lipschtz would later deny that he had abdicated, thus casting into doubt the
legitimacy of Showalter having again assumed the title prior to the moment Hodges
defeated him in a match. Hodges did, however, resign his title, or at least his claim
to it, shortly thereafter, due to the pressure of his business commitments, and
Showalter took up the title once more. Any question as to Showalters later
supremacy over Lipschtz was answered in a subsequent match between the two,
played once Lipschtz had returned East. This article, however, is not the place to
attempt a detailed evaluation concerning such matters. They involve complex
questions of pedigree, ones requiring long and careful study of the historical record
as it pertains to the high throne of American chess.
John S. Hilbert 2000. All rights Reserved.
OHanlons First Two Irish Titles
by David McAlister
Introduction
The Irish Chess Union was founded in 1912 and continues to this day to be the
governing body of chess in Ireland. This is the story of its first two Championships,
seen principally from the perspective of the winner on both occasions, John
OHanlon. He won nine titles in total, the last in 1940, and played in every
championship, except the one in 1927, from 1913 to 1956. On his last appearance he
was eighty years old.
The First Irish Chess Union Championship 1913
This was not the first time there had been a competition for the title of Irish chess
Champion. During the period 1865 to 1893 a number of different organisations had
organised Irish Championships. The title-holder after the last of those competitions
was J. A. Porterfield Rynd and the Irish Chess Union recognised him as the reigning
champion and as such he was eligible to compete in the first ICU Championship
together with the champions of the four provinces.
OHanlon was the champion of Ulster, a title he had had held since 1902. He
played regularly in England where he was able to play against a higher overall
standard of opposition than he could encounter locally. This had brought him into
contact with the German master (but resident in England for many years) George
Shories [calculated as having a 5-year best average rating of 2430 by Arpad E. Elo in
his book The Rating of Chessplayers, Past and Present, Batsford 1978] and they
became friends. Towards the end of 1912 they played a series of 19 friendly games
while Shories was on a visit to the North of Ireland. OHanlon won 7, drew 1 and lost
11 of that series, which was according to the News-Letter chess columnist a very
creditable record against such an opponent. These encounters were ideal preparation
for the Ulster champion ahead of his attempt to acquire the Irish championship.
OHanlon,JJ Shories,G (1)
D60/05 QGD: Orthodox (Lipschtz)
1912 IRE Portadown (Casual series)
Annotations by OHanlon.
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 Nbd7 5.e3 Be7 6.Nf3 00 7.Bd3 dxc4
A favorite maneuver of Shories. I think, however, the possession of the center is of
more importance than the time lost by the attack on the bishop.
8.Bxc4 a6 9.00 b5 10.Bb3 Bb7 11.Qe2 c5 12.Rad1 c4 13.Bc2 Qc7 14.
Bf4 Qa5
Black is under some disadvantage, and cannot well interpose the bishop, for then
14...Bd6 15.Bxd6 Qxd6 16.e4.
15.Ne5 Nb6 16.a3
Necessary, otherwise Black would get a strong attack by the advance of the pawns.
16...Nbd5 17.Nxd5 exd5
To get the usual theoretical advantage of three pawns to two on the queenside, but I
would have preferred 17...Nxd5.
18.g4
This and the 23rd move are strongly reminiscent of Blackburnes great game with
Lipschtz in the New York Tourney of 1889.
18...Rad8 19.g5 Ne4 20.Qg4 Bc8
A mistake leaving a hole at c6 and driving the white queen where she wants to go.
21.Qh4 Qb6 22.f3 f6
From this point Black makes a clever attempt to save the game, but without success.
23.g6 h6 24.Nf7 f5 25.Nxh6+ gxh6 26.Qxe7 Qxg6+ 27.Kh1 Rd7 28.Qh4
Ng5 29.Rg1 Rg7 30.Be5 Rff7 31.f4 10.
Belfast News-Letter, 1913.02.06
Originally it was intended that the provincial champions would play a double round
all-play-all tournament to decide the challenger to Porterfield Rynd. However only
the champion of Leinster, C. J. Barry, and OHanlon, came forward as challengers and
so instead a match of five games, to be played at a rate of 20 moves per hour, was
arranged between them. It commenced on Monday 10th February at the rooms of the
Dublin Chess Club in Lincoln Place.
Barry had the White pieces in the first game but lost in 28 moves of a Ruy Lopez,
OHanlon playing the Berlin Defence. In the second game Barry leveled the match
score.
OHanlon,JJ Barry,CJ (2)
D53/16 QGD: Pillsbury
1913 IRE Dublin (Irish Championship Preliminary Match)
Annotations by Barry.
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 Nbd7 5.e3 Be7 6.Nf3 c6 7.Bd3 h6 8.
Bh4 0-0 9.0-0 Ne8 10.Bg3 f5
This weakens the e-pawn permanently and leaves a holeat e5 of which White takes
full advantage subsequently, but Black had too great a respect for the white queen
and bishop working on the open diagonal and so closed it with this move.
11.Qc2 Nd6 12.cxd5 cxd5 13.Ne5 Nxe5 14.Bxe5 Bd7 15.Qb3
Threatening 16.Bxd6 bxd6 17.Nxd5 exd5 18.Qxd5 followed by Qxd6.
15...Bc6 16.f3 Qd7 17.Rad1 Rac8 18.Rfe1 a6 19.Bxd6 Bxd6 20.e4
This move comes at last after careful preparation.
20...fxe4 21.fxe4 dxe4 22.Bxe4 Rf6 23.Bxc6
23.d5 would have made things lively for Black.
23...Qxc6 24.d5 exd5 25.Nxd5 Rf7 26.Kh1 Kh8 27.Re2?
There was scarcely sufficient time for this. Black is now out of difficulty and has
the best of the game.
27...Rcf8 28.Ne3 Qe4 29.Qc3 Qf4 30.g3 Qf3+ 31.Rg2 Qe4 32.Kg1 Bb4
33.Qc1 b6 34.h3 Bc5 35.Re1 Rf3 36.Rge2 Rxg3+ 37.Kh2 Qf3 0-1.
Northern Whig, 1913.03.06
The third game was another Ruy Lopez, won by OHanlon in a complicated queen
and four pawns ending.
Barry,CJ OHanlon,JJ (3)
C67/07 Spanish: Open Berlin (Pillsbury)
1913 IRE Dublin (Irish Championship Preliminary Match)
bxc6 8.dxe5 Nb7 9.Nc3 0-0 10.Re1 Nc5 11.Nd4 Ne6 12.Nxe6
This exchange is not advisable, as it gives Black an open file. 12.Be3 leading to
the Rio de Janeiro variation is much superior.
12...fxe6 13.Qg4 d5 14.Bh6
A line of attack frequently adopted, but I think it can hardly be the best, as the
bishop has afterwards to retreat with loss of time.
14...Rf7 15.Rad1 Qf8 16.Ne2
A trap; if 16...Rxf2 17.Bxg7 winning the exchange.
16...Kh8 17.Be3 Rb8 18.b3 Rb4 19.Rd4 Rxd4 20.Nxd4 c5! 21.Nf3
21.Nc6 was preferable, and would have prevented the immediate loss of the pawn
namely 21.Nc6 d4 22.Bc1 (if 22.Nxe7 dxe3) 22...Bb7 23.Nxe7 Qxe7 and if 24.f4 c4
followed by ...Qb4 with the better game; if 21.Nxe6 d4 22.Nxf8 ( and if 22.Bc1
Bxe6 23.Qxe6 Rxf2 winning) 22...Bxg4 and the knight cannot escape.
21...d4 22.Bc1
I rather expected 22.Bg5 Bxg5 23.Nxg5 Rf5 (if 23...Rxf2 24.Qh4) 24.Qh4 h6 25.
Nh3 Bb7 threatening ...Rf3 followed by ...Rc3 or ...c4, followed by ...Qb4,
according to Whites play.
22...Bb7 23.Qxe6 Bxf3 24.gxf3 Rxf3 25.Re4! Rxf2 26.Rf4 Rxf4 27.Bxf4
Qxf4 28.Qxe7 Qc1+ 29.Kf2 Qxc2+ 30.Kf3 Qd3+ 31.Kf4 h6 32.Qd8+
Kh7 33.Qxc7 Qe3+ 34.Kf5 Qf3+ 35.Ke6 d3 36.Qxc5 Qe4!
The winning move preventing the check at c2, and leaving White without any
satisfactory resource.
37.Qf2 Qc6+ 38.Ke7 Qc7+ 39.Kf8 Qxe5 40.Qg2 Qf6+ 41.Ke8 Qg6+ 0-
1.
OHanlon won the fourth game, a Queens Gambit, in only 20 moves and so
qualified for a five-game match with Porterfield Rynd. The latter had first won the
Irish title at the Dublin Chess Congress of 1865 and had held it since that time, except
for the period between October 1886 and January 1892. Rynd was coming out of
retirement to play the match but at the height of his powers he was probably a better
player than OHanlon; for instance, in 1888 he had played two short matches, first
defeating Amos Burn by 3 to 1 and then scoring +2 2 =1 against James Mason.
Unfortunately your author has been unable to locate any of his wins against these
distinguished gentlemen in those matches so here instead is an example of his match-
play from his heyday against a man with a famous chess-playing name.
Porterfield Rynd,JA Morphy,J
C25/03 Vienna: Pierce
1886 IRE Dublin (St. Patricks Chess Club)
Annotations by Porterfield Rynd.
1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.f4 exf4 4.Nf3 g5 5.d4!
Will he accept the gambit W. T. Pierce invented, and advance his pawn to take the
knight?
5...Bg7
No. Caution rather than venture today, as a loss of a game is the loss of the match.
6.Bc4 d6
Rosenthals continuation is 6...h6 7.00 Nge7 8.Ne2 d5 9.exd5 Nxd5.
7.00 Bg4 8.Ne2 h6 9.c3 Nge7 10.Qc2
Obviously it was right not to play 10.Qb3; most promise lay with 10.b4.
10...Qd7 11.Bd2?
The listless movements of this bishop reduce me quickly to a sad plight.
11...00 12.g3 fxg3 13.Nxg3 Kh8 14.Be3? d5 15.exd5 Nxd5 16.Bd2
The loss of three moves - even this early - in a closeopening might not signify. In
a critical phase in the Kings Gambit the loss is disastrous.
16...f5 17.h4 Bxf3 18.Rxf3 f4 19.hxg5
For desperate cases, desperate remedies. If now 19.Ne2 Qg4+ 20.Kf2 Ne3!
Therefore I resolve to amputate the knight.
19...fxg3 20.Rxg3 Qd6!
My rook is attacked most awkwardly. If I move it to g4 he can play 21...h5. If I
move it to h3 or g2 he wins by 21...Nf4. If I guard it by 21.Kg2 or 21.Kh2, or by
21.Qd3, he wins by the same move of the knight; while if I play 21.Be1 he wins by
21...Rad8. Moreover my king is exposed, a sacrifice of his knight for two pawns is
threatened, and altogether my position is not one of comfort. There is a gleam of
hope, however. Suppose I move...
21.Rg4
...and he replies...
21...h5
...there is just one move that will give me some relief. Here goes...
22.Qe4!
The move of relief.
22...Nce7
The position is interesting. Plainly if 22...hxg4 23.Qh1+ Kg8 24.Bxd5+ Rf7 25.
Bxf7+ Kxf7 26.Rf1+ Kg8 27.Bf4 Bxd4+ 28.cxd4 Qxd4+ 29.Kg2 Qd5+ 30.Kg3
draws.
23.Qh1 Qg6 24.Rh4 Nf6 25.Qh3!
Every move in this part of the game is ingenious and interesting.
25...Nh7 26.Bd3 Rf5! 27.Rxh5 Raf8 28.Re1!
This not merely forces his knight to move (or it cannot be guarded without loss)
but opens the way for a winning coup.
28...Nc6 29.Re8! Qxe8
If 29...Rxe8 30.Bxf5 Qf7 31.Bxh7 etc.
30.Bxf5! Rxf5
30...Qxh5 31.Qxh5 Rxf5 32.Qh3 Ne7 33.g6 etc.
31.Rxh7+ Kg8 32.Qxf5 Qe2
I have regained the piece and more, yet it is no easy matter to avoid the draw so
cleverly played for by my opponent. The endgame is instructive.
33.Rh2
Better than 33.g6 Qd1+ (if he took the bishop on this or his next move, of course
queen mates) 34.Qf1 Qg4 (if 34...Qxf1+ 35.Kxf1 Ne7 36.Bh6 Bf6 37.Rf7 wins) 35.
Qg2 Qd1+ 36.Kh2 Ne7 etc.
33...Qd1+ 34.Qf1 Qg4+ 35.Rg2 Qe6 36.Qd3 Ne7
Taking 36...Qxa2 would have shortened the game. 37.Re2 Qd5 (or 37...Qf7 38.g6
Qd7 39.Qe4 etc.) 38.Qg6 etc.
37.b3 c6 38.Qf3 Nf5 39.Rf2 Nh4 40.Qf4 Ng6
If 40...Qh3; 41.Qf7+ Kh8 42.Qe8+ Kh7 43.g6+ Nxg6 44.Rh2! wins.
41.Qf5 Qe8 42.Kf1 Nh4 43.Qg4 Ng6 44.Re2 Qf7+ 45.Ke1 Nf8 46.Bf4
Qd5 47.Kd2 c5 48.Qg2 Qd8 49.Be5 cxd4 50.Bxg7 dxc3+ 51.Kxc3 Qc7+
52.Kd3 Kxg7 53.Qe4 Ng6 54.Qd4+ Kh7 55.Re3 Nf4+ 56.Kd2 Qa5+ 57.
Kd1 Qxg5 58.Qe4+ Kh6 59.Rf3!
This wins in a few moves.
59...Qg1+ 60.Kd2 Qh2+ 61.Ke3 Qg1+ 62.Rf2! Qe1+ 63.Kf3 Qh1+ 64.
Kxf4 Qh4+ 65.Ke3 Qg3+ 66.Ke2 Qc7
And I announce mate in four.
10.
Irish Sportsman, 1886.03.13
The match between champion and challenger was delayed for some time by a
variety of causes, including the illness of the champion. It eventually got under way
on Monday 4th August, again at the rooms of the Dublin Chess Club, with Shories in
attendance to support his protg. The time limit was 15 moves an hour but
throughout the match Rynd played very rapidly and it was obvious that the champion
was finding it difficult to cope with the demands of serious match-play after a long
absence from the competitive scene.
OHanlon,JJ Porterfield Rynd,JA (1)
C70/01 Spanish: Morphy (Classical)
1913 IRE Dublin (Irish Championship Match)
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Bc5
The old Classical Defencelong since abandoned as inadequate.
5.c3 d6 6.d4
First 6.0-0 might be suggested, as it would have prevented the check.
6...exd4 7.cxd4 Bb4+ 8.Nc3 b5 9.Bb3 Bg4 10.0-0 Bxc3
Almost compulsory, as Nd5 was threatened, but it gives White a strong center.
11.bxc3 Qd7 12.Re1
A useless move! 12.h3 should have been played at once.
12...Nge7 13.h3 Bxf3
The bishop could not have been moved away, as g4 and Nh4 would have followed.
14.Qxf3 0-0 15.Qg3 Rae8 16.h4
To prevent 16...Ng6 to which White would reply 17.h5 and 18.Bh6 winning the
exchange, but if the king had been kept on its original square 17...f5 could not have
been played.
16...Kh8 17.Bc2 f5 18.Qh3 Qc8
18...Rd8 would not have been better, as White could reply 19.exf5 Nxf5 20.d5 Ne5
21.Bg5 Rde8 22.f4 Nc4 23.Re6 with a strong attack.
19.exf5 Ng8 20.Bg5 Nf6 21.g4 Na5 22.Bxf6 Rxf6 23.g5 Rff8 24.Qf3
Nc4 25.Qh5 Nd2 26.f6 g6 27.Bxg6 Nf3+ 28.Kg2 Nxe1+ 29.Rxe1 Rf7 30.
Rxe8+ Qxe8 31.Bxf7 Qe4+ 32.Qf3 1-0.
Northern Whig, 1913.08.14
Porterfield Rynd,JA OHanlon,JJ (2)
D00/06 Queens Pawn: Chigorin
1913 IRE Dublin (Irish Championship Match)
1.Nc3
An irregular method of opening, but it is not good, as in the Queens Pawn opening
it is necessary to leave the c-pawn free to advance.
1...d5 2.d4 c5! 3.e4 dxe4 4.Bb5+
I would have preferred 4.d5, although that also turns to the advantage of Black.
4...Bd7 5.dxc5 Nf6 6.Qe2 a6 7.Bxd7+ Nbxd7 8.b4
White should have taken the pawn and he would have been only slightly behind in
development.
8...a5 9.Ba3
And again it would have been very much better to have retaken the pawn.
9...e6 10.Rd1 axb4 11.Bxb4 Qc8 12.Nxe4 Nxe4 13.Qxe4 Bxc5 14.Bxc5
Nxc5 15.Qf3 Rxa2 16.Ne2 0-0 17.0-0 Rxc2 18.Nd4 Rc4 19.Nb5 Qc6 20.
Nd6 Qxf3 21.gxf3 Rc3 22.Rb1 Rb8 23.Rb5 b6 24.Rfb1 Nd7 25.Ne4
Rxf3 26.Nc5 Nxc5 27.Rxc5 Rf5 28.Rxb6
Clever, but to no avail.
28...Rd8 29.Rd6 Re8 30.Rc7 g6 31.Kg2 Ra8 32.Rd2 Ra4 33.h3 Ra3 34.
Rcd7 Rg5+ 35.Kh2 e5 36.R7d3 Rxd3 37.Rxd3 Kg7 38.f3 h5 39.Rd5
Kf6 40.Rd6+ Ke7 41.Rd5 h4 42.Rb5 Kf6 43.Rb4 Rg3 44.Rxh4 Rxf3 45.
Rb4 Kf5 46.Kg2 e4 47.Rb7 Kg5 48.Rd7 f5 49.Rd6 Kh4
A mistake. Black saw he could not retake the pawn at once, but thought he could
play 50...Rg3, and he had almost done so.
50.Rxg6 f4 51.Rg4+ Kh5 52.Rg8 Re3 53.Rh8+ Kg6 54.h4 f3+ 55.Kg3
Kg7 56.Re8 Re2 57.h5 f2 0-1.
The Northern Whig for the 7th August gave this account of the conclusion of the
match:
In the third, and what proved the deciding game in the match, Mr
OHanlon had naturally a great advantage over his opponent, and it was
evident from the play in the two previous games that the veteran
champion was all through finding it difficult to give, to each successive
position in the ever-changing scene of the game, that sustained attention
which is absolutely essential in play such as Mr OHanlons. In point of
fact, although allowed sixty minutes for every fifteen moves, Mr Rynd
scarcely consumed twenty minutes, and on subsequent investigation it
transpired that he suffered many opportunities to slip. The most
important occurred in yesterdays game, as after twenty moves on each
side, in which he had consumed only ten minutes, he indulged in the
luxury of granting his opponent a rook for a knight, and he had only to
push his queens pawn to maintain a fairly level game. The result was
disastrous, his clever opponent in some dozen moves compelling him to
resign, and with it winning the championship of Ireland, which the
holder had held for some forty years.
In 1913 Porterfield Rynd was in his mid-sixties with his chess powers diminished
and clearly no longer capable of the concentration required for a serious match.
However, by putting up the championship he had held for so long a period, he
conferred extra legitimacy on the fledgling Irish Chess Union and its first
championship.
The Second Championship 1915
There was no Championship contest in 1914 but the following year produced the
second Irish Chess Union Championship. The Unions original intention had been to
hold a preliminary tournament with representatives of each of the four provinces,
with the winner going on to challenge OHanlon for the title. However, owing to the
war, the Munster champion could not travel and C. J. Barry, once again the Leinster
champion, also stood down, leaving just two challengers, R. G. Dixon Addey of
Castlebar and Harold Thomas of the Belfast Chess Club. It was then decided to
arrange a match of four games between them to determine who would be the
challenger to OHanlon. The match was held in the C. I. Y. M. S. rooms in Belfast
from the 17th to 20th May. The champion took a keen interest in the match and
annotated all four games for the Belfast News-Letter.
Dixon Addey,RG Thomas,H (1)
D69/01 QGD: Capablanca (Classical)
1915 IRE Belfast (Irish Championship Preliminary Match)
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 Nbd7 5.e3 Be7 6.Nf3 0-0 7.Rc1
This was a favorite move of Pillsburys, but 7.Qc2 followed by Rd1 is now
generally preferred.
7...c6
This defense gives Black a cramped game, but it is much stronger than it looks.
8.Bd3
Marshall and most of the masters have played this move. 8.cxd5 is at least equally
as good.
8...dxc4 9.Bxc4 Nd5 10.Bxe7 Qxe7 11.0-0
11.Qd2, if 11...Nxc3, 12.Qxc3 preventing e5 might have been tried.
11...Nxc3 12.Rxc3 e5 13.dxe5
If 13.e4 exd4 14.Qxd4 b5 15.Bb3 c5 16.Qd5 Rb8 and Black obtains the majority of
pawns on the queenside.
13...Nxe5 14.Nxe5 Qxe5 15.Qb3 b5 16.Bd3 Bb7 17.Qc2 h6 18.Be4
Rac8 19.Rc5 Qf6 20.b4
White should have taken possession of the open file by 20.Rd1, if 20...Rfd8, 21.
Rxd8 Qxd8 22.h3.
20...Rfd8 21.Rc1 Rd6 22.Bf5
A very weak move, and the main cause of Whites subsequent trouble.
22...Rcd8 23.h3 Rd2 24.Qc3
An extraordinary move. 24...Qxc3 25.Rxc3 Rxa2 would have won without much
difficulty.
24...Rd1+ 25.Rxd1 Rxd1+ 26.Kh2 Qxc3 27.Rxc3 Rd2 28.Rd3 Rxd3 29.
Bxd3 Bc8 30.g4
At this point White has a slight advantage owing to the weakness of Blacks c-
pawn, and he should now have played 30.Be4.
30...Kf8 31.Kg3 Ke7 32.Kf4 Be6 33.a3 g5+
Black would have had better drawing chances by 33...Kd6.
34.Ke5 f6+ 35.Kd4 Kd6 36.Bf5
A mistake that might have cost White the game.
36...Bc4 37.Bd3 Bxd3 38.Kxd3 c5 39.Ke4 c4 40.Kd4 Ke6 41.Ke4
White here offered a draw, which Black declined, and made the following losing
move. The position seems to be in Blacks favor, but it would take exhaustive
analysis to prove that he could force a win.
41...c3 42. Kd3 Ke5 43. f3 Kd5 44. Kxc3 Ke5
And after a few moves Black resigned.
1-0.
Thomas,H Dixon Addey,RG (2)
C10/14 French: Rubinstein (Capablanca)
1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.Nxe4 Nd7 5.Bd3 Be7 6.Nf3 Ngf6 7.Nxf6+
Bxf6 8.0-0 0-0 9.c3 e5
9...c5 would have been better, as White could now have gained a pawn by 10.dxe5
Bxe5 11.Nxe5 Nxe5 12.Bxh7.
10.Qc2 g6 11.Re1
White could have got a slight advantage in development by 11.dxe5 Nxe5 (if 11...
Bxe5 12.Bg5) 12.Nxe5 Bxe5 13.Bh6, followed by Rad1 [in fact this line loses a
pawn to ...Bxh2+ - DMcA.]
11...exd4 12.cxd4 Bg7 13.Bf4 c6 14.Bd6 Re8 15.Rxe8+ Qxe8 16.Re1
Qd8 17.Be7 Qc7 18.Qb3 Nb6 19.Ng5 Nd5 20.Ba3 Bd7 21.Bc4 Re8 22.
Rxe8+ Bxe8 23.Bxd5 cxd5 24.Qe3 Bb5 25.h3 h6 26.Nf3 Kh7 27.Bb4
Qc4 28.a3 Qe2 29.Bc3 Bf8 30.Qxe2 Bxe2 31.Nd2 Kg7 32.f3 f5 33.Kf2
Bb5 34.g3 Kf6 35.f4 g5 36.Kg2 g4 37.h4 Ke6 38.Kf2 Kd7 39.Ke3 Kc6
40.Kf2 b6 41.b4
Although two bishops are stronger than bishop and knight, it would probably have
been impossible for Black to force a win if White had kept the queenside pawns
unmoved.
41...Ba4 42.Ke2 Bc2 43.Nf1 Kb5 44.Kd2 Be4 45.Ne3
It does not seem that 45.Kc1 would have been any better, as Black could have
played 45...Kc4.
45...Ka4 46.Bb2 a5 47.bxa5 bxa5 48.Kc3 Bxa3 49.Bxa3 Kxa3 50.Nf1
Ka4 51.Nd2 Kb5 52.Nb3 a4 53.Nc5 a3 54.Kb3 a2 55.Kxa2 Kc4 56.Ne6
Kd3 57.Kb2 Ke3 58.Kc3 Kf2 59.Ng5 Bg2 60.Nf7 h5 61.Nd6 Kxg3 62.
Nxf5+ Kxf4 63.Ng7 Kg3 64.Nf5+ Kh3 65.Kd2 Be4 0-1.
Dixon Addey,RG Thomas,H (3)
A46/02 Indian: Knights
1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 d6 3.Nc3 Bg4 4.e3 Nbd7 5.Be2 e5 6.dxe5 dxe5 7.b3
White has not made the most of the opening and this move is distinctly bad; 7.0-0
should have been played.
7...Bb4 8.Bb2
Another weak move. After the next move Black would have gained a pawn, and in
many variations a piece by playing 9...f5 10.Qc4! Qe7 11.a3 Nxc3 12.Bxc3 Bxa3.
8...Ne4 9.Qd3 Bxf3 10.gxf3 Bxc3+ 11.Bxc3 Nxc3 12.Qxc3 c6 13.0-0-0
Qc7 14.Rhg1 g6 15.f4 0-0-0 16.Bc4 Rhf8 17.f5
White has got out of his difficulties fairly well, and by this move can dispose of his
doubled pawn. If 17.gxf5 White regains the pawn by 18.Rg7.
17...Kb8 18.Kb1 Nb6 19.Rxd8+ Rxd8 20.Bd3 Nd5 21.Qb2 Nb4 22.Be4
Qd6 23.a3 Na6 24.fxg6 hxg6 25.Rg5 f5 26.Bg2 Nc7 27.e4 Qf6 28.Rg3
Ne6 29.exf5 gxf5 30.Re3 Nd4 31.Ka2 e4 32.Qc3 Qg5 33.Bf1 Qf4
Black has played the last ten moves very cleverly, and now forces the gain of a
pawn.
34.Qd2 Qxh2 35.Rg3 Qh4 36.Rg6
Now 36...Nxb3 would have ended the struggle at once.
36...Qe7 37.Qf4+ Ka8 38.Kb2 Rf8 39.Bc4 a6 40.a4 Nf3 41.Re6 Qd7 42.
Ka2 Qd2 43.Qc7 Qxc2+ 44.Ka3 Qc1+ 45.Kb4 Qd2+ 46.Kc5 a5 47.Bb5
Qd4# 0-1.
Thomas,H Dixon Addey,RG (4)
1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.Nxe4 Nd7 5.Bd3 b6
Rubinstein introduced this system of development in the French Defense, but plays
it at a later stage.
6.Nf3 Bb7 7.Bf4 Ngf6 8.Qe2 Be7 9.Nxf6+ Nxf6 10.0-0 0-0 11.Rad1 h6
White has now the superior position, but instead of this move Black should have
played 11...Nd5 followed by ...Nb4 in order to get rid of the troublesome bishop.
[But what about 12.Qe4 g6 13.Bh6 and if 13...Re8 14.c4 winning a piece? DMcA]
12.Rfe1
White should have played 12.c4 in order to prevent the maneuver indicated above.
12...Nh5
A useless move to which 13.Be5 would probably have been the best reply, and if
then 13...f6 14.Ng5.
13.Bc1 Nf6 14.c4 Kh8 15.Bb1 Qe8 16.Ne5 Ng8
Black is much embarrassed for a continuation, but this is probably as good as
anything else.
17.Qg4
This move is likely good enough, but it seems that 17.Qd3 Nf6 (if 17...f5 18.d5
exd5 19.exd5) 18.Ng4 would have left Black almost without resource.
17...Bf6 18.Rd3
If 18.Re3 the mistake which occurred next move would not have been possible.
18...Bxe5 19.Rxe5
An unfortunate oversight. White could still have won had he played 19.dxe5.
Blacks only valid reply was 19...f5 20.exf6 Rxf6 21.Rde3 Rd8! 22.f4 followed by
f5 winning at least a pawn.
19...f5 20.Qh3 Be4 21.d5 Bxd3 22.Rxe6 Bxb1 0-1.
The News-Letter for 6th May had given this thumb-nail sketch of the challenger:
Mr Dixon Addey belongs to Castlebar and is undoubtedly the best
chess player in the West of Ireland. He has competed four times in the
British Chess Federation tournaments. The first time was in 1909, when
he entered the first class, but, not being accustomed to tourney play, he
did not make as good a score as his play deserved. In 1910 he competed
in the first class at Oxford, making a better score. In 1912 he played in
the first class at Richmond and tied for third prize. Last year he
competed at Chester in the major open tournament, and tied for fourth
place.
Dixon Addey should have been a formidable opponent for OHanlon. In that 1914
Major Open, he had finished ahead of the Irish champion, who was only eleventh,
and won their individual encounter. The winner, incidentally, was George Shories
with an impressive 10 out of 11.
The Championship was to be decided by a five-game match. It was held in
OHanlons hometown, Portadown, at the Young Mens Institute, commencing on the
24th May. Unfortunately, the challenger seemed in very poor form and in the first
two games was unable to survive the opening. Dixon Addey had played the opening
rather carelessly in the last three games of the earlier match with Thomas, without
being fully punished. OHanlon, however, was not so generous, playing very
energetically against any inaccuracy in the opening moves.
OHanlon,JJ Dixon Addey,RG (1)
D07/03 Queens Gambit: Chigorin
1915 IRE Portadown (Irish Championship Match)
1.d4 d5 2.c4 Nc6
A defense often played with success by the late Russian master, Chigorin. The
idea is to follow, if possible, by e5.
3.Nf3 Bg4 4.cxd5 Bxf3 5.gxf3 Qxd5 6.e3 Nf6
This move is the cause of the ultimate loss of the game. In the same position
against Lasker, Chigorin played 6...e6 7.Nc3 Bb4 8.Bd2 Bxc3 9.Bxc3.
[LaskerChigorin, Hastings 1895, actually reached the position after Whites ninth
move by the following move order: 1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Bg4 3.c4 Bxf3 4.gxf3 Nc6 5.Nc3
e6 6.e3 Bb4 7.cxd5 Qxd5 8.Bd2 Bxc3 9.bxc3 DMcA]
7.Nc3 Qd8 8.d5 Ne5 9.f4 Ned7 10.Qb3 Nc5
This move loses a piece. 10...Rb8, or 10...Nb6, is also unsatisfactory. In reply to
the former White plays 11.e4, and to the latter 11.a4 a5 12.Bb5.
11.Qb5+ Nfd7 12.b4 c6 13.Qe2
The best move. Other lines of play would also have won, but this gives Black no
chance.
13...Na6 14.dxc6 Rc8 15.cxd7+ Qxd7 16.Qb2
Threatening Bb5.
16...Nxb4 17.Qxb4 a6 18.Qb3 Qc6 19.Qa4 b5 20.Nxb5 Kd8
If 20...Qxh1, White by 21.Nd6 drives Black into a mating position.
21.Bd2 axb5 22.Ba5+ Rc7 23.Bxc7+ Kxc7 24.Qa7+ Kc8 25.Bh3+ e6
26.0-0 Bc5 27.Rac1 1-0.
Dixon Addey,RG OHanlon,JJ (2)
1915 IRE Portadown (Irish Championship Match)
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nf6 4.d4 exd4 5.e5 Ne4 6.Bxc6
The only correct move is 6.0-0, and at the next move Qxd4 would have been
better. White practically loses the game by his faulty opening.
6...dxc6 7.Nxd4 Bc5 8.c3 0-0 9.0-0 f6 10.Bf4 g5 11.Re1
If the bishop moves Black wins at least a pawn, and if 11.Qd3 Qd5 or 11...Bf5 also
wins.
11...Nxf2 12.Kxf2 fxe5 13.Rxe5 Rxf4+ 14.Ke1 Bxd4 15.cxd4 Rxd4 16.
Qh5 Bg4 17.Rxg5+
Of course 17.Qxg5 would have prolonged the game; but as White had a lost game
in any case, he good-naturedly took with the rook in order to save his opponent
further trouble.
17...Kh8 18.Rxg4 Qe7+ 19.Kf2 Rf8+ 20.Kg3 Rd3# 0-1.
In the third, and what turned out to be the final, game the challenger adopted
Philidors Defence. He made an oversight at an early stage by which he lost a piece
for a pawn. After playing a few more moves he resigned, as his position was
hopeless. OHanlon had retained his title in most convincing fashion. In two ICU
Championships he had played ten games, winning nine and only losing one.
David McAlister 1999
The 1897 Franklin - Manhattan Chess Club
Telegraphic Team Match
by John S. Hilbert
The middle of the 1890s saw an extraordinary growth of interest in inter-club team
matches in New York City as well as elsewhere. 1894 brought numerous individual
club matches in New York, including participants of the strength of Harry Nelson
Pillsbury and Jackson Whipps Showalter. The next year the Metropolitan Chess
League was formed, complete with a formal constitution, adopted in October 1894,
and including representation by each of the six chess clubs involved: the Manhattan,
City, Brooklyn, Newark, Staten Island and Metropolitan. That rivalry, however,
according to Article 4 of its Constitution, was limited to any regularly organized
Chess Club within 10 miles of New York Cityon being elected to participate by a
two third vote of the members present at the Leagues annual meeting. But what of
rivalries involving much longer distance?
The same year play began in the Metropolitan Chess League, another inter-club
rivalry began that was destined to last for many years. 1895 saw the beginning of the
annual team matches between the Manhattan Chess Club of New York City and the
Franklin Chess Club of Philadelphia. Arguably these were, man for man, the two
strongest clubs in the United States at the time, though other New York area clubs,
including the Brooklyn Chess Club, which had in fact won the 1895 Metropolitan
Chess League, would certainly have objected to such a bald statement. Few in
Philadelphia, however, or elsewhere in the nation, would have questioned the
dominance of the Franklin Chess Club in the City of Brotherly Love.
The 1895 match that inaugurated the Franklin - Manhattan series was played by
telegraph, with the rooms of the two clubs being directly connected by wire.
According to Gustavus C. Reichhelm in his seminal volume, Chess in Philadelphia
