If you have disabled Java for your browser, use the Site Map (linked in the header and footer).

Chessville
logo by
ChessPrints
 

From the
Chessville
Chess Store

From the
Chessville
Chess Store

Pablo's
Chess
News

Reference
Center

Romancing History

Dr. Vlastimil Fiala is a man obsessed with chess history.  His inner world is inhabited by the likes of Steinitz, Lasker, Capablanca and Alekhine.  Dr. Fiala is also a man with a mission.  It is to inspire the modern player to rediscover the magic world of a vanished era.  Welcome to Quarterly For Chess History.

This issue is partly a tribute to Steinitz, the First World Champion, on the occasion of the 100^th anniversary of his death.

But in 1894 he was 58 years old, poor and ailing, his body wracked by gout.  In a sense his real  adversary was not any over-the board opponent, but the baleful figure, Old Father Time.

He had only drawn his last Match with Gunsberg.  It was widely believed that young Dr. Tarrasch could beat him in a match.  Unfortunately, the good doctor’s medical engagements prevented him from availing of the opportunity.

However, there was a new star on the horizon.  Lasker, the 24-year-old player, had beaten Blackburne, Bird and Mieses in individual matches and also won a major tournament in New York the year before.  Steinitz had watched the rise of the new rival for years and commented on his games.

Lasker had desired to test his mettle with Tarrasch in a match only to be spurned with scorn by the latter.  It rankled Lasker, but, undaunted, he offered a challenge to Steinitz.  The battle-scarred veteran had  never refused a challenge in his life.  But he was seriously thinking of retirement from active play.  His  mission in life was to make a great contribution to chess theory and be recognized as a seminal thinker of the game.

But  his precarious existence as a professional player and continuing penury left him little choice but to accept the challenge from Lasker.  Besides, he was anxious to prove to the chess world that he was not a spent force and continued to be the best player.

The Match commenced in New York and followed a dramatic course.  [Editor's note: see complete coverage of this match.]  After six games the score was level with two wins and four draws.  Then the play was resumed in Philadelphia.  It was here that tragedy struck.  After obtaining a winning position, Steinitz succumbed to a speculative counterattack by Lasker.  This was the first crisis.  After this game he seemed to have lost his bearings.  There followed disaster after disaster.  He lost four more games in a row.  The score stood 7-4 in Lasker’s favour.  Even the diehard followers of Steinitz had lost hope.  Then the old lion resolved to fight back.  The 12^th game was drawn.  Steinitz won both the 13^th and 14^th games in style.  Once again the outcome of the match appeared wide open.  But in the 15^th game he was positionally outplayed by Lasker.

The 16^th game was a real cliff-hanger, with both players fighting on the edge of abyss:

Steinitz- Lasker [D60]
World Championship Montreal (16), 17.05.1894

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 Be7 5.Nf3 Nbd7 6.e3 0-0 7.c5!?

This move seeking expansion on the queen’s side without completing development was rightly criticized by contemporary analysts. 7. Rc1 is better.

7…. Ne4

8.Nxe4

8.Bxe7 Qxe7 9.Qc2 Nxc3 10.Qxc3 Re8  is a reasonable alternative.

8...dxe4 9.Bxe7 Qxe7 10.Nd2 Nf6

11.Nc4

If 11.Qc2 e5 12.Nxe4 exd4 13.Nxf6+ Qxf6 with the better game. -Steinitz

But Tschigorin  shows the potential of White’s  position with the continuation  14.e4 Qg5 15.Rd1 Rd8 16.f3 (16.Rd3) 16...Qe3+ 17.Be2 .

11...b6 12.b4?!

12.cxb6 axb6 13.Be2 Ba6 14.0-0 Bxc4 15.Bxc4 Rfd8 is better according to Zak, a Soviet analyst.

12...Nd5 13.Qb1?!

13.a3 a5 14.Rb1 axb4 15.axb4  is better.

13...f5 14.Ne5 a5 15.Nc6 Qg5 16.h4

16.g3 Nxe3 17.fxe3 Qxe3+ 18.Be2 Ba6 19.Qc2 Bxe2 20.Qxe2 Qc3+ 21.Kf2 f4  Black has  the attack according to Schiffers, a great Russian player  who was to play a friendly match with Steinitz in St. Petersburg next year.

