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

CHESS HONORS DIVIDED.
GUNSBERG AGAIN PLAYED AN EVANS
GAMBIT.
The Veteran Altered his Defence, and, 
Although Gunsberg Played a Very Clever 
and Brilliant Attack, he Could Not Win.
:
    Again the Evans Gambit.  This was the order of play yesterday in the championship encounter between Steinitz and Gunsberg at the Manhattan Chess Club in West Twenty-seventh street.  But Steinitz, in accordance with the intention of which he had already notified his opponent, declined to continue all through with the same defence he had adopted in the cable game against Tschigorin.  Of course, Gunsberg knew quite well that the veteran would alter his method, and, therefore, in again opening the Evans, Gunsberg manifested an enterprise at once admirable and courageous.
    Speculation became rife after the opening moves as to where Steinitz would first depart from the cable game, and the spectators did not have to wait for long before this point was decided.  The game of Monday was adhered to up to the end of the sixth move.  On black’s seventh turn came the anticipated change.  In his game by cable with the Russian player, and also in the game played last Monday with Gunsberg, Steinitz moved on his seventh turn Kt-K R 3.  Yesterday he varied this move by playing P-K R 3.  A spectator who was present when this move was recorded, stated that in tournament play a few years ago this same movement was made by a strong amateur against Steinitz himself, who on that occasion was playing white.
    For some time the game was conducted on fairly even terms, Gunsberg pursuing the initiative with marked vigor and ability.  At length the opinion of the spectators turned chiefly in favor of the Hungarian’s game, which was considered, long before the adjournment, to be the superior of the two.
    Steinitz took a long time to consider his reply, and was still thinking when the time arrived for adjourning the afternoon sitting.  At this time it was clear that he was playing for his only hope-a draw.
    The move which Steinitz sealed on the adjournment was one by which he attained his object of drawing the game.  When it had been opened and the move made on the board of play, the veteran said to his younger opponent “You may think it over and tell me if you want to play for a win.”  After a few moments’ consideration, Gunsberg said that if his opponent’s remark was intended to be an offer of a draw, he was willing to accept it. The game was thereupon recorded as a draw, making the score now: Steinitz, 5; Gunsberg, 3; drawn, 6.  The greater part of Gunsberg’s play was counted by many as fine chess, and altogether he has proved a surprise.
    Steinitz makes the following comments upon the game:
    “Gunsberg is certainly very plucky.  He offered the Evans Gambit for the second time, although I had given him notice that I thought myself at liberty to alter my defence at any time.  In his comments upon this notice he calls it a retraction of a challenge that ought never to have been made, but I do not think that fair-minded chess players will agree with him, for all challenges ought to be accepted formally within a reasonable time, and Gunsberg could not expect that I should wait for his convenience and be bound to a long series of moves, while he would be at liberty to alter his tactics at any time or not play that opening at all. 
    However, I did not abandon the leading idea of my defence: I played 6...Q-B 3, which was the original bone of contention between Tschigorin and myself.  On the seventh move I also advanced P-K R 3, which was the line of play I had intended to adopt against Tschigorin before knowing that he had included in his conditions 7...Kt-R 3.  Gunsberg then proceeded with a sort of Ruy Lopez attack by 8 B-Kt 5, and threatened to gain a pawn for two moves in successioa [sic].  Black lost patience on the ninth move, and exchanged pawns in a manner that gave his opponent a good centre attack, which could have been avoided by B-Kt 3 instead.
    The fight for position soon afterward resolved itself into an attempt on white’s part to force on his K B P, while black parried that attack an attempted a counter demonstration by the advance of his pawns on the queen’s wing.  This was hardly judicious, though it might perhaps have worked well, considering that black was a pawn ahead, if he had on the twenty-seventh move simply protected the weakened Q B P by Q-K sq.  As it was, white won the queen’s centre pawn and obtained a passed K P, which at the time of adjournment, looked threatening.  However, black had some compensation by the exposed position of the adverse king, while his own was in security, and he had also more freedom of action for his rook on the open files.”
The Sun, New York, 1891.01.11

