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 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 Zukertort’s 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 occasion—viz., in reference to the adjournment over Saturday—Herr 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. George’s 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 manœuvres 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 manœuvre, to force the game. Herr Zukertort ultimately came out with a clear piece ahead by a very clever final process. Duration, our [sic] hours. Score—Zukertort, 5 ; Rosenthal, 1 ; drawn, 8.
The Field, London, 1880.06.12
Rosenthal,S — Zukertort,JH
(14)
C77/08
Spanish: Morphy (Anderssen)
1880.06.07
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
** 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

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