The Gunsberg-Steinitz Match,
World Championship 1890-91
Researched by Nick Pope
|
A DEFEAT FOR STEINITZ.
GUNSBERG WINS WITH AN EVANS GAMBIT.
AN ILL-CONSIDERED MOVE PROVES FATAL TO
THE CHAMPION.
|
:
|
The fact that Gunsberg yesterday, by playing an
Evans Gambit, took up a challenge thrown out by his opponent before the
present match began, gave an unusual interest to the twelfth game in the
contest for the chess championship of the world, now in progress between
Steinitz and Gunsberg in this city. The challenge, made by
Steinitz,
it will be remembered, was to the effect that he would undertake to play
the defence four times in an Evans Gambit in his match with Gunsberg,
from
a certain point which had at that time been reached in his game against
Tschigorin. |
The members and visitors at the Manhattan Chess
Club who yesterday afternoon watched the giant board in the club-room
were
more than a little excited as they saw the moves coming down one by one
in exact agreement with those made in the Evans cable game between
Steinitz
and Tschigorin. The whole play was quite familiar to everybody, and the
game was accordingly welcomed by many as an old friend, for it is one
which
has perhaps been subjected to more scrutiny and criticism, comment and
analysis, than any game previously recorded in the annals of chess. |
Both masters played pretty rapidly, Gunsberg more
so than Steinitz. The first fifteen moves were made in about
fifty-eight
minutes, of which Steinitz had consumed forty-three minutes, although he
made precisely the moves which he had studied and analyzed over and over
again before playing them against Tschigorin. After
Gunsbergs sixteenth
move was recorded there was an unusually long pause, and when
Steinitzs
reply finally came down Kt-Kt 5, as compared with 16 Kt-K 3 in the cable
game, naturally it gave additional material for analysis and discussion
among the spectators, who throughout the play were keps [sic] in
a state of considerable animation. |
Soon this move was declared to be a bad one, and
so it quickly proved. Gunsberg got a chance to mass his minor
pieces
into attacking order against the adverse King, and by a series of clever
moves he forced Steinitz to resign after twenty-four moves. The
score
now stands: Steinitz 4, Gunsberg 3, drawn 5. |
New-York Daily Tribune,
1891.01.06
|
|
AS IN THE CABLE MATCH.
GUNSBERG ACCEPTS STEINITZS CHALLENGE
AND WINS.
Twenty-four Moves Finished Steinitz - He
Varied the Defence from the Cable Game
Against Tschigorin - This was Bad, and
Gunsberg Scored in a Brilliant Way.
|
:
|
The twelfth game in the Steinitz-Gunsberg chess
match, which was played yesterday, will be no doubt seized upon and
examined
with avidity by chess enthusiasts all the world over, and will at the
same
time be found unusually interesting to every student and amateur players
of the game. Had the habitues of the Manhattan Chess Club known what was
coming they would have assembled in much larger numbers than was the
case
yesterday afternoon. As it was, the few who were fortunate enough
to have dropped in casually to witness the probably expected Giuoco
Piano
or Ruy Lopez were thrown into a state of great animation and
excitement. |
I wish Gunsberg would play an Evans
Gambit. said
a spectator for perhaps the twentieth time, but from the tone in which
he uttered it he evidently considered it a hopeless and forlorn
wish.
The two masters had just then ascended to the room of play on the floor
above. The first three moves on either side were sent down
rapidly,
and the despondent one began, figuratively speaking, to prick up his
ears.
When the fourth move came down he uttered an exclamation of delight, for
at last the desire of many was realized, and an Evans Gambit formed the
subject of battle. |
After Gunsberg had made his fifth move Steinitz
said: If you expect me to go on with my defence, Ill do
it. Gunsbergs
reply was to the effect that if he had not expected that Steinitz would
play the defence he had adopted against Tschigorin in the cable match he
would never have ventured upon the Evans, and thereupon Steinitz said,
Very well then, I play Q-B 3. This is the incident as
it was described
by an onlooker, but a somewhat different version is given by Steinitz
himself.
However it may have been, most of the spectators in the large club room
below were confidently predicting that the veteran would vary his
defence
from that which he adopted in the cable match, and ultimately this
proved
to be the case, but not until it had almost reached the stage when the
Steinitz-Tschigorin game was adjourned. |
One of the most remarkable things about the early
part of the game was the fact that Steinitz again consumed much more
time
than his opponent, although he made exactly the same moves as he did in
his game against Tschigorin, over which he had already spent a great
deal
of time in consideration and analysis. For example, he deliberated
fifteen minutes on his twelfth move, and then played as he had done
before.
After fifteen moves on each side had been recorded Steinitzs clock
stood
at forty-three minutes, while Gunsberg had only consumed ten
minutes.
