The Rosenthal-Zukertort Match,
London 1880
Researched by Nick Pope
|
THE MATCH BETWEEN MESSRS ROSENTHAL AND
ZUKERTORT.
|
|
THE fourteenth game was
played
on Monday, the 7th inst. This was the only game which occurred in the
course
of last week, two adjournments having taken place respectively on
Saturday
and Wednesday last. The delays were arranged in accordance with a
bye-law
to the conditions of the contest, which allows either player to claim
exemption
twice in the course of two months. We believe that in the true interest
of match play it was no more than reasonable to introduce such a
safeguard,
which, in case of series illness would afford great relief, and
occasionally
would have also give either player time for recruiting himself from the
effect of overwork and fatigue, or from the depressing influence of a
defeat
or series of reverses. The unusual length of the present contest must
make
such postponements welcome to both players ; for it should also be
remembered
that Herr Zukertorts attention is greatly engaged with the
difficult editorial
work in connection with the Chess Monthly ; and M. Rosenthal, on
the other hand, pleads that his state of health is not equal to the
continued
mental exertion of hard match play for weeks in succession. The two
adjournments
took place at the instance of the French master. On the first
occasionviz.,
in reference to the adjournment over SaturdayHerr Zukertort
handsomely
agreed no to count that postponement as one of the two exemption days to
which M. Rosenthal is entitles with two months. |
The game played on Monday was again opened by M.
Rosenthal with a Ruy Lopez. It certainly seems, as a prominent member of
the St. Georges Chess Club observed, as if the two masters held
the opinion
that the advantage of the first move cannot be maintained in any other
opening that in the Spanish, or in the close game. The French player
conducted
the attack as in the fourth game, with the exception that he posted his
K B at Q Kt 3 this time, instead of at B 2. He concentrated all the
other
minor pieces on the K side, and evidently aimed at opening by P to K B
4. Against the K fianchetto in the defence, which Zukertort had again
adopted,
such a plan appear unfavourable for the attack, for it opens the most
important
diagonal for the adverse K B, which ought to be kept shut out as long as
possible. He had also given the opponent time for doubling his rooks on
the Q file, and, almost as soon as he effected his design of breaking
through
on the K B file, Rosenthal had a dead lost game on the other wing.
Zukertort,
however, missed his best opportunity on the twentieth move, where he
made
the inferior retreat with his Kt to Kt 2, instead of removing it to B 2,
with the intention of sacrificing the same if his opponent advanced the
Q P. He would have obtained three clear pawns and R for two minor
pieces,
with an overpowering attack ; while the way he actually played subjected
him to a block on the Q side, and enabled the opponent to form an attack
on the other wing. Rosenthal, thus released from one danger which might
have proved at once fatal, soon rushed into another. He had the best of
the game on the twenty-third move, when he could have finessed for
position,
and would have much improved his game if he had first played the Q to B
3, instead of at once to K 3. The latter move gave the winner of the
Paris
tournament occasion for one of his brilliant coups. He offered
the
sacrifice of the exchange, for which, if accepted, he would have
obtained
three pawns with the superior position. Under any circumstances, and as
it actually went, he came out with a strong attack. A fine series of
manuvres
followed on both sides ; but the Frenchman had to struggle against the
greater difficulty, and his time allowance was running short just on the
thirtieth move, which, unfortunately for him, happened to be a decisive
point, from the nature of the position. He decided wrongly. Instead of
checking with the Q at B 7, and then retreating the Kt to B 2, which
gave
him a good chance of drawing, he withdrew the Kt to R 2, whence he had
come, and thus enabled Zukertort, by a series of very fine
manuvre, to
force the game. Herr Zukertort ultimately came out with a clear piece
ahead
by a very clever final process. Duration, our [sic] hours.
ScoreZukertort,
5 ; Rosenthal, 1 ; drawn, 8. |
The Field, London,
1880.06.12
|
|
|
Rosenthal,S Zukertort,JH
|
(14)
|
C77/08 |
Spanish: Morphy (Anderssen)
|
|
|
Annotations by Wilhelm
Steinitz
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nf6 4.d3
d6 5.c3 a6 6.Ba4 g6 7.h3 Bg7 8.Be3
** |
In the fourth game of the match
Rosenthal
brought out the b1-knight, viá d2, before developing the
bishop. In view of the plan of fixing this knight ultimately at g3, the
alteration in the order of moves is insignificant; but we believe that
the post at e3, which was chosen for this knight in the first game of
the
Steinitz-Blackburne match, is more adapted for attacking purposes, and
should therefore be reserved. |
8...h6 9.Nbd2 Qe7 10.Nf1 Be6
11.Ng3
** |
See preceding note. In face of the
adverse kingside fianchetto, in which Blacks
g-pawn protects every square commanded by Whites
knight for aggressive purposes. g3 does not appear a good place for the
latter, which might better have been left at d2. |
11...b5 12.Bb3 d5 13.0-0 0-0
14.Nh2
** |
The whole plan of
Whites
attack does not sufficiently balance conflicting considerations. It is
generally a sound principle to try to obtain the majority of pawns on
the
queenside, and he evidently aims at that object in preparing the advance
of the f-pawn; but he does not make sufficient allowance for his opening
the range of the hostile g7-bishop on his own queenside, and for the
dangerous
action of the two hostile rooks, which the opponent will be able to
double
on the open d-file. |
14...Rad8 15.Qe2 Na5 16.exd5 Nxd5
17.Bxd5 Rxd5 18.f4 exf4 19.Bxf4 Rfd8
** |
We should have preferred 19...b4 at
once, which would have weakened the adverse queenside, for White could
not take without exposing himself still more. |
20.b4
[1:00-?:??]