(Philadelphia 1898), written with the assistance of Walter Penn Shipley, play started
at 11 A.M. and ended at 11 P.M.,with the Philadelphians emerging victorious by a
score of 7-6. The following year, on Decoration Day 1896, the Manhattan players
had their revenge when they traveled to Philadelphia, there to defeat their hosts also
by the odd point, 7-6.
The scene was thus set for the third annual meeting between the two clubs.
Increased national attention was offered the rivalry by the advent of what some would
argue today was, at least initially, the most impressive chess magazine ever to be
released in America: the American Chess Magazine. Published by William Borsodi
in New York City, edited by Charles Devid, and appearing with the cooperation ofa
stellar list of contributors, including Pillsbury, Albert Hodges, Shipley, Showalter and
others, the American Chess Magazine (hereafter ACM) filled a void on the national
chess scene that had been left by the collapse of Steinitzs International Chess
Magazine with the December 1891 issue. The very first issue of the ACM appeared
in June 1897. As the third annual Franklin - Manhattan team match had concluded
May 31, 1897, the event not surprisingly received treatment in the magazines
inaugural issue.
By 1897 interest in the club rivalry between Philadelphia and New York had grown
to national proportions. Few questioned New Yorks status as the nations strongest
chess center, and that fact is remembered by many even today, over one hundred
years later. What few now recall, however, is that Philadelphia, then the countrys
second largest city, was also considered by many the nations next greatest repository
of chess talent as well as the home of one of the strongest city clubs in America. The
third annual meeting between the Franklin and the Manhattan would do nothing to
dispel such beliefs. If anything, following the match the status of the Philadelphia
club increased.
Certainly New York players were well aware of the inter-city significance of the
match. The Brooklyn Daily Eagle (hereafter Eagle) for May 27, 1897, briefly
reviewed the two previous matches, noting that special interest, therefore, attaches to
the coming event since the total scores to date being equal, both sides will naturally
make strenuous efforts to pull off a victory and thereby win the rubber.
Another sign of the prestige becoming associated with the series of matches
between the Franklin and Manhattan clubs was the selection of referee. Ex-world
champion Steinitz filled this capacity, and as would be seen, his services were
certainly needed. At the conclusion of the days play, only half of the fourteen games
had been concluded, and thus seven required adjudication. The high number of
adjudications was due to the circumstances of play. Like the first match between the
clubs in 1895, the May 31, 1897, event was conducted by telegraph, the two teams
situated nearly 100 miles apart. The Eagle reported that the New York players were
gathered in the assembly room of the United Charities building on East Twenty-
second Street, and the Philadelphians in the rooms of the Franklin club, on the eighth
floor of the Betz buildingin their city.
Delays plagued play. Although the match was originally scheduled to begin at
10:30 on the morning of May 31, the Eagle would write that it was an hour later
before the first moves were being ticked off, owing to a hitch in establishing
communication between the two points. Two telegraph operators, one for receiving
and one for transmitting moves, were situated at each location. The dual
transmission, however, designed to speed up play, was undermined by the fact that
one of the wires had again broken down and all the work was being done by a single
operatoras early as during the late mornings play. The time lost in transmission of
moves caused delays that could not be overcome within the framework of a single
day event. Play lasted for a grueling thirteen hours, but finally was halted with
victory still undecided, for even after adjudication the score stood 6-6 with one
game outstanding. As it finally turned out, even this preliminary and partial result
would be questioned and ultimately changed. And as will be seen, the match was not
without its own share of drama, due as much to events off the board as on it.
Fourteen players appeared at each club on the morning of May 31, 1897, for the
start of hostilities. Frank Sweeny acted as umpire for Philadelphia in New York,
while H. Seymour filled similar responsibilities, in Philadelphia, for the New York
players. The ACM would include a collage of photographs from the rooms of the
Franklin, as well as a line drawing of the corresponding scene among the Manhattan
club players.
The New York team in fact benefited from the delay in starting the match.
According to the Eagle, Showalter, their star player, had only arrived the night before
from Georgetown, Kentucky. Showalter caused considerable anxiety by failing to put
in an appearance at the time for which the match was scheduled to being. The ex-
champion, who is noted for his tardiness, had overslept himself and arrived at the hall
just in time to be included among the competitors.
The pairings saw the Franklin members playing White on even numbered boards.
The table that follows is based on the ones appearing in the ACM as well as the
Philadelphia Public Ledger for June 15, 1897, at page 15, though certain changes in
results had to be made to both. In addition, full names of players have been added,
where they could be determined, based on original sources as well as Jeremy Gaiges
indispensable Chess Personalia: A Biobibliography.
Board
Franklin Chess
Club
Manhattan Chess
Club
Opening Score
1. Hermann G. Voigt Louis Schmidt, Jr. Sicilian -
2. Alfred K. Robinson Eugene Delmar Queens Pawn 0-1
3. David S. Robinson Albert B. Hodges Sicilian 0-1
4.
Gustavus C.
Reichhelm
Nicolai Jasnogrodski Spanish 1-0
5. Julius A. Kaiser William M. de Visser Sicilian 0-1
6. Joseph P. Morgan David G. Baird Queens Pawn 1-0
7. Walter Penn Shipley H. Davidson Four Knights -
8. Charles J. Newman
Major J. Moore
Hanham
Kings Gambit -
9. Mordecai Morgan Gustave Simonson French 1-0
10. Elihu S. Maguire August Vorrath Four Knights -
11. Samuel W. Bampton Charles B. Isaacson Scandinavian -
12. Jacob Elson Jacob C. Halpern Spanish 1-0
13. John W. Young S. Lipschutz French -
14. Emil Kemeny
Jackson W.
Showalter
Spanish 1-0
Franklin Chess Club 8 - Manhattan Chess Club 6
The Franklin Chess Club thus defeated the Manhattan Chess Club by a score of 8-
6. Board assignment order, as a glance at the table above will suggest, was not made
according to strength. If this were otherwise, one would have to assume Jackson
Whipps Showalter, for example, who had held the United States Championship until
the month before, when he had been defeated by Harry Nelson Pillsbury in a closely
contested match by a total score of 11-9, was considered the weakest of the
fourteen players on the Manhattan squad. One would also have to assume that three
previous United States Champions, Hodges*, Lipschtz, and Showalter, all ranked
beneath the first board player, Louis Schmidt. Similar comparisons could be made
concerning the Franklin Chess Club. For instance, Walter Penn Shipley, Samuel W.
Bampton, and Emil Kemeny, boards 7, 11, and 14, respectively, for Philadelphia,
were known to be three of the strongest players in Pennsylvania. Though information
explicitly stating how match pairings were made could not be found, it appears that
players were indeed ranked according to perceived strength and paired accordingly,
with actual board numbers then assigned at random.
Regardless of how board order was determined, there could be little doubt that the
twenty-eight players listed among the ranks of the two teams represented much of the
flower of chess talent in the United States, though by no means all. Pillsbury, of
course, was unfortunately absent, as was the boy wonder from Brooklyn, William
Ewart Napier. Western players such as Max Judd were not present. Frank James
Marshall, who would hold the United States Championship from 1909 until 1936,
was not yet so strong as to be missed. He would not make his international
appearance until two years later, when he played in the minor tournament associated
with London 1899, and would not seriously be noticed by the international chess
community until his third place finish at Paris the year after. Still, the listings for the
Franklin and Manhattan clubs were formidable indeed. And on paper, at least, the
New Yorkers would have had to be considered favorites. The final result, with the
match going to Philadelphia, a victory that gave them a 2-1 lead in the match series,
had to be considered a minor surprise. The Manhattan Chess Club would in future
years come to dominate the annual Decoration Day matches between the two clubs.
But on that day long ago, May 31, 1897, such a result was still unknown, a fact
awaiting a distant future.
For most of us, coverage of this chess event occupies but an obscure corner of
American chess history, though at the time the eyes of the chess nation were very
much fixed on the doings transpiring over the telegraph wires between Philadelphia
and New York. Even the treatment of the match in the ACM, from which a number
of the remarks below surrounding the play are taken, provided only one game score in
its article proper, and a total of four of the fourteen games in its Games Sections in its
June and July 1897 numbers. Research, however, has uncovered a total of twelve of
the fourteen games, many of them with detailed notes. They appeared in a variety of
sources, including Chess in Philadelphia, the Philadelphia Public Ledger, with its
chess column edited by the Hungarian master and Franklin Chess Club player, Emil
Kemeny, and other contemporary sources.
Rather than simply giving the games according to relatively meaningless board
order, the discussion below recreates the unfolding nature of the telegraph match,
along with the complications that developed surrounding the play and subsequent
adjudication of a number of the games. The reader is thus invited to step back into
the past, and relive with Americas chess elite the tension, triumphs, and defeats of
that Decoration Day celebrated so long ago.
According to the ACM, the match, almost from the very outset, took a favorable
aspect for the Quakers. It took Mordecai Morgan exactly twenty-one [moves] to
unhorse Simonson. The full run of this pretty game, with notes by Edward Hymes,
are [sic] appended. Hymes indeed did briefly annotate the game for the pages of
ACM, and his notes are identified below as coming from that publication. Reichhelm
included the game in his Chess in Philadelphia with two brief comments appearing at
the games conclusion. But it fell to Emil Kemeny, who included the score first, in the
Philadelphia Public Ledger (hereafter Ledger) for June 1, 1897, at page 13, to note
that the first game finished and probably one of the most interesting was the one
between Mr. Morgan, of the Franklin Chess Club, last years champion, and Dr.
Simonson, of the Manhattan Chess Club. The opening was a French Defense and
played very evenly up to the twentieth move, when Mr. Morgan sprung a surprise on
his opponent by a beautiful combination, which won a piece, whereupon Dr.
Simonson resigned. Even the Brooklyn Daily Eagle, obviously sympathetic to the
New Yorkersplight, reported the encounter as a brief but pretty gamewhen it gave its
readers the score, belatedly, on June 10, 1897.
Simonson,G (New York) Morgan,M (Philadelphia) Board 9
1897.05.31 USA (Franklin-Manhattan Telegraphic Match)
Annotations by Edward Hymes & Gustavus Reichhelm
1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 exd5 4.Nf3 Nf6 5.Bd3 Be7
Hymes: We prefer this to the stolid imitation of Whites move, generally adopted
with 5...Bd6.
6.0-0 Bg4 7.c3
Hymes: There is more raison detre in 7.Nc3 followed by Be3 and eventually
Ne2. White has nothing to fear from ...Bxf3.
7...Nbd7 8.Nbd2 0-0 9.Qc2 c5 10.Ne5 Bh5 11.Nxd7 Qxd7 12.dxc5 Bxc5
13.Nb3 Be7 14.Nd4 Bg6 15.Bf5 Qd6 16.f3 Bd8 17.Kh1 Bb6 18.Bxg6
fxg6 19.Be3
Hymes: White seems utterly unconscious of the clever trap into which he falls.
The proper rejoinder was either 19.Qd2 or 19.Bg1.
19...Rae8 20.Rae1
Reichhelm: Walking into a fine trap.
20...Rxe3 0-1.
Hymes: A thunderbolt in the midst of seeming calm.
Reichhelm: For, if 21.Rxe3, then ...Ng4 wins.
American Chess Magazine, 1897.06, p11
Philadelphia Public Ledger, 1897.06.01, p13
Thus the Franklin team drew first blood, taking a 1-0 lead. That lead was
maintained, though not extended, when the second game finished. As ACM wrote of
it, Isaacson and Bampton agreed upon a draw in an even position, each having two
rooks and the bishops being of opposite color. Kemeny, though, had much more to
say about the game, as he wrote in his chess column in the Ledger: The game
between Messrs. Isaacson and Bampton in the telegraphic match between the
Manhattan and Franklin Chess Clubs terminated in a draw. Mr. Bampton selected the
Center Counter Gambit, and he endeavored to establish an attack, but his opponent
selected conservative moves and managed to maintain an even position. On the
twentieth move an exchange of Queens took place which virtually ended the game,
for neither side had any winning chances. Five moves later a draw was offered and
accepted. The annotations below are Kemenys.
Bampton,SW (Philadelphia) Isaacson,CB (New York) Board 11
B01/11 Scandinavian: Classical
1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.d4 Nf6 4.Nc3 Qd8
4...Qa5 is often adopted at this stage of the game, yet 4. ...Qd8 seems safer.
5.Nf3 Bg4 6.Be2 e6 7.0-0 c6 8.b3 Nbd7 9.Bb2 Bxf3 10.Bxf3 Bd6 11.Qe2
0-0 12.Ne4 Nxe4 13.Qxe4 Qc7
13...Nf6, followed by ...Nd5, was, perhaps, better, though it must be admitted there
was hardly any chance to establish an attack.
14.Qh4 Rae8 15.Rad1 e5 16.h3 f5 17.dxe5 Nxe5 18.Bxe5 Bxe5 19.Qc4+
19...Qf7
Black could not well avoid the exchange of queens, for ...Rf7, as well as ...Kh8,
was likely to give White the preferable game. Of course the exchange of queens
virtually ends the game, neither side having the slightest winning chances.
20.Qxf7+ Rxf7 21.Rd3 Rfe7 22.g3 Kf7 23.Rfd1 Kf6 24.Kg2 f4 25.gxf4
Bxf4 -.
At this point a draw was offered and accepted. The position is a perfectly even
one, and the bishops being of opposite colors, no other result could be anticipated.
Playing equally safe were two other players, Shipley and Davidson. Simple as the
result was, it did raise an interesting question for purposes of conducting the match,
and its first controversy. According to the ACM, Shipley and Davidson soon
followed suit [after Bampton and Isaacsons draw]. The latter, however, sought first
advice from the captain of his team, to which the Franklin Clubs umpire, Mr. Sweeny,
objected. This gave rise to a controversy over the wires, Mr. Shipley stating that, in
his opinion, the captain had no right to advise any of his players whether to play for a
draw or not, and he made the point that, for instance in an endgame, the captain,
seeing a possible win, might indirectly call the players attention to it by directing him
to continue. Mr. Shipley added that, when approached by a player on his team, he
invariably tells him to use his own judgment. Mr. Davidson replied: I accept the
draw, but maintain that the captain should have the privilege of managing his team as
regards playing or not. This matter aside, the draw maintained the Franklins lead at 2-
1.
Concerning the game itself, Kemeny wrote of it that it was carefully played and
resulted in a draw. Mr. Shipley selected the Petroff Defense, which, however, was
shifted into a Double Ruy Lopez. Mr. Davidson, on his seventh turn, made the
conservative a3 move, instead of the usual Ne2 play. This made the defense
comparatively easy, and, as a matter of fact, the Philadelphian experienced but little
difficulty in holding his own. After twenty-two moves were made all the minor
pieces were exchanged. Queens, both rooks and all the pawns remained on the board,
but the position was a perfectly even one. Neither side having any winning chances,
a draw was offered and accepted. Shipley often played much more conservatively in
team match play than he did individually, no doubt the product of his personality,
legal training, and even his Quaker background, a background which has historically
emphasized for those who share it the good of the group over the display of
individual talent.
Davidson,H (New York) Shipley,WP (Philadelphia) Board 7
C49/01 Four Knights: Symmetrical
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nc3 Nc6 4.Bb5 Bb4
Showalter at this point prefers the 4...Bc5 play. The text move, however, is more
conservative, and in all probability better.
5.0-0 0-0 6.d3 d6 7.a3
The usual play is 7.Ne2, followed by c3 and d4. The move selected is hardly
satisfactory. Black has the option to answer ...Bxc3 or ...Ba5. In both cases White
lost time.
7...Bxc3 8.bxc3 Ne7 9.Bg5 Ng6 10.Nh4 h6 11.Nxg6 fxg6 12.Bc4+ Kh7
13.Bh4 g5 14.Bg3
14...Qe8
An important move, which enables Black to continue ...Nh5 as well as ...Be6. The
position now is equalized.
15.Rb1 b6 16.Re1 Be6 17.Bb5 c6 18.Ba4 b5 19.Bb3 Bxb3 20.cxb3 Nh5
21.d4 Rd8 22.Rb2
Perhaps the only way to continue the attack. It is, however, to no purpose. Black
answers ...Nxg3, and there is no chance for either side. At this stage a draw was
offered and accepted.
22...Nxg3 -.
The Franklin players maintained their minimal lead following conclusion of the
next game, once again due to conservative play by the Philadelphians. Kemeny
would write that the game between Messrs. Maguire and Vorrath in the recent
Franklin - Manhattan telegraphic match was evenly contested and terminated in a
draw. Mr. Maguire selected the Four Knights opening, and he obtained a slight
advantage. His twenty-second move, however, was too conservative and enabled his
opponent to equalize the position. When twenty-five moves were made there was no
winning chance for either side and a proposed draw was accepted. The ACM added
that the game between Maguire and Vorrath had gone on for twenty-five moves
without a single pawn being exchanged, when a block[ed] position ensued, which
insured the draw.
Maguire,ES (Philadelphia) Vorrath,A (New York) Board 10
C48/01 Four Knights: Spanish (Rosenthal)
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bb5 d6
4...Bb4 or 4...Bc5 is the usual play. The move selected gives Black a somewhat
slow development.
5.d3 Be7 6.0-0 0-0 7.Ne2 Nh5 8.Ng3 Bg4 9.Bxc6 bxc6 10.h3 Nxg3 11.
fxg3 Bh5 12.g4 Bg6 13.Be3 c5 14.b3 c6 15.Qe2 Re8 16.Bd2 Bf8 17.Be1
f6 18.Nh4 Bf7 19.Nf5 g6 20.Ne3 Be6 21.Bh4 Bg7
22.Rad1
White at this stage of the game had the preferable position. The open f-file should
prove of value. The proper continuation was 21.Rf3, followed by Rdf1, and
eventually Qf2. Black would have difficulty in defending the f-pawn, and he
would have been obliged to move ...g5, which would have weakened his kingside.
22...Rf8 23.Rf3 a6 24.Rdf1 Ra7 25.Be1 -.
Whites twenty-second move was loss of time, and it gave Black the chance to get
his queens rook into play. If White had continued Qf2 Black would have replied ...
Raf7. White at this stage of the game offered a draw, which was accepted.
Another draw as the hours went by, this one between Newman and Hanham, only
heightened the tension. Kemeny would write that the game terminated in a draw after
twenty-six moves. Newman, who is noted for his aggressive style of play and
brilliant combinations, had in Major Hanham an opponent whose strong point was his
conservative play. The opening varied slightly from the book lines, viz. by 5.fxe5,
White endeavoring to turn the game on new lines. Black, however carried it to the
draw, through many interesting stages.
Newman,CJ (Philadelphia) Hanham,JM (New York) Board 8
1.e4 e5 2.f4 Bc5
Gambits are but rarely played in match games, but in the hands of a player who is
thoroughly familiar with the opening very often proves successful, per example, in
the Nuremberg Tournament, Charousek defeated Lasker, Blackburne and
Showalter, playing a gambit in each case. Blacks 2...Bc5 is the favorite, and
perhaps the strongest move for defending.
3.Nf3 d6 4.c3 Bg4 5.fxe5
5.Bc4 or Be2 are both good moves. The text move simplifies the game to some
extent for Black.
5...dxe5 6.Bc4 Nd7 7.d4 Bb6 8.0-0 Qe7 9.Qb3 Bxf3
The attack on Blacks f-pawn becomes very threatening. 9. ...Bxf3 stays it for the
moment.
10.Rxf3 Ngf6 11.Be3
11.Bg5 seems stronger than the line adopted. If 11...h6, then 12.Bxf6 with a good
attack.
11...0-0 12.Nd2 exd4 13.cxd4 Nxe4 14.Nxe4 Qxe4 15.Bxf7+ Kh8 16.
Bd5 Qe7 17.Rxf8+ Rxf8 18.Bf3
White cannot capture the b-pawn with bishop on account of the reply ...Rb8.
18...c6 19.Bf2 Qd6 20.Rd1 Nf6 21.Qc2 Nd5 22.Bxd5 Qxd5 23.b3 g6 24.
Qc4 Qf5 25.Qe2 Rd8
26.Qd3 -.
The forces and position both being even a draw was agreed upon. Black might
have continued 26...Qxd3 27.Rxd3, and then endeavored to win Whites d-pawn,
but it is difficult to ferret out anything more than the draw.
The score was now 3-2, but Philadelphia was about to extend its lead shortly
before play was called. As the ACM reported, Jasnogrodski was rather unfortunate in
being pitted against so dangerous an opponent to his style of play as brilliant
Gustavus Reichhelm. Moreover, the Russian ill-advisedly selected Steinitzs Defense
to the Ruy Lopez, and, as a result, went down ignominiously before the
Pennsylvanian. Pillsbury annotated the game for the pages of the July ACM and
those annotations are identified below with his name. Not surprisingly, Reichhelm
himself included the game in his book about chess in his home city. His brief
comments are given too, and any notes not attributed to Pillsbury are taken from that
source.
Reichhelm,GC (Philadelphia) Jasnogrodski,N (New
York)
Board 4
Annotations by Harry Pillsbury & Gustavus Reichhelm
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 d6 4.d4 Bd7 5.Nc3 Nge7
Pillsbury: Most masters consider 5. ...Nf6 better; Steinitz, however, prefers the
text move.
6.Bg5
Pillsbury: Adopted by Chigorin against Steinitz in their second Havana match,
also by Showalter against Hodges, 1894.
6...f6 7.Be3 Ng6
Pillsbury: Steinitz in this position prefers 7. ...Nc8.
8.h4
Reichhelm: This secures the advantage.
8...exd4
Pillsbury: Perhaps 8...h5 is better, although weakening seriously Blacks kingside
pawns.
9.Nxd4 Nxd4 10.Bxd4 Bxb5 11.Nxb5 c6
Pillsbury: Either 11...Qd7 or 11...a6 is superior to the text, which weakens
seriously the Black d-pawn.
12.Nc3 Be7 13.h5 Ne5 14.f4 Nf7 15.Qg4 Rg8 16.Qf5
Reichhelm: An important step in the combination.
16...g6
Pillsbury: Though by no means satisfactory, 16...h6 would have warded off the
attack and given Black reasonable defensive chances, whereas the text allows
White an additional avenue of attack.
17.hxg6 hxg6 18.Qe6 Qd7 19.Qb3 Rg7 20.0-0-0 Qc7 21.Rh3 b6 22.
Rdh1
22...0-0-0
Pillsbury: Of course this loses at least a pawn, but Blacks game was anyhow
hopeless.
Reichhelm: This hastens the end, but his game was hopeless.
23.Nd5 Qb7 24.Nxf6
Pillsbury: 24.Qc3 also wins at least the exchange instantly.
24...Bf8 25.Qe6+ Kb8 26.Ng4 Ne5
Pillsbury: Tantamount to resigning, which he might do now with good grace. If
instead 26...Rg8 27.Rh7 Rd7 28.Qe8+ Qc8 29.Qxc8+.
27.fxe5 c5 28.Bc3 Qxe4 29.Qf6 Rgd7 30.Qf3 Qc4 31.Rh7 Be7 32.Nf6
Bxf6 33.Qxf6 Qxa2 34.e6 1-0.
Thus, the ACM noted that the score stood 4-2 when at 11 oclock play was
called and Mr. Steinitzs work began. Kaiser had Queen, rook, bishop and seven
pawns against Queen, two rooks and four pawns, but the rooks were doubled on the
seventh row and Mr. de Visser, in showing how he proposed to win, disclosed some
brilliant continuations which he had in store for his opponent. He got the verdict.
Not surprisingly, Philadelphia papers did not include the game score, though New
York, obviously, had a great deal of interest in the game. The notes are de Vissers
own, written especially for the Eagle.
de Visser,WM (New York) Kaiser,JA (Philadelphia) Board 5
B54/02 Sicilian: Open
Annotations by William de Visser
1.e4 c5
A very popular defense in Philadelphia, which we would have done well to have
looked up a little and let alone the new wrinkles in the Ruy Lopez and King
Gambits we had in store.
2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 d6
This and the following two moves are a favorite of Lasker.
5.Nc3 g6 6.Be3 Bg7 7.g3 Nf6 8.Bg2
I am told that this King fianchetto attachment in the attack against the Sicilian
Defense is also recommended by Herr Lasker, but I fancy, after the present
experience, that Lasker would play h3 before Bg2 to prevent the Black knight
coming to g4.
8...Ng4
This gives Black the better position already, for White cannot well afford to allow
his e-pawn to be doubled.
9.Nxc6 bxc6 10.Bd2
Giving up a pawn for an attack which is hardly justified by the results.
10...Qb6 11.0-0 Qxb2
Mr. Kaiser doesnt get bluffed easily.
12.Rb1 Qa3 13.h3 Ne5
BestI wanted him to play ...Bxc3, in which case I should have gotten the best of it
by Rb3 and Bxc3.
14.Rb3 Qa6 15.Re1 Be6 16.Rb4 Qc8 17.f4 c5
I think this pawn was better where it was.
18.Rb1 Nc4 19.f5 Bd7 20.e5 Nxe5
The best move, which gives Black much the better game. Had he attempted to
save the exchange, he would have subjected himself to an overwhelming attack.
21.Bxa8 Qxa8
22.Bg5
This is a strong move, and at the same time a trap. It is meant to entice Black to
check with the knight at f3, when he would have lost, Mr. Kaiser, after the match,
telegraphed that he could have won at this point by checking, but in reply to this
claim I submit the following for his respectful consideration: 22.Bg5 Nf3+ 23.Qxf3
Qxf3 24.Rb8+ Bc8 25.Rxe7+ Kd8 26.Rxf7+ Ke8 27.Re7+ Kd8 28.Rxg7+ and
mates next move. I really expected the following: 22...Nf3+ 23.Qxf3 Bd4+ 24.Kg2
Bc6 25.Rb8+ Qxb8 26.Qxc6+ and will win.
22...f6 23.Nd5 Qc8 24.Bf4 Bxf5 25.Bxe5 dxe5
26.Qf3
This I think was about the best move I made in the game, and I imagine Mr. Kaiser
did not quite see all it threatened.
26...Be6 27.Rb7! Bxd5
Of course, if 27...Qxb7 28.Nxf6+ wins the queen. White now has the best of the
game.
28.Qxd5 e6 29.Qb3 0-0 30.Rd1 c4 31.Qb5 f5
I think that here ...Re8, followed by ...Bf8, might have been a little better, but
White has now a winning game anyhow.
32.Rdd7 Bf6 33.Rdc7 Qd8 34.Rd7 Qc8 35.Rbc7 Qb8 36.Qxc4
(Adjudicated by Steinitz), 1-0.
Steinitz made short work of the game between Alfred K. Robinson and Eugene
Delmar. The ACM merely mentioned that Delmar, being a piece ahead, also got the
decision. Unfortunately the game score has not been located. Initially, another game
caused little controversy, though that would change shortly. According to the June
1897 issue of ACM, Mr. Hodgesplay against the Sicilian Defense can serve as a
model and his position was so manifestly superior that the Franklin Club tacitly gave
up the game. Mr. Hodges asked Mr. Steinitz to reserve decision, as he wanted to
submit analysis proving a win, but in the absence of any claim by the Franklin
players, Mr. Steinitz awarded him the game then and there. Hodges accordingly
annotated the game for the next issue of the ACM, in which publication it duly
appeared in July 1897. Hodgesviews on the Sicilian Defense, curiously given in his
own annotations at the point where the game was adjudicated rather than in
immediate context, make interesting reading for players at the end of the next century.
Hodges,AB (New York) Robinson,DS (Philadelphia) Board 3
B73/03 Sicilian: Classical Dragon (Richter)
Annotations by Albert Hodges
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 d6
Preferable to 4...g6, for after 4...g6 5.Nxc6 bxc6 6.Qd4 White has a superior
position.
5.Nc3 g6 6.Be3 Bg7 7.Be2 Nf6 8.0-0 0-0 9.Qd2 Bd7
It is all book so far. Here 9...Qa5 is often played and the best of players sometimes