It was only a natural astonishment which prompted a spectator at this
point
to say: I cannot understand why Steinitz should have used all this
time
upon exactly the same moves as he made in the cable match. |
Up to this time there had been no departure from
the cable game, and Gunsbergs next move was the same as that of
the Russian
master. But now came a deviation. Instead of replying
16...Kt-K
3, as he did in the cable match, Steinitzs sixteenth move was
Kt-Kt 5,
which, by the way, is one that does not seem to have been tried in any
of the numerous analyses of the game which have been made in New York
chess
circles. |
The game was no longer Steinitz vs.
Tschigorin,
it became once more an encounter between the Hungarian and his Bohemian
rival, and in the end the young master conquered, in a manner which will
be readily seen by a glance at the score of moves. The whole game
was finished in two hours. |
This is what Steinitz had to say about the game:
In the opening of the game, before I played 6...Q-B 3, I asked
Gunsberg
whether he thought I was morally bound, after what I had published, to
play exactly the same defence as I played against Tschigorin. My
object in asking this question was so that I could not be charged with
any deception, as what I had published might have misled Gunsberg into
playing an attack which perhaps he would not otherwise have
attempted.
He answered: "You are not exactly bound, but the public will expect you
to defend your own theories." or words to that effect. |
After that intimation I remembered I had pledged
myself up to a certain point, but could not exactly recollect up to
which
move, and I decided to play exactly the same moves as in the match with
Tschigorin up to and including blacks fifteenth move.
Knowing that
all the stages of that opening had been well analyzed up to this point,
I essayed a new sixteenth move by Kt-Kt 5, which had not even been
suggested
before; but no sooner had I made it than I saw that I had run, by a mere
transposition of moves, into one of the most dangerous variations for my
side. |
Gunsberg took advantage of it in a masterly
manner
by answering Kt-R 4, and from that point, as the analysis shows, he had
it all his own way. |
At first sight one may be apt to think that the
fact of Gunsberg having beaten Steinitz in an Evanss [sic]
Gambit,
pursued up to a certain point in the same manner as the cable game, is
equivalent to the smashing up of Steinitzs theories. But a
few moments
consideration will at once alter that view. In the first place it
must be remembered that in actual play upon the board the player has not
that opportunity for deliberation and analysis which he possesses in a
correspondence match like the one between Steinitz and Tschigorin, and
this was very pertinently pointed out after the close of
yesterdays game
by a spectator, who said that Steinitz would never have played Kt-Kt 5
if he had more time to consider it. Upon this question Steinitz
had
this to say last night: |
There is a great deal of difference,
he began,
between a correspondence match with a time limit of three days,
and a
match over the board, and I shall look into the game and perhaps give
Gunsberg
notice, so as not to mislead him, that I shall alter the defence at an
earlier stage than I did to-day, for undoubtedly at the position which
was reached at the turning point the heavier burden is thrown upon the
defence, and, in a match over the board, I am not justified in
handicapping
myself to such an extent. |
It is quite possible, he continued,
that the
move 16...Kt-K 3 which I made in my match with Tschigorin was, after
all,
the best, for as far as I have been able to reckon, I think I ought to
get out with a drawn game, but it would be unwise to adopt it in a match
over the board with Gunsberg, for I would show my hand, and up to the
present
nobody has found out the variation which I intend to play. When I
said I would play it four times it did not strike me that this would be
the case, and under the circumstances I think my best plan will be to
give
Gunsberg notice as I have already suggested, as I have no right to
compromise
the interest of my backers in the match with Tschigorin by playing that
variation over the board at present, but I shall be glad to do so after
my match with Tschigorin is over. |
However, said Steinitz in conclusion,
before
it is Gunsbergs turn to play, I shall decide finally upon the
matter. |
The score now stands: Steinitz, 4; Gunsberg, 3;
drawn 5. |
The Sun, New York,
1891.01.06
|
|
VICTORY FOR GUNSBERG.
HE WINS A BRILLIANT EVANS GAMBIT
FROM STEINITZ.
The Score In the Chess Match Now
Stands: Steinitz, 4; Gunsberg, 3;
Drawn, 5 - Steinitzs Challenge
Accepted by the Londoner, who
Succeeds in Winning the Contest.
|
:
|
Ever since the beginning of the match between
Messrs.
Steinitz and Gunsberg, chess players have eagerly expected the event
which
came off yesterday. Everybody thought it would be a most
interesting
thing if Gunsberg were to play the Evans gambit against Steinitz to
enable
the latter to adopt the same defense as in the adjourned cable game
against
Tschigorin, which he maintains he should win even against the best
play.
The press also joined in that appeal, and last but not least Mr.
