|
Steinitz,W Blackburne,JH
|
(1)
|
C77/07 |
Spanish: Morphy (Anderssen)
|
|
1876.02.17 |
GBR London (West-End Chess
Club)
|
|
Annotations by Blackburne &
Steinitz
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4
Nf6 5.d3
** |
Anderssen first adopted this move
in his match against Morphy, which at the time caused a great deal of
animadversion
amongst theorists, who were inclined towards advocating a more energetic
attack than the nature of the opening apparently can bear. But we
believe
that the great German master showed a true appreciation of the spirit of
this opening, which requires a treatment similar to that of the close
game,
namely, a steadfast gradual development, content with the small
advantage
of the first move. |
5...d6
** |
Morphy played here invariably
5...b5,
followed by 6...Bc5; the move in the text was first brought into
practice
by Paulsen, and was afterwards accepted as the standard defense, which
in the majority of games hitherto played has proven
successful. |
6.c3
** |
Anderssen prefers here 6.Bxc6+, and
then directs his attention to retaining both his knights, and preventing
the adversary from dissolving his doubled pawn. White persues here a
different,
and in the present position novel, policy, and makes preparation for
retaining
his light-square bishop, and resting his game upon confining the
opponents
dark-square bishop. Whether this plan is an amelioration of
Anderssens
line of attack can only be proved by repeated practical
trials. |
6...Be7
** |
Against Anderssens
form of attack in this début it is more usual to open an
outlet for the bishop by 6...g6. Black prefers to get his king into
safety
as soon as possible, and therefore at once makes room to enable him to
castle. |
7.h3
** |
Not so much for defensive purposes
as with the view of subsequently fortifying an attack by pawn to g4
against
the opponents kingside, after the
latter
has castled. |
7...0-0 8.Qe2 Ne8 9.g4 b5 10.Bc2
Bb7 11.Nbd2 Qd7 12.Nf1
** |
This peculiar way of bringing the
knight over to the kingside was much favored by Morphy in similar
situations,
and was also adopted by Blackburne in the tie match against Steintiz in
the Vienna tournament. But both those players had elected that
course
after having previously brought out thier c1-bishop, while here White
seemed
to have time for this maneuver, even at the cost of remporarily blocking
out his dark-square bishop. |
12...Nd8 13.Ne3 Ne6 14.Nf5
g6
** |
For pure defensive purposes it
would
have been feasible to retreat the bishop to d8; but Blackburne thinks
that
after the exchange, and since his adversary was compelled to castle on
the queenside, the chances of an attack were at least equally balanced
for both sides. |
15.Nxe7+ Qxe7 16.Be3 N8g7
17.0-0-0
c5 18.d4 exd4 19.cxd4 c4
** |
Blackburne poined out that 19...d5
would have been much stronger at this juncture, and there can be no
doubt
that this move would have much improved his game.
Whites
best answer then would have been 20.e5 (for if 20.exd5 instead, Black
would
rejoin 20...Nf4, with an excellent game). Most likely the game would
have
proceeded thus: 19...d5 20.e5 c4 21.h4 and now, whether Black advanced
21...f5 or 21...h5, White retained still some considerable attack; in
the
former by 22.exf5, followed by 23.Ne5, and in the latter case by the
answer
of 23.Ng5, followed soon by pawn to f4. But, nevertheless, Black had a
better chance then of repelling the onslaught, and certainly if he once
got out of the attack, even at the expense of sacrificing a piece
eventually,
his fine array of well-supported pawns on the queens
wing would have been most formidable. |
20.d5 Nc7
21.Qd2
** |
A move necessary for defensive
purposes,
but also threatening. Before moving the queen, White could not
utilize
his dark-square bishop without subjecting his d-pawn to capture. Now
White
menaces a break in with the queen, either at a5 or h6, after removing
the
bishop, as actually occurred. |
21...a5 22.Bd4 f6 23.Qh6 b4 24.g5
f5
** |
Perhaps 24...Nge8, with the
intention
of offering the exchange of queens at g7, would have augmented
Blacks
prospects of prolonging the fight; but, even if he succeeded in
effecting
the exchange, Whites pawns and pieces
were
better situated for the endgame. |
25.Bf6 Qf7
** |
The sacrifice of the rook for the
bishop would not have mended matters, on account of the impending
27.Ng5,
after capturing the rook. Nor would 25...Qd7 have been any better,
e.g.:
25...Qd7 26.exf5 Nxf5 (if 26...gxf5 instead, White would proceed with
27.g6
at once) 27.Bxf5 gxf5 28.g6 Rxf6 29.gxh7+, and wins; for if 29...Kf7
30.Ng5+
would be a destructive rejoinder. |
26.exf5 gxf5
27.g6
** |
Decisive (for, if 27...hxg6, White
replies 28.Ng5), though rather plain in comparision with the fine
variation
which might have arisen in answer to 27.Nh4, which would probably have
led to a still more elegant conclusion, e.g.: 27.Nh4 Nxd5 28.Rxd5
Bxd5 29.Nxf5 Nxf5 (best) 30.Bxf5, threatening pawn to g6, and must win,
for Black dare not take the rook on account of the answer
31.Be6. |
27...Qxg6 28.Bxg7 Qxh6+ 29.Bxh6
Rf6
** |
There was little to be done; but
certainly,
if Black wished to proceed further, 29...Rf7 presented greater chances
of prolonging resistance; but, as our readers may observe, both players
were just at this stage on the point of completing the fixed time limit,
and their movements bear the appearance of being hurried. |
30.Rhg1+ Rg6 31.Bxf5 Kf7 32.Bxg6+
hxg6 33.Ng5+ Kg8 34.Rge1 1-0.
** |
White threatens, accordingly to
circumstances,
either 35.Re6 or 35.Re7, after which the defense must soon
collapse. |
The Field, London,
1876.02.19
|