overlook the threatened loss of the e-pawn, as is well illustrated in a game played
in this match.
10.Rfd1
A more enterprising line of play is 10.h3, to be followed later by f4, but the attack
is premature. The theory of the modern school is to play for position, and White,
with that end in view, adopts a quiet development.
10...a6 11.Rab1 Rc8 12.f3 Qc7 13.Qe1 Rfe8 14.Qf2 Ne5 15.Rd2 Nc4 16.
Bxc4 Qxc4 17.Nde2 b5
18.b3
The counter attack made on the weak c-pawn is well conceived by Black. The
purpose of White in making the text move is not alone to force the queen to retreat,
but also to limit the action of Blacks minor pieces. 18.Rd4 or 18.a3 would not
have this effect.
18...Qc6 19.Nd1 Qb7 20.Nb2 h5 21.Nd3 Be6 22.Nef4 Bd7 23.Rbd1 Bc6
24.Nb4 Kh7 25.h3 Bh6 26.Nfd5
The exchange of pieces which follows quickly simplifies matters. The resulting
weakness of Whites c-pawn is not so serious as that of Blacks center, upon which
White now has the opportunity of making a direct attack.
26...Bxd5 27.Nxd5 Nxd5 28.exd5 Bxe3 29.Qxe3 Qc7 30.Qf4 Kg7 31.a4
Qc5+ 32.Kh2 b4 33.Re2 a5 34.Rd4 Qc3 35.Rde4 Rc7 36.Qg5 Kf8 37.
Qh6+
37...Qg7
This move was probably made under pressure of the time limit and is inferior to
37...Kg8. But Black, in maintaining his position on the queenside, apparently did
not foresee the danger. After Whites reply he must play ...Qc3 or White improves
his position with Rc4.
38.Qf4 Qc3 39.Re6 Kg7 40.Rxd6
Master players as a rule do not look with favor on the Sicilian,probably for the
reason that Blacks center pawns are apparently weak. The opening moves in this
game appear to have been made with accuracy, and though White in the endgame
has the advantage, it does not necessarily indicate that the defense is analytically
unsound, but experience teaches us that it is well to avoid playing games of an
irregular character in important chess contests, when the defense can with less
difficulty maintain an equality by developing from the center of the board.
(Adjudicated by W. Steinitz), 1-0.
The game was adjourned at this move and according to the rules adjudicated by
Mr. Steinitz, who decided it a win for White. Numerous variations may be given
which all result in favor of White and from them we select the following. After 40.
Rxd6, should Black play ...exd6, then this continuation is practically forced. 40.
Rxd6 exd6 41.Rxe8 Qxc2 42.Qxd6 Qc5 43.Qd8 Qc1 44.Rg8+ Kh7 45.Rh8+ Kg7
46.Qf8+ Kf6 47.Qd6+ Kg7 48.Ra8 Qc5 49.Qd8 and wins. Should Black, instead
of capturing the rook on his fortieth move, play ...Qc5, the following line of play is
probable: 40...Qc5 41.Qe5+ f6 42.Rxf6 exf6 43.Qxe8 Qxd5 44.Re7+ Rxe7 45.Qxe7
+ Qf7 46.Qxf7+ Kxf7 47.Kg3 Ke6 48.Kf4 g5+ 49.Ke4 f5+ 50.Kd4 Kd6 51.Kc4
Kc6 52.g4 hxg4 53.hxg4 f4 54.c3 bxc3 55.Kxc3 Kc5 56.b4+ axb4+ 57.Kb3 and
wins.
American Chess Magazine, 1897.07, p114-115
But the matter did not end there. In fact, once Hodges published his analysis in the
July number of the ACM, Robinson, no doubt aided by other Franklin club members,
offered a rebuttal of Hodgesanalysis and Steinitzs conclusion. The new magazine
was no doubt pleased to offer its readers another viewpoint, introducing the page
devoted to the matter by writing that Mr. D. Stuart [Robinson], and, we may say, the
entire Franklin Chess Club, is of the opinion that Mr. Steinitz erred in awarding the
above game to the Manhattan Chess Club (compare ACM, No.2, game 16, p.115).
Their claim is based on 41...Rd2, a move not considered by Mr. Hodges in his notes
to the game. We append Mr. Stuarts [Robinsons] analyses.
David Stuart Robinson introduced his comments by saying that in the analysis
given by Mr. Hodges, in the second number of this magazine, page 115, he suggests
two lines of play for Black, which calls to mind a note frequently made to inferior
moves, I wonder why? If we accept the two lines laid down by Mr. Hodges in his
continuation of the game, as the strongest for Black, the game is certainly lost to
Black, but if Black on his fortieth move plays ...exd6, we would suggest the following
lines of play for Black, beginning with his forty-first move: [The formatting of
Robinsons argument has been altered below, but hopefully not its substance.]
Hodges - Robinson
Analysis by D. Stuart Robinson
40 exd6 41.Rxe8
41...Rd7 {41...Qxc2, as suggested by Hodges for Black, is suicidal, for it not only
allows White to obtain an overwhelming attack, but gives him a passed pawn. The
purpose of Black should be [to] defend this pawn as long as possible, and when White
abandons the e-file, [to use it] as a means of counterattack on the exposed position of
Whites king.} 42.Ra8 {There are several variations, which seem to be open to White,
and we will first continue with a line of attack pointed out by Rocamora, in the
presence of Steinitz, which seemed to win, but the proper continuation for Black was
not then seen. [Robinson latter returned to Whites forty-second move, however,
claiming that if instead 42.Qe4 he would have responded with 42...Qf6, concluding
that in this position, if there is any win it is very difficult to find, and under the custom
of adjudicating adjourned games, a clear win should be shown by some line of play
after eight or ten moves. Black would now maintain the position that he has secured
and wait till the e-file is vacated, or White advances the pawns on the kingside, which
seems hardly advisable. He noted too, concerning 42.Re2, that if White is forced to
this variation, the win seems still more remote. After 42...Qf6 43...Qc4 White has
now no attack that Black cannot answer with counter attack on the kingside.
Similarly, Robinson believed that if instead now 43.Qxf6+, then 43...Kxf6, and the
Whites d-pawn is lost or his game prejudiced.]} 42...Qa1 43. Rxa5 {We give this
continuation first, as it was the object to win the a-pawn, but the capture is fatal.
[Robinson later added that 43.Qe4 Qf6 44.Rxa5 Re7 45.Qxb4 h4 that the last move
forces a draw. He then continued, saying that if 44.Re8, the foregoing analysis seems
to force the rook to return to the e-file, but Black has thereby gained an important
move, and preserved the d-pawn, and as the same variation can be secured by
playing for White on his forty-second move 42.Qe4, 42.Ra8 is fruitless for White. He
concluded this sub-line by saying Black would then respond with 44...Rc7, effectively
repeating the position.]} 44.Qxd6 {If 46.Qxb4, it is equally bad, for then 46...Re1
wins.} 44...Re1. [Robinson apparently felt the final position required no commentary,
in order to further demonstrate that no clear win for White appeared in the
position.]
Though the analytical controversy was finally not resolved in the pages of the
ACM, Hodgesvictory over Robinson remained on the books, and the final match
result includes this tally. Had Robinson persuaded Steinitz to reconsider his decision,
as Steinitz was to do involving another game, and had he been successful in
convincing the referee of the merits of his claim, the Franklin clubs margin of victory
over the Manhattan players would only have increased.
The Franklin players did benefit from one matter, though. According to the ACM,
Mr. J. P. Morgan had an ideal attack against D. G. Bairds King with rook pawn and
knight pawn advanced to the sixth and rooks behind, but somewhat let up by
bartering away his rooks for the Queen. Mr. Sweeny claimed the game on the ground
that Mr. Baird had exceeded the time limit, and the claim was allowed. Mr. Morgan
probably would have gotten the decision anyway. The gamescore has unfortunately
not been found. Apparently the Manhattan team did not contest the decision, and the
game was awarded to the Franklin club.
Kemeny and Showalter, clearly two of the strongest players present, conducted a
game of course closely watched, both during play and during Steinitzs adjudication.
The ACM wrote that Kemeny claimed a win against Showalter and got the verdict.
The game was a Ruy Lopez, Kemeny playing the same variation against Showalter
which the latter repeatedly had adopted against him in their match. A draw position
had been arrived at when Showalter, under the impression that he must win in order
to save the match, effected a break which cost him the game. Kemenys column
introduced the game as follows. [After extensive reading of Kemenys many columns,
the author suspects either Kemeny did not create the final draft of the introduction, or
else, perhaps more likely, tried to write of his own performances as he did everyone
elses, without acknowledging he was one of the players involved.] The game between
Messrs. Kemeny and Showalter in the telegraphic team match between the Manhattan
Chess Club of New York and Franklin Chess Club of Philadelphia, was adjudicated
by Umpire Steinitz in favor of the local player. The game was a Ruy Lopez, the
Kentuckian adopting the Berlin Defense. Mr. Kemeny, on his 9th turn, deviated from
the usual Nd4 continuation, adopting the b3 move. The venture hardly proved a
success, for Showalter was enabled to obtain a pretty good game when he played his
14th turn ...Bf5. The position then became interesting, and for a time it looked as if
Showalter would win. He, however, selected a rather conservative continuation,
which enabled his opponent to inaugurate a winning kingside attack. Reichhelm also
included the game in his book on Philadelphia chess, noting that it was a great battle.
Kemeny,E (Philadelphia) Showalter,JW (New York) Board 14
C67/04 Spanish: Open Berlin (Fianchetto)
bxc6 8.dxe5 Nb7 9.b3
The usual, and probably the best, continuation is 9.Nd4, followed by b3. The play
selected develops the queenside quite rapidly, but the White knight is prevented
from occupying the important d4 square.
9...0-0 10.Bb2 Nc5 11.Nbd2 Ne6 12.Rad1 d5 13.Nd4 Nxd4 14.Bxd4
Bf5
Well played. White cannot well answer 15.Nf3 on account of ...Bg4, nor can he
properly guard the c-pawn. The move c4 is pretty nearly forced, which enables
Black to establish a passed pawn on the d-file. Black was enabled to select this
continuation through Whites ninth move. At that stage Nd4 should have been
played, as pointed out above.
15.c4 c5 16.Bb2 d4 17.Ne4 a5 18.Ng3 Qc8 19.Nxf5 Qxf5 20.f4 h5
An important move. White threatened g4, followed by f5, with a pretty dangerous
attack on the kingside, which continuation is stopped now.
21.Rd3
21...Rfd8
21...a4, it seems, was the proper play. The move selected is too conservative.
Black, with 21...Rfd8, wanted to prevent White from b4, in reply to Blacks ...a5
play. The text move enables White to move a4, stopping the advance of the a-
pawn.
22.a4
An important move. Though it renders Whites b-pawn weak, it was the best play
he had at his disposal. White can sufficiently guard the b-pawn, and it was
necessary to stop the advance of Blacks a-pawn, which would have given Black a
promising attack on the queenside.
22...Ra6 23.Bc1 Rb8 24.Bd2
24...Bd8
If there is any winning chance at all for Black it rested with the ...f6 play. Black
should have tried to obtain the command of the open e-file. The play he selected,
namely, 23...Rb8, 24....Bd8, followed by ...c6, is inferior, and enables White to turn
the tables. Black desired to guard his a-pawn with his bishop. By doing so he
compromised his position, and White is enabled to start a kingside attack, which
proves successful.
25.Qf3 c6 26.Qh3 Qxh3
Forced, for if he moves ...Qg6 or ...Qe6, White continues with f5.
27.Rxh3 Bc7 28.Rff3 g6 29.Rd3 Ra7 30.Rhf3 Kg7 31.h3 h4
To prevent the g4 play.
32.Be1 Rh8 33.Bd2
33...f6
Black should have answered ...Rb8. The move selected proves disastrous. It
weakens Blacks g-pawn, and White is enabled to start a winning attack by
advancing the g-pawn, and by the subsequent command of the open g-file.
34.exf6+ Kxf6 35.g4 hxg3 36.Rxg3 Rh5 37.Rg4 Ra8 38.Rdg3 Rg8 39.
Rg5 Rxg5 40.Rxg5 Bb6
At this point play was stopped and the game was adjudicated by Referee Steinitz in
favor of White. The win is forced by f5, which forces Black to answer ...Rg7 or ...
Kf7. White then plays Rxg6 followed by fxg6. Blacks king is obliged to remain
on the kingside in order to stop the advance of the h-pawn. The white king is
enabled to move to the queenside capturing the pawns, which gives him a win.
The final game of the match to be decided at that time, leaving aside for the
moment the matter of Elson - Halpern, was the one played between Lipschtz and
Young. Young claimed an advantage,wrote the ACM, while Lipschtz made a strong
claim for the game. The game was finally awarded to the Manhattan Club. At least,
that was the case in time for the press for the June issue of the magazine. Kemeny
summed up the feelings of the Philadelphia players in his introduction to the game:
what is most puzzling to the local players is the Lipschtz - Young game, which was
decided in favor of the former. The moves, with the diagram showing the position
where the game was to be adjudicated, is given below. The position has been
analyzed by several players of the local team, yet there is not the slightest advantage
to be found in favor of Lipschtz. Correspondence concerning this game is going on
at present, and it is expected that as soon as Mr. Steinitz receives the correct position
and the defense offered by Mr. Young, he will change his decision and declare the
game a draw.
In fact it transpired that the circumstances were even more confusing than that, at
least during the course of the games play. The ACM wrote that some hitches occurred
on boards one [Schmidt - Voigt] and 13 [Lipschtz - Young]. On the former, two
pieces had been shifted by outsiders during the recess for supper at the Manhattan
end, while on the latter board the Philadelphians made a wrong move, placing
Lipschtzs rook at e1 instead of g1, as transmitted. Upon discovery of the errors a
compromise was effected. Game 1 [Schmidt - Voigt] was given a draw, although
Philadelphia was a pawn ahead and, in return, six moves were taken back on board 13
[Lipschtz - Young], and the game continued from the twenty-second move.
The record of what happened following the match was also carried in the pages of
the local press. The Ledger for June 15, 1897, p.15 noted that Philadelphia won the
match, notwithstanding an unfortunate error in the decision of the Lipschtz - Young
game. Mr. Steinitz admitted that he made a mistake when he awarded the game to
New York, and he stated that he would change it if the New York Club consents to it.
This would make the final score of 8 to 6, in favor of Philadelphia. Three days later,
the Ledger noted that indeed the Manhattan club had consented to Steinitz revisiting
his decision, and the latter subsequently determined the game a draw.
Reichhelm the following year in Chess in Philadelphia, at page 109, summarized
the matter thus: Adjudication time arrived and the game passed into Referee Steinitzs
hands for treatment. Mr. Lipschtz was sure he could win, and offered to wager $50
that he could demonstrate. He proceeded: 31.fxg6 h6 32.Rf2 Be3, etc., and Mr.
Steinitz was so impressed that he awarded the game to White. Lipschtzs analysis
was wrong, and 32...Qe3 at least draws. Mr. Steinitz acknowledged his error, and at
the request of the Manhattan Chess Club corrected his decision and awarded a draw.
Reichhelms last sentence appears to conflate the request for correction made by the
Franklin Club with the agreement by the Manhattan team to consent to Steinitz
revisiting the issue, but Reichhelms summary was otherwise essentially correct. The
net result was that the game allowed the Franklin Chess Club to eventually win the
match 8-6 instead of 7-6.
Lipschtz,S (New York) Young,JW (Philadelphia) Board 13
1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.e5 Nfd7 5.f4 c5 6.dxc5 Nc6 7.a3 a5 8.Be3
Nxc5 9.Nf3 f5 10.Bxc5 Bxc5 11.Bd3 Bd7 12.Nb5 0-0 13.Qe2 Na7 14.
Nbd4 Qb6
Mr. Young has conducted the defense with great good judgment, [and] has at least
an equal game.
15.c3 Nc6 16.Qf2 Nxd4
He should have delayed this capture.
17.cxd4 Be7
Mr. Young, however, wished at all hazards, to nip any attack on his kingside.
18.0-0 Rac8 19.Rad1 Rc6 20.h3 Rfc8 21.Kh1 R6c7 22.Rg1
At this point the move inadvertently played on Youngs board in Philadelphia was
22.Re1, and as noted above, this was the position the game was six moves later
returned to in exchange for the immediate draw between Schmidt and Voigt on
board one.author
22...Bb5 23.Bb1 Ba4 24.Rd2
White plays with the sole aim of facilitating his kingside project.
24...Rc1 25.Bd3 Qc7 26.g4 fxg4 27.hxg4 Rxg1+ 28.Nxg1 Qc1 29.Qh2
g6 30.f5 Bg5
-.
As noted above, part of the compromise to take back moves in Lipschtz - Young
was the agreement to a draw in the game Schmidt - Voigt, on board one. Voigts
agreement to a draw hardly was a sacrifice. As Kemeny wrote in the Ledger for June
4, 1897, a lively game between Messrs. Schmidt and Voigt in the telegraphic match
resulted in a drawn game. Mr. Voigt adopted the Sicilian Defense, and by brilliant
play he won a pawn on the twelfth move. The advantage thus gained might have
proven sufficient, but the local player permitted his opponent to simplify matters by
the exchange of rooks and minor pieces. When thirty-one moves were made Mr.
Voigt was still a pawn ahead, yet his winning chances were pretty near gone. He
offered a draw, which was readily accepted.
Schmidt,L Jr. (New York) Voigt,HG (Philadelphia) Board 1
B72/04 Sicilian: Classical Dragon
1.e4 c5 2.Nc3
2.Nf3, followed by 3.d4, is better. White then has the option to develop the queens
knight to c3 or to d2. He also may fortify his center by moving c3.
2...Nc6 3.Nf3 g6 4.d4 cxd4 5.Nxd4 Bg7 6.Be3 d6 7.Be2
7.Bc4 is, perhaps, a preferable continuation.
7...Nf6 8.h3 Bd7 9.Qd2 Qa5 10.0-0 0-0 11.a3
White failed to observe the brilliant play his opponent had on hand, winning a
valuable pawn. He should have played Nxc6 or Rd1 or f3.
11...Nxd4
12.Bxd4
12.Qxd4 would have saved the pawn, though it places the queen in a somewhat
exposed position. The move selected results in the loss of a pawn, as 12...Nxe4
proves.
12...Nxe4 13.Nxe4 Qxd2 14.Nxd2 Bxd4 15.c3 Bg7 16.Rfe1 d5 17.Rad1
Ba4
A powerful looking move, which, however, does not prove satisfactory. The
bishop will be forced away by the b3 reply of White and Black loses time. Instead
of ...Ba4 he should have moved ...e6.
18.b3 Bc6 19.c4 Bc3
19...dxc4, followed by ...e6 and ...Rd8 was a better continuation. Black should
have endeavored to maintain his bishops, being a pawn ahead it was likely to
secure a win.
20.Bf3 dxc4
20...e6 was probably the best play at this stage of the game. White could not then
well move Re3 on account of d4.
21.Bxc6 bxc6
22.Re3
Excellent play. The move forces Black to answer ...Bxd2, followed by ...cxb3.
Temporarily Black is two pawns ahead, yet White is bound to win one of them, and
he obtains the best drawing chances.
22...Bxd2 23.Rxd2 cxb3 24.Rxb3 Rfd8 25.Rc2 Rac8 26.Rb7 e6 27.
Rxa7 c5 28.Kf1 c4 29.Ra4 Rd3 30.Raxc4 Rxc4 31.Rxc4 Rxa3
After this move Black offered a draw, which of course was readily accepted.
Black is a pawn ahead, and he has some winning chances. By correct play,
however, the advantage is not likely to be sufficient to secure a win.
-.
Only one board escaped Steinitzs evaluation on the evening of May 31, 1897, and
that was the game between Elson of Philadelphia and Halpern of New York. At the
time, as noted above, especially with the Lipschtz - Young game recorded as a win
for the latter, the outcome of the match appeared to hinge on the adjudication.
Because of the games significance, it received special treatment from the ex-world
champion. According to the Eagle for June 3, 1897, Steinitz called for the two players
analyses,and upon receiving it intended to give the position careful examination.
The paper continued, noting that the Philadelphian, Elson, with a passed pawn to the
good, naturally claimed a win, but this Halpern as firmly contested, holding that there
was a draw in the position with the possibilities of a win for him in case his opponent
tried to force matters. Steinitz said on Monday that the presumption of superiority
was with White, he being a pawn ahead and having at least an equal position and that
under ordinary circumstances he would have awarded him the game. Considering its
importance, however, he had complied with the request of both sides to subject it to
thorough analysis.
The position to be adjudicated was published by Kemeny in the Ledger, as it was in
the Eagle, though neither paper ran the whole score. Reichhelm did, however,
include the game, with light notes, in his book. The one additional note by Kemeny
that appeared in his column with the games final position is identified below.
Elson,J (Philadelphia) Halpern,JC (New York) Board 12
Annotations by Gustavus Reichhelm
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nf6 4.d3 Bc5 5.c3 d6 6.Nbd2 0-0 7.Nf1 Ne7 8.
Ng3 Ng6 9.0-0 c6 10.Ba4 Qc7 11.Bc2 Bg4 12.h3 Be6 13.Be3 Bb6 14.d4
The first advance on the center for the purpose of growing an attack.
14...Rad8 15.Qe2 h6 16.Nd2 d5
This attempt to force the fighting gives White the advantage.
17.dxe5 Nxe5 18.f4 Nc4 19.Nxc4 dxc4 20.Kh2 Bxe3 21.Qxe3 Rfe8 22.
e5 Bd7 23.Ne4 Nd5 24.Qg3 Kh8 25.Nd6 Rf8
Must lose pawn now, but he foresees that Nxf7+ will not pay.
26.Nxc4 f5 27.Rae1 Be6 28.Nd6 Kh7 29.Bb3 Qe7 30.Re2 b5 31.Bc2 g6
32.Qf2 Nb6 33.b3 Nd5 34.Qc5 Qc7 35.Bd3 Qb6 36.Qxb6 axb6 37.c4
Nb4 38.Bb1 bxc4 39.bxc4 Ra8
The continuation is, say, 40.Rb2 c5 41.Rf3 Ra6 42.Rfb3 [Emil Kemeny instead
noted in the Ledger for June 15, 1897, p.15, that the win is forced by the following
continuation: ... 42.a3 Nc6 43.Rc3 followed by Rd2, Nb5, and Rd6.] 42.Rb8 43.g4
fxg4 44.hxg4 Bxg4 45.Ne4 etc.
Although the Manhattan players eventually consented to having Steinitz reconsider
his decision in Lipschtz - Young as well as to extending time, at Steinitzs request,
for further examination of Elson - Halpern, that willingness to lengthen the matter had
clearly not been their initial desire. The Eagle for June 10, 1897, had paraphrased
Colonel Morse, who had the management of the match on Decoration Day,as
remarking in effect that the Franklin Club [ ] had declined on the day of play to
consider the suggestion of calling the match a draw and replaying it at an early date,
when this seemed the most sensible course to pursue considering the closeness of the
score and the many unsatisfactory features which had attended the play. Perhaps
what sounded most sensible to the New York players, who perhaps could hear the
match slipping away from them, did not strike a similar chord with the Philadelphians.
In any event, de Visser added at the same time that the experience of this match has
acted strongly against any further telegraphic contests being played by us, at all
events, when over the board play can be substituted with very little, if any, more
expense or inconvenience to the players, and this feeling, I know, is shared by players
of the Franklin club as well as of the Manhattan. And indeed, the classic series of
inter-club matches between these two powerful teams proceeded in future years over
the board.
Thus ended the third annual match between the Franklin Chess Club of
Philadelphia and the Manhattan Chess Club of New York City. The two clubs would
play annually for many years, usually with victory falling to the lot of the New York
players. Little more could, or would, be said of this match in years to come, though
no doubt the victory was one long cherished in Philadelphia. The Ledger for June 15,
1897, did add that the expenses of the match are to be divided between the two clubs.
The local club will receive an engrossed score card as a trophy of its victory. An
illustration of the score card appears on page 12 of the June 1897 issue of American
Chess Magazine. And understandably so, since the magazine itself presented it to the
winning club. In those glorious days of inter-club rivalry, such a trophyno doubt was
worth much more than its weight in gold to the victors.
* Whether Albert Beauregard Hodges ever legitimately held the title of United
States Champion should be a subject of some controversy among American chess
history scholars. I am indebted to Nick Pope for first bringing the issue to my
attention. The generally held view is that Hodges did hold the title, but this
conclusion is based upon the assumption that Lipschtz, the previous title holder,
had in fact given up his crown when he moved out West for reasons of health.
Lipschtz would later deny that he had abdicated, thus casting into doubt the
legitimacy of Showalter having again assumed the title prior to the moment Hodges
defeated him in a match. Hodges did, however, resign his title, or at least his claim
to it, shortly thereafter, due to the pressure of his business commitments, and
Showalter took up the title once more. Any question as to Showalters later
supremacy over Lipschtz was answered in a subsequent match between the two,
played once Lipschtz had returned East. This article, however, is not the place to
attempt a detailed evaluation concerning such matters. They involve complex
questions of pedigree, ones requiring long and careful study of the historical record
as it pertains to the high throne of American chess.
The author wishes to thank Andy Ansel, Eduardo Mercere and Nick Pope for their
assistance with this essay.
Errata (Added 2000.01.16)
There is an error in the Franklin - Manhattan 1897 telegraphic match piece. Dr.
Albert C. Simonson playing Mordecai Morgan on board nine on the chart would be
quite a trick, since Albert Simonson wasn't born until something like 17 years after
the match.
It should be Gustave Simonson. The change needs to be made in the chart, at
board nine, and then again in the header for the first game, to read Simonson,G -
Morgan, M.
Sorry about that. - J.S.H. [No Problem - N. P.]
Chess is a scientific game and its literature ought
to be placed on the basis of the strictest truthfulness, which is the foundation of all scientific
Keres Plays With the Wehrmacht
by Tomasz Lissowski
Contrary to the Latin saying that During war, the Muses are silent,Caissa was not mute during World War
II. The game of chess, with its dual nature of sport and pastime, and of course because of its close association
with images of military conquest and war, became a small but active component of the Wheels of War on both
sides. The German command, following Dr. Goebbelsslogan, All forces - for the front,included chess in its
program called Truppenbetreuung or Pastimes for soldiers. Groups of chess masters circulated from field
hospitals to barracks to mess halls, playing exhibition tournaments and giving simultaneous displays.
In May 1943, after Wehrmacht troops had disastrously lost the Battle of Stalingrad, a Truppenbetreuung
event was held by the occupying authorities in the Polish city of Poznan. In November 1939 the Germans had
renamed that unfortunate city Posen,directly annexing the city and its captive people into the Reich. The main
attraction for the audience at the event would be the presence of Paul Keres, the Estonian grandmaster, a player
generally recognized since AVRO 1938 as a candidate for the world chess championship.
The wars destiny for Keres (1916-1975) and his small homeland was one of bitter restraint and difficult
circumstance. In recalling the forgotten Poznan episode from the chess career of this splendid sportsman and
individual, whose portrait was placed on bank notes, in 1991, by a newly independent Estonia, I will refrain
from political or ethical conclusions and, instead, focus strictly on the facts. Most of the reports which follow
are generally unknown in chess circles, as is the accompanying photograph of a young Keres. These were
found in the annals of Ostdeutscher Beobachter, the German newspaper issued in occupied Poznan. These
reports, it should be emphasized, would have been almost impossible to locate without the kind guidance and
suggestion of Professor Andrzej Kwilecki, the leading expert on Poznan chess history.