Steinitz
himself has on several occasions specifically stated by a way of a
challenge
in the chess reports of various daily prints, and also in his own
publication,
the International Chess Magazine, that he would undertake
to adopt this defense should Mr. Gunsberg offer an Evans gambit.
At the time of writing access to the precise wording of all of Mr.
Steinitzs
challenges, issued on several distinct occasioes [sic], is not to
be had, but the International Chess Magazine contains the
following
statement by Mr. Steinitz. Speaking of his seventh move, Kt-R3, he
said, some time in the early part of November: |
I offer to play that move against Mr.
Gunsberg
himself as often as he likes in our forthcoming match over the
board. |
Subsequently, when discussing his sixteen
[sic]
move of Kt-K3, Mr. Steinitz was understood to say that with the
substitution
of Kt-Kt sq he would play four times against Gunsberg from this
position.
Again, on Dec. 12, Mr. Steinitz further confirms this by a statement in
a daily newspaper to the following effect: By many it was expected
that
Gunsberg would offer an Evans-gambit to his opponent, who, it may be
remembered,
stated some time ago that he would undertake to play the defense in the
Evans four times with Gunsberg from a certain position which at that
time
had been reached in this game with Tschigorin. |
The reason Gunsberg deferred till yesterday an
acceptance
of this challenge was not because he ever doubted that the line of the
play adopted by Mr. Steinitz offered splendid opportunities for attack,
for Gunsberg has all along stated that in due time he would play the
Evans-Gambit.
His only object was to defer playing this opening until the match should
have reached a more advanced and interesting stage. |
With eleven games played and the score standing
four to two against him, Mr. Gunsberg felt that it was high time to make
an effort to check his opponents victorious progress by taking
whatever
risk there was in playing against that particular variation which Mr.
Steinitz
has made the subject of special study and exhaustive analysis for the
last
two years. |
Gunsberg gave apt expression to this train of
thought
when on his fourth move he played P-QKt 4. He remarked to his
opponent
with an apologetic smile on his countenance: A sick man may
do anything.
Great was his astonishment when he perceived that playing the
Evansgambit
[sic] seemed to cause considerable mental perturbation to his
opponent. |
Mr. Steinitz met Gunsbergs remark by
another query,
the gist of which was a question of ethics, namely, whether his
challenge
was binding on him, and whether he was compelled to adopt his own
defense.
Mr. Gunsberg, of course, declined to give a definite answer to that
delicate
problem, and merely contented himself with remarking in a general way:
All the world expects you to play your defense, but of course you
can
do as you please about it. Dr. Mintz, who up to the present
has
faithfully watched the interests of both players as representative of
the
Club here, kindly interposed by reminding Steinitz that he declared his
intention to play this defense four times in this match, upon which Mr.
Steinitz, but not without reluctance, proceeded with the well-known
moves
of the Cable games. |
On his twelfth move Mr. Steinitz was again taken
with some doubts as to his way of proceeding, for he devoted half an
hour
to the consideration of his move, which, after all, he did not
alter.
On the sixteenth move, however, Mr. Steinitz varied his move.
Instead
of Kt-K s [sic] as played against Tschigorin he played Kt-K x 5
[sic]. This move is in accordance with formerly expressed
views of Mr. Steinitz who had signified his intention to modify his
defense
at that stage of the game. The remainder of the story is amply told by
the notes to the game below. Suffice it to say that from this point, the
sixteenth move, a sharp wrestle for the attack resulted, after only
eight
moves, in the complete overthrow of the defense and the resignation of
Mr. Steinitz on the twenty-fourth move. The final collapse was
brought
about by a finely considered and effective sacrifice of the Whites
rook
on the twenty-fourth move. |
The scene in the club-room was most
animated.
Everybody expected that when the Evans gambit was played a lively and
interesting
fight would result, but it was little thought that the struggle would be
so short, sharp and decisive, and everybody present gave expression to
their appreciation of the victors play by offering him their
hearty congratulations. |
The World, New York,
1891.01.06
|
|
|
Gunsberg,IA Steinitz,W
|
(12)
|
C52/01 |
Evans Gambit: Steinitz
|
|
1891.01.05 |
USA New York, NY (Manhattan Chess
Club)
|
|
Annotations by Gunsberg &
Steinitz
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4
Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5
[0:02-0:02]
6.0-0 Qf6
** |
Gunsberg: The normal defense
is here 6...d6 7.d4 exd4 8.cxd4 Bb6. The move above, with its
subsequent
line of play, is the invention of Steinitz, who first introduced it in
his match against the Russian champion, Chigorin, which was played in
Havana
in the early part of 1889. Not less than ten games were played at
that opening, including one consultation game, of which the Russian
master
won five to four and one draw. Steinitz has since improved his
defense
and an elaborate and careful analysis thereof can be found in his
Modern
Chess Instructor. As will be remembered, his new defense is
put
to a test in one of the two games played by cable between him and
Chigorin,
which were both postponed during the duration of the pending
championship
match. |
7.d4 Nh6
** |
Gunsberg: In the first part
of his Havana match Black played here 7...Nge7 and retired afterwards
...Ncd8,
but he now considers the move in the text a decided improvement.
