Chess is a scientific game and its literature ought to be placed on the basis of the strictest truthfulness, which is the foundation of all scientific research. W._Steinitz

The Rosenthal-Zukertort Match,
London 1880
Researched by Nick Pope

   THE sixteenth game, played on Thursday, June 17. It is no compliment to M. Rosenthal to dwell on the fact that the match is still proceeding, though his opponent has only one more game to win since Saturday last, for the former is merely fulfilling a plain duty in holding out. Nor can it be the least offensive to Herr Zukertort to suggest that his victory is no absolute certainty at the present moment, though no doubt the odds are immensely in his favour. Strange things have happened in some previous contests, and in several instances on record a similar preponderance in the score was not sufficient to secure the final superiority. In the famous match between Harrwitz and Lowenthal for the first eleven games, the latter stood at nine games to two at one time, but afterwards could gain no more than one game, while his opponent kept on winning and drawing, until at last the victory fell to Harrwitz. In the match between Kolisch and Paulsen (ten games up), the latter stood at six to one in the early part of the contest, which, however, had to be drawn ultimately after a series of hard fights, the final score being Paulsen seven, Kolisch six, drawn nineteen. Still more striking is the case of Campbell against Barnes, which was a match for the first seven games. The latter had scored six game without a break, but did not succeed in winning one more game, while his opponent pulled up gradually to the full score, and actually won the match. This ought to be a warning, as much against over-confidence on the one side as against premature despair on the other.—Rosenthal again opened with a Ruy Lopez of the same description as in the fourteenth game, which Zukertort defended in the same style as on the last occasion. Rosenthal remedied this time the defect in his plan of posting the Q Kt pointed out in our last week’s issue, and he left that Kt at Q 2, as suggested in our note (b) to the fourteenth game. He obtained a good opening with a well-supported development of pawns in the centre, and we believe he could have instituted an earlier attack by R to Q B sq on the 13th move. His 15th move was indifferent, as well as his 21st. On the latter occasion he could have much improved the formation of his lines by Q to B 2, followed by Kt to Q B 4. But he obtained sufficient pressure on the Q side to compel the opponent to sacrifice the exchange for two pawns. We agree with Rosenthal in the opinion that the adverse pawns were not superior to his own advantage, as they could be attacked by one R in the rear, and their advance could be finally stopped by bringing up White’s K, which was near enough to for the purpose. As it went, Zukertort overlooked a fine manœuvre of the opponent, which cost a clear P, and his game would have been utterly hopeless had Rosenthal brought his K to the rescue at the right time, viz., on the 37th move. Rosenthal committed a fatal error as far as his chances of winning were concerned, on the 38th move, where he could have safely exchanged pawns, and then again he had time to play his K round. Instead thereof, he allowed an important P to go, which ultimately compelled his returning the exchange gained, and the game then became equalised. Rosenthal tried some useless dodges in the ending after the adjournment, but could not succeed in disturbing the balance in his own favour. Duration, six hours. Score: Zukertort six, Rosenthal one, drawn nine.
The Field, London, 1880.06.19
Rosenthal,S — Zukertort,JH
(16)
C77/08