Reichsuniversitt
(Adam Mickiewicz University)
Poznan City Album, c1920-1929

Great Hall
An anonymous journalist reported the following to his readers on Monday, May 24, 1943:
The Days of Chess for Wehrmacht in Posen began Sunday afternoon with a short ceremony
in the Great Hall of Reichsuniversitt [before and after the war known as Adam Mickiewicz
University - T.L.]. Afterwards simultaneous exhibitions were conducted, with the
participation of the world championship candidate Paul Keres (Reval) against forty players,
and three chess masters: Eysser (Bayreuth), Rogmann (Berlin) and Dr. Kraemer (Posen), each
against twenty opponents, mostly soldiers.
The opening ceremonies of this, the hitherto largest chess event for the Wehrmacht in the
District of Varta River, was attended by representatives of the Wehrmacht, the State, and the
Party, with General Bielfeld, military commandant in Posen, among the honorable visitors.
In his short speech, party comrade Dr. Altmann, who was representing the German Labor
Front for the Management of Varta District, expressed his joy at the large attendance at a
chess event organized by the National - Socialistic Commune Kraft durch Freude[Force
through Joy,a Nazi governmental agency organizing holidays and other events for Reich
employees - T.L.] in cooperation with the All-German Chess Union, on behalf of the
Wehrmacht Main Headquarters, for purposes of the military forcesrecreation, chess program.
The speaker announced that District Management had established a special prize. Military
commandant General Bielfeld in the name of all the soldiers who were taking part in the
event, thanked the organizers for setting up the exhibition. The General noted that chess play
requires certain features, which could be said to be truly soldierly in nature: courage,
concentration, logical thinking and ambition. Wehrmacht Command will accordingly
continue to promote chess among its soldiers as one of the more useful pastimes.
Reichsschachwart [Reich Chess Secretary - T.L.] Majer described the actions undertaken by
Kraft und Freudefor placing chess (a game unlike any other and one involving numerous
features of character and intellect, ones particularly useful for developing the spirit) on such a
wide basis for the people. Chess was a very popular source of diversion and relaxation among
soldiers between battles, as well as at field hospitals, during the First World War. In the same
manner, chess is a useful military amusement during the present war. Comrade Majer then
introduced the world championship candidate, Paul Keres, who during the past seven years
has successfully participated in international tournaments, and who reached a place in the first
rank of internationally known chess masters.
The Secretary also introduced the other chess masters present in Posen, namely Gruenfeld
(Vienna), Rogmann (Berlin), Eysser (Bayreuth) and also Obergefreite Bickenbach (Posen)
[Obergefreite ranks between a Private and a Corporal - T.L.], who jointly with Keres will take
part in a four day encounter starting on the following Monday in Posener Hoff [Poznan Castle
- T.L.], wishing them both luck for a hopefully fascinating event.
Afterwards four masters approached the boards for simultaneous play. The largest interest,
of course, focused on the forty games conducted by Grandmaster Keres. Though boards
where Rogmann, Eysser and Dr. Kraemer were playing against twenty each, however, were
also besieged by kibitzers. After only a few minutes Rogmann was able to gain the first
victory when one of his antagonists resigned in a lost position. Shortly thereafter Keres won
his first point too, though he faced twice the number of opponents. As time went on,
numerous players were dispatched, until finally only the hardiest and most implacable players
withstood against the masters superior knowledge. The display ended after slightly more than
four hours. According to expectations, Keres came off as great victor with 33.5-6.5. He won
32 games, drew 3, and lost 5. Rogmann won 15 games, drew 3, and lost 2 (scoring a total of
16.5-3.5). Eysser won 17, drew one, and lost two times (scoring 17.5-2.5). Dr. Kraemer
defeated 16 partners, played one draw, and had to reconcile himself to 3 defeats (scoring 16.5-
3.5).
The following players finished their games against Keres successfully: Sonderfuehrer
Waeber, Sonderfuehrer Lau, Barthell, Jannasch, Popp (Reichs Railway); draws were made by
Oberfeldfebel Biedendorf, Gefreite Bruechold, and Gefreite Kanitz. Against Rogmann,
Lieutenant Braun and Gefreite Maier won; Thuernau, Wachmeister Zwergel and
Oberfeldfebel Junker played a draw. Eysser was defeated by Rueffer (Reichs Railway) and
Gefreite Waldheuer, with a draw reached by Sturm. The victory over Dr. Kraemer were
gained by Oberarzt Dr. Thomas Hauptmann of Schutzpolizei, Roelofsen and Unteroffizier
Winnerling, Poppenberg played a draw. Sonderfuehrer Waeber gained the XXI Military
Region prize for the first victory over Keres.
Ostdeutscher Beobachter, 1943.05.24