The position arising of Blacks
seventh move
was the object of Chigorins
challenge, and
from this point the game was played by cable. |
8.Bg5 Qd6 9.d5 Nd8
** |
Gunsberg: In his book
Steinitz
recommends 9...Ne7 instead. |
10.Qa4 Bb6 [0:04-0:09]
11.Na3
c6 12.Be2
** |
Gunsberg: Threatening Nc4,
followed by pawn to d6 and Nb6, which would win the
exchange. |
12...Bc7 13.Nc4 Qf8 14.d6 Bxd6
15.Nb6
Rb8 [0:10-0:43] 16.Qxa7
** |
Gunsberg: Up to this point
the game is identical with the cable match mentioned above. |
16...Ng4
** |
Gunsberg: In the cable game
Black played here 16...Ne6, but Steinitz subsequently stated that
16...Ng8
was preferable. The move actually made should enable White to
win.
Steinitz: Up to this point the game was
conducted in the same way exactly by both parties as in the cable match
between Steinitz and Chigorin. In the cable match Steinitz played
here 16...Ne6 and then remarked that 16...Ng8 was his best move at this
juncture. The text move was an ill-conceived deviation, which gives
White
at once a strong attack and allows him to bring his minor pieces to bear
against the adverse kingside. |
17.Nh4
** |
Steinitz: An excellent
move. |
17...Ne6
** |
Gunsberg: If 17...f6, then
18.Bc1. He might have, however, played 17...Nf6.
Steinitz: Under the circumstances the
best. If 17...Nf6 18.Bxf6 gxf6 19.Nf5 Ne6 20.Rfd1 Bc7 21.Na8, and
the position is similar to that which actually occurred. |
8.Bxg4 Nxg5 19.Nf5
** |
Gunsberg: It was difficult
to fix upon this move. A promising line of play appeared to be, instead
of this move, 19.Nxc8 Rxc8 20.Qxb7 Rd8 21.Rd1 or 21.Nf5, with fair
prospects
of success. |
19...Ne6
** |
Gunsberg: Necessary, as
White
threatens 20.Nxd6+ Qxd6 21.Rad1, followed by Nxc8 and Bxd7+, etc. Had
he,
however, played 19...Nxe4 instead, White would likewise continue with
20.Nxd6+
Qxd6 (if 20...Nxd6 then 21.Qxb8) 21.Rd1.
Steinitz: White threatened Nxd6+,
followed
by taking the other bishop with the knight, and either of the rooks to
d1 with a winning game, and Black had hardly anything better than the
text
move, for if 19...Nxe4 20.Rfd1 Bc7 21.Nxc8 Rxc8 22.Qxb7 Kd8 23.Qxc6 and
wins. |
20.Rfd1
** |
Gunsberg: It is important to
play the f-rook and not the a-rook, as will be shown on the next
move. |
20...Bc7 [0:37-1:10]
21.Na8
21...Rxa8
** |
Gunsberg: If, instead of
this
move, Black should attempt to defend his bishop otherwise than by giving
up the exchange - namely, by playing 21...Kd8 then White would take the
bishop and continue the attack later on by means of Nd6 and Rab1.
Steinitz: If 21...Kd8 22.Nxc7 Kxc7
23.Nd6,
followed by Rab1 and wins. |
22.Qxa8 Kd8
23.Rxd7+
** |
Gunsberg: An irresistible
move.
Steinitz: A fine and powerful move
which
settles the game. |
23...Kxd7 24.Rd1+
[0:40-1:15]1-0.
** |
Gunsberg: A singularly
disastrous
position, from which Black must emerge with a lost game. If he
attempts
to defend by 24...Nd4 White plays 25.cxd4. If, then, 25...Bb6
26.Qb8
wins; or if 25...Ke6 26.Nd6+ Kf6 (if 26...Kxd6, then 27.Qa3+ mates)
27.Nxc8
and wins. Then again if 24...Bd6 25.Qb8 Nd4 26.Nxd4+ Ke7 27.Nxc6+
and wins.
Steinitz: For after 24...Bd6, which was
the only defense, White would proceed with 25.Qb8, winning easily.
If 24...Nd4 25.cxd4 Ke6 26.Nd6+, and wins; for if 26...Kxd6, White
answers
27.Qa3+, and mates next move. |
|
The Sun, New York,
1891.01.06
|
The World, New York,
1891.01.06
|
New-York Daily Tribune,
1891.01.06
|
|
|
Return to Match
Index
|