** |
An ill-considered advance, which
might
have cost the game on the spot. |
20...Nb7
** |
Feeble. The proper answer was
20...Nc6,
which would have gained at least one important pawn on the queenside,
for
White could not then advance the d-pawn and allow the opponent to
sacrifice
the knight, e.g.: 20...Nc6 21.d4 Nxd4 22.cxd4 Bxd4+ 23.Kh1 Bxa1 24.Rxa1
Qxb4 , and White can neither take the h-pawn not the c-pawn, on account
of the immediately winning reply 25...Qc3, attacking two pieces.
Consequently
Black remains with three strong pawns and a rook for two minor pieces;
besides that, the adverse a-pawn is weak and indefensible in the long
run.
The advantage clearly preponderates on Blacks
side. |
21.d4 R5d7 22.Rae1 Qh4
23.Qe3
** |
He did not master the situation, or
else he would have seen that he had to gain this point in a roundabout
way, or he subjected himself to danger at present. The proper play was
23.Qf3, attacking the knight, whereupon the game might have proceeded
thus:
23.Qf3 Bd5 24.Qe3 (now he can safely enter this square, as the
opponents
rooks are shut out) 24...Nd6 25.Nf3 Bxf3 26.Qxf3 , with the superior
game. |
23...Rxd4
[?:??-1:00]
** |
A fine resource, which turns the
tables,
at least as far as the attack is concerned. We give a diagram of this
position. |
24.Bxc7
** |
Perhaps best under the
circumstances;
but we are not quite sure whether he could not accept the proffered
exchange,
e.g.: 24.Nf3 Qxf4 25.cxd4 (it comes to the same if he take 25.Nxd4, for
the adverse rook will always retake after exchanging queens) 25...Qxe3+
26.Rxe3 Rxd4 27.Nxd4 Bxd4 28.Rff3 Bxa2 29.Kf1 Bc4+ 30.Ke1 Bxe3 31.Rxe3
c5 (if 31...a5, White may reply 32.Re7) 32.Ra3 cxb4 33.Rxa6, with a fair
prospect of a draw. |
24...Rd3 25.Qb6
** |
Best. If 25.Bxd8 , then followed:
25...Qxd8 26.Qf2 (if 26.Qf4 , the g-pawn attacks again) 26...Bxc3
threatening
27...Bd4, and recovering the exchange with an excellent
attack. |
25...Rxg3
26.Rxe6
** |
Again the only move. He could not
take 26.Qxb7 at once before getting rid of the bishop, on account of the
crushing reply 26...Bd5. |
26...fxe6 27.Bxg3 Qxg3 28.Qxb7
Rd2
29.Ng4 h5 30.Nh2 [2:00-?:??]
** |
Which throws away his last chance
for a draw. He could not check with 30.Nf6+, for Black, after
exchanging,
would check 31...Rd1+, followed by 32...Qe3+, winning the rook. Nor
could
he retreat 30.Nf2 without subjecting himself to immediate disaster by
the
reply 30...Be5. But he might have checked first with 30.Qf7+, followed
by 31.Nf2, and we very much doubt whether Black would then obtain a
winning
position by force, for if his bishop moved away he was always subjected
to checks, and his rook had to guard against the opponent occupying the
open d-file with his own rook. It should be observed that Black had no
better answer to 30.Qf7+ than 30...Kh8; for, if 30...Kh7, the adverse
knight
would check at f6 and draw at least by perpetual check at g8 and f6, as
the black king dare not then go back to h8. |
30...Rxa2 31.Kh1
Re2
** |
Quite right. He secures first the
majority of pawns, in order that he should not be harassed by an offer
of the exchange of queens, for instance, by Qf3. |
32.Qa8+ Kh7 33.Rf7 Re1+ 34.Nf1
Qxc3
35.Qxa6 Qc4 36.Kg1 Rxf1+
** |
Whites
conduct of this difficult ending presents a model of finessing
maneuvers. |
37.Rxf1 Bd4+
0-1.
** |
The Field,
London, 1880.06.12
|
|
Return to Match
Index
|