Keres vs. members of the Wehrmacht
KERES, GRUENFELD, ROGMANN WIN
The First Round of the Master Chess Tournament

The first round of the Posen Chess Master Tournament for the Wehrmacht was played on
Monday. The main interest centered on the game of the world chess championship candidate
Keres with Obergefreite Bickenbach. In the endgame Keres won without incident, despite his
opponents obstinate resistance. In the game between Master Eysser from Bayreuth and
Rogmann, the latter remained victorious after he weakened his opponents queenside by a
surprising tactical maneuver. In the game Gruenfeld versus Kieninger, Gruenfeld slowly and
carefully built an advantage, winning the game due to his passed pawn. Keres, Gruenfeld and
Rogmann now lead.
Bickenbach Keres,P (1)
C55/01 Two Knights: Italian
1943.05.24 POL Poznan
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Nc3 Nxe4 5.Nxe4 d5 6.Bxd5 Qxd5 7.Nc3 Qa5 8.d3 Bg4 9.Bd2
Nd4 10.Ne2 Nxf3+ 11.gxf3 Qd5 12.Nc3 Qxf3 13.Qxf3 Bxf3 14.Rg1 0-0-0 15.Rg3 Bc6 16.0-0-
0 Rd4 17.Re1 Rh4 18.h3 f5 19.Rg5 g6 20.Rxe5 Rxh3 21.Rg1 Bd6 22.Re2 Bf3 23.Re6 Kd7 24.
Rge1 a6 25.Bg5 h6 26.Bf6 Rg8 27.a3 g5 28.b4 Rg6 29.d4 Rh1 30.Rxh1 Kxe6 0-1.
Paul Keres: Photographs and Games, Tallinn 1995, p158

Posener Schloss
(Poznan Castle)
SECOND ROUND
Keres and Rogmann Lead

In the second round of the masterstournament for the Wehrmacht in Posener Hoff,tense
and complicated games developed. In a Spanish Opening the world championship candidate
Keres proposed to Vienna chess master Gruenfeld the exchange of queens, in order to
maintain a small but lasting pressure. Gruenfeld held out for a draw, but after he made several
imprudent moves, Keresrooks invaded the kingside. Gruenfeld overstepped the time limit in
a lost position. A Spanish Opening between Rogmann and Kieninger was adjourned after 40
moves, but on resumption was easily won by Rogmann. A wonderful success was gained by
Obergefreite Bickenbach against Bayreuth master Eysser. The game ended in a draw. The
score after the second round: Keres and Rogmann - 2 points each, Gruenfeld - 1 point,
Obergefreite Bickenbach and Eysser - 0.5 point each, Kieninger - 0 points.
Some valuable awards for the master tournament have been offered by the mayor of Posen,
as well as by the Wehrmacht Commandant and the Regional Management of the German
Labor Front. In addition, the Posen Commune of Force through Joyhas offered a brilliancy
prize.
Keres,P Grnfeld,E (2)
Annotations by G.R. in Deutsche Schachzeitung.
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Be7 6.Nc3 b5 7.Bb3 d6 8.Nd5 Na5 9.Nxe7 Qxe7
10.d4 Nxb3 11.axb3 Bb7
11...Bg4 was a serious alternative; on b7 the bishop does not play a large role.
12.Bg5 h6 13.Bxf6 Qxf6 14.Re1 0-0 15.dxe5 dxe5 16.Qd3
Now, and in the future, the break c7-c5 must be avoided.
16...Rfe8 17.Qc3 Qe7 18.b4 Rac8 19.Qc5
The break c7-c5 must be prevented at any price. After queens are exchanged White preserves some
pressure.
19...Qxc5 20.bxc5 Rcd8 21.Re2 Re7 22.Ne1 f6 23.f3 Red7 24.Nd3 Rd4 25.Kf2 Ra8 26.Ra5
Kf7 27.Ke3 Rad8 28.Rd2 Ke7 29.g4 Bc8
Something should have been done against the opponents threatened action on the kingside; 29...h5 was
officious.
30.Ra1 Bb7 31.h4 g5?
Now Whites rooks will invade through the h-file into Blacks position.
32.hxg5 hxg5 33.Rh1 Rf8
34.c3!
A quiet but powerful move.
34...Ra4
Returning to d7 would have been an error for 35.Rh7+ Rf7 36.Rxf7+ Kxf7 37.Nxe5+.
35.Rh7+ Rf7 36.Rdh2 Bc8 37.Rxf7+ Kxf7 38.Rh7+ Kg6 39.Rxc7 Be6 40.Rc6 (Time), 1-0.
And in this hopeless position Black overstepped the time limit.
Deutsche Schachzeitung, 1943, p62
KERES IN FIRST PLACE
Rogmann Delivers a Dramatic Game to Keres

In the third round of the Posen MastersChess Tournament for the Wehrmacht, Gruenfeld
won against Eysser who in the middlegame did not find the best defense. Rogmann secured a
point in the game against Obergefreite Bickenbach. Kieninger held an isolated central pawn
against Keres. This weakness ran through the whole game as a red thread. Nevertheless
Kieninger defended obstinately. The game was adjourned and will be continued today. After
three rounds Keres and Rogmann lead with 3 points, followed by Gruenfeld with 2 points.
[Keresscore seems like speculation as his adjourned game had yet to be finished.- T.L.]
The fourth round saw the dramatic game between Rogmann and Keres. In the Spanish
Opening Rogmann gained a wonderful attacking position. It appeared Keres was about to
lose, but then he found a defense. In an interesting position Rogmann had a sure draw in
hand. Still, he wanted to win, and fell victim in his attempt after a surprising retort by his
opponent. Rogmann resigned to Keres after four hours. Gruenfeld defended against
Bickenbach a la Prussian. He won the endgame after hard resistance. The game Eysser -
Kieninger was adjourned in a position difficult to evaluate.
Keres played his fifth round and final game a day early against Eysser. He forced the
Bayreuth master to resign after thirty moves. Thus with four points Keres secured first place
in the tournament. A hard fight between Gruenfeld and Rogmann is expected today on 1
oclock, PM, until 5 oclock. The game Kieninger - Bickenbach will decide who will be fourth
in this tournament.
Tonight at 8 oclock a farewell banquet will be held in the Posener Hoff,together with the
award ceremony for the tournament winner. It will be held in collaboration with the Reich
Theater of Posen [Wielki Theater - T.L.]. Soldiers and civilians interested in chess are invited.
Kieninger,G Keres,P (3)
D45/05 Semi-Slav: Exchange
1943.05.25 & 27 POL Poznan
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 d5 4.Nc3 c6 5.e3 Nbd7 6.cxd5 exd5 7.Bd3 Bd6 8.0-0 0-0 9.Re1 Re8 10.
Qc2 Nf8 11.e4 dxe4 12.Nxe4 Nd5 13.Bg5 f6 14.Nxd6 Rxe1+ 15.Rxe1 Qxd6 16.Bh4 Be6 17.
Bg3 Qd7 18.a3 Nb6 19.Qc5 Rd8 20.h3 Nc8 21.Be4 a6 22.Qb4 Ne7 23.Bb1 Nfg6 24.h4 Bg4
25.Ba2+ Nd5 26.Nh2 Be6 27.Qd2 Nf8 28.Qa5 Bf7 29.Nf3 Ne7 30.Bxf7+ Kxf7 31.Bc7 Re8 32.
Bb6 Nd5 33.Rxe8 Qxe8 34.Bc5 Ng6 35.h5 Ngf4 36.Nh4 Qd7 37.h6 g5 38.Nf3 Nxg2 39.Kxg2
Qg4+ 40.Kh2 Qxf3 41.Qd8 Qxf2+ 42.Kh1 Qe1+ 43.Kh2 Nf4 44.Qf8+ Kg6 45.Qg7+ Kh5 46.
Qxh7 Qf2+ 47.Kh1 Qg2# 0-1.
Rogmann,G Keres,P (4)
C84/12 Spanish: Closed (Center Attack)
Annotations by G.R. in Deutsche Schachzeitung.
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Be7 6.d4 exd4 7.e5 Ne4 8.Re1 Nc5 9.Bxc6 dxc6
10.Nxd4 0-0
Grnfeld and other masters prefer here 10...Ne6 and, as shown by this game, that line seems to be better.
11.Nc3 Re8 12.Be3 Bf8 13.f4 f6 14.exf6 Qxf6
So played Keres against Dr. Alekhine in Kemeri 1937. That game, which ended with a draw, was unknown
to the commander of the white forces.
15.Qf3 Bf5
Surprising because Black in this line tries to preserve his pair of bishops as compensation for Whites better
pawn position. In this sense 15...Bd7 comes into account.
16.Nxf5 Qxf5 17.Re2 h5
This weakening move is hard to avoid, as g2-g4 is a permanent threat. Whites position is undoubtedly
superior, moreover Black must avoid a general exchange in order not to loose the endgame.
18.Rae1 Rad8
18...Bd6 immediately was better. Now Blacks position becomes critical.
19.Kf1! Bd6 20.Bxc5 Rxe2 21.Qxe2! Qxc5
Forced; if 21...Bxc5, 22.Qc4+ followed by 23.Re5 and the bishop is lost.
22.Qe6+ Kh8
23.Ne4
In preliminary calculations White planned to play 23.Qf7, then later the seemingly strong knight move.
23...Qxc2!
Saving idea! The endgame after 23...Qd5 24.Qxd5 cxd5 25.Nxd6 Rxd6 26.Re7 would be inconvenient for
Black.
24.Ng5
White seemingly had a win in his pocket, threatening 25.Nf7+ as well as 25.Qe8+. However, the open
position of Whites king allows Keres to slip away.
24...Qd3+! 25.Kg1?
White plays carelessly for a win and overlooks a nice rejoinder. Correct was 25.Re2 after which Black
should have taken the draw by perpetual check: ...Qd1+.
25...Qd4+ 26.Kh1 Qxf4
The refutation!
27.Nf7+ Kh7 28.Nxd6 Rxd6 29.Qe8 Qf5 30.h3 Rd2 31.Qb8 Qd5 32.Rg1 Rxb2 33.Qxc7 c5
34.a4 c4 35.Qg3 Qe4 36.Re1 h4 37.Qxg7+ Kxg7 38.Rxe4 c3 39.Rc4 c2 40.Kh2 b5 41.axb5
axb5 42.Rc7+ Kf6
And after several moves White resigned.
43.Rc6+ Ke5 44.Rc5+ Kd4 45.Rh5 c1Q 46.Rd5+ Ke3 47.Rd3+ Ke2 0-1.
Deutsche Schachzeitung, 1943, p62-63
Paul Keres: Photographs and Games, Tallinn 1995, p158-159
GRUENFELD SECOND PRIZE - WINNER
The Ending of the Posen MastersChess Tournament

Before the start of the last round, adjourned games were played. Kieninger showed some
resistance against Keres, but was forced by his opponent into a mating net. Eysser was not
able to convert his better position into a win and had to be satisfied with a draw. The decisive
game for the second prize was played in the last round between Gruenfeld and Rogmann, and
it developed into a complex position. Grunfeld offered a draw on his eighteenth move.
Rogmann refused as the position still contained a lot of possibilities for further fight.
Rogmann complicated the position, but it turned against him. He overlooked a tactical
possibility in the middlegame and lost. Gruenfeld thus secured second prize. In the game
between Kieninger and Bickenbach, the player from Munich won easily.
Keres,P Eysser (5)
B14/09 Caro-Kann: Panov (Carlsbad)
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 cxd5 4.c4 Nf6 5.Nc3 Nc6 6.Bg5 e6 7.c5 Be7 8.Bb5 Bd7 9.Nf3 0-0 10.0-
0 Ne4 11.Bxe7 Nxe7 12.Bd3 f5 13.Ne2 Ng6 14.b4 a6 15.a4 Qc7 16.Qb3 b5 17.axb5 Bxb5 18.
Bxb5 axb5 19.Qd3 Qc6 20.Ne5 Nxe5 21.dxe5 Rxa1 22.Rxa1 Ra8 23.Ra3 Rxa3 24.Qxa3 d4
25.f3 Nd2 26.Qd3 Nc4 27.Qxd4 Qa8 28.Qd7 1-0.
Keres convincingly won the tournament. Gruenfeld also was successful. Rogmann, who
during two and a half years has not played a single tournament game because of his
Truppenbetreuungchess engagements for soldiers in conquered areas, could easily have made
a large surprise. Eysser, who for the past year and a half has been engaged in delivering chess
amusement for soldiers (and who has also been engaged in organizing the chess
Truppenbetreuung) has also not played any tournament games, but was very close to being a
surprise. Eyssers extensive efforts also kept him from playing his best. Kieninger and
Bickenbach were defeated only after stout resistance.
The press from the Varta District showed great interest in the tournament. Many radio
reports were dedicated to the event. Listeners from Posen and Litzmannstadt [Lodz - T.L.]
suggested to Secretary Majer that every Saturday at 4.30 P. M., the radio should have a
Wehrmacht chess report. The first such report was aired June 5th.
Deutsche Schachzeitung, 1943, p56
Kerespost-war chess activities are well known; it is not necessary to recount them here. Ernst Grnfeld
lived in Vienna until his death. Though not rich, he was never poor or hungry. Georg Kieninger (1902-1975)
was the champion of West Germany in 1947 and during the next ten years remained one of the best chess
masters in his country.
But many stories are yet to be written. For example, whatever happened to Rogmann and Eysser, those
tireless participants of Wehrmachtbetreuung? Did Obergefreite Bickenbach survive the war? What were the
lots of those who had defeated Keres in the Posen simul for the Wehrmacht: Sonderfuehrer Lau, Barthell,
Jannasch, Popp and Sonderfuehrer Waeber, who received the award for the most rapid win over the Estonian
grandmaster? Will anybody ever be able to answer such questions?
The Blackburne-Zukertort Match,
London 1881
- Prologue - - -
1
Zukertort-
Blackburne
- [B45/01] Sicilian
2
Blackburne-
Zukertort
- [C45/05] Scotch
3
Zukertort-
Blackburne
1-0 [B23/10] Sicilian
4
Blackburne-
Zukertort
5
Zukertort-
Blackburne
1-0 [B25/02] Sicilian
6
Blackburne-
Zukertort
7
Zukertort-
Blackburne
1-0 [C01/03] French
8
Blackburne-
Zukertort
9
Zukertort-
Blackburne
1-0 [A46/04] Indian
10
Blackburne-
Zukertort
- [C45/06] Scotch
11
Zukertort-
Blackburne
1-0 [A13/01] English
12
Blackburne-
Zukertort
1-0 [C45/13] Scotch
13
Zukertort-
Blackburne
A Player in Search of a Biographer:
George Henry Mackenzie
by John S. Hilbert
The strongest American-based player of the nineteenth century still waiting to
receive full blown biographical treatment, along with an extensive, well-researched
game collection, is George Henry Mackenzie. Yet few players could boast as
interesting a life off the chessboard, at least in his younger years, than this same
player.
Mackenzie was born on March 24, 1837, in North Kessock, Scotland. He would
die a little over fifty-four years later, in New York City, on April 14, 1891.
Mackenzies 2560 historical Elo rating tells something about his relative playing
strength, during the period, and especially during his peak years as a player. Frank
James Marshall, United States champion for twenty-seven years, in fact has an
historical Elo rating only ten points higher than Mackenzies: 2570. An exceptionally
talented player such as the original Boy Wonder of Brooklyn, New York, William
Ewart Napier, had an historical Elo of merely2500. But it is Mackenzie who has
most suffered, forgotten by all but the hardiest of chess history scholars.
Mackenzies finest European results are comparatively better known. A small
sampling include his finishing tied for fourth and fifth with Zukertort with a score of
22-11 at the great double round event held in Vienna from May 10 through June
18, 1882, behind Steinitz and Winawer (24-10) and Mason (23-11), but ahead of
Blackburne, Englisch, Louis Paulsen and ten others. The next year, at London 1883,
Zukertorts greatest tournament triumph, where he won by three full points over
second place finisher Steinitz, Mackenzie tied for fifth through seventh with Mason
and Englisch. In 1886 he drew a match with Amos Burn by a score of four wins each
and two draws. His greatest international tournament success, however, was his first
place score of 15-5 at Frankfurt 1887, the Fifth Congress of the German Chess
Federation, held July 18 through August 2, 1887, where he out ran the likes of
Blackburne and Weiss by one and a half points, and where a young Tarrasch finished
tied for fifth and sixth.
Mackenzies international successes came, according to Hooper and Whyld, writing
in their indispensable Oxford Companion to Chess, New Edition (Oxford University
Press 1992), after a fifteen year period in the United States, from 1865 through 1880,
when he amassed a record of thirteen straight first place finishes in tournaments,
while winning six of seven matches, with only one drawn. His success in this country
included, for example, first place at Cleveland 1871, Chicago 1874, and New York
1880, the second, third, and fifth American Chess Congresses, respectively.
Hooper and Whyld also suggest, however, just how fascinating Mackenzies life
appears to have been away from the chessboard. We learn from them that he bought
a commission in the Kings Royal Rifle Corps, serving in Ireland, but then resigned it
in 1861 to return to London for chess. Then, in 1863 he went to the United States and
enlisted in the Northern army. After fifteen weeks as a private he became a captain in
a Black infantry regiment, from which he was discharged a few months later,
allegedly for desertion and impressment. He rejoined the army in 1864 to fight with
distinction in three battles, after which he was arrested (for his earlier desertion) and
imprisoned. After his release in May 1865 he settled in New York and devoted most
of his time to chess.
Such extraordinary matters, both of heroism and its apparent opposite, should whet
the appetite of chess historians everywhere. Particularly fascinating, for example,
would be interrelating Mackenzies early chess experiences in the United States with
his movements withinand apparently withoutthe Union army during the Civil War.
Tantalizing glimpses can be found, of course. Gustavus C. Reichhelm, one of the
driving forces in chess in Philadelphia from the early 1860s until his death in 1905,
well knew of Mackenzies prowess at chess, and indeed played him two games at the
old Philadelphia Chess Club in 1864, where they split their contests. Many years
later, in 1898, Reichhelm would publish his Chess in Philadelphia, to this day still the
best account of chess in the city of brotherly love from its beginnings to nearly the
end of the nineteenth century. Included in that volume was Reichhelms 1864 victory
over Mackenzie. The game was played at the old Philadelphia Chess Club, then
located at the Northeast corner of Thirteenth and Chestnut streets, on the second
floor, where members would find their club rooms open daily at ten in the morning.
Reichhelm,GC Mackenzie,GH Offhand
C51/02 Evans
1864 USA Philadelphia, PA (Philadelphia Chess Club)
Annotations by Reichhelm
cxd4 Bb6 9.Bb2 Nf6 10.Qc2
One of the best forms of attack in the Evans Gambit. 9...Nge7 was better for
Blacks previous move.
10...0-0 11.e5 Ne8 12.Nbd2 d5 13.Bd3 h6 14.Ba3 Ne7 15.Nb3
An important move to keep up the pressure and retard Blacks c-pawn.
15...c6 16.Nh4 Nc7 17.f4 Ne6 18.Qf2 Qc7 19.f5 Nxd4
Hobsons choice. He must extricate himself at any cost.
20.Nxd4 Qxe5 21.Nhf3 Qf6 22.Rae1 Re8 23.Bxe7 Rxe7 24.Rxe7 Qxe7
25.Re1 Qf6 26.Re8+ Kh7 27.Bc2 Bd8
To drive [the] rook away by ...Bd7. On ...Bc7 White plays Nh4.
28.Ne5 Bc7 29.Ng6
The goal of Whites play.
29...Bxf5 30.Nf8+ 1-0.
Chess in Philadelphia, p75
The following yearapparently after his release from prison?Mackenzie again
traveled to Philadelphia, where this time he was beaten by Reichhelm by a score of
four wins to one, with one draw. But in 1867 Mackenzie would obtain overwhelming
revenge, defeating Reichhelm in a nine game match in Philadelphia by the score of
seven wins to none, with two draws. Reichhelm rather glossed over his debacle when
writing Chess in Philadelphia, merely mentioning, in the third person, that after the
horrendous drubbing he took that about this time Mr. Reichhelm concluded that
match play was not his forte. With increasing years and experience he has been able
partly, but never wholly, to overcome the nervous excitement which attends him
when playing games on which a great deal depends. The first match game of 1867
suggests some of Reichhelms nervous excitement,but also some of the advance in
Mackenzies play.
Mackenzie,GH Reichhelm,GC (1)
1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 exd5 4.Nf3 Nf6 5.Bd3 Bd6 6.0-0 0-0 7.Bg5 h6 8.
Bh4 g5
Black exposes his king too much by this move.
9.Bg3
By sacrificing the knight for two pawns, White might have got up somewhat of an
attack, but scarcely sufficient to have compensated for the loss of a piece.
9...Bxg3 10.fxg3 Ne4 11.c4 Nc6 12.Nc3 Nxc3 13.bxc3 Be6 14.cxd5
Bxd5 15.Ne5
It was suggested by Stanley, who was present while the game was being played,
that 15.Nh4 would have given White a winning game, for suppose: 15.Nh4 gxh4
16.Rf5 Be6 17.Qg4+ Kh8 18.Qh5 and must win.
15...Nxe5 16.dxe5 Qe7 17.Rf6 Qxe5 18.Rxh6 Be4 19.Bxe4 Qxe4 20.
Qh5 Qe5 21.h4 Rad8 22.Rf1 Rd6 23.Rff6
This compels Black to exchange the queen for the two rooks.
23...Qxf6 24.Rxf6 Rxf6 25.Qxg5+ Rg6 26.Qe5 Rd6 27.g4 Rfd8 28.h5 c6
29.h6 Rg6 30.g5 Rf8 31.Qe7 Re6 32.h7+ 1-0.
But Mackenzies win over Reichhelm in 1867 came long after his involvement in
the American Civil War, his imprisonment, and his release. What of his activities
more directly related to this period of national, and apparently for Mackenzie,
personal, turmoil?
More tantalizing glimpses surface, and should someday prove useful to the
biographer or biographers of Mackenzie. Reichhelm wrote much, much more than
his one volume, Chess in Philadelphia. He was, for instance, chess editor of the
Philadelphia Evening Bulletin from 1861 through December 30, 1870, when the
Evening Bulletin published its last chess column. During his nine year tenure with
the Evening Bulletin, Reichhelm published literally thousands of chess games and
hundreds of chess problems. He also, from time to time, gave brief glimpses into his
own correspondence with chess masters. His developing correspondence with
Mackenzie was no exception.
In the February 6, 1864, Evening Bulletin, for instance, Reichhelm wrote that our
readers will probably remember the arrival in New York, last fall, of Mr. George H.
Mackenzie, an English [sic] chess player, who had acquired an excellent Chess
reputation in London. Mr. Mackenzie made most creditable scores with several of
the strongest players in New York, and is now engaged in the great game being
played by our government against the Southern rebels. We were glad to receive a
letter from him this week, dating from Virginia, and signing himself with the
honorable title of Captain 10th Regiment U.S.C.T.[United States Colored
TroopsJSH]. In referring to his games with Mr. Lichtenhein, which have been a good
deal quoted in New York, Captain Mackenzie says: Mr. Lichtenhein was so much out
of practice, that I look upon the result of the games played as no test at all of what he
can do when in play. A valuable hint, if they would but see it, to many Chess players
who build reputations upon chance successes, won from the carelessness or want of
practice of superior players.
The following week, Reichhelm published the first of a small number of offhand
games Mackenzie played in New York City against Francis Eugene Brenzinger, then
a twenty-eight year old whom Reichhelm described as one of the leading New York
players. The column, unfortunately, gave no specific date for the game, merely
describing it as being played a short time ago.
Brenzinger,FE Mackenzie,GH Offhand
C51/03 Evans: Morphy (Paulsen)
1864 USA New York, NY
cxd4 Bb6 9.Nc3 Na5 10.e5 Nxc4 11.Qa4+ c6
Much better than interposing the bishop.
12.Qxc4 d5 13.Qb4 Ne7 14.Ba3 Ba5
Very well played.
15.Qb3
If 15.Qa4, Black, of course, replies with 15...b5.
15...Bxc3 16.Qxc3 0-0
Black now has a safe game, with a pawn plus.
17.Ng5 h6 18.Nh3 Re8 19.f4 Nf5 20.Rad1
White should have boldly advanced 20.g4.
20...Qh4 21.Qf3 Ne7 22.Bxe7 Qxe7 23.f5 b6 24.Qg3 f6 25.e6 c5 26.Nf4
We should have preferred 26.dxc5, because Black would have been compelled to
retake with 26...Qxc5, which would have rendered the d-pawn weak and
unsupported.
26...Qd6 27.Qg6 Ba6 28.Nh5 Qe7 29.Rf3
White would have obtained a very fine game by now playing 29.Rfe1, following it
up with Re3.
29...Be2
This move was no doubt overlooked by White.
30.Rg3 Bxh5 31.Qxh5 Kh8 32.Rdd3 c4 33.Rc3 b5 34.Rg6 Qf8
Compulsory, to prevent the threatened mate in a few moves, by Rxh6+, etc.
35.Rcg3 Re7 36.Qf3 Rd8 37.Qf4 b4 38.Qc1 c3 39.a3 a5 40.axb4 axb4
41.h4 Rc8 42.Kh2 Rb7 43.Qe1 b3 44.Rxc3 Rxc3 45.Qxc3 Qb8+ 0-1.
Philadelphia Evening Bulletin, 1864 .02.13
It would of course be of interest to learn whether this game was played after
Mackenzie left the nations military service the first time, or whether it was played
before that date. Perhaps a future biographer will shed some light on this matter.
Of interest, too, is the brief report in Reichhelms March 19, 1864, Evening Bulletin
column, where he mentioned that Captain Mackenzie is spending a short furlough in
New York, and has played a number of games with various New York amateurs, in
most of which he has proved successful. We are glad to say that Captain Mackenzie
expects to spend two or three days in Philadelphia in the beginning of next week, and
will visit the Philadelphia Chess Club.
But two weeks later Mackenzie still had not appeared. Apparently his health was
suspect, and this had delayed his departure. No doubt the Philadelphia chess
community was quite interested in seeing a player such as Mackenzie. In his April 2,
1864, column, Reichhelm wrote that the Philadelphia Chess Club which felt the
depressing effect of the war so severely last year, now displays a vigorous vitality,
which reminds us of the palmy days of its earlier history. In the same column he
noted we are glad to be able to inform our readers that Captain Mackenzie and Mr.
Brenzinger, of New York, propose to pay the Philadelphia Chess Club a visit during
the coming week, Captain Mackenzies furlough having been extended on account of
sickness. He is rapidly recovering, and we hope to see some fine specimens of play
during his visit.
No doubt the same correspondence that brought Reichhelm news of Mackenzies
condition also brought additional games Mackenzie and his expected traveling
companion, Brenzinger, had contested in New York. Two more games by Mackenzie
were published in the same column.
Mackenzie,GH Brenzinger,FE Offhand
C51/02 Evans: Morphy
cxd4 Bb6 9.Nc3 Bg4 10.Bb5 Bxf3 11.gxf3 Kf8 12.Be3 h5 13.Kh1 Qh4
14.Rg1 Qf6 15.Nd5 Qd8 16.Qd2 Ba5 17.Qc2 Nb4 18.Nxb4 Bxb4 19.
Qb3 Ba5 20.Bc4 Qf6 21.Bg5
This combination is faulty.
21...Qxd4 22.Bxf7 Qc3 23.Bxg8 Rxg8 24.Qd1 Qe5 25.Rc1 Bb6 26.Qe2
Re8 27.Rcd1 Re6 28.Qd2
He cannot move 28.Rd5, now, as to do so would cost him the rook.
28...Qc5 29.Qf4+ Ke8 30.Rd5 Qxf2 31.Rgd1 g6 32.e5 Rf8 33.Qe4 Qxf3
+ 34.Qxf3 Rxf3 35.exd6 cxd6 36.h4 Re2
And Mr. Mackenzie resigned.
0-1.
Philadelphia Evening Bulletin, 1864.04.02
Mackenzie,GH Brenzinger,FE Offhand
C51/03 Evans: Morphy (Paulsen)
Annotation by Reichhelm
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Bc5 6.d4 exd4 7.0-0 d6 8.
cxd4 Bb6 9.Nc3 Na5 10.Bd3 Ne7 11.e5 0-0 12.exd6 Qxd6 13.Ne4 Qd5
14.Ba3 Re8 15.Neg5 h6 16.Be4 Qd7 17.Ne5 Qxd4 18.Qh5 Be6 19.Nxe6
fxe6 20.Qf7+ Kh8 21.Qxe6 Nec6
White mates in four moves.
1-0.
Philadelphia Evening Bulletin, 1864.04.02
The planned visit by Mackenzie and Brenzinger to Philadelphia in April 1864,
however, does not appear to have materialized. Why was this so? Did Mackenzies
recovery from illness further delay his leaving New York City for Philadelphia? Was
he required, rather, to immediately rejoin his troops for the Spring Campaign of
1864? Had he already deserted by then? Did he in fact desert at all? Perhaps
someday we will learn, if Mackenzie ever finds a biographer worthy of his talent on
the chessboard.
REFERENCE LITERATURE FOR CHESS HISTORY
A Combined Bibliography and Want List
by Anders Thulin
In the recent column Chess Lore: Wantedat www.chesscafe.com, Edward Winter
listed a number of areas of chess history where further work is highly desirable.
Some of these are: general chess history, player collections, republication of
important annotators like Steinitz and Tartakower, and translations of important
books.
The area of basic reference material is covered only briefly and essentially only
mentions Jeremy Gaiges impressive works. It did, however, point out a strange
omission in rather strong terms:
[...] and nobody, it would seem, has yet ventured to produce a
dependable chronological list of all match results between strong
masters. As long as something as fundamental as that is lacking in
chess literature, it is strange for anyone to believe that the heritage has
been adequately chronicled.
This statement can easily be extended to other fields than that of chess matches,
although perhaps none of the same importance.
The purpose of this article is to make such an attempt by listing important areas for
chess history reference material, noting what work has been done, and suggesting
what further work may be needed.
CHESS TOURNAMENTS
Main work:
Jeremy Gaige: Chess Tournament Crosstables