16...Qf6 17.cxb6?!

After 17.Bc4!? f4 18.Qxe4 fxe3 19.f3 Bb7 Black has initiative.  After  20.Bxd5? exd5 21.Qxd5+?? Kh8 he has even the attack.

17...f4

17...axb4 is met by 18.bxc7 f4 19.Qxe4 fxe3 20.f3  threatening  Bd3 according to Soviet analysis. But Black can play 20… Nc3 21.Ne7+ Qxe7 22.Qxa8 Qd6.

18.Qxe4 fxe3 19.f3 Bb7?!

19...axb4! 20.Nxb4 Nxb4 21.Qxa8 Qxd4  and Black wins according to Tschigorin.

20.b5?

If 20.Ne5 Nxb4 21.Qxb7 Qf4! 22.Qe4 Qxe4 23.fxe4 Nc2+ with a winning game; and if 20.Nxa5 Rxa5 (20...Qe7 21.a3 cxb6 22.Bd3 bxa5 23.Qxh7+ Kf7 24.Qh5+ Kg8 25.Bh7+ Kh8 26.Bg6+ Kg8 27.Qh7#) 21.bxa5 Nb4 22.Qxb7 .Qxd4 23.Rd1 Nc2+ (or 23...Qc3+ 24.Ke2 Qc2+ 25.Kxe3 Qxd1 with a powerful attack) 24.Ke2 Qc4+ 25.Rd3  Qb4 =

Not 25… Rd8? 26.Qe4 Rd4  recommended by  Steinitz who thought Black was winning.  As a matter of fact, Black is losing after 27.b7.

Enamored of the several attractive possibilities for Black, Steinitz and other contemporaries reached the conclusion that 20.Nxa5 loses.  However, Zak showed later that White could play 20.Nxa5 Rxa5 21.bxa5 Nb4  and play for a win with 22.Qe5! Nc2+ 23.Kd1 Qxe5 24.dxe5 Nxa1 25.a6 Bd5 26.b7

20...Bxc6 21.bxc6 cxb6?

21...Qe7! 22.Bd3 (22.a3 Qd6) 22...Qb4+ 23.Kf1 Qb2 wins according to Zak.

22.Bd3

22.Bc4 Qe7 23.0-0 Rf4 24.Qe5 Rf5 25.Qe4 Qd6 26.Bb5 is a better alternative.

22...Qh6!

Threatening both 23… Nf4 and …Rf4.

23.g3

Practically forced.

23...Rac8

23...Nc3 24.Qe5 Rac8 25.f4 Rxc6 26.Qxe3 Rd8 27.a4 Nd5  may be better.

24.Rc1

Here the game was adjourned, Steinitz sealing this move.

24… Rc7?

24...Nb4 25.Bb1 Rc7 26.a3 Nd5 27.0-0 b5 28.Bd3 b4 29.axb4 axb4 is better.  Now the tide  turns and White will have the upper hand.

25.0-0

25...Rd8 26.f4

The Kingside is much weakened by this advance, and 26.Rfe1 is much better. - Steinitz.

Not  26.Rc4?.e2. Now 27.Qxe2 or 27.Bxe2  lose to  27...Ne3.

26...Qg6

26...Rd6? 27.f5 Rdxc6 28.Rxc6 Rxc6 29.fxe6 is favourable to White. - Zak

27.Qxg6 hxg6 28.Bxg6?

Missing 28.Rfe1! Ne7 29.Rxe3 Rxc6 30.Rxc6 Nxc6 31.Bxg6±

28...Ne7

28...Rd6 29.Be8 Nf6 30.Bd7 Kf7 31.Rce1 Rxd4 32.Rxe3 Nxd7 33.cxd7 Rdxd7 is unclear.

29.Be4

29.h5 Nxg6 30.hxg6 Rxd4 31.Rfe1 Rd6 32.Rxe3 Rcxc6 33.Rxc6 Rxc6 34.a4 Kf8 35.Kf2 Ke7 may be better.

29...Rxd4÷ 30.Bf3 Nf5 31.Rfe1 Kf7 32.Rb1 Nxg3

33.Rxb6

It was probably White's best plan to get rid of the adverse e-pawn by 33.Rxe3 in which case Black would have no doubt answered 33...Nf5 followed by 34...Ke7- Steinitz.

