partidas raras

of 36 /36
Adolf Albin: The Teacher of Nimzovich? by Tomasz Lissowski “Wanted,” declares renowned chess historian Edward Winter in his latest essay for The Chess Cafe website. 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 Vère, 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 Winter’s 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. Albin’s 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) C54/04 Giuoco Piano: Greco 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 Nürnberg 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 Black’s defense. Lissowski: Lionel Kieseritzky in his match against Buckle, Paris 1848, invariably played 11...Ke7. 12.Qxb4 c5 13.Qa4 Qe8 14.Qd1!

Embed Size (px)

Transcript of partidas raras

  • Adolf Albin: The Teacher of Nimzovich? by Tomasz Lissowski

    Wanted, declares renowned chess historian Edward Winter in his latest essay for The Chess Cafe website. 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)

    C54/04 Giuoco Piano: Greco


    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


    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)


    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


    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


    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


    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


    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 teacher and pupil we 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?

  • 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 completeness could 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

    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

  • 18Nc3+ 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

    C00/01 French: Steinitz

    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.

    Philadelphia Times, 1883.12.16

    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)

    Annotations by G. Reichhelm 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 game against 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.

    Philadelphia Times, 1883.12.23

    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

  • Odds of rook


    Annotations by G. Reichhelm 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+

    11Kc8 (# in 4), 1-0. Mate in four moves: 12.Qc4+ Nc6 13.Nxc6 bxc6 14.Qxc6+ Kb8.

    Philadelphia Times, 1883.12.09

    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

    Annotations by G. Reichhelm 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 defense of the Evans Gambit, 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

    11b5 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.

    Philadelphia Times, 1887.12.11

    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. Stokes moves 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 Junior contingent [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

    Annotations by G. Reichhelm 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 Evans Gambit 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

    20Kd7 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

    46Rb4 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.

    Philadelphia Times, 1888.01.01

    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 club generally 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]

    Annotations by G. Reichhelm 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

    38Nxf4 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.

    Philadelphia Times, 1888.08.19

    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

    C62/01 Spanish: Steinitz

    1897 AUT Wien

    Annotations by G. Reichhelm 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.

    Philadelphia Times, 1897.06.13

    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

    1898.04.23 USA Philadelphia, PA (Franklin Chess Club)

  • 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

    15Bg5 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

    30Nc3+ 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)

    C30/02 Kings Gambit Declined: Classical

    1898.04.23 USA Philadelphia, PA (Franklin Chess Club)

    Annotations by E. Kemeny 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.

    Philadelphia Public Ledger, 1898.04.27

    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

    1899.10.07 USA Philadelphia, PA (Franklin Chess Club)

    Annotations by G. Reichhelm 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

  • 16c5 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.

    Philadelphia Times, 1899.11.05

    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)

    1900.10.06 USA Philadelphia, PA (Franklin Chess Club)

    Annotations by G. Reichhelm 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

  • 22Nf5 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 -.

    Philadelphia Times, 1900.10.07

    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 wonder when 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)

    Annotations by G. Reichhelm 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

  • 21Re6 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.

    Philadelphia Times, 1901.11.10

    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 game of 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)

    Annotations by G. Reichhelm 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

    32c3 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)

    Annotations by G. Reichhelm 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

    19Bc5 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

    1911.11.11 USA Philadelphia, PA (Franklin Chess Club)

    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,; 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.

    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)


    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


    RUS Moscow 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 Weltgeschichte des Schachs, v11 Lasker, Wildhagen 1958, 11-186

    Weltgeschichte des Schachs, v7 Steinitz, Wildhagen 1968, 7-436 Schachmeister Steinitz, v4, Olms 1980, p215-216

    Chess World Championships, Gelo 1988, p312-313 The Games of Wilhem Steinitz, Pickard & Son 1995, p135

    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.

    Steinitz,W Lasker,Em (3)

    C54/02 Giuoco Piano: Greco (Steinitz)


    RUS Moscow 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.c3 Nf6 5.d4 exd4 6.cxd4 Bb4+ 7.Nc3 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 Weltgeschichte des Schachs, v11 Lasker, Wildhagen 1958, 11-187

    Weltgeschichte des Schachs, v7 Steinitz, Wildhagen 1968, 7-437 Schachmeister Steinitz, v4, Olms 1980, p216-217

    Chess World Championships, Gelo 1988, p313 The Games of Wilhem Steinitz, Pickard & Son 1995, p135

    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.

    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 hard currency 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



    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


    POL Warsaw (Clock Simul) 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 -. **

    Wronicz manuscript, p9

    Tal,M Adamski,A Simul

    B27/03 Sicilian: Hungarian (Pterodactyl)


    POL Warsaw (Clock Simul) 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. **

    Wronicz manuscript, p9

  • Tal,M Witkowski,S Simul

    B04/08 Alekhine: Modern (Alburt)


    POL Warsaw (Clock Simul) 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 Kongresowa restaurant 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. Kongresowa was 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 performers skill. 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 MDM hotel, 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 merely a 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


    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. **

    Wronicz manuscript, p11

  • 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 Friendship headquarters. 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.