vol I: 1851-1900 (1969)
vol II: 1901-1910 (1971)
vol III: 1911-1920 (1972)
vol IV: 1921-1930 (1974)
privately published: Philadelphia
The standard reference books. Lists all known complete OTB
tournaments regardless of strength, with source references.
Complementary works:
Jeremy Gaige: Chess Tournaments - A Checklist

vol I: 1849-1950
vol II: 1951-1980
privately published: Philadelphia, 1985
A listing of known tournaments no crosstables, just event names,
years and winners.
Richard Melton: The Complete Book of Chess Tournament
Crosstables

vol 1: 1851-1948
vol 2: 1949-1967
Fountain Hill, AZ : Ram Enterprises, Ltd., 1997 (both volumes)
Despite the title, this work is only a selection of important
tournaments, produced for a different audience than Gaiges work. Its
main value is that it covers the time after 1930, but as there is no
source information, or indications of when the author had to recreate
crosstables from partial information as the preface indicates
happened, I doubt that it merits to cited as a main work for this
subject area.
Other works:
P. Feenstra Kupier: Hundert Jahre Schachturniere

Amsterdam : W. Ten Have N. V., 1964
Covers the most important tournaments in the period 1851-1950. In
German. Referenced by Gaige.
N. I. Grekov: Istoriia shakhmatnykh sostiazanii

Moscow, 1937
Referenced by Gaige.
Notes:
The only work currently in print is that of Richard Melton.
Gaiges main works only cover complete crosstables for OTB events.

No correspondence tournaments are included, as far as I can find, nor
are incomplete known crosstables listed.
To do:
A player index

It is impossible to decide whether a player is listed in a crosstable
without going through all the relevant volumes.
More years

Crosstables up to 1970, at least, are needed, and preferrably to the
same standards already set by Gaige.
Extend coverage

- Correspondence tournaments have not been listed at all, as far as I
can find.
- There are several tournaments for which no full crosstable can be
given, but where at least the known data can be presented. To some
extent this is covered by Gaiges Checklist.
- Add information about tournament directors and other persons
closely involved with the progress of the tournaments.
CHESS MATCHES
Main work:
No main work seems to exist.
Other works:
P. Feenstra Kuiper: Hundert Jahre Schachzweikmpfe

Amsterdam, 1967
Covers only the most important matches during the 1851-1950
period. Not seen.
Edward Winter, ed: World Chess Champions

Oxford : Pergamon Press : 1981
- Covers only the World Championships for men.
- There are several other works covering this area, and no compelling
reason to quote more than this one.
Richard Melton : The Complete Book of Chess Tournament
Crosstables

(see above)
Lists World Championship match, Women World Championship
match, Junior Championship match, and some further important
match results only.
Oxford Encyclopedia of Chess, vol. 1

Contains important matches up to 1866.
To do:
Cover matches up to 1970

To similar standards of documentation as used in Chess Tournament
Crosstables.
OTHER CHESS EVENTS
Main works:
No works known
To do:
List team matches
List exhibition events: Simuls, blindfolds, living chess, etc.

These have close connections to chess columns, as being indicative
of the chess activity in a community.
List congresses and similar administrativeevents.

This point has strong connections with chess clubs and organizations,
mentioned below, and should perhaps be merged with it.
CHESS PERIODICALS
Main works:
None known, but see Zemitis below.
Other works:
Theodor Kiel: Verzeichnis der Schachzeitungen und Schachspalten

Minden, 1885
Not seen.
Val Zemitis: Alpha list of international chess journals

Davis, CA : Amber Pub. Co., 1991
Not seen. May be main work.
Some national chess bibliographies, and chess library catalogues
cover this area.
To do:
List general chess periodicals up to at least 1970

- The main purpose is of course to get an idea of what periodicals a
country, an editor, a language has produced. Another important
purpose is to provide a base for correct and unambiguous
bibliographic references. (Anyone who doubts this is needed is
cordially invited to study the publishing history of Wiener
Schachzeitung. All of them.)
- This list has connections with the chess column list mentioned
below, as some chess columns have been published under names that
easily can be mistaken for names of periodicals, e.g. Augsburger
Schachblatt, or BergischeSchachzeitung.
List club periodicals

These are only rarely listed in general works of bibliography, yet can
give important information on the growth, life and decay of a chess
club (or at least its club magazine).
CHESS COLUMNS
Main work:
Alain C. White: List of Chess Columns

published in several installations in the chess column of Norwich
Mercury (UK) in 1907-1908
Other known works:
Theodor Kiel: Verzeichnis der Schachzeitungen und Schachspalten

(see above)
Johann Berger: Schachjahrbuch 1899/1900 contains a list of chess
columns.
Some national chess bibliographies cover this area, and occasional
chess column clippings may be available in libraries.
To do:
List columns up to at least 1950

- The number of chess columns gives a good indication of the level
of chess interest in a country, as well as the type of chess interest:
game play or problem chess. They are often the source for
information of local interest, and are now the sources for many
otherwise unknowngames by visiting chess luminaries.
- For the area of republication of important writers and annotators,
knowledge of their columns is of prime importance.
CHESS COMPOSITION
This area comprises composed problems and studies, prize tourneys etc.
Main work:
None known
To do:
List prize tourneys

Coverage of tourneys for chess problems or studies, in particular the
list of prize winners, and where the report was published. For early
tourneys perhaps up to 1930(?) it would be useful to document the
winning compositions as well, as original sources are becoming
increasingly more difficult to obtain.
Catalogue private publications

- This may be a non-issue, but I have the impression that many works
in this field are published privately, and only seldom appear in
official works of national bibliography. - If this impression is correct,
we need a bibliography over such works on chess composition.
CHESS CLUBS AND OTHER ORGANIZATIONS
Main work:
None known
In these days of highly organized chess, the main sources are
probably the publications of the different chess federations and
organizations.
To do:
Cover the early years

That is, cover the time before chess became much organized in the
area, region or country of interest: What chess clubs existed?
Where? How large were they? When did they die, or merge with
other clubs, or refuse to do so, etc. This area has close connections
with that of chess personalia.
Monographs on important chess clubs

Some chess clubs are of sufficient interest to merit their own studies.
One possibility may be the Havana Chess Club in the late 1880s.
BIBLIOGRAPHY OF CHESS HISTORY
Main work:
Bibliotheca Van der Linde-Niemeijeriana aucta et de novo descripta

Vol 1: Chess: Bibliography and History
The Hague, 1974
- Only covers holdings of the library, not necessarily everything that
has been published, though coverage is probably very close to 100%.
- Not in print.
To do:
More of the same

25 years have passed.
REPUBLISHING
This area has already been mentioned by Winter, but Id like to add my suggestion
for republication of chess columns by important chess writers, players or problemists.
And, as so many of the works listed elsewhere in this article are out of print, the
general area of chess history could also do with a bit of republishing of important
works.
OTHER AREAS
I have not mentioned chess personalia, but that is only because Jeremy Gaige has
done so much in that area already that I cant think of anything more to do.
Main work is Gaiges Chess Personalia (MacFarland, 1987 out of print). Judging
from the catalogue of Cleveland Public Library (www.cpl.org), Gaige has also
produced similar works for many individual countries, and for other subgroups
(women players, problemists, arbiters, etc.)
1999 Anders Thulin. All Rights Reserved.
One Mans Mind
by Quentin Reynolds
(submitted by John S. Hilbert)
[The following article about Jos Raul Capablanca appeared in the March
2, 1935, issue of Colliers magazine. Quentin Reynolds, the author of the
piece, obviously knew little about chess or its then recent history. Yet
overlooking this unfortunate fact, so often present in terms of popular
media coverage of the game, his piece is entertaining enough, and
certainly represents how the non-chess playing public was provided a
glimpse of the Cuban superstar. There are errors of fact that appear
below, and so the piece should be read with extreme caution. The most
transparent, for anyone knowing something about chess history, is perhaps
the third to the last paragraph: When Capablanca was the champion he put
his crown jauntily upon his head and cried joyously to the chess world
Come and get it! Hed play anyone any time for anything. He was in truth
a fighting champion. He beat them all time after time. Reynolds
reference, no doubt an honest error by someone unfamiliar with the
history of the game, implies that Capablanca played numerous matches in
defense of his title, which obviously was not the case. As is well known,
or should be, Capablanca never defended his title between the time he
won it from Lasker in 1921 until the time he lost it to Alekhine in 1927.
Reynolds in all likelihood confused Capablancas enthusiasm about his
willingness to meet Alekhine for a return match with the Cubans
bitterness over Alekhines failure to meet him in a return match, even eight
years after Alekhine defeated him. Such cautions aside, the reader is
invited to see the making of a legend in the popular mind.JSH]
Jos was a very inquisitive kid who was constantly asking questions with his eyes.
He was more quiet than the youngsters with whom he played, but there was nothing
else to distinguish him from his playmates. I mean until that day when his father sat
in his office playing chess with a friend.
They were old friends, these two, and often when the sun was very hotand the sun
can get very hot in Havanathey would sit in the office with a chessboard between
them and now and then they would send a clerk out to get them glasses of rum. Now,
if the truth be known, Joss father was not a very good chess player. He was in fact
un jugador muy malobut no matter. On this day he sat there studying the pieces
intently. The game was going against him. Then he moved a knight from one white
square to another white square. There was a childish squeal from five-year-old Jos
and for the first time the two men were conscious of the fact that the boy had been
there watching, wide-eyed and quiet.
Run along and play,the father grumbled to the boy.
Please, Fatherlet me watch!the youngster pleaded.
The father looked at his son in amazement. What manner of child was this that
begged to be allowed to watch two grown men play chess?
Stay, then, but be quiet,the father said, and the game went on.
The father won the game and he chuckled at the discomfiture of his old friend.
Then he was astounded to hear his son say: You won, Father, but not fairly. You
moved a knight from one white square to another. That is not fair.
Both men looked at the child in amazement. Joss father was not conscious of the
fact that he had inadvertently cheated. His opponent, too, had missed the play. Oh,
but truly they were poor chess players. However, they went back over the game and
found the place where Capablanca senior had made that false move. His annoyance
over his clumsy mistake was overshadowed by the discovery that his five-year-old
chico could play chess.
Who taught you to play?the father demanded.
Nobody,Jos Capablanca, Jr., said calmly. I have watched you play many times,
Father. And now I can play. It is easy to play chess, isnt it?
Sit down, my little cabbage,the puzzled father said, and well see if you can play.
Okay, Pop,the kid said, only he said it in Spanish, for it was not until many years
afterwards that he learned English. And he defeated his father very easily and that
father was the proudest man in Havana.
He took the youngster around to the Havana Chess Club to meet the real players.
They laughed when he sat down to the chess table, but soon their laughter
changedyou know the rest of it. The best players could beat him but not one there
could give him a queen and beat him. And so genius was discovered.
Now there are three great chess players in the world: the Russian lawyer,
Alexander Alekhine; the German, Dr. Emanuel Lasker, and Jos Capablanca, who is
no longer a five-year-old child prodigy. At present Alekhine holds the world title, but
those who know a Hampe Allgaier Thorold gambit from a queens pawn tell me that
Capablanca is the greatest of them all and that over a period of years he has
demonstrated his superiority again and again over the other masters.
I had always thought that a chess master was a cross between a logarithm table and
an adding machine and that such a master would have a long white beard, large
hypnotic eyes and would sing nothing but a strictly intellectual bass. Capa (sure, we
chess experts call him Capa) was a rude shock to me. He is just on the wrong side of
forty but looks as though he were just on the right side of thirty and he is dapper and
handsome and he is actually interested in only one thingbaseball.
But Chess Isnt Important
It was difficult to get Capablanca to talk about the great matches in which he has
engaged, for, as he says, When a match is over I forget it. You can only remember so
many things, so it is better to forget useless things that you cant use and remember
useful things that you can use. For instance, I remember and will always remember
that in 1927 Babe Ruth hit sixty home runs.
Yes, it was difficult to get Capablanca to talk about chess and when I would ask
him some penetrating question such as Do you owe your success to clean living, right
thinking and giving up your lunch hour to study?the master would meditate for a
moment, a faraway look would come in his eyes and he would say, Yes, I know
Charlie Gehringer is a swell second baseman, but did you ever see that Eddie Collins
when he was very, very hot?
Finally, by offering such alluring bait as the hint that an introduction to Mickey
Cochrane might be arranged I managed to get him talking about chess and eventually
the entire story of his amazing career unfolded itself.
Capablanca is one of the very few child prodigies who manage to outstrip their
early fame. He is actually better now than he was when he was five years old. It is a
story, I think, ofbut listen to it, my friends and neighbors; it isnt long, the hay is all in,
the cows are bedded down for the night and theres tobacco at your elbow.
We left our little wonder boy sitting in the Havana Chess Club playing the best
men there on even terms. Don Celso Golmayo, champion of the club, was the only
man there who could give the boy a rook and beat him.
When Don Celso grew old he would sit at one of those tables at the open-air cafs
on the Prado and perhaps someone would mention Capablanca, who by then was
listed with sugar and Adolph Luque as being one of the most important Cuban
exports.
Capablanca?Don Celso would muse. Let me see. Oh, yes, I remember him well. A
bright lad. Yes, indeed, I used to play chess with him. I always gave him a rook.Then
Don Celso would chuckle and perhaps order another daiquiri.
When Jos was twelve, no one could give him even the handicap of a rook. He was
a slim, wide-eyed boy still, and not too strong. That amazing mind of his apparently
drained and took unto itself some of his physical strength. At this time Juan Corzo
was the chess champion of Cuba. A match was arranged between Corzo and
Capablanca. Capablanca had never taken a chess lesson in his life. He was a genius,
but genius untrained is apt to achieve nothing but brilliance, and brilliance seldom
survives when pitted against capability. Until now Capablanca had played sheerly by
what, for want of a better word, well have to call instinct.
Some friend of his fathers gave him three books on chess to read before the Corzo
match. A chess game, generally speaking, is a mathematical symphony in three
movements. There are the opening, the middle and the end, and each has a technique
of its own. One of the books was on endings. Capablanca read it and his mind, like a
thirsty plant absorbing water, took it all in eagerly. He had no time to read the other
books.
Everyone acknowledged the uncanny ability of the boy, but those Cubans had a
very great respect for chess; they felt that it was a game that had to be learned, not a
game that was part of one, even a gifted one such as the wide-eyed boy. So they gave
the boy no chance at all against the veteran champion, who, by the way, was twenty-
eight, the age, Capablanca now says, when a man should be at the height of his game.
A Move a Minute
Now Corzo was an excellent player whose chief forte was his opening play. He
won the first two games from Jos without any trouble, but in winning them he lost
the match. The man who won four matches first was to be declared the champion;
drawn games were not to count.
Those two games which he lost taught young Capablanca a great deal. Until then
he had known nothing of openings. He was like a tennis player who serves only to put
the ball into play and who has no hope of acing his opponent. But now Corzo was
showing the twelve-year-old tyro that openings were important. Capablanca absorbed
the technique used by Corzo and then turned it against him. Corzo did not win
another game. Five were drawn and then Capablanca won the necessary four.
I look back now,Capablanca says, and Im amazed at the general soundness of my
opening in the last game which I won. Were I to replay the match game I might well
use the same opening.
This was in 1900, and it was the first title that he had won. Before he finished he
was destined to win every single title that the chess world has to offer.
In 1904 Capablanca went to New York to learn English, and he wanted to learn
Englishso help meso that he could play baseball. Did you ever?
It was like this: Columbia University had very good ball teams in those days and
Capablanca wanted to play for Columbia. To play for Columbia he had to be a
student. To be a student he had to know English. So he set to work learning English.
Then he took his entrance examinations.
I dont know why Capablanca is the worlds greatest chess player any more than he
does. He certainly followed no success formula and he was never really a student of
the game in the sense that he arduously studied the work of other masters. Probably
his success was due to a certain cerebral quality lacking in the rest of us. That quality
manifested itself when he took those difficult entrance examinations. The algebra
examination, for instance, was scheduled to last three hours. At the end of an hour
Capablanca handed in his paper.
Poor kid,the instructor said, I guess it was too tough for him. He just gave up.
But he was wrong. When he marked the paper he found that Capablanca had
attained the high mark of 99 per cent, highest of any who had taken the test.
Mathematics always came easy to me,Capablanca said thoughtfully.
So he entered Columbia and received the greatest thrill he had ever received when
he made the freshman team as shortstop. And he was a good shortstop too. At this
time Capablanca was not the worlds greatest chess playerbut he was, and he always
remained, the worlds fastest player. Where others, even the masters, took long,
agonizing periods to move, Capa seldom took more than a minute.
The chief feature of his game at that period was his ability to press home a slight
advantage. Then, too, he knew when to sacrifice. In all respects he was like the
Detroit team of 1934: aggressive, sound, playing a heads-up gameand then a sharp,
furious attack when an opponent left an opening. Chess people may shudder at
comparing a chess master to a baseball team, but knowing Capablanca, I feel that hell
consider it a great compliment. His endings (finishing punches), then as always, were
superb.
His most colorful feat (he laughs it off as being a stunt) occurred in Cleveland a
couple of years ago when he played 103 men simultaneously. He won 102 matches
and drew one. It was the greatest exhibition of its kind ever seen.
But I was tired after that match,he said.
I suppose you were brain-weary,I suggested.
Capablanca laughed. No, not at all. But I had been on my feet for seven hours. I
had to keep walking from table to table. I must have walked ten miles. In chess, as in
baseball, the legs go first. Chess is not an old mans game.
Probably two of the most important chess tournaments played in the past twenty-
five years were the San Sebastian tournament held in 1911 and the International
Masters tournament held in New York in 1927. Capablanca won both.
It was very chilly in Spain during the San Sebastian event and Capablanca caught
himself a bad cold. However, he went through the early rounds easily enough. Now
Capablanca is not, as we have hinted, the gray-bearded recluse that the word chess
masterbrings up. He is a gay, happy-go-lucky caballero and hell take a drink or sing a
song or sit up all night and talk about anything. He found kindred spirits in San
Sebastian that year and, although he devoted his days to playing chess, he felt that the
nights were his own. He saw, shall we say, the night life of Spain?
When the day dawned for his final match (it was with Dr. Vidmar, wizard of
engineering and chess) Capa woke up with a temperature of 103. He felt like nothing
on earth, but chess matches, unlike prize fights, cannot be postponed at the whim of a
participant. He had to go through with it or forfeit. He led the tournament and to win
all he needed was a draw with Vidmar. Vidmar on the other hand could win the
tournament if he beat Capablanca. It was a tough spot. And the stuffy room where
they were to play was crowded with spectators and filled with smoke and unbearably
hot. The fever was killing Capablanca.
Capablanca suggested that the game be removed to a neighboring room which was
larger. They moved. The room was encircled by windows which were closed. The
Cuban though hed burn up if those windows werent opened.
A bit stuffy, isnt it?he suggested and he opened one window. They began the
match and the fever mounted. Between moves Capablanca arose casually and strode
to another window. Eventually he had every window in the place wide open and the
breeze almost murdered the sun-loving Spaniards. But it kept that fever from
mountingand Capablanca won the game which he had only hoped to draw.
The New York International Masters tournament in 1927 gave Capablanca a
chance to put on his greatest show. All of the greatest masters were entered:
Alekhine, Marshall, Vidmar, Spielmann, Nimzowitsch and the Cuban.
Come and Get It
Capablanca fulfilled his destiny during that tournament. Perhaps no one ever
played the inspired chess that he played. He did not lose a single game during the
tournament. No one had ever performed such an incredible feat. It made Capablanca
the champion of champions. His genius had reached its apotheosis. The other masters
were but acquiescent sparring partnerseven the great Alekhine who, a few months
later, was destined to take the crown away from Capablanca.
There is, Capablanca says, too much mystery about chess. It is not a difficult game
to learn and it is an enjoyable game to play. He is publishing a book shortly, A Primer
of Chess, which he hopes will bring chess out of the intellectual clouds and put it
within easy reach of all of us.
But I think that Capablanca is a bit weary of playing chess. There is just one match
that he wantsa return match (I almost said return bout) with Alexander Alekhine, the
present champion.
When Capablanca was the champion he put his crown jauntily upon his head and
cried joyously to the chess world Come and get it!Hed play anyone any time for
anything. He was in truth a fighting champion. He beat them all time after time.
Often he and Alekhine were in the same tournament and always Capablanca
prevailed. Then one day late in 1927, in a special match, the brilliant machinery of his
mind became clogged for the moment, he lapsedand Alekhine was the champion.
Since then many attempts have been made to get the two men together, but to date
they have been unsuccessful. That is the one match which Capablanca wants. Oh,
very much indeed he wants that match. And when that day comes Ill give eight to five
on the man from the land of rum and rumba. Why? Well, I figure that anyone who
can pronounce Alekhines name correctly can beat him and I heard Capablanca
pronounce it in French, Russian, and English. How can you beat a man like that?
1935 Quentin Reynolds. 1935 Colliers.
1999 John S. Hilbert. All Rights Reserved.
London 1881
Prologue
MATCH BETWEEN MESSRS BLACKBURNE AND
ZUKERTORT.
WE have great pleasure in announcing that a match has been arranged between the
two masters above-named, which is to commence on the 20th of next month. The
principal conditions already settled are, that the stakes shall be 100 a side, and the
winner of the first seven games shall be declared the victor; drawn games not to
count. Play will generally proceed four times a week; half of the games at least to be
played at the St. Georges Chess Club, and the other half probably at some private
room. The time limit is fifteen moves per hour, and Mr Boden will act as umpire.
THE MATCH BETWEEN MESSRS BLACKBURNE AND
ZUKERTORT.
THOUGH the conditions of this match are not yet signed, we understand that the
stakes will be deposited in the course of next week, and the commencement of the
contest will be fixed for the earliest subsequent date. As a sign of the wide interest
taken in the match amongst lovers of the game abroad, who have no opportunity of
watching the match personally, and can only become acquainted with the games
through the medium of their publication in this country, we may mention that some
prominent members of the Paris Cercle des Echecs have offered to back either player,
merely for the purpose of facilitating the conclusion of preliminaries. We learn that
neither party has accepted this chivalrous and complimentary offer, for Mr Zukertorts
stakes were already covered at the time the proposition was made, while Mr
Blackburnes subscription list was also far advanced.
ZUKERTORT.
WE are glad to announce that all the conditions of this match have been
satisfactorily settled. The stakes were deposited on the 17th inst. in the hands of the
hon. treasurer of the St. Georges Chess Club, the Rev. W. Wayte, and the
commencement of the contest was fixed for not later than Monday next, the 27th
inst. Both players have been out of town, but we learn on good authority that there is
some probability of the first game being played, by mutual consent, to-day at a
private room in Simpsons establishment in the Strand. We also understand from the
same source that, under any circumstance, the place of meeting for Mondays game,
whether in commencement or as continuation of the contest, is fixed at the St.
Georges Chess Club, 20, King-street, St. Jamess. Admission for the purpose of
witnessing the play will be granted by vouchers signed by both players. The
particular days of play are subject to alteration, but the programme will be fixed each
time at the beginning of the week.
London 1881
THE great contest between the two masters commenced on Monday last at two
oclock at the rooms of the St. Georges. Both players seemed to be in excellent
condition, and, as far as good health is a requirement in match play, the friends of
either player have apparently no need to fear any break-downs. The toss for the first
move fell in favour of Mr Zukertort, who opened with P to K 4. His opponent
adopted a peculiar form of the Sicilian defence which has never before occurred in
any match or tournament, though Mr Blackburne has previously practised it in several
toughly contested games against Mr Steel. The result of the opening manuvres was
an early exchange of queens, and the position of the seven pawns was unbroken on
Blacks side from the K R file to the Q B file, with a vacancy on the Q Kt file, and an
isolated Q R P, while Whites battle order was divided in two wings, the pawns
standing respectively to the number of four on the K side, and three on the other, and
the open Q file being occupied by doubled rooks. White had evidently the best of the
development, and Black was labouring under great difficulties to make his retained Q
P available. We believe that Mr Zukertort on the 17th move could have, by
occupying K B 2 at once with his B, obtained sufficient increase of advantage to keep
the pressure of attack in his favour. Also on the following he would have improved
his position by B to K sq. as afterwards proposed by Mr Blackburne; but, having
adopted some tardy manuvres instead, his opponent, after cautious preparations, was
at last enabled to advance his Q P under sufficient cover, and thus to release his
blocked-up Q R and Q B. After a little more fencing, which resulted in exchanges of
one R and a minor piece, the game assumed a drawn aspect, and by mutual consent it
was given up as such on the 28th move, neither side having any advantage. This is
the first draw which occurred between the same two players, though they have
altogether, on various previous occasions, contested eight games, of which each party
won four.
Zukertort,JH Blackburne,JH (1)
B45/01 Sicilian: Barnes
1881.06.27 GBR London (St. Georges Chess Club)
1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 e6 3.Nf3 Nc6 4.d4 cxd4 5.Nxd4 Bb4 6.Nxc6
**The usual continuation is 6.Ndb5, which leads to the American variation, in which
Black replies 6...Nf6, and then moves 7...Ke7, in answer to 7.Nd6+.
6...bxc6 7.Qd4 Bf8
**It would be disadvantageous to capture the knight, for White would afterwards
obtain a strong post for his bishop at a3.
8.Bf4
**8.e5 would at last subject him to an isolation of the e-pawn, if he wished to support
it with the f-pawn in case Black replied 8...f6.
8...f6
**A very good rejoinder, which gains important time.
9.Bg3
**If 9.e5 now, Black would first oppose 9...Qb6 before exchanging pawns.
9...Qb6 10.0-0-0 Nh6 11.Be2 Qxd4
**11...Bc5 was of course of no use, for Black could not take the f-pawn, on account
of the ultimate Bh5+.
12.Rxd4 e5
**Premature. 12...Nf7 was much better. He could well reserve the move in the text,
with the additional option of waiting for a favorable opportunity to play ...d5.
13.Rd2 Nf7 14.Rhd1 Bb4
**As he can never venture to exchange the bishop for the knight, the pinning was
useless. We should have preferred 14...d6. Anderssen did not mind in this opening
to keep the center pawns abreast, even while queens were on the board on both
sides. White seemed to have no means of egress against such a plan in the present
position.
15.Bc4 Ng5 16.f3 Ke7 [?:??-1:00] 17.Rd3
**
Feeble. 17.Bf2 instead would have effectually stopped the release of Blacks
pieces, excepting at the cost of an important pawn e.g.: 17.Bf2 Rd8 (if 17...d6,
White attacks the bishop with 18.a3, and then either advances up to b5, weakening
the adverse queens center, or forces a continuation similar to the following) 18.a3
Bxc3 19.Bc5+ d6 20.Rxd6, etc.
17...Rd8 18.Na4
**Blackburne justly observed that he was more afraid of 18.Be1, which would have
enabled White to advance the pawns on the left wing for an attack, or must have
resulted in White keeping the two bishops, with a good game.
18...d6 19.Rb3 [1:00-?:??] 19...Ba5 20.Bf2 Ne6 21.g3
**A doubtful sort of waiting move, for it weakens the pawns on the kingside.
21...Bc7 22.Nc3
**With the object of attacking the a-pawn at a3, and compelling its advance.
22...a5 23.Na4
**The knight is now strongly placed, in view of b6 being assailable.
23...Ba6 24.Bxa6 Rxa6 25.Rb7
**25.Rdd3 instead would have gained an important move, and was perhaps sufficient
to deter Black from opposing rooks at b8, for White, after exchanging, would then
gain time by Rb3; while his king was also near enough to protect the kingside
within two moves.
25...Rb8 26.Rxb8 Bxb8 27.Nb6 Bc7 28.Nc4 -.
**A fair draw. White has some attack against the a-pawn, but he is not likely to
succeed, on account of Black being enabled to effect a diversion by the advance of
the d-pawn.
London 1881
Second game, played at Simpsons on Wednesday, June 29.The duel for chess
honours was renewed at half-past one oclock. Blackburne commenced with his
favourite Scotch Gambit, and his opponent adopted a defence which will be new to
most British players, viz. : 4 Kt to B 3 first suggested and analysed in the
Schachzeiting some years ago by Herr von Schmid. It led to a rapid exchange of
queens after both centre pawns had been exchanged, White retaining an unbroken
row of pawns on each of the two wings, while Zukertort had an isolated doubled P on
the Q B file, and an isolated R P ; but Black had apparently relied on the strength of
his two bishops as against the adverse Kt and B. On the 14th move Blackburne chose
an ill-judged development for his Kt at Q R 3, which reduced his subsequent
manuvres with that Kt to one feasible course, while Kt to Q 2 instead would have
allowed him eventually several fair options. His game became cramped, and in his
usual dashing style he entered on a counter-attack on the 17th move, most probably
only on the chance of extricating himself with a draw, for his game looked too bad to
give him any reasonable prospect of winning. Zukertorts play kept his opponent tight,
and Blacks conduct of the attack on the Q side, and respective defence on the other
wing, was faultless, excepting that on his 16th move K R to Q sq was stronger, and on
the 18th move he advanced the Q R P too soon, instead of first guarding by P to K Kt
3. Blackburne did not avail himself of the opportunity of pushing his K B P at once to
the 5th, apparently in fear of the reply P to R 6, which we believe would have only
led to an even game. (See note i.) He guarded against the latter advance, and his game
then became gradually worse, until Black, on the 23rd move, posted prematurely his
R at Q 6, instead of guarding himself first against the entrance of the adverse Kt at Q
5. Blackburne promptly took advantage, and extricated all his forces by a series of
ingenious coups, and succeeded in exchanging all minor pieces, with even pawns.
After the exchange of one R, a rather languid ending followed, in which Zukertort
retained his superiority of a P, with two separated passed pawns on the K side against
a passed P on the Q R file. The game was adjourned, according to the rules of the
match after four hoursplay, for an hour and a half, on the 43rd move, Zukertort
having tried in vain to make any impression with his pawns. After the adjournment,
Blackburn [sic] defiantly gave up the last P he had, and thereby forced with his K and
R a singular position, which, his opponent had to admit, could only result in a draw,
albeit, Black was two clear pawns ahead. Duration five hours.
Blackburne,JH Zukertort,JH (2)
C45/05 Scotch: Schmid
1881.06.29 GBR London (Simpsons Divan)
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nxc6 bxc6 6.Bd3
**6.e5 seems preferable, and apparently give White a good game without
necessitating the exchange of queens.
6...d5
**The best answer now, for the apparently dangerous reply 7.e5 has no effect.
7.Qe2
**If the e-pawn advanced, the knight would retreat to d7 without minding the attack
by 8.e6, in which case Black might return with the knight to f6, or else even
capture the pawn, and then move the king to e7, if the adverse queen checks at h5,
with a strong center.
7...dxe4 8.Bxe4 Nxe4 9.Qxe4+ Qe7 10.Qxe7+ Bxe7 11.0-0
**Mr. Steel afterwards proposed here the strong-looking 11.Bf4, followed by 12.Bg3,
should Black oppose 11...Bd6. We think this leads to an even game, provided that
Black castles on the queenside, in order to cover his weakness of pawns on that
wing.
11...0-0 12.Re1 Bf6 13.c3 Rb8 14.Na3
**An ill-favored post for the knight, which might have been better employed from
d2. He had then the choice of entering at e4 or c4, or else of covering at b3, even if
the opponent replied 14...Be6, as Black could not gain a pawn by the exchange, his
a-pawn being left afterwards unprotected.
14...Be6 15.Nc2 c5 16.Ne3 Rfe8
**Black has contested his game excellently up to this, but here 16...Rfd8 at once
apears preferable; he has afterwards to remove this rook to that square.
17.f4
**17.Nd1, with the view of bringing out the bishop to f4, was sounder play. Black
could not then retain the pawn if he captured the a-pawn in reply, for White would
then return with his knight to e3, either before or after exchaning rooks.
17...a5 18.Kf2 a4
**Premature, for it gives the opponent an opportunity of releasing himself. He
should have first advanced 18...g6.
19.a3
**Inconsistent hesitation, which ought to have cost him the game. He could have
safely advanced 19.f5, and the reply 19...a3, which he apparently feared, could not
harme.g.: 19.f5 a3 20.fxe6 axb2 21.exf7+ Kxf7 22.Bxb2 Rxb2+ 23.Re2 Bxc3 (this
seems best, for if 23...Rxe2+ first, the white king is driven nearer to the queenside,
and his rook comes in at f1 with a check.) 24.Rf1 and he certainly has a much
better game than the one he obtained by the move in the text. [This is note i
mentioned above. -Pope]
19...g6 20.Re2 [1:00-?:??] 20...Red8 21.g4 h6 22.f5 Bc8 23.c4 Rd3
**This throws victory away, which could have been secured by limiting the action of
the knight on the kingside, where it was of little use. Either by 23...c6, as
afterwards proposed by Zukertort, or 23...Ba6, would have served that object. If in
reply to the latter move the knight nevertheless entered at d5, Black could either
take it off with the rook at once, or check with the bishop at d4, followed by 25...
Bxc4.
24.Nd5 Bh4+
**In reply to 24...Bd4+, White could have safely interposed the bishop; for if then
25...Bxb2, White could answer 26.Rb1, at the same time threatening 26.Ne7+.
25.Kg2 gxf5 26.Bf4
**A very ingenious resource. In case Black should take the b-pawn, White would
obtain a strong attack by Re8+, followed by Be5.
26...Bb7 27.gxf5 Rd4 28.Bxc7 Rc8 29.Bg3 Bxg3 [?:??-1:00]
**If he withdrew 29...Bg5, White might answer 30.h4; and if then Black took twice
without taking the knight checking, White would move the king to g3 and win the
exchange, since Ne7+ would remain threatened; while, on the other hand, the
exchaning of all the minor pieces would also only leave the game in a newish
condition.
30.Kxg3
**Best, as he wants to release his knight from the pinning action of the adverse
bishop, and compel its exchange.
30...Bxd5 31.cxd5 [2:00-?:??] 31...Rxd5 32.Rae1 Rxf5 33.Re8+ Rxe8
34.Rxe8+ Kg7 35.Ra8 Rd5 36.Rxa4 Rd3+ 37.Kg4 Rb3 38.Rc4 Rxb2 39.
Rxc5 Rxh2 40.a4 Kg6 41.Rc4 Rh1 42.Rd4 f5+ 43.Kf4 Rf1+ 44.Kg3
Rc1
**If 44...Kg5, White would move 45.Rd8, threatening a series of checks in the rear.
45.Kf4 Rf1+ 46.Kg3 Kf6
**Apparently with the object of assisting the advance of the f-pawn from the center,
for he perceives that he can do no good with his king on the extreme kings wing.
47.a5 [3:00-?:??]
**He gives up his last pawn gratuitously, which caused much excitement amongst the
spectators.
47...Ra1 48.Kf4 Rxa5 49.Rd6+ Kg7 50.Rb6 -.
**It is a curious and rather amusing position. The white rook cannot be displaced
from the sixth row now, and whenever Blacks h-pawn advances, White will enter
at g5, securing an easy draw.
London 1881
Third game, played at St. Georges Club.The match was resumed yesterday, at two
oclock, at the rooms of the St. Georges. Blackburne, as usual, adopted the Sicilian,
and Zukertort this time resorted to Paulsens treatment of this opening by turning it
into the K fianchetto. Blackburne on his part then played the fianchetto on both
wings. At six oclock, the time for the adjournment, the game presented the position
shown on the subjoined diagram. It was Whites turn to play on the thirty-third move,
and Zukertort had consumed 1h. 45min. of his time allowance ; while Blackburnes
stop watch showed a consumption of 2h. 16min. The game was to finished last
evening, and the match will be proceeded with to-day (Saturday) at Simpsons Divan.
BLACK (Mr Blackburne).