33...Nf5 34.Rb7 Rxb7

34...Re7 35.Be2 Rd6 36.Bh5+ Kf6 37.Rxe7 Kxe7 38.Rc1 Rd8 39.Be2 Nxh4 40.c7 Rc8 is unclear.

35.cxb7 Rb4 36.Rc1

36.Be4 (preparing Rb1) Nd6 37.Rxe3 Nxe4 38.Rxe4! =  Zak.

36.h5 Kf6 37.Kh2 e5 38.a3 Rb3 39.fxe5+ Kxe5 40.Kg2 Kf4 41.Bd5 Rb2+ 42.Kh3 may be slightly better.

36...Nd4!

A terrifying cavalry charge.  Lasker smells blood.

Not 36...Nxh4? 37.Be4 with the idea of Rc8.

37.Kg2??

White misses a draw with  37.Rc7+ Kf6 38.Be4 Ne2+ 39.Kg2 Nxf4+ 40.Kf3 e2 41.Rc1 Nd5 (41...Ke5 42.Rb1) 42.Bxd5 exd5 43.Kxe2 Rxb7 44.Rc5 Rb2+ 45.Ke3 Rxa2 46.Rxd5 =

37...Rb2+ 38.Kg3 Rxb7

39.Bxb7 Ne2+ 40.Kf3 Nxc1 41.Kxe3

41.a4 e2 42.Kf2 Kg6 43.Bc8 Kf5 44.Ke1 Kxf4 is lost for White.

41...Nxa2

42.Kd4

White here misses his final chance, as 42.f5!

Analysis Diagram: after 42.f5!

...leads to a clear draw!  Obviously the pawn cannot be taken 42...exf5 on account of 43.Bd5+ winning the Knight, and so after White exchanges pawns his King crosses to the Queenside and draws with ease. - Steinitz

42...Kf6 43.Kc5 Nc3 44.Kc4 Ne2 45.Kb5 Nxf4

45...Kf5! 46.Kxa5 Kg4 47.Kb5 Kxh4 48.Kc4 Kg4 49.Kd3 Nxf4+ 50.Ke4 g5 51.Bc6 Nd5 52.Bd7 Nf6+ also wins.

46.Kxa5 Ng6 47.h5 Nf4 48.Bf3 Kf5 49.Kb4 e5 50.Kc3

50.Bd1 e4

50...e4 51.Bd1 e3 52.Bf3 Kg5 53.Kc2 Kh4 54.Kd1 Kg3 0-1

Final Position

It is to the credit of Steinitz that even after this heartbreak he won a classic in the 17th game.  The 18th game was drawn.  By then the struggle had entirely exhausted him.  In the 19th game he was only a shadow of himself and capitulated on the 52^nd move, and in the most chivalrous manner congratulated Lasker on his victory, at the same time proposing three cheers for the new champion.  The Bohemian Caesar had lost the crown that he had proudly held for 28 years.

Why did Steinitz lose?  Lasker, who was to call himself Steinitz's disciple, had assimilated the best of his teachings.  But he had also discovered the flaws in his theory and practice.  The dogmatic attitude of the Champion, his reliance on abstract principles and his unwillingness to make concrete evaluation of individual positions did not escape Lasker’s scrutiny.  In game after game Steinitz's underestimation of tactical possibilities turned out to be fatal.  But Lasker also proved to be his superior in queenless middle games and played endings with superlative skill.

Between the two of them, Lasker had more of an objective judgment and a flexible attitude.  Intuitively, he understood the dynamics of a position much better than Steinitz.

But the Match also had a deep impact on Lasker.  In spite of his resolve to confront Steinitz with his own principles, he had engaged the Old Master in chaotic struggles and become victorious.  Inwardly, he had begun to develop profound doubts about Steinitzian theories and principles.  Lasker the believer had now become Lasker the skeptic.  But there was no cause for anxiety.  He had discovered his own genius in provoking unfathomable complications.  This gave him enormous confidence in his powers.  In the years to come he was to be a law unto himself, breaking old axioms with impunity.  It took a Capablanca to demonstrate to the old warlord and gambler that he could not violate principles of positional play without coming to grief himself.

