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 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 Gunsberg’s sixteenth move was recorded there was an unusually long pause, and when Steinitz’s 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 STEINITZ’S 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, I’ll do it.”  Gunsberg’s 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 Steinitz’s 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 Gunsberg’s 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, Steinitz’s 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 black’s 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 Evans’s [sic] Gambit, pursued up to a certain point in the same manner as the cable game, is equivalent to the smashing up of Steinitz’s 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 yesterday’s 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 Gunsberg’s 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 - Steinitz’s 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. Steinitz’s 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 opponent’s 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 Gunsberg’s 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 White’s 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 victor’s 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
** Gunsberg: Best.
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
** Gunsberg: Forced.
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

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