WHITE (Mr Zukertort).
ZUKERTORT.
THE Third game played at the St. Georges on Friday, July 1st.There was a slight
inaccuracy in our preliminary report of last week in reference to the opening. The
turn into the K fianchetto was given by Blackburne as second player on the second
move, but we have nothing to retract as regards the name of the author of this form of
opening, for, as it happens, Paulsen first introduced the K fianchetto in the Sicilian,
both for the first and also for the second player. Black seemed to have a fair game up
to the 15th move, when Blackburne chose an unfavourable plan of developing his K
R in order to bring his K B to the Q side, in lieu of Kt to B 2, which, in our opinion,
gave him a fair game. Zukertort doubled his rooks in a clever manner, and
designedly lost a move in accomplishing his object. The result of his arrangement
was that, after the exchange of queens, which was soon offered by Blackburne, the
latters pieces became hampered, and were divided on the two wings, with little
chance of co-operation. We believe that on the 21st move, by playing K Kt to K 2,
White would have been enabled to confine the adverse pieces still move, which
avoided the necessity of exchanging, and enabled him to pursue the plan of throwing
Blacks pieces back to his own lines, and preventing the adverse K from crossing
towards the weakest point in his game, viz., the Q centre, with much required the
protection of the K. On the 33rd move Zukertort did not choose the right R for the
attack, and this might have made a considerable difference if Blackburne had not
adopted a clumsy defence, which only left him the remote prospect of trying fortunes
by the sacrifice of a piece. This contingency ultimately arose ; and, owing to want of
precision on Whites part, Blackburne seemed to have obtained great relief, and a fair
chance of drawing. But on the 51st move Zukertort pounced upon him with a series
of checks, beginning with an ingenious one, which enabled White to keep a well-
protected passed P in combination with the piece ahead, while Blacks passed pawns
on the K side, which Blackburne had gained in he meanwhile could be stopped in
their progress and fell one by one. Blackburne resigned after about seven hoursplay.
We take this opportunity of adding to our last weeks report, that the first game of
the match lasted four hours, and the second five hours.
B23/10 Sicilian: Closed (Zukertort)
1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 g6
**First introduced by Paulsen in a game against Steinitz in the London International
Tournament of 1862. It also occurs in a very fine consultation game played on the
same occasion between Kling, St. Bon, and Steinitz (White) against Deacon,
Medley, and Walker (Black). Both games are published in Lowenthals Book of the
Chess Congress of 1862; but the move has since fallen into desuetude.
3.f4
**We prefer reserving this move, as in the fifth game of the match. If adopted at
once, it should be with the intention of developing the knight to f3, and not to e2.
3...Nc6 4.g3 Bg7 5.Bg2 b6 6.Nge2 Bb7 7.d3 Nh6 8.0-0 f5
**A good move, though it allows White to block in the g7-bishop, for Black ought to
be able to effect its liberation by the advance of the d-pawn to d6 sooner or later.
9.e5 Na5 10.Bxb7 Nxb7 11.d4 cxd4 12.Nxd4 e6 13.Qf3 Qc8 14.Rd1 0-0
15.h3 Rf7
**A most awkward development for the rook. 15...Nf7 was the natural move, and he
had nothing to fear from the reply 16.g4, for he would then capture, and White
would be bound to retake with the queen, or else he would lose a pawn by 16...
Nxe5, whereupon the knight might return to a6 with the view of occupying f5.
This plan also gave him facilities of breaking through by ...d6 after due
preparations.
16.Be3 Bf8 17.Rd3
**Finely played. Though he apparently loses a move and lets the adverse knight in,
he has gained more in position than if he had played 17.Rd2 at once, to which
Black might have answered 17...Bb4, while now the latter move would not be
good, as White might answer 18.a3.
17...Nc5 [?:??-1:00] 18.Rd2 Rb8 19.Rad1 Qb7 20.Qxb7 Rxb7 21.Nf3
**21.Nde2 was preferable. It would have obtained the necessity of exchanging
pieces which liberated Blacks bishop and made room for the king to come to the
rescue. He also then threatened to attack the adverse knight, which could not then
enter at e4 without a pawn being ultimately lost.
21...Rg7 22.Bxc5
**Black now threatened 22...Ne4, followed by 24...Nf5, and afterwards by ...Bc5, if
White exchanged and then entered at g5 with the knight.
22...Bxc5+ 23.Kf1 [1:00-?:??] 23...Kf8 24.a3 Ke8 25.b4 Be7 26.Nb5
Nf7 27.c4 g5 28.Kf2 h6 29.Nd6+ Bxd6 30.exd6 Nd8 31.Nd4 Nc6 [?:??-
2:00] 32.Nb3 a6 33.Rc1
**Playing the other rook would have left d2 open for the immediate action of the
knight, which might have been wanted in case Black adopted a different and better
defense.
33...Kf7
**33...Rb8 was the correct move, and, if we mistake not, it would have been almost
sufficient to deter White from the immediate advance of the b-pawn, for Black
might then bring the knight to b7 vi d8; and whenever Whites rook entered at c7,
the answer ...Kd8 would immediately threaten ...Nxd6, while Blacks rook had also
some good prospects of being made available at a8.
34.b5 axb5 35.cxb5 Na7 36.a4 gxf4
**Right enough if done with the view of retreating the rook to g8, and bringing the
same to the queenside; for otherwise White would exchange the f-pawn for g-
pawn, and then obtain a dangerous passed pawn on the h-file by h4.
37.gxf4 Kf6
**All with the object of supporting a very inferior defense.
38.Rdc2 Rb8
**If there was any chance of retrieving the game it was only by 38...Rg8, and then ...
Rgb8. If White then pursued the plan of bringing his knight to c4, Black would
ultimately defend by ...Nc8, while otherwise Black, after returning with the king to
e8, would probably be able to relieve himself by exchanging rooks. The defense
actually adopted leaves him almost no hope.
39.Rc7 Ra8 40.Nd2 [2:00-?:??]
**The winning coup.
40...e5
**Desperate, but he had nothing better, as White threatened to occupy e5 with the
knight, vi c4 or f3 accordingly.
41.fxe5+ Ke6 42.Rg1
**Good enough, but he might have settled the affair more quickly by 42.Nc4, which
would win a piece soon, while Black would not obtain a perpetual check with his
two rooks, even if he sacrificed the knight, for the white king would be able to
make good his escape to the queenside.
42...Rxg1 43.Kxg1 Nc8 44.Nc4 h5 45.Kf2 h4 [?:??-3:00] 46.Kf3
**Zukertort afterwards pointed out that he ought to have played 46.Ke3, which
brought him nearer to the queenside, with the same option of occupying f4 if
necessary.
46...Nxd6
**What else could he do? His position was too confined.
47.exd6
**47.Nxb6, followed by 48.Nxd7, in reply to 47...Rb8, would have left him with an
easier game to win; for Blacks h-pawn would subsequently fall soon.
47...Rxa4 48.Nxb6 Ra3+ 49.Kf4 Rxh3 50.Rxd7 Rb3 51.Re7+
**The initiation of an ingenious and surprising maneuver.
51...Kxd6 52.Nc8+ Kc5 53.Re5+ Kd4 54.Rxf5 h3 55.b6 h2 56.Rh5 Rb1
**He could not save the pawn by 56...Rb2, for the answer 57.Kg3 would still prevent
the king from crossing; while, whenever the knight is attacked, the b-pawn would
advance, followed by Nd6, and ultimately Rh8, after getting rid of the pawn.
57.Rxh2 Kc5 58.Rh7 Rb4+ 59.Ke5 Kb5 60.Kd6 Rb1 [?:??-4:00] 61.
Kc7 Ka6 62.Kb8 Rd1 63.b7 1-0.
London 1881
THE fourth game, played at Simpsons, on the 2nd inst. Blackburne adopted a form
of the giuoco piano, which the late Professor Anderssen disparagingly called the
giuoco pianissimowhen first brought to his notice. But we entirely concur with the
opinions expressed by Messrs Blackburne and Zukertort, that justice has not been
done to its merits ; for, at any rate, it produces more lively complications than the
close openings or some variations of the Ruy Lopez and four knights game. Special
attention has been called within the last few months to this opening by Mr Steel, who
practised it against the best metropolitan players during his recent visit to this
country, and a fine specimen of this dbut is published in the current number of the
Chess Monthly, occurring in a consultation game between Messrs Blackburne and
Steel against Messrs Hoffer and Zukertort, which was won by the former party.
In the progress of the game White did not choose the best post for the Q, which we
believe to be K 2, and not Q B 2. Both parties aimed at reaching K Kt 3 with the Q
Kt; Blackburne via K B sq from Q 2, and Zukertort from Q B 3 via K 2, but after
having advanced the K Kt P to the fourth, supported by P at K R 3. The developing
manuvres lasted up to the 24th move, when Blackburnewho had a manifest
superiority of position, as the opponent could not castle, by a precipitate exchange of
rooksallowed the adverse K to slip out. Zukertort then proceeded with his defence in
excellent style ; and, assisted by a specially feeble 30th move of Blackburne,
apparently adopted under pressure of time limit, he had actually obtained the better
game at the adjournment, which took place at that stage. On the game being resumed,
Blackburne made preparations for the sacrifice of a piece, which was all the more
unsound as it might have cost him the game under any circumstances ; for we believe
that on the 32nd move Black might have obtained a positive advantage by Q to B 2
threatening Q to R 7 or Kt 6. Blackburne, instead of adopting defensive measures,
seemed to be bent upon pursuing his attacking plan, which led to his obtaining two
passed but weakly supported pawns for a piece, Blackburne fought very ingeniously
to make the most of his pawns, and he actually succeeded in recovering his piece,
owing to an impetuous and wrong move of the R on Blacks 43rd move. He had still
much the worst of the game with a P behind, and his K unable to cross in order to
assist his weak K side, when Zukertort, by a premature advance of the K P, gave him
opportunity for developing one of his ingenious resources, and, in the face of a
dangerous-looking dis ch, to bring the K to the other side. However, on the 53rd
move, White neglected pinning the Kt with the R, which would have given him a
positive draw in a few moves. Zukertort then promptly, by Kt to Q 4, cut off the
adverse K from coming near, at the same time protecting his B P, and White had
afterwards no more chance of retrieving himself. By opposing his R for exchange
Black gained entrance with his K to support his passed K P, and Whites K was soon
driven into a mating net. White gave a few checks, and arrived at a curious position,
in which he would have had some fair chance of drawing if he could have got rid of
his own Kt ; for his K was then stale-mated, and he might have tried to give perpetual
ch with the R, even if he had to leave it en prise. Blackburne, seeing that nothing
more was to be done, resigned, after good humouredly remarking that he had one
piece too many. Duration, 6 hours.
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.c3 Nf6 5.d3 d6 6.Be3 Bb6 7.Nbd2 Ne7 8.
Nf1 c6 9.Bb3 Bc7 10.h3 h6 11.Qc2
**Not as good as 11.Qe2, which Blackburne adopted in the 6th game. The present
placement of the queen blocks up the bishop.
11...g5 12.0-0-0 Ng6 13.d4 Qe7 14.dxe5 dxe5 15.Ng3 Nf4 16.Ne1
[1:00-?:??]
**If he took the knight followed by 17.Nf5, Black, after retaking with the e-pawn and
also exchanging the knight, could have safely castled on the kingside.
16...Bd7 17.Nf5 Bxf5 18.exf5 N4d5 19.Qe2 Nxe3 20.fxe3 Ne4 21.Qf3
Nc5 22.e4 a5 [?:??-1:00] 23.Nc2 Rd8 24.Rxd8+
**
This hasty exchange releases Blacks game, who now brings his king into safety.
The proper move was 24.Bc4 at once.
24...Kxd8 25.Bc4 f6 26.b4 b5
**Black defends himself with great skill and foresight. He could not at once retreat
26...Nd7 on account of the reply 27.Be6, threatening Rd1.
27.Be2
**If 27.bxc5, the bishop would be taken, or course, and, though White could gain the
far-advanced c-pawn with his knight he would maintain no advantage, for he had
no means of defending his own front c-pawn more than once with the queen, while
Black would also bring his bishop to bear upon it at a7 vi b8.
27...Nd7 28.Rd1 Kc8 29.Qf2 Kb7 30.a3 [2:00-?:??] 30...Nb6 31.Qf1
**
Whites two previous moves were weak, for he might have retained a slight pull by
taking the a-pawn, followed by 32.c4 instead. But the last move actually imperils
his game seriously.
31...axb4 32.cxb4 Na4
**32...Qf7 was much stronger ; and we do not see how White could have mollified its
attacking force.
33.Bxb5
**While now he might have guarded himself against the effect of...Qf7 by 33.Qf3,
followed if necessary by 34.Kb1. Of course, the sacrifice was unsound.
33...cxb5 34.Qxb5+ Nb6 35.a4 Qe8 36.Qxe8 Rxe8 37.a5 Nc8
**Superior to the obvious 37...Nc4. With due caution he provides against the
entrance of the adverse rook at d7, to which he would now reply by opposing the
rook at e7.
38.Ne3 Nd6 39.Nd5 Nxe4 40.a6+ Kb8 41.Re1 Ng3 [?:??-2:00] 42.b5
Rd8 43.Ne7 Rd6
**A feeble move, which nearly deprives him of an otherwise safe victory. 43...Rd7
was the correct play.
44.Re3 Nh5 45.Rc3 [3:00-?:??]
**All this is very fine, considering that he is fighting against the odds of a piece.
45...Nf4 46.a7+ Kxa7 47.Rxc7+ Kb6 48.Rc2 Kxb5 49.Ng8 e4
**Premature. He should have first secured the advance of his h-pawn as far as h4, in
order to keep the adverse f-pawn isolated, as White could never advance the g-
pawn without leaving his h-pawn to be taken sooner or later at Blacks option.
50.g3 Nd3+ 51.Kd1
**Ingenious. He has now effected the passage for his king, and should have been
quite safe.
51...h5 52.Ke2 Nb4 53.Rc8
**A routine move for the purpose of cutting off the adverse king, which was
inapplicable for the exigencies of the case, and loses him the game. 53.Rb2 was
the move, for it was of more importance to prevent the knight entering at d5 before
Whites king reached e3, and it would have secured a draw, e.g.: 53.Rb2 Kc4 (if
53...Rd3, with the object of taking off the g-pawn and h-pawn, White would have a
chance of winning with the f-pawn after capturing the hostile f-pawn and e-pawn)
54.Ke3 Rd3+ 55.Kxe4 Nd5 56.Rc2+ Nc3+ 57.Rxc3+, followed by 58.Nxf6 with an
easy draw.
53...Nd5 54.g4 hxg4 55.hxg4 Rc6 56.Rd8 Kc5 57.Ra8 Kd4 58.Kf2 Rc2
+ 59.Kg3 Nf4 60.Ra4+ Kd5 61.Ra5+ Kd6 62.Ra6+ Kc7 0-1.
**
See introduction. We may remark, that even if Whites knight was off the board,
there would be no absolute draw by best play on the other side, e.g. (assuming that
White has no knight left): 63.Ra7+ Kd6 best (if 63...Kb6, White checks at b7, and
then pursues the king all along on the same file; for the king dare not cross at once
to the c-file, or else the rook would check at c7, and either win the rook, or be
stalemated) 64.Rd7+ Ke5 65.Re7+ Kd4 66.Rxe4+ (if 66.Rd7+ the knight
interposes) 66...Kd5, and the stalemate position is dissolved.
London 1881
The fifth game, played at the St. Georges on Monday, the 4th inst., was a repetition
of the opening in the third game, with some modifications which transformed the
position into one similar to those arising from the Indian opening. As usual when the
players have to manuvre their heavier pieces behind the pawns, they had to grope in
the dark. Zukertort seemed to have the best of the struggle, though he clearly lost
some moves with his Kt, and his opponent was reduced to the expedient of creating a
block on the K side. Blackburne soon afterwards castled, instead of opening his
centre at once. White had then the opportunity of shutting in the adverse K B for ever
by P to Q 5, which we believe was the strongest course ; but Zukertort pursued
another plan, and came out with the better game, though we are not sure he must have
secured the victory thereby. He had to lose a lot of time before he could bring his two
bishops into favourable position. His manuvres to that effect were, however,
conceived in a masterly manner, and Blacks defence at last became difficult. On the
37th move Blackburne, by a miscalculation, neglected to support once more the weak
K B P, and allowed the opponent to effect an elegant sacrifice of the exchange,
followed by a fine move of the R to R 6, after which White was enabled to
accumulate all his forces without hindrance against the adverse weakened K side, and
Blackburnes game finally broke down after the loss of his Q had been forced.
Duration, 6 hours.
B25/02 Sicilian: Closed
1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 g6 3.g3
**Better than 3.f4 adopted in the third game of the match.
3...Bg7 4.Bg2 Nc6 5.d3 d6 6.Nge2 Bd7 7.Be3 Nd4 8.Qd2 Rb8
**
We do not like Blacks last three moves; he should have aimed at developing his
kingside. He was, however, wise in not attempting 8...Bg4, for Black might then
have safely retreated the knight to g1, and would afterwards have gained time by
pawn to h3.
9.h3 h5 10.Nd1 Bc6 11.c3 Nxe2 12.Qxe2 Nf6 13.f4 Qc7 14.Nf2
**Loss of time. He should have endeavored to post his knight at e3 after removing
his bishop.
14...b5 15.0-0 Nd7 [?:??-1:00] 16.d4 c4 17.Nd1 Nb6 18.Bd2 Bd7 19.
Ne3 Qc8 20.f5 [1:00-?:??] 20...g5 21.Nd1
**For the third time this knight is moved to the same square, but now with a more
tangible object, for it forces his opponent to block in his bishop with his own f-
pawn, as he cannot defend the g-pawn with 21...Bf6, on account of the reply 22.e5,
now prepared by the removal of the knight.
21...f6 22.Bf3 h4 23.g4 0-0 24.Ne3
**
We should have decidedly preferred 24.d5, which would have made Blacks g7-
bishop perfectly useless. Whites pieces could be well placed in all directions, and
he could well afford to leave a weak spot open at e5 for the entrance of the adverse
knight, for he had plenty of scope for operation on the queenside.
24...e5 25.fxe6 Bxe6 26.Be1 Re8 27.Qg2 Qd8 28.Kh1 Nd7 29.Bf2 Nf8
30.Bg1 Ng6 31.Bh2
**The movement of this bishop to this important post, where it attacks a weak
adverse pawn, was beautifully worked out.
31...Bf8 [?:??-2:00] 32.Bd1 Bc8 33.Bc2
**By another clever maneuver he has now posted his bishop more favorably. Black
could do nothing in the meanwhile.
33...Bb7 34.Rf5 Bg7 35.Kg1
**Also marked with great foresight. Evidently he will have to advance the e-pawn
sooner or later for the purpose of attack, and he removes the knight at once from
the pinning action of the adverse bishop; reserving an option of several places for
the queen.
35...a6 36.Raf1 Ne7
**Almost unpardonable carelessness in a match game. It was obvious that White
aimed at breaking through in the kings quarter, and he could, without great
difficulty, have reckoned out that the opponent would obtain a clearly won game
after the sacrifice of the exchange. 36...Rf8 was the proper defense.
37.Rxf6 [2:00-?:??] 37...Bxf6 38.Rxf6 Nc8 39.Rh6
**Most probably this very fine move must have been overlooked by Black in his
forecast of the position. It wins by force (see diagram).
39...Rf8 40.Nf5 Rf6 41.Rh5 Rg6 42.Qf2
**Zukertort pursues his attack with his usual vigor and energy.
42...Qf8
**If 42...Qf6, the e-pawn would also have advanced, and as soon as the bishop
entered at e5 White threatened Ne7+, followed by Rh8#.
43.e5 Nb6 44.exd6 Nd5 45.Be5
**The finishing stroke.
45...Nf4 [?:??-3:00] 46.Rh8+ Kf7 47.Rxf8+ Rxf8 48.Bxf4 gxf4 49.Qxh4
1-0.
London 1881
THE sixth game, played at Simpsons on Tuesday, the 6th inst.The same opening as
in the fourth game with the improvement suggested in our comments on the latter,
namely, that the white Q was developed at K 2. Black (Zukertort) also made an
alteration in his plan by opposing his B at K 3, which must have been a lost move, as
it turned out ; for he had afterwards, as in the 4th game, to capture with that B the
adverse Kt, which came in at B 5. It was all manuvring up to the 24th move, when
Black exchanged the first pawnrather too soon, we believe ; and we do not think there
was any difference in the respective positions. Zukertort, with another precipitate
advance of the Q P, brought his Kt at Q B 4 into a loose position, which caused him
some trouble. On the 30th and 31st move he proceeded with a similar incautious line
of attack with the pawns on the right wing, where he had castled ; and, to speak in the
parlance of Dr Meitnerwho first introduced the joke in criticising some of the games
played by Herr Steinitz in the Vienna tournamentWhite came out with half a pawn
ahead ;and after that the exchange of queens, which soon followed, Blackburnes
advantage grew in natural course to the extent of a tangible P. As usual in hard
endings, analysis finds that the ultimate winner might have despatched the game
quicker ; but there was some fine play nevertheless on both sides. The game was
adjourned about a quarter to eleven at night, and finished next day at the St. Georges,
when Blackburne seized the right moment for exchanging rooks, and forced victory
with B and a passed Q R P against Kt in excellent style. Duration, seven and a half
hours. Both players seemed to suffer severely from the excessive heat of the weather
which prevailed last week ; and as they had already played on three successive days,
it was agreed that the match should be continued to-day at Simpsons.
The score stands now : Blackburne, 1 ; Zukertort, 3 ; drawn, 2.
Nf1 c6 9.h3 h6 10.Qe2
**The queen is better placed here than at c2; but the question is, whether she should
be brought out at all at this stage, and whether with a move in advance he ought not
to try Blacks plan by advancing 10.g4 and entering with his knight at f5 vi g3.
10...Be6
**This seems to entail loss of time; and, though both parties can apparently afford
delays in maneuvering, yet we think it might make some ultimate difference if the
bishop were kept at home in order to proceed at once with 10...g5, 11...Ng6, etc.
11.Bb3 g5 12.0-0-0 Ng6 13.Ng3 Qe7 14.Nf5 Bxf5 15.exf5 Nf4 16.Qf1 0-
0-0 17.Bxb6 axb6 18.g3 N4d5 19.c4
**Which drives him where he wants to go. 19.Qe2 followed by 20.Rhe1 in order to
advance the d-pawn appears to us the better plan.
19...Nc7 20.Qe1 Nd7 21.Qc3 Qf6
**Useless. The queen stood better where she was, and 21...f6 was preferable.
22.g4 [1:00-?:??] 22...b5 23.Nd2 Nc5 24.Bc2
**Best, as Black threatened 24...b4.
24...bxc4
**
This premature exchange liberates Whites bishop and d-rook, and rids the
adversary of a weak pawn. Up to this we were inclined to take Blacks game for
choice, though the difference did not amount to much. The game is now about
even.
25.dxc4 d5
**Also too early. He should have prepared with 25...Qe7 in order to be enabled to
retake with the knight.
26.cxd5 Rxd5 [?:??-1:00] 27.Nc4 Nd7 28.Qb4 c5 29.Qb3 Rd4 30.Rhe1
b5
**30...Qa6 was the right play. Unless White then exchanged rooks, in which case the
c-pawn could retake, he had no better defense than Na3 or Bb3, and then Black
could enter either at b5 or d5 with his knight, and afterwards, accordingly, gain for
the knight the post at d4 by exchanging rooks or the strong point at f4.
31.Nd2 c4
**An error in judgment which compromises his position for the ending.
32.Qb4 [2:00-?:??]
**Well played. If 32.Ne4 at once, the reply was 32...Qe7.
32...Qd6
**32...Qa6 was of no use now, as White could afford to give up the a-pawn, and
attack with the knight at e4. Also, if 32...Qc6, the knight would come in at e4, and,
if then, Blacks knight would attack at d5 White would capture the b-pawn with the
queen, and afterwards recover the queen by 35.Nd6+.
33.Qxd6 Rxd6 34.Ne4 Rxd1+ 35.Rxd1 Ne8
**If 35...Rf8, White would check at d6, followed by 37.a4.
36.Rd5 Kc7 37.Rxb5 Nd6 38.Nxd6 Kxd6 39.Be4 Rb8 [?:??-2:00] 40.
Rd5+ Ke7 41.f3 f6 42.Kc2 Nb6 43.Rb5 Kd6 44.a4
**He could have won here much quicker by 44.Bd5. The c-pawn could not be saved
then, for, in reply to 44...Kc7, White would still capture, followed by 46.Rc5+.
44...Nd7
**Black defends himself very ingeniously.
45.Rd5+
**As afterwards pointed out by Zukertort, there was no more than a draw now if he
exchanged rooks, e.g.: 45.Rxb8 Nxb8 46.Kc3 Kc5 47.a5 Na6 48.Bb7 Nc7,
followed by 49...Nb5+, etc.
45...Kc7 46.Ra5 Kd6 47.Ra6+ [3:00-?:??] 47...Rb6 48.Ra8 Rb8 49.a5
**He has gained an important move, and chosed the right position for allowing the
exchange. The latter part of the ending is excellently played by Blackburne.
49...Rxa8 50.Bxa8 Kc5 [?:??-3:00]
**50...Nc5 would no more save the game, for he can no more reach c7 with the
knight, e.g.: 50...Nc5 51.Bb7 Kc7 (best; if 51...Nxb7 the a-pawn goes straight to
queen) 52.a6 Kb6 53.Kc3, and, after taking the c-pawn, the king walks over to the
kingside.
51.Bb7 Kb5 52.a6 Kb6 53.Kc3 e4 54.fxe4 Ne5 55.Kd4 Ka7 56.Kc5
Kb8 57.Bd5 1-0.
**If the knight checks at d3, the answer is 58.Kb6.
London 1881
THE seventh game, played at the St. Georges, on Monday, the 11th inst. This
game, which was due to be played on the previous Saturday, was adjourned to the
above date in consequence of Mr Blackburne having felt indisposed. By the rules of
the match each player is entitled to claim two daysexemption within eight weeks ;
but we understand that Mr Zukertort agreeably consented not to count this
postponement ; and thus each player retains his full privilege for two adjournments.
The usual dull and heavy French defence adopted by Blackburn [sic] led this time
to early complications of an interesting character. The first critical situation arose on
the eleventh move, when Zukertort left himself open to his K B P being doubled by
taking the Kt. It has always been one of the most difficult points in this opening to
decide when such an exchange may be allowed ; for the player who permits his
pawns on the K side to be thus weakened, obtains often a strong attack with his rooks
on the open K Kt file, and retains two bishops. When, however, as was here the case,
the Q could already gain early entrance on the K R file, and White would have been
forced to block one of the two bishops by the compulsory advance of the K B P, we
believe that Black would have had the best of the struggle with his two knights, as he
could soon bring over the Q Kt to the K side vi K 2. Blackburne, however, made a
strong preparatory move, whereupon White, of course, withdrew the K Kt to R 4, and
soon obtained an attack by the advance of the K B P. The chief crisis then came on
Blacks sixteenth move, when Blackburne, in his usual attacking style, decided on
giving up a P in the hope of recovering it with an augmented position. Mr
Blackburnes anti-drawing inclination makes him one of the most dangerous rivals in
tournaments where the draws count half ; but the same characteristic places him at
great disadvantage in a single-handed match, more especially when he stands already
behind in the score. In such a case it is most dangerous policy to try to force a win at
some hazard, for this amounts actually to giving the large odds of the draw, which, in
the opinion of some authorities, is equivalent to pawn and move, while it is clearly
the wiser plan for the party who stands at a disadvantage in the score to take such
odds for himself by keeping on the defensive, and watching for more positive
opportunities of increasing his score. This is proved by the experience gained from
previous great contests, and the famous match between Harrwitz and Lowenthal
furnishes an extraordinary example. The winner of the first eleven games was to be
declared victor, and at one time Harrwitz had only won two games, while Lowenthal
already scored nine. The final issue was the almost incredible event that Harrwitz
won the match, and, in the opinion of good authorities, his victory was chiefly due to
his having mostly adopted purely defensive tactics. Another most remarkable case in
point is the match between Kolisch and Paulsen for the first eleven games up, in
which the latter stood at once time with five games against one ahead in the score.
Kolisch then contented himself to draw game after game, occasionally adding a
victory, until at last the match was given up as undecided, with the final score
ofPaulsen 7, Kolisch 6, and 17 drawn. However, it should be pointed out that the two
above-named contests occurred before the introduction of the time limit, and it is
difficult to say how far the modern time restriction would interfere with such
defensive tactics, which seem also not to be congenial to Blackburnes style.
Under any circumstances, we do not think that Blackburnes sacrifice of the P was
sound, though we do not approve of the mode which his opponent chose for retaining
it, and much prefer the process indicated below in our notes. For, as it happened,
Blackburne had an excellent opportunity on the 24th move of fully equalising the
game by P to B 4. He, however, missed that, and later on, on the 29th move, he
became still more flurried under the pressure of time limit. He had then a fine
prospect of saving the game by Kt to B 4 ; but, instead of adopting this salvation
resource, he actually committed a blunder in retreating the Kt to Kt 4, at the cost of
his protective P on the K side. Blackburne resorted to Kt to B 4 at the wrong time on
the 31st move, and his opponent made a good enough answer with Q to R 3, though
he could have won the game more elegantly and in a shorter way by B to R 6. After
one more ingenious but futile attempt to retrieve himself on the next move, by leaving
the Q en prise and threatening to recover with the check of the Kt at B 7, to which
Zukertort gave the proper repartee Blacks defence broke down completely, and the
game ended by Zukertort announcing mate in five moves. Duration four hours and a
half.
C01/03 French: Exchange (Svenonius)
1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.exd5 exd5 5.Nf3 Bd6 6.Bd3 0-0 7.0-0 Nc6
**The best theoretical authorities, including Zukertort, consider this the strongest
defensive development at this point.
8.Bg5 Bg4 9.Kh1
**In order to capture the d-pawn without remaining subjected to the answer of ...Bxh2
+.
9...Be7 10.Be3
**White has obtained a change of post for his bishop, which, in the opinion of
Zukertort, is of some importance for his development.
10...Qd7 11.Qd2
**Questionable.
11...Bd6
**
For we think that Blacks having developed the queen at d7 makes a material
difference in enabling him now to capture the knight with advantage (see
introduction). The game might then have proceeded thus: 11...Bxf3 12.gxf3 Qh3 13.
Be2 Bd6 14.f4 Ne7 15.Rg1 Nf5 with a good game.
12.Nh4
**The knight was bound to remove now, and this was the best plan, in order to avoid
an offer of exchange by 12...Bf5.
12...Rae8 13.f3 Be6
**13...Qd8, though tempting, would have been bad, e.g.: 13...Qd8 14.fxg4 Ne4 (if
14...Nxg4, the answer is 15.Nf5) 15.Nxe4 dxe4 (if 15...Qxh4, the answer is
obviously 16.Nxd6) 16.Bg5, and wins; for, in reply to 16...f6, he first checks with
17.Bc4+.
14.f4 Qd8 15.Nf3 Bb4 16.f5 Ne4
**See introduction. 16...Bc8 was the proper play. If White then pinned the knight by
17.Bg5, he could reply 17...Be7; and, though his position would have become
cramped, it apparently only called for exercise of patience, and he had nothing in
reality to fear.
17.Bxe4 dxe4 [?:??-1:00] 18.fxe6 exf3 19.exf7+ Rxf7 20.Rxf3 Rd7
**Exchanging rooks, followed by ...Bxc3, and afterwards ...Qd5, would have
afforded him no compensation for the pawn lost, for White would retake the knight
with the queen, followed by Bg1, and he would have ample time for advancing the
a-pawn, and then protecting his f-pawn with the rook, if necessary, when doubly
attacked.
21.Rf4 [1:00-?:??]
**An awkward sort of defense, which should only have led to an even game while we
believe that the advantage gained could have been better secured by 21.Bg1, e.g.:
21.Bg1 Ne5 (This seems best; if 21...Nxd4 the answer is 22.Rd3, followed by Rd1;
and, though Black will in the meanwhile protect the knight by ...c5, he will not gain
sufficient time to extricate both the e8-rook and the queen from the pinning action
of the adverse pieces, and White will ultimately win by the advance of the a-pawn,
followed by b4, and ultimately Nb5) 22.Rh3 c5 (best; if 22...Nc4, of course White
wins by 23.Qd3 threatening Qxh7+) 23.a3 Ba5 (This seems best; though it
apparently loses time, for he gains his object of compelling the adverse d-pawn to
advance and loosen it from its pawn support. 23...cxd4 is obviously inferior; and, if
23...Bxc3, the pawn retakes and White then threatens to remove the queen to e2,
which will have the effect of compelling Black either to exchange pawns, or else to
abandon another pawn on the c-file. White, in the latter case, ought to be able to
bring his two pawns ahead to account in the ending, albeit, their being trebled on
one file) 24.d5 Bxc3 25.Qxc3 b6 26.Re3, and Black dare not capture the d-pawn,
or White will bring the other rook at e1, and afterwards the bishop to bear upon the
knight.
21...Ne7 22.Qd3 Bxc3 23.bxc3 Nd5 24.Rf3 Rde7
**24...c5 was now the correct move to equalize the game, for we cannot see how
White could keep any advantage after that. 25.Qc4 would be bad in reply, as Black
could attack the queen by 25...b5. If 25.Rd1, Black could also reply 25...b5; and, if
25.Bf2, the knight would retreat to b6, followed by ...c5; and, subsequently, as
soon as Blacks c-pawn is unattacked or sufficiently protected, the knight would
gain an unassailable position at d5, which, in combination with the pressure of the
knight against the adverse front c-pawn, would make the game quite even.
25.Bd2 Qd6 26.Raf1 Nf6 27.Bf4 Qd5 28.Be5 Ne4 29.Rf4
**29.Rf5 at once would have compelled the advance of 29...g6, which would have
apparently weakened Blacks position on the kingside. But on the other hand it
would give Black opportunities of reaching g7 with his knight via e6, after
resorting to ...Nc5, which he had always at his disposal, even if his own queen were
in the meanwhile to be attacked by c4.
29...Ng5
**A flagrant error which loses his most important pawn, and disintegrates his
position on the kingside. 29...Nc5 would have enabled him to make a good fight
for a draw, whether White offered the exchange of queens at f3 or not.
30.Rf5
**
Promptly taking advantage. After this Blacks game becomes hopeless.
30...Ne6 [?:??-2:00] 31.Bxg7 Nc5
**Much too late now. White was not likely to submit to the exchange of queens.
32.Qh3
**This wins no doubt, but 32.Bh6 threatening mate with the doubled rooks, and also
33.Qg3+, was more precise, and finer style. We give a diagram of the position.
32...Ne4
**Just on the chance that White would take the queen at once which led to mere
exchange by the answer 33...Nf2+.
33.Be5 Rxe5 (# in 5), 1-0.
**Commencing with 34.Qg4+. The knight must then interpose, and the queen takes,
followed by 36.Rf8+.
London 1881
The eighth game, played on Monday [sic], July 12, at Simpsons. This game which
lasted somewhat less than two hours requires little comment. The opening was the
same, Giuoco pianissimo, as in the fourth and six games, with the modification that
Blackburne in his development dispensed with the retreat of the B to Kt 3, and the
advance of P to K R 3. The nature of this opening, at least in the form favoured by
Blackburne, did not apparently allow the first player to profit much by the gain of
those two moves, and the respective positions stood about even when Blackburne
instituted an exchange of two minor pieces and the Q, which resulted in Blacks K
being temporarily shut up, while Whites rooks were doubled on the K file. Zukertort
then promptly opposed his Q R, protected by the Kt, and a few moves after the
additional exchange had been effected, the game presented such an even position,
with little scope for action on either side, that a draw was declared by mutual consent.
Nf1 c6 9.Ng3 h6 10.Qe2 g5 11.0-0-0 Ng6 12.d4 Qe7 13.Nf5
This leads to an even game, though White gains first possession of the open e-file
with doubled rooks. Probably Blackburne thought that the latter contingency,
which is usually a favorable one, should have yielded him some retainable
advantage. However, excepting perhaps 13.h4, the consequences of which required
great forethough, we see no other feasible line of continuation for White.
13...Bxf5 14.exf5 Nf4 15.Bxf4 exf4 16.Rde1 Qxe2 17.Rxe2+ Kf8 18.
Rhe1 Re8
The proper rejoinder, which completely neutralizes the action of the opponent's
doubled rooks.
19.Rxe8+ [1:00-?:??]
If 19.Nd2, Black's king will first move to g7; and should White then attempt to
enter at e7, then Black would make himself safe by 20...d5 followed by 21...Bd8. It
should be observed that it is necessary to bring the king out first, for if 19...d5,
White after retreating the bishop might cause some embarrassment to Black's
position by returning with the knight to f3, and fixing himself at e5 without
allowing both rooks to be exchanged.
19...Nxe8 20.g4 fxg3 21.fxg3 d5 22.Bd3 f6 -.
Black will bring his rook to e7 via R2 to face that of the opponent, and neither side
has any means of egress.
London 1881
The ninth game of the match, which was due to be played on Thursday last, was
postponed till to-day, when the meeting will take place at Simpsons. The
adjournment was this time made at the instance [sic] of Mr Zukertort, and Mr
Blackburne in his turn agreed that it should not count as one of the exception days to
which each combatant is entitled. We are glad to note the good feeling which exists
between the two players, as shown by such mutual consideration.
The score stands nowZuffertort [sic] 4, Blackburne 1, drawn 3.
THE ninth game played at Simpsons on Saturday, the 1th inst., was opened by
Zukertort with his favourite irregular Kt to K B 3. We have already commented on
this move, when it occurred in some of the games of last years match between
Zukertort and Rosenthal. It is an ordinary introduction to the Q P opening, unless
Black should be induced to answer Kt to Q B 3, in which case White would gain the
advantage by replying P to Q 4. As was to be expected, the game resolved itself into
a close one, Blackburne adopting K P 1, followed by the Q fianchetto for the defence,
without advancing the Q P until he had castled. We believe that this might have been
turned to his disadvantage if Zukertort, on the seventh move, had pushed the P to Q
5. But White adopted the usual developments, and proceeded also with the Q
fianchetto after castling. The preliminary manuvring left no perceptible difference of
the respective positions in favour of either side, excepting that Whites K R was better
posted than Blacks. The first attack of a real character was instituted by Blackburne,
who brought Q and B to bear on the adverse only once defended Q R P. But, instead
of preserving his K B, he injudiciously allowed its exchange for a Kt on the
fourteenth move, and his game seemed then to become badly cramped by the entrance
of the adverse Kt at K 5. However, only two moves later on, he was not alone
released, owing to a feeble exchange of knights adopted by Zukertort, but he would
have even obtained the better game if he had retaken in the more advantageous way
with the Q, instead of with the Kt. Zukertort then pressed for an exchange of queens,
though we believe he might have made more of his game by bringing his R up for the
attack on the K side, vi K R 3. The exchange of queens having been effected,
Blackburne simplified the game still more by a manuvre with his Q Kt P, whereby he
god [sic] rid of both adverse centre pawns, and forced the exchange of rooks, his
opponent, however, retaining, in conjunction with two bishops, a passed Q R P,
which threatened to become formidable after the exchange of all the pieces.
Blackburne directed his efforts to freeing his K P for attacking purposes, and he
certainly misjudged his position strongly if he tried to reserve for himself the option
of playing to win, as appears to have been the case, for he seemed to be reluctant to
allow his Kt to be exchanged and to remain with bishops of opposite colours, with a
clear draw. Especially his retreat of the Kt on the 36th move lost him most valuable
time, and he had afterwards a narrow escape from a forced lost game, which