The Editor, Dr. Fiala, has collected annotations to these games from various sources of the day including newspapers and magazines.  The use of contemporary sources alone for annotations lends a certain authenticity to the whole chapter and is also a pointer to the state of theory at that time.  But too much material is crammed into too little space and there is considerable overlap in these comments.

Moreover, the analysis of variations here should be treated with abundant caution.  Chess journalists like Hoffer, Mason and Pollock could not always judge, let alone understand, the level of chess played in a World Championship or a tournament like St.Petersburg 1895-96.  In contrast,  the views of other great players like Gunsberg, Pillsbury and Tschigorin are well worthy of respect.  Ideally speaking, The Editor should have focused on comments by  the combatants themselves, Steinitz and Lasker, and followed it up with observations from others which have stood the test of time.  In my view the best analysis of the games in this Match is presented in the CD Emanuel Lasker, 2nd World Champion (Convekta Ltd,.2001).

The other big chapter, Wilhelm Steinitz in Russia 1895-96 (105 pages) is no less engaging, with a dramatic account of the St. Petersburg Tournament in which the former World Champion came second  behind Lasker.  The enthusiasm of the numerous chess fans and the charged atmosphere of the tournament is recreated as never before.  Here is  a description of the First Round:

On Friday, the first day of the play, the club became uncomfortably filled with spectators anxious to catch a glimpse of the players engaged in  battle…  At board No. 1 Lasker engaged Pillsbury at play, and for some reason the game of the young masters excited the most curiosity.  As soon as it was seen that the American had selected the Russian counter-attack for his debut, there was instant excitement and a suggestion of applause, at least to the extent of an intended compliment.  What was most surprising to all was Pillsbury’s extreme coolness.  During the first few moves his face seemed to express almost indifference to his opponent‘s strength and he made his play with a languid, deliberate ease that astonished the spectators.  But suddenly, after Lasker’s eleventh move Bf4, the apathy vanished.  Pillsbury sweeping off Lasker’s knight with a snap, and thereupon playing with such rapidity as to show that he had seen through the game to victory.  At the conclusion of this brilliant game your countryman was congratulated most enthusiastically, but hardly waiting to receive which, he sat down quietly to copy out his the moves at the scoring table. (Ed.: See that game in  our Annotated Games Section).  Lasker was nervous and mixed with the spectators for a moment after his defeat returning to the playing room presently to watch the contest still in progress at the other board.

The level of Pillsbury’s preparation  may be gauged from the account of the seventh round:

Steinitz - Pillsbury [C43]
Match Tournament St. Petersburg (7) 1895-1896

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6

Pillsbury had prepared the Petroff Defence specially for this tournament and beaten Lasker in the first round!

3.d4

Steinitz’s own sharp variation instead of the sedate 3.Nxe5

3…exd4

3...Nxe4. is more usual.

4.e5 Ne4 5.Qe2

5.Qxd4 d5 6.exd6 Nxd6 7.Nc3 Nc6 8.Qf4 .Nf5!? was played in Kasparov-Karpov Game 10 World Championship 1990.

5...Bb4+

At present  5...Nc5 6.Nxd4 Nc6 is more common. But Pillsbury  is following Steinitz’s own analysis in his book Modern Chess Instructor.

6.Kd1

Not 6.c3 ? dxc3 7.Qxe4 cxb2+ 8.Qxb4 bxc1Q+ wins.