Spanish: Morphy (Anderssen)
1880.06.17
GBR London
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 Qe7 9.Nbd2 h6 10.Qc2 Be6 11.d4 exd4 12.cxd4 Bd7 13.d5
** His opening moves were sound and in accordance with the principles of this form of attack; but here we should have preferred 13.Rc1 . If Black took the e-pawn, White would recover the pawn, with the superior game, by 14.d5.
13...Ne5 14.Bxd7+ Nexd7 15.Qd3
** Loss of time. 15.Qc4, at once was much better.
15.Q to B 3 is given in the issue of June 19; corrected to 15.Q to Q 3 on June 26. -[Pope]
15...0-0 16.0-0 Rfe8 17.Rfe1 Rad8
** His hesitation to open the game gets him into a cramped position. We see no objection to taking the e-pawn, fearless of the pinning maneuvers, and the game might have proceeded thus: 17...Nxe4 18.Bd4 (if 18.Bxh6, the answer is 18...Ndc5) 18...f5 19.Bxg7 Kxg7 20.Nd4 Ndc5, followed mostly by 20...Qf7, attacking the d-pawn with the superior game.
18.Rac1 Nc5 19.Bxc5 dxc5 20.Qc4
** Which at any rate proves that he had previously lost a move (see note to Whites 15th move). Under any circumstances, it was stronger move to retreat 20.Qc2, followed mostly by 21.Nc4.
20...Nd7 21.b3 b5 22.Qc2 Qd6 23.Rcd1 Re7 24.a4 [1:00-?:??] 24...c6
** Hazardous. Zukertort informs us that he foresaw the opponents maneuvers, but gave up the exchange designedly, having faith in the strength of his two passed pawns. We should have preferred doubling the rooks on the e-file.
25.e5 Nxe5
** Of course he could not capture the d-pawn, or the answer 26.Ne4, followed by 27.Nxc5, would have been ruinous.
26.Nxe5
** Zukertort points out if 26.Ne4 at once, he would have taken 26...Nxf3+, followed by 27...Rxe4, and afterwards mostly 28...Bd4, threatening then ...Qg3+, etc.
26...Rxe5 27.Ne4 Rxe4 28.Qxe4 cxd5 29.Qe7
** Well played. This was the best way to fight against the pawns superiority.
29...bxa4 30.Qxd6 Rxd6 31.Re8+ Kh7 [?:??-1:00]
** Interposing the bishop was better; but even then the pawns could be successfully stopped, and Black would have been kept on the defensive—e.g.: 31...Bf8 32.bxa4 d4 33.Rc8 Rb6 34.Ra8, followed by 35.a5, threatening ultimately to fix himself at b6 with his rook, via b3, whenever Blacks rook leaves the b-file.
32.bxa4 c4 33.Rc8 c3 34.Rc5
** Which wins the most important pawn, and ought to have won the game; for, even if the d-pawn advances, White can take the c-pawn.
34...Re6 35.Rdxd5 Re1+ 36.Kh2 Re2 37.f4
** Already loss of time. We see no defense against 37.Kg3. Of course we cannot enter into a full analysis, and give only what seems to us the most plausible way of continuing the resistance: 37.Kg3 Rd2 38.Rxd2 cxd2 39.Rd5 Bc3 40.Kf3 Kg7 41.Ke2 a5 42.Rd3 Bb4 43.Rd4 Bc3 (he must move the bishop, or White would take it off) 44.Rc4, and wins.
37...g5 38.Rd7 [2:00-?:??]
** A grave error. We give a diagram of the position.
** He could safely take the pawn, and all he had afterwards to care for was not to take the second time if Black retook or advanced the c-pawn—e.g.: 38.fxg5 c2 (if 38...hxg5, then also 39.Kg3) 39.Kg3 Bb2 40.Kf3.
38...gxf4 39.Rxf7 Kg6
** He threatens now to win by 39...f3 and 40...f2, in case the adversary removes to c7 to stop the other pawn, and he must recover the exchange.
40.Rxg7+
** If 40.Rxc3, then followed, of course, 40...Be5.
40...Kxg7 41.Rxc3 Kf6 42.Kg1 Re4 43.Rc6+ Re6 44.Rc4 Kf5 45.Kf2 Re4 46.Rc5+ Re5 47.Rc8
** It was not worth while to go on with this, and there is no further interest in the movements on both sides. The game is too even.
47...Ra5 48.Rc4 Re5 49.Rc6 [3:00-?:??] 49...Re6 [?:??-2:00] ½-½.
**
The Field, London, 1880.06.19 & 06.26

Return to Match Index

[Excavations] [Library] [Museum] [Journal] [Market] [Openings]
© 1999 Jacques N. Pope. All Rights Reserved.