Zukertort could have obtained on the 47th move by attacking the Kt at Kt 6 with the
B, making room for the entrance of his K at B 5, which would have soon enabled him
to oppose his White B at Q B 6, with an easy won game. Zukertort, having instead
retreated his K to Q 4, gave Blackburne breathing time, and again he could have
made his defence good on the 50th move by opposing the K at K 4, so as to threaten
to drive the adverse K right back with the ch at Q 4. Again, a little later on, he had an
excellent prospect of relieving himself by advancing his R P when attacked, instead
of the Kt P. His having fixed the pawns on the K side on white squares, gave
Zukertort an opportunity of executing one of his fine manuvres with the B, whereby
he ultimately forced the gain of the K R P. But, even after this, Blacks game was still
defensible, if he had pursued the plan of endeavouring to sacrifice his Kt and a P on
the K side for the two adverse pawns on the same wing. But at this critical stage
Blackburne, apparently under pressure of time limit, committed a gross error of
judgment which proved fatal. Instead of allowing the P to be taken by the B, and
trying to effect an entrance with his Kt at B 6, vi Kt 4, he advanced the R P, thus
allowing his opponent an additional passed P on the other wing. The sally of his Kt at
B 5, which he had prepared at the cost of a valuable P, proved utterly useless for
defensive purposes, and, with a few powerful and well-directed manuvres of his two
bishops, Zukertort secured the advance and ultimate queening of the K R P,
whereupon Blackburne resigned. Duration, seven hours.
A46/04 Indian: Knights (Rubinstein)
1.Nf3 e6 2.e3 Nf6 3.d4 b6 4.a3 Bb7 5.c4 Be7 6.Nc3 0-0
Too soon. We believe ...d5 to be necessary as soon as the adverse b-knight was
brought out.
7.Bd3
We prefer 7.d5, thus blocking the adverse light-square bishop, and also making it
extremely difficult for the opponent to find a convenient development for his b-
knight.
7...d5 8.0-0 Nbd7
This knight is generally better posted in this opening at c6 after advancing ...c5.
9.b3 c5 10.Bb2 cxd4 11.exd4 Rc8 12.Rc1 Bd6 13.Re1 Qe7 14.Nb5 a6
He could not well retreat 14...Bb8, on account of the reply 15.a4 threatening 16.
Ba3; but there was really no reason against 14...Bf4, followed by 15...a6.
15.Nxd6 Qxd6 16.Ne5 dxc4 [?:??-1:00] 17.Nxd7
An injudicious exchange, which not alone throws away a fine position, but might
have given the superiority to the opponent. 17.bxc4 at once was the right play.
Apparently he was afraid of the reply, 17...Nxe5, under the assumption that he was
bound to retake with the pawn, whereupon the queen would first threaten mate at
c6, and then remove the knight to d7, having weakened Whites center; but as
White could in that case retake 18.Rxe5, thus keeping the position of his pawns on
the queenside intact, there was no real objection to recapturing the pawn at once.
17...Nxd7
17...Qxd7 was superior, for it would have enabled him afterwards to break the
adverse center by ...b5. White was then bound to keep on the defensive, for any
attempt on his part to press the attack by 18.d5, must have failed, and might have
led to the following continuation: 17...Qxd7 18.bxc4 b5 19.d5 (We suggest this line
of play, as it appears tempting for attacking purposes, and looks dangerous for
Black, who, however, will obtain the advantage by best play. 19.c5 would give
White decidedly the worst of the game; 19.cxb5 is best, but even then we slightly
prefer Blacks game) 19...bxc4 20.Bxf6 cxd3 (The only move. Should he take the
other bishop, then follows 21.Bxh7+, and if 21...Kxh7 the queen checks twice,
followed by Re3, winning) 21.Qg4 g6 22.Qg5 Qxd5, threatening mate should
Whites queen enter at h6, with two pawns ahead.
18.bxc4 Qf4 19.Qe2
With the view of offering the exchange of queens, in reliance on the strength of his
two bishops for the ending. But we believe he would have made more of his
superior position by keeping his full forces and entering on an attack against the
adverse kingside with his rook via e3.
19...Nf6 20.Qe3 Qxe3 21.Rxe3
Better than retaking with the pawn, in which case Black might have fixed his
knight in at e4, protecting it afterwards by ...f5, producing a drawn position, as the
knight could not be got rid of without leaving bishops of opposite colors.
21...Rfd8 22.f4
With the intention of advancing this pawn to the 5th, which could not be stopped
by 22...g6, on account of the immediate reply 23.d5.
22...b5
This was best now. He was bound to get rid of the adverse center, in view of the
dangerous advance pointed out in our last note.
23.cxb5 Rxc1+ 24.Bxc1 axb5 25.Bxb5 Rxd4 26.Rd3 Rxd3 27.Bxd3
[1:00-?:??] 27...Bc6 28.g3 Nd5 29.Kf2 f6 30.Ke2 Kf7 31.Kd2
He could not take the h-pawn, for obviously his bishop would have been shut out
by 31...g6. But we see no object in this move, which blocks out the dark-square
bishop. 31.Bc2 at once, in order to enter at d3 with his king, seems preferable.
31...h6 [?:??-2:00] 32.Bc2 e5 33.Kd3
Waste of time. He ought to have exchanged pawns at once.
33...Bb5+ 34.Kd2 Bc6
As a draw was the only possible result by best play on both sides, and he could
only compromise himself by playing to win, it was his best plan to capture the
pawn, whereupon the game might have continued thus: 34...exf4 35.Bb3 (Best; for
if 35.a4, Black would take 35...fxg3, threatening 36...g2) 35...Bc6 36.gxf4 g5 37.
fxg5 (If 37.f5, Blacks king would retreat, and then attack the pawn by ...Ne7,
unless the knight be exchanged, which leads to a clear draw) 37...fxg5, with an
even game.
35.fxe5 fxe5 36.Kd3 Nb6
A bad move. 36...Ke6 at once would have actually given him the same position as
he obtains for his side on the 40th move, with the enormous difference that the
adverse a-pawn could not advance on account of 37...Nb4+, and Whites dark-
square bishop was not in such good play.
37.Be3 Bb5+ 38.Kc3 Nd5+
He could not allow the king to enter at b4.
39.Kd2 Ke6 40.a4 Bc6
Compare note to Blacks 36th move.
41.Bc5 Nf6 42.Kc3 g5 43.a5 Nd5+
43...Ne4+, was, we believe, preferable on the whole, though he would lose it if he
afterwards exchanged for the bishop, e.g.: 43...Ne4+ 44.Kb4 Nxc5 45.Kxc5 Kd7
46.Bb3 (Threatening 47.Bd5) 46...e4 47.Kd4, followed by 48.Bc2, and wins; for
Whites king will be earlier in crossing over to the kingside and gaining the pawns.
44.Kc4 h5 45.a6 Nc7 46.a7 e4 [?:??-3:00] 47.Kd4
Zukertort rightly considers that he could have forced the game here by 47.Bb6.
Wherever the knight went to, the white king could come up to c5; and then the
other bishop could soon be brought to oppose at c6, via a4, which settled matters.
47...Nb5+ 48.Ke3 Kf5 49.Bd4 Nc7 50.Bc5 [2:00-?:??] 50...Nb5
It was obviously much stronger to oppose the king at e5, with the view of driving
the king still further back by ...Nd5+. We believe he had then a sure drawn game.
51.Bd1 g4
Also provoking useless trouble. The h-pawn becomes now weak, and it was
obviously better to advance the other pawn.
52.Bb3 Nc7 53.Bf7 Nd5+ 54.Kd4 Nc7 55.Bb6
Which leaves the opponent some more chance, while 55.Bxh5 would have won
immediately; for the resource of 55...Nb5, which he had at subsequent stage, would
have been unavailable, on account of the rejoinder 56.Be8, followed by 57.Bd7+.
On the other hand, if 55...Ne6+, followed by 56...Nxc5, the king would retake,
attacking the bishop; and White would then either queen first, with a clear piece
ahead, or return with the king to d4, stopping the pawn.
55...Ne6+ 56.Ke3 h4
A gross blunder. It was easy to foresee that the extra passed pawn on the other
wing would win. On the other hand, if he allowed the pawn to be taken by the
bishop, he had still some prospect of a draw, for he could gain the adverse h-pawn,
e.g.: 56...Ng5 57.Bxh5 Nf3 58.Be8 Ba8 59.Bd7+ Ke5 60.Bxg4 Nxh2 and though,
by proper play, White should win, Black retained still a chance of sacrificing his
knight for the only adverse pawn on the kingside, and then to draw by bringing his
king over to the queenside; for if he only succeeded in exchanging the hostile light-
square bishop for his own, and to reach b7 with his king, White could not win with
the passed pawn at a7 in conjunction with the dark-square bishop. This is a well-
known book position. Blacks king moves alternately to a8 and b7, and Whites king
can only come near enough to effect stalemate.
57.gxh4 Nf4 58.Be8 Nd5+ 59.Kf2 Bb7 60.Be3 Nf6 [?:??-4:00] 61.Bf7
Nd7 62.h5 Ne5 63.Bg8
After this it is all over. Zukertort has played the greatest part of this game in
masterly style.
63...Nf3 64.h6 Kg6 65.h7 Kg7 66.Bc1 1-0.
London 1881
The tenth game of the match was commenced on Monday, the 18th inst., at the St.
Georges Chess Club. The opening was the same sort of Scotch Gambit as in the
second game of the match, with the alteration of P to K 5 on the sixth move,
suggested in our note (a) to that game, which line of play seemed to give Blackburne
the best of the development, while his opponent laboured under the disadvantage of a
doubled P on the Q side. Blackburne, however, lost time in placing his R at Q sq on
the 11th move; and again on the 15th move he blocked his B uselessly with his Q,
instead of retreating to B sq. His pieces on the Q side became so much hampered,
that his opponent might have obtained the superior game on the 18th move by
attacking the Q B P at R 4 with the Q as soon as Whites Q Kt was developed; instead
of which, Zukertort advanced the K R P for an attack on the K side, and this far-
advanced P ultimately proved a source of weakness. The manuvring on both sides
presented most interesting phases, and virtually lasted up to the 31st move, when
Blackburne, by the entrance of his Kt at K Kt 5, obtained two bishops against B and
Kt, at the same time preparing a strong attack with his pawns on the K Kt and K B
file, which compelled Zukertort to leave his advanced R P undefended. Blackburne
ought not to have hesitated to capture it, though it apparently exposed his K side; for
there was in reality no danger, and the adverse Kt would have been imprisoned,
unless Black gave up another P. However, his game was still good enough, and he
could afford to place his two rooks in a very awkward position; but, to the surprise of
connoisseurs, he relieved Black on the 36th move from his greatest weakness on the
Q side, the doubled P on the Q B file, for no other reason than to give a useless
check. This involved besides subsequent loss of time by retreating the B; but he
retained still sufficient superiority to be able to sacrifice the exchange for a P on the
42nd move. At this point the fight became most exciting, and both parties had an
extremely difficult game to conduct. On the 45th move Blackburne offered the
exchange of rooks too soon, while he could have gained a most important move by
finessing with the K to Kt sq. Zukertort then released himself from the more
immediate danger by exchanging pawns, which left the opponent with two dangerous
passed pawns in the centre, and then, by a beautiful attack on the Q with the B, he
forced the exchange of Queens. After one move more made by Zukertort, the game,
which had already lasted seven hours, was adjourned till the following Wednesday,
Mr Blackburne giving his reply in a sealed envelope. On the resumption of the game
at Simpsons, Zukertort executed a manuvre with his R forming part of a combination
for stopping the adverse pawns which he may well be proud of from the practical
point of view, for it appears that the only other feasible line of play, viz., R to R 5,
would have lost, while the move adopted raised a great number of difficult
complications, and actually a draw was effected. But we have devoted great care and
attention to the study of this position, and, though we may cause some
disappointment, it is our duty as faithful analysts to pronounce, contrary to the
opinion of both players, that the process to which Black resorted ought not to have
succeeded in averting defeat. We produce below some analytical proof as far as our
space will permit, following chiefly the line of play proposed afterwards by the two
opponents. The rest must be a matter for position judgment, and for our part we
believe that the white pawns should have won against the exchange. As it was, the
parties kept bishops of opposite colours. Blackburnes superiority of two pawns being
divided on the two wings, and, though he tried various dodges, he could not dislodge
the adverse K and B from the commanding positions which stopped the progress of
both pawns. The game then declared drawn. Duration, nine hours.
C45/06 Scotch: Schmidt (Mieses)
1881.07.18 & 20 GBR London (St. Georges Chess Club)
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nxc6 bxc6 6.e5
In our first note to the second game of the match we proposed this move in lieu of
6.Bd3 then played.
6...Ne4 7.Qf3
A very good move, and superior to 7.Bd3, to which Black might have replied 7...
Nc5.
7...Ng5 8.Qg3 Ne6 9.Bd3 d5 10.0-0 c5 11.Rd1
Loss of time. He violates for no purpose the elementary rule of development,
holding good with very rare exceptions, escpecially in open games, viz., not to
move one and the same piece twice before all the pieces are developed.
11...c6 12.b3 Be7 13.f4 Bh4 14.Qf3 Nd4 15.Qe3
An inconvenient post for the queen. 15.Qf1 was ever so much superior.
15...Be7 16.c3 Nf5 17.Qf2 [1:00-?:??] 17...h5 18.Nd2 h4
He could have taken a stronger initiative for attacking purposes by 18...Qa5e.g.:
18...Qa5 19.Bb2 c4 20.b4 (best) 20...Qc7 and we prefer Blacks game.
19.Nf3 g6 20.Rb1 Rb8 21.Rb2 h3 [?:??-1:00] 22.g3 Nh6 23.c4 Bg4 24.
Re1
24.Be4 looks tempting, but we believe Black could have given up the queen safely
in that casee.g.: 24.Be4 dxe4 25.Rxd8+ Rxd8 26.Ne1 (if 26.Nd2 , then follows 26...
Nf5) 26...Rd1 27.Rc2 Bf3, followed by 28...Ng4, and 29...0-0, and we prefer
Blacks game.
24...Be6 25.Rd2 Qc8 26.Qf1 Bd8 27.Rc2 Nf5 28.Bd2 Bb6 29.Kh1 Qd8
30.Ng5 [2:00-?:??] 30...Qe7 31.Bc3 Rh6 32.Nxe6 fxe6 33.g4 Nh4 [?:??-
2:00] 34.Ree2
An ugly arrangement of rooks, more suitable for the defense, while he had
evidently the attack in hand. He could take the h-pawn safely, and the knight had
no move; for if 34...Nf5 the queen would play to f3, and afterwards to g3, should
the knight return to h4. If 35...Nd4, White would exchange, followed by 37.g5,
winning another pawn.
34...Kd7 35.Be1 Qf7 36.cxd5
Very feeble. He only obtains a uselelss check thereby, and has again to retreat with
the bishop.
36...cxd5 37.Bb5+ Ke7 38.Bg3 Kf8 39.Bd3 Ng2 40.Qc1 d4 41.f5 Ne3 42.
Rxe3
Excellent play. He retains sufficient to win.
42...dxe3 43.Qxe3 g5
This pawn cannot be taken, on pain of mate after 44...Qb7+.
44.Bc4 Rd8 45.Rd2
Too early. The finessing move 45.Kg1 would have compelled Black to protect the
g-pawn, and White could then oppose the rook with greater advantage. Black could
not reply 45...Qb7e.g.: 45.Kg1 Qb7 46.Qxg5 Rd1+ 47.Kf2 Qg2+ 48.Ke3, and
wins, for if 48...Qxc2 White mates in a few moves after 49.Qxh6+, following it up,
accordingly to where the king moves, either by 50.Qg7+ or 50.Qh8+.
45...Qb7+ 46.Kg1 Rxd2 47.Qxd2 [3:00-?:??] 47...exf5 48.gxf5 Ba5
[?:??-3:00]
A splendid move. The exchange of queens is forced now; for if the queen does not
oppose at d5, 49...Bc3 follows, threatening the fatal 50...Bd4+.
49.Qd5 Qxd5 50.Bxd5 Bc3 51.Kf2
At this point the game was adourned till Wednesday.
51...Ra6
Zukertort deserves the highest credit for this very fine resource as regards actual
play; but it is our duty to give our opinion that it would not succeed in saving the
game against analysis. He had, however, nothing better. For instance, 51...Rh4
would have loste.g.: 51...Rh4 52.Bxh4 gxh4 53.e6 Ke7 (best) 54.Kf3 Be5 55.Kg4
Bxh2 56.Kxh4 and after getting rid of the other h-pawn he maneuvers the king over
to b5, leaving his own a-pawn untouched (which is most important). He will then
win either one of the pawns on the queenside, and afterwards proceed by playing
a3 and b4, or else he will effect an entrance with the king at c6, and ultimately win
by playing f6+.
52.a4 c4 53.Bxc4
We give a diagram of this fine position before Whites last move:
53.bxc4 was the right play. It is impossible to exhaust all variations, and we can
only give a few moves of a modification of the main line of play as tried afterwards
by the two players, feeling sure, however, that the pawns ought to have the best of
the struggle against the exchange in any case. Supposing: 53.bxc4 Rxa4 54.Kf3
Ra1 55.e6 (threatening to win at once by 56.Bd6+, followed accordingly by the
advance of the e-pawn, or by 57.Bc6+) 55...Ke7 (or 55...Bf6; or 55...Bb4 56.f6 Rf1
+ 57.Bf2 a5 [This seems best; if 57...Bc5, White checks at once with the pawn at
e7, and Black has only lost a move] 58.Bc6 Rc1 59.c5 Rxc5 60.Bxc5+ Bxc5 61.
Kg4, and wins both pawns, afterwards advances the h-pawn, winning easily) 56.c5
and the consistent advance of this pawn ought to win.
53...Ra5
After this beautiful move the game is forced drawn, and Whites subsequent
attempts to win could make no impression by proper play on the other side.
54.Kf3 Bxe5 55.Be1 Rc5 56.Bb4 Bd6 57.Bxc5 Bxc5 58.Kg4 Bd6 59.
Kxh3 Kg7 60.Kg4 [4:00-?:??] 60...Kf6 61.Ba6 Bxh2 62.b4 Bd6 63.b5
Bc7 64.Bc8 Ba5 65.Kf3 Bc7 66.Kg4 Bd8 67.Bb7 Ke5 68.Bg2 Kf6 69.
Bh3 Ke5 70.Kh5 Kf6 71.Kg4 Ke5 72.Bf1 Kf6 73.Bg2 Ke5 74.Bh3 Kf6
75.Kf3 Ke5 76.Ke3 Kd5 77.Bg4 Ke5 -.
London 1881
The eleventh game played on Friday, the 15th [sic] inst., at the St. Georges Chess
Club. Our report of this game in our last weeks issues was necessarily brief, as it was
only finished a short time before our going to press. We have to correct a
misstatement in reference to its duration appearing in our last number, owing to a
clerical error, for the game only lasted four and a half hours.
As regards the progress of the game, we notice a feature in the play of the two
parties, which is also strongly marked in several previous games of this contest. So
long as the placement of the heavy pieces is masked by the movements of pawns, it
requires great delicacy of judgment to place especially the rooks, on posts whence
they may ultimately be brought into proper action. Though we have never observed it
before, we find, from the present and other games of the match, that Blackburnes play
seems to suffer from a peculiar weakness in handling the rooks, and he often shifts
then about on different files and rows in a helpless manner. On the other hand,
Zukertort posts his rooks generally on squares on which they become soon useful, and
rarely changes their position, even for purposes of manuvring.
Blackburnes fatal recapture of the R with the Q on the 21st move seems to have
been the result of a miscalculation, in which his opponent had reckoned deeper. Most
probably Blackburne had left himself open to the advance of P to Kt 5, and on the
misapprehension that he could capture it, and if the opponent took the B he would
regain the piece by Q to B 2, after exchanging rooks. If we are right in this
assumption, it is quite clear that he overlooked the force of the answer Q to Q sq,
which kept the piece. Blacks game was lost after that, though he tried to retrieve his
fortunes by some clever schemes, which were, however, frustrated by the adverse
deep manuvres. Notably there was a great deal of meaning in the advance of P to K R
3 on both sides on the 24th move, as will be shown below ; and Whites 32nd move
comprised a very ingenious trap, which Blackburne saw through and avoided.
Blackburne fought the game out tenaciously on some chance of an error ; but he had
to resign when his opponent had placed his K out of all possible danger, and doubly
attacked Blacks last passed P on the Q R file, which would leave White with a piece
and several pawns ahead.
A13/01 English: Agincourt
1.c4 e6 2.e3 Nf6 3.Nf3 b6 4.a3 Bb7 5.Nc3 d5 6.d4 Nbd7 7.b3
7.b4 would be premature, on account of the reply 7...a5.
7...Bd6
We think that the f-bishop should be placed at d3 for the attack, and at e7 for the
defense. As remarked last week, the respective positions of the bishops were
reversed in this game.
8.Bb2 0-0 9.Be2
He might have gained a move here by 9.b4, which would have compelled the
adversary to capture the c-pawn.
9...Re8
In conjunction with the pursuance of the plan of advancing the e-pawn after
exchanging c-pawn for d-pawn, this would be feasible. But his subsequent
hesitation to adopt that measure makes the move of the rook useless.
10.0-0 Nf8
The maneuvering of this knight to the kingside has no object in this opening, where
the battle is usually fought on the other wing. Consistent with his previous
placement of the rook, he should have taken 10...dxc4, followed by 11...e5.
11.Rc1 c6
Worse than unnecessary. We fail to see any object in blocking up the bishop.
12.b4
Promptly getting the best of the position. Black must now capture the c-pawn,
which threatens to advance to c5 with a powerful attack on the queenside.
12...dxc4 13.Bxc4 Ng6 14.Bd3 Qe7
Even now we should have preferred an attempt to open the game by 14...e5. If
White then took 15.Bxg6, and drew the rook into the center by subsequent
exchanges, it would only lead to an exchange of queens; and Black would suffer no
inconvenience from the withdrawal of the adverse c-knight, though it unmasked
the bishop. It also prevents f4, for the bishop could now take if that pawn advanced.
15.Ne4 Nxe4 16.Bxe4 Rac8 [?:??-1:00] 17.Qb3
This is high-class judgment, besides a clever finesse. He spots the weak point on
the other side, and prevents the advance of the c-pawn, against which he means to
direct his attack. It is obvious that, if Black were now to push the c-pawn, White
would exchange bishops first, followed by 19.bxc5, winning a clear pawn.
17...Rf8 18.Ne5 Nxe5
Which causes him loss of important time. 18...Bxe5, followed by 19...Qc7, was
the proper play. If White then protected the e-pawn, without capturing the knight
with the bishop, the knight could be brought into good play immediately, vi e7. In
the other alternative, bishops of opposite colors remained, with an even game.
19.dxe5 Bb8 20.Rfd1 Rfd8
This costs a pawn under any circumstances.
21.Rxd8+ Qxd8
A gross miscalculation apparently. Retaking with the rook would have given up the
inevitably lost pawn in a much less dangerous way, and he would have had a fair
prospect in playing subsequently for a draw by ...Qd7, followed by ...Qd2 in reply
to the rook retreating to f1. The move in the text enables White to fix a passed
pawn at c6.
22.b5
We give a diagram of this most interesting position.
22...Qe8
In all probability he had previously speculated on now capturing the b-pawn
followed by exchanging rooks and ...Qc7. On discovering that White will in that
case retain the piece by the ultimate answer Qd1, he injudiciously desists from that
course, which, in our opinion, was still the best under the circumstances, e.g.: 22...
cxb5 23.Bxb7 Rxc1+ 24.Bxc1 Qc7 25.Qd1 f6 (better than 25...f5 in some
contingencies where the king requires room to come out at g6, vi f7) 26.Ba6 Qxe5
27.f4 Qc5, and, with two pawns for the piece, he ought to have been able to make a
much better fight for a draw than he did in the actual game, which was hopeless
after Whites pawn entered at c6.
23.Qd1 [1:00-?:??]
Correct and precise. To prevent Black from relieving himself by 23...Rc7, in which
case White would still capture the pawn, and Black could not capture thrice on
account of the impending mate by Qd8.
23...h6
23...g6 would have served his object better; for he would then obtain two passed
pawns for the piece by ...Rc7, as will be explained in our next note.
24.h3 Rd8
Whites last move was, we believe, also best against 23...g6 proposed in our last
note, and he could then obtain some compensation at this juncture by 24...Rc7,
while, as it stands, this plan is not available, as White will ultimately win another
pawn, either on the kingside or on the queenside, e.g.: 24...Rc7 25.bxc6 Bxc6 26.
Bxc6 Rxc6 27.Rxc6 Qxc6 28.Qd8+ Kh7 (it would make all the difference now if
the g-pawn had advanced on the 23rd move, and the king could play to g7) 29.
Qxb8 Qc2 30.Bd4 Qc1+ 31.Kh2 Qxa3 32.Qb7 Kg8 33.Qa8+ Kh7 34.Bxb6, and
wins easily.
25.Qc2 Bc8
25...Bc7 or 25...Ba8 would have gained a move which might have been of some
importance.
26.bxc6 Bc7 27.f4 a5 28.a4 Ba6 29.Ba3 b5 30.axb5 Bxb5 31.Bd6 Bb6
[?:??-2:00]
Obviously he could not take twice, for White would advance c7, followed
afterwards by Bb7, in case the queen tried to stop the pawn at c8.
32.Qb3 f5
32...a4 might have led to the following fine variation: 33.Qxb5 Bxe3+ 34.Kh1
Bxc1 35.c7 Rc8 36.Bc6, and wins the queen.
33.Bxf5 a4 34.Qxe6+ Kh8 35.Qxe8+ Rxe8 36.Kf2 g5 37.fxg5 a3 38.c7
Ba6 39.c8Q Bxc8 40.Bxc8
Black makes the most of his defense, though, owing to the nature of the game, this
does not amount to much. It is obvious that White could not retake with the rook,
or Black would exchange, and queen his a-pawn without obstacle.
40...a2 41.Bb7 Bc7
To prolong the fight by 42...Re7, recovering the piece if White takes.
42.Ra1 Rb8 43.Bd5 Rb2+
Just on the last chance that the king might retreat to the last row, whereupon the
rook would check at b1.
44.Kf3 1-0.
London 1881
The twelfth game, played at the St. Georges on Monday, the 25th inst. At the
request of Mr Blackburne, who felt indisposed on Saturday last, the match stood
adjourned to the above date. The game under notice turned out a poor performance
on the part of both players. The opening was the same as in the tenth game, with the
alteration that Zukertort this time protected the Kt against the advancing K P by
pinning the latter with Q to K 2, whereupon White was naturally bound to defend also
by Q to K 2, whereupon White was naturally bound to defend also by Q to K 2, both
sides having thus their K B blocked up by the Q. Blacks Kt then entered at Q 4, and,
on being attacked by the Q B P, Zukertort pinned with the Q B and castled on the Q
side. At this stage on the 10th move, Blackburne had the choice of two good moves,
viz., Q to Kt 2 or B to Kt 2, which would have given him a fair game, but he
committed a regular blunder, which allowed the opponent to form an attack against
the advanced K P; but instead of pressing it by P to Q 3, which must have ultimately
gained the P, Zukertort advanced this P two squares, which gave Blackburne time to
develope his Q side, and ultimately to castle on that wing, albeit his Q R P could then
be taken by the Kt, with ch. We believe that this would have been Blacks best course
after all, for White had then hardly sufficient attack worth fearing against the
apparently exposed K, and it would have taken him some time to recover the P, while,
the way Zukertort played, he ought to have lost a clear P on the twentieth move by B
to K 4.
Blackburne adopted instead the weaker advance of P to B 5, which by best play
would have only left him with a slight advantage, chiefly on account of the confined
position of the adverse Q B. But there would have been still much room for a long
and difficult struggle if Zukertort had not on the next moved relieved his opponent
from all further trouble by a gross blunder, whereby he left a clear piece to be
captured at Q Kt 4, which he could not retake, on account of a mate being threatened
by Q to R 8. Black thereupon immediately resigned. Duration three hours.
C45/13 Scotch: Schmidt (Mieses)
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nxc6 bxc6 6.e5 Qe7 7.Qe2
Nd5 8.c4 Ba6 9.b3 0-0-0
Zukertort considers this defense, which has not been sufficiently tested in practice,
sound.
10.Qe4
By this trap he only endangers himself. He probably intended to induce the answer
10...Nb4, whereupon he would attack with the a-pawn; and if Black answered 11...
d5, he would check with the queen at f5. Either 10.Bb2 or 10.Qb2 would have
given him a good game. But it may be observed that 10.Ba3 might, at Blacks
option, only lead to an exchange of queens; for the queen might capture, followed
by 11...Bb4+, whereupon Whites queen would be bound to interpose at once, or a
piece would be lost by 12...Nc3+.
10...Nf6 11.Qe2
The queen could not retreat to e3, or a pawn would be lost at once by the answer
11...Ng4.
11...Re8 12.f4 d5
12...d6 must have ultimately gained a pawn for Black; for White could not capture
the knight on account of the reply 13...Qd8, followed, if the bishop interposed, by
14...Qxf6, winning the rook.
13.Nc3 Qd7 14.Bd2 d4 [?:??-1:00] 15.Na4 Nd5 16.Qf3 [1:00-?:??] 16...
Nb4 17.0-0-0
Bold. We should have preferred 17.Bxb4, followed by 18.Kf2 if 17...Bxb4+; for
he threatened afterwards 19.a3, driving back the bishop, which was bound to guard
against the entrance of the knight at c5.
17...Qf5
He comes out with the inferior game from this sally. We see no danger in
capturing the a-pawn, and, on the contrary, if White afterwards attempted an attack
on the a-file, he would most likely find it premature, and involve himself in
difficulties which we believe would have been to Blacks advantage, e.g.: 17...Nxa2
+ 18.Kb2 Nb4 19.c5 (if 19.Bxb4 first, Black ultimately defends the bishop by ...a5)
19...Bxf1 20.Qxf1 Nd5 21.Qa6+ Kb8 22.Ra1 Re6, and he will soon break the force
of the attack by ...Qc8.
18.Bxb4 Bxb4 19.Bd3
Better than 19.Rxd4, in which case Black would have obtained a fair attack by
opposing rooks at d8.
19...Qd7 20.c5
He obtains a good game by this, but raises unnecessary complications. 20.Be4,
threatening to win the c-pawn and the exchange, would have left him with a plain
superiority, for the game would mostly have proceeded thus: 20.Be4 Bb7 21.Qd3
(threatening 22.Bf5) 21...Kb8 22.Qxd4, with a pawn ahead and an excellent game.
20...Bb5
An extraordinary blunder to make in a match game. Of course 20...Bxd3 was the
only move. White, we believe, would by best play have still retained some
superiority of position, but it was by no means an easy matter to make much of it.
The game might then have proceeded thus: 20...Bxd3 21.Qxd3 Rd8 22.Qc4 a5,
followed by 23...Qd5, etc.
21.Bxb5 1-0.
London 1881
The thirteenth game of the match, played at Simpsons on Wednesday, the 27th inst.
This game will be one of the most memorable match games on record, owing to its
extraordinary curious termination, as well as it vicissitudes in the middle part, and
taking into consideration the state of the score at the time, which, as our readers are
aware, has been most precarious for Blackburne since the end of last week. The
opening, 1. P to Q B 4, resolved itself into a Q gambit declined, with the fianchetto on
the Q side for both parties. Blackburne chose the questionable post at Q R 3 for his Q
Kt, and made it positively unfavourable by omitting to exchange his Q B P for the
adverse Q P, which enabled the opponent ultimately to form a strong centre. Another
weak advance of the K B P, to the 4th instead of to the 3rd square, gave Zukertort an
opportunity of fixing his pawns strongly from K B 4 to Q 6, with a formidable passed
Q P, at the same time blocking up the adverse K B uselessly at K R 3. Instead,
however, of securing his position on the K side by P to K R 4, Zukertort placed his Q
into inactivity at K R 3. On the 33rd move Zukertort allowed his pawns to be broken
up unnecessarily on the K side, instead of moving the K into the corner, which would
have kept his fortified position intact. He only gained a doubled P temporarily
thereby, and we believe Blackburne could then have obtained the superiority by Kt to
B 2, in lieu of Kt to B 3, actually played. Blackburne then tried to relieve himself by
liberating his Q B P, and actually succeeded in exchanging queens, and breaking up
the adverse centre by a fine sacrifice of a R, the full value of which he immediately
recovered. But instead of retaining his Kt on the 45th move by Kt to Kt sq, which
would have secured his getting rid of the adverse dangerous passed P at Q 7, he
allowed it to be exchanged for the R, and his game then became hopeless to all
appearance, for that P was bound to cost a clear piece, while Blacks passed Q B P
could be stopped by the K. The match seemed to be virtually over, and Blackburnes
best friends must have considered him fully justified in resigning the game at that
stage. But he held on with his defence in a most stubborn manner, and bodly [sic]
accepted the exchange of rooks, which left him only to fight with the K and a P,
against the adverse Kt and two pawns. Zukertort could have won easily at several
subsequent pointsnamely, on the sixty-fifth move, by Kt to B 6, getting rid of
Blackburnes last P, for if that P advanced to R 3, he could capture, giving up the Kt,
and his Kt P was in time to effect the support of the R P. Again, three moves later on,
he might have forced a win by bringing his K immediately to B 4, instead of to B 3,
with the view of abandoning the Kt ultimately, but only after forcing the adverse K up
to B 8, where the Kt should have been posted, while in the meantime Whites K could
cross over to the K side and fetch the R P. But, by a singular infatuation, he ran into
the very position which Blackburne had been aiming at as a last resource. The
manner in which Black draws this game with a clear piece behind will be a most
instructive lesson to the students of endings. Mr Blackburne informs us that he first
hit on this ingenious resource, which he also succeeded in carrying out here, in a
similar position which he had against Mr MDonnell about fifteen years ago. He then
effected a draw with a piece minus, though there were two pawns left on each side.
Zukertort tried in vain to get the opposition, with the object of dislodging the hostile
K and of abandoning the Kt, and then to gain the P. Had Blacks P been pushed one
step further, the game would have been won for White by that process; but
Blackburne wisely refrained from touching that P, and on finding, after several
dodging attempts, that Blackburne judiciously persisted in only manuvring his K,
Zukertort gave up the game as drawn.
Duration, eight hours.
1.c4 e6 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.a3 b6 4.Nc3 Bb7 5.e3 d5 6.d4 Be7 7.b3 0-0 8.Bb2
dxc4 9.bxc4 c5 10.Be2 Na6
We repeat that the natural post for the b-knight is at c3.
11.0-0 Ne4
This causes him only loss of time, and gives the opponent the desired opportunity
of liberating his f-pawn for the eventual advance.
12.Nxe4 Bxe4 13.Nd2 Bb7 14.Qc2 Qc7
It was now the highest time to exchange the c-pawn for the d-pawn, in order to
have a convenient square at c5 for the knight should the hostile d-pawn advance.
14...Nc7 was also better than the move in the text.
15.d5
Excellent play, whereby he establishes the superiority of position for his side.
Obviously Black cannot capture twice, as the knight would be left en prise of the
bishop.
15...Rad8 16.e4 f5
Bad. 16...f6 was the right defense, for White would gain nothing by taking the e-
pawn, as he could not subsequently support it sufficiently.
17.Qc3 Bg5 18.f4 Bh6 19.e5 Nb8 20.d6 Qf7 21.Qh3
An ill-favored post for the queen, which might have been made much more useful
on the queenside. 21.h4 followed soon, if necessary, by g3, was the right plan for
the purpose of blocking the adverse dark-square bishop and keeping his own
kingside secure against the eventual advance to the g-pawn, more especially as it
was always left open to him of getting his king into safe quarters, vi f2, in case of
emergency.
21...Nc6 22.Rad1 Kh8 23.Nb3 Rg8 24.Bf3 Rd7 25.g3 Qf8 26.Rd3
[1:00-?:??] 26...Nd8
This offer of exchange is ill-judged, as it only gives additional scope of action to
the adverse queen, which naturally would try to get into play next at g2. 26...Qc8
at once was preferable.
27.Bxb7 Nxb7 28.Qg2 g6 29.a4 Bg7 30.Bc3 Qc8 [?:??-2:00] 31.Nd2
Nd8 32.a5 g5 33.fxg5
We believe his capture compromises at least his advantage, if not his position
altogether. 33.Kh1 left his position on the kingside unbroken, for obviously, after
exchanging pawns, Black could not capture the e-pawn with the bishop, as it would
be retaken, with a check.
33...Nc6
An error of judgment, of which his opponent avails himself cleverly. 33...Nf7 was
the right move, which would have either recovered one of the pawns on the
kingside, or would have given him time, if White defended both by 34.Nf3, to
attack the c-pawn by 34...Qa6.
34.axb6 axb6 35.Re1
An important, fine move, and of course much superior to 35.Nf3 at once, as Black
has no time now to attack the c-pawn with the queen, since his knight remains
undefended.
35...Qb7 36.Nf3 Rf8 37.Nh4 b5 38.cxb5 [2:00-?:??] 38...Qxb5 39.Rd2
c4 40.Rb2 Qc5+ 41.Qf2 Qxf2+ 42.Rxf2 Rxd6
Most ingenious. Black conducts the defense admirably.
43.exd6 Bxc3 44.Rxe6 Bd4 45.d7 Ne5
A gross error, which causes a serious relapse in his position. It was quite evident
that he required the knight, in order to catch the dangerous passed d-pawn on a
white square, and the black bishop was of no use to him for the defense. 45...Nb8
was the proper move. If, then, 46.Rd6, he would take the other rook 46...Bf2+,
followed by 47...Rd8; and, after getting rid of the d-pawn with the knight, he could
struggle for a draw on the merits of the position with more legitimate hope.
46.Rxe5 Bxe5 47.Rxf5 Bd4+ [?:??-3:00] 48.Kf1 Rd8 49.Rd5 Bb6 50.
Nf3 Kg7 51.Ne5 c3 52.Ke2 Bc7 53.Nc6 Rf8 54.d8Q Bxd8 55.Nxd8 c2
56.Kd2 Rf2+ 57.Kc1 Rxh2 58.Ne6+ Kf7 59.Nf4 Ke7 60.Rd2 Rh1+ 61.
Kxc2 Ra1 62.Kb3 Ra5 63.Rd5 Rxd5 64.Nxd5+ Ke6 65.Ne3
Good enough still, but 65.Nf6 was immediately decisive; for, if Black answered
65...h6, White would capture it, followed by 67.g4 and 68.g5. On the other hand,
if 65...Kf5, the game must have proceeded thus: 65.Nf6 Kf5 66.Nxh7 Kg6 67.Nf6
Kxg5 68.Ne4+; and, if the 68...Kf5, the winning answer is 69.Nf2. On the other
hand, if 68...Kg5, the white king comes up.
65...Ke5 66.Kc3 Ke4 67.Kd2
Even now he could have won by force, if he had retreated 67.Nf1, e.g.: 67.Nf1 Kf3
(if 67...Kf5, White will cut off the king by 68.Nh2, winning easily afterwards by
brining his own king to the kingside.) 68.Kd4 Kf2 69.Ke5 Kxf1 70.Kf6, and wins.
67...Kf3 68.g4
Neither 68.Nf1 nor 68.Nf5 would have availed him anything now by best play, e.
g., in the first place: 68.Nf1 Kf2 69.Kd3 Kxf1 70.Ke3 Kg2 71.Kf4 Kh3 72.Kf3
Kh2 73.Kg4 Kg2 and he must draw if he keeps always near this pawn at g3, and
only follows it up whenever it advances. Secondly: 68.Nf5 Kg4 69.Nd6 Kxg3 70.
Ke3 Kg4 71.Nf7 Kf5, followed by 72...Kg6, and draws.
68...Kf4 69.g6 hxg6 70.Ke2 Kg3 [?:??-4:00]
We give a diagram of this remarkably fine position. Blacks last move was the only
one to secure the draw, for if 70...Kg5, the white king would come near at f3; and
if 70...Ke5, the knight would cut him off from future entrance by 71.Ng2.
71.Ke1 Kf3 72.Kd2 Kf4 73.Kd3 Kf3 74.Kd4 Kf4 75.Kd3
It would be useless to try to win by abandoning the knight, e.g.: 75.Kd5 Kxe3 76.
Ke5 Kf3, and of course 77.Kf6 draws, but if White now advances the pawn, he
actually loses thus: 77.g5 Kg4 78.Kf6 Kh5 and wins. As already noticed in the
introduction, if Blacks pawn stood now at g5, White could win by 75.Kd5; but
Blackburne, with fine insight into this beautiful position, did not advance his pawn,
and only moved the king, thereby securing the draw.
75...Kf3 76.Kd2 Kf4 -. [3:42-4:11]
Whites third hour was not marked on the scoresheet handed over to us, but we are
informed by Zukertort that the exact time used by the two players 3 hours 42
minutes for White, and 4 hours 11 minutes for Black.


Chess Archeology's Excavations 1998-2001

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chess Archeology's Excavations 1998-2001

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chess is a scientific game and its literature

You might also like

Chess Archeology&#39;s Excavations 1998-2001

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chess Archeology&#39;s Excavations 1998-2001

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chess is a scientific game and its literature

You might also like

Chess Archeology's Excavations 1998-2001

Chess Archeology's Excavations 1998-2001