6...d5 7.exd6 f5 8.dxc7

Steinitz   played  8.Ng5 against Pillsbury in the 3^rd round.  He had himself condemned this move in his book Modern Chess Instructor, but improved upon his analysis in the book:  8.Ng5 0-0 9.Qc4+ Kh8 10.Qxb4.  This is the improvement.  (Not 10.dxc7 Nxf2+ 11.Ke2 Qe7+ 12.Kxf2 Qe1+ 13.Kf3 Qxc1; Nor 10.Nxe4 fxe4 11.Qxb4 Nc6 12.Qd2 Bg4+ 13.Be2 Rxf2 14.Re1 Qf6 15.c3 Rxe2 16.Rxe2 Qf1+) 10...Nc6 11.Qa3 11...Nxf2+ 12.Ke1 Nxh1 13.dxc7 Qe8+14.Be2 f4 15.Kf1 Bd7 16.Nd2 Ne517.Ndf3 Ng4 18.Bd3.  Now Pillsbury would have won with 18...h6!  For example, 19.Nh7 (19.Nh3 Ne3+ 20.Kg1 Bxh3 21.gxh3 Qh5; 19.Ne4 Nxh2+ 20.Nxh2 Ng3+ 21.Nxg3 fxg3+ 22.Nf3 Rxf3+) 19...Rf7 20.Bd2 Ne3 21. Kg1 Bf5 (20.Bg6 Bb5+ 21.Kg1 Qe2 22.Bd2 Nhf2 23.Re1 Nh3+ 24.gxh3 Qf2+ 25.Kh1 Bc6.  Instead he played the tempting 18…Nhf2 ?1 and lost the game after terrific complications.

8….Qxc7 9.Nxd4

So far according to Steinitz’s own book, and here he wrote that White had excellent prospects.  A friend of Pillsbury, John Palmer Morgan from Philadelphia, however, found a refutation and showed him the analysis.  Now Pillsbury has the opportunity to test it against Steinitz himself over the board.

9…Nc6! 10.c3

White is also  lost in the variation  10.Nxc6 bxc6 11.f3 Ba6 12.Qxa6 Nf2+ 13.Ke2 Qe5+ 14.Be3 (14.Kxf2 Bc5+) 14...f4 15.Qxc6+ Ke7 16.Qb7+ Kf6 17.Qc6+ Bd6 18.Qc3 fxe3

10...Nxd4 11.cxd4

11...Bd7! and now:

12.f3 Ba4+ 13.b3 0-0-0 14.fxe4 Rxd4+; or

12. Be3 Rc8 13.f3 0-0 14.Qc4 Qxc4 15. Bxc4 Rxc4 16.fxe4 f4

Unfortunately, Pillsbury forgot Morgan’s analysis and played 11…Qd6?  Steinitz forced a draw with 12.f3 Qxd4+ 13.Nd2 Bxd2 14.Bxd2 Qxd2+ 15.Qxd2 Nxd2 16.Kxd2 Be6 =

A phenomenal might-have-been.

It is a pity that only the games played by Steinitz appear here with contemporary annotations.  It would have been interesting to include game scores of other players, Lasker, Pillsbury and Tschigorin.

There is also an account of a friendly match with Schiffers with annotations by Steinitz, Schiffers and Tschigorin.  Modern annotations of the same match by Soltis may be found in the recent book Steinitz Letters, Edited by Kurt Landsberger (McFarland, 2002.)

There are also a number of informal games played by Steinitz during his sojourn  in Russia, enlivened by amusing anecdotes like the following:

Lasker and Steinitz gave a simultaneous display against 27 opponents, during which both showed a real sense of humour.  Upon arriving at the Society Lasker sat on in the seat of one of the players for a couple of minutes.  So Steinitz would not recognise him, he partially covered his face with one hand as Steinitz approached the table; with the other hand he wavered about the board as a timid inexperienced player might, unable to decide upon a move.  In response to Steinitz’s impatience he finally with a shaking hand took his own queen with one of his pawns used in the defence of his king. Recognising Lasker, Steinitz played along with the joke and took the opponent’s king with his queen…

Dr. Fiala has unearthed quite a few unknown games of Steinitz and Lasker.  They are particularly valuable..

Apart from the tribute to Steinitz this volume also offers complete games from Hague Olympiad 1928 and offers profiles of Duz-Khotimirsky, Vidmar and St.Amant, with selected games.  There is also bonus with a database of  227 Reuben Fine games.

This issue would be enjoyed by all those who love and value our great chess heritage.

Recommended.

Index of all Reviews

search tips

Advertise
with
Chessville!!

Place Your Ad
in Chessville
or in
The Chessville
Weekly

Advertise to
thousands
of chess
fans for
as little
as $25.

Single insert:
$35
x4 insert:
@ $25 each.

Submit your
ad here!

The Chessville
 Weekly
The Best Chess
Newsletter
On the Planet!

Subscribe
Today!!

The
Chessville
Weekly
Archives

Discussion
Forum

Chess Links

Chess Rules

Chess Wisdom

Visit the
Chessville
Chess Store