STILL ANOTHER DRAW.
THE FOURTEENTH GAME OF THE CHESS
MATCH.
GUNSBERG OPENED AGAIN WITH THE EVANS 
GAMBIT-ONLY SIX MORE GAMES 
CAN BE PLAYED.
:
    The rooms of the Manhattan Chess Club in this city were very well patronized yesterday when Gunsberg opened the fourteenth game in the match for the chess championship of the world.  The Hungarian remained true to his intention to open again with the Evans Gambit against the veteran, Steinitz.
    The readers of The Tribune will remember that before the match started Steinitz challenged Gunsberg to play the Evans Gambit against him, and undertook to play on four occasions the defence which he had already adopted against Tschigorin on the cable match up to a certain point.  Gunsberg played the Evans Gambit for the first time last Monday, winning the game after twenty-four moves.  Meantime Steinitz withdrew his challenge, one of his avowed reasons being that he was no longer bound to keep it, since Gunsberg did not take it up at the beginning of their match.  Another reason which he gave was that if he played the same continuation against Gunsberg he would be compromising the interests of his backers in the cable match.
    He duly informed Gunsberg of his withdrawal, but in spite of this fact the latter declared he would again play the Evans Gambit when his turn came to open, and this he did yesterday.  He conducted the attack with great spirit and skill, and at the same time played, on the whole, pretty rapidly throughout.  On the other hand, Steinitz played in his usually careful and steady style, defending his position, particularly toward the end, with great penetration and foresight.
    After the eighteenth move the position was a very interesting one.  As will be seen from the score of the game which is appended, Steinitz varied his defence as early in the game as the seventh move.  On that move in Monday’s game he played Kt-R 3, instead of P-R 3.  He succeeded in keeping the gambit pawn till a very advanced stage of the game.  In fact it was only on his thirty-third and last move that Gunsberg, by clever play, managed to recover it, although for some time prior to this he had possessed a superior game.
    Steinitz sealed as his reply move, 33...Q-Q Kt sq., which assured the draw he had for some time been aiming at.  The proposal for a draw was made by Steinitz and readily accepted by Gunsberg.  The score now stands: Steinitz 5, Gunsberg 3, drawn 6, with six more possible games to be played.
New-York Daily Tribune, 1891.01.11

A SPICY EVANS GAMBIT.
Another Interesting Contest Between
Two Great Chess Masters.
:
    The extraordinary incident in the chess match of Mr. Steinitz withdrawing his challenge, so confidently issued-the particulars of which have been narrated in THE WORLD of Jan.6-warranted the unusual interest manifested in the fourteenth game.  Although the English player had been already told by his opponent that he will not consider himself bound to adhere to his innovation in the defense of the Evans gambit, a line of play which is considered unsound in every chess expert’s opinion but in the author’s, he nevertheless, relying upon his own resources, offered the pawn in the fourth move, greatly to the delight of the numerous spectators, who naturally enjoy a sprightly and spicy gambit more than all the finesses of the “modern school.”
    After thirty-three moves the game was drawn. The score now stands: Steinitz, 5; Gunsberg, 3; drawn, 6. The fifteenth game will be played to-morrow.
The World, New York, 1891.01.12

Gunsberg,IA — Steinitz,W
(14)
C52/01
Evans Gambit: Steinitz
1891.01.10
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 [0:02-0:01] 6.O-O Qf6 7.d4 h6
** Gunsberg: In his book Steinitz declares 7...Nh6 the right move to be at this juncture.  It seems that his present move is a little better.  A still better course seems to be 7...Bb6.
Steinitz: Perhaps the safest plan, considering Blacks last move.
8.Bb5
** Gunsberg: White has an abundance of moves to continue with, as for example 8.d5, or 8.dxe5 Nxe5 9.Nxe5 Qxe5 10.Qb3 with a view to continue afterwards with pawn to f4, all of which give the player good attacking chances.  The move actually made seems, however, as good as, if not better than, as any.
Steinitz: If 8.Qb3, Black intended to play 8...Nge7 9.dxe5 Nxe5 10.Nxe5 Qxe5 11.Bxd7+ Kd8 with an excellent game, though the pawns are even.
8...Nge7 9.Ba3
** Steinitz: Of course this prevents Black from castling for a little while, as in that case White would answer 10.Bxe7, thereby winning a pawn.
9...exd4
** Steinitz: 9...Bb6 was preferable.
10.e5
** Gunsberg: It was perhaps better to retake the pawn first.
Steinitz: Though Black dare not take that pawn on account of the ultimate Re1, it was far better to retake the pawn at once and leave the center pawns standing abreast, with the option of advancing later on.
10...Qe6 [0:06-0:26] 11.cxd4 Bb4
** Steinitz: Hardly a good move.
12.Bb2
** Gunsberg: White could here recover the pawn sacrificed on the fourth move by taking the c-knight and in reply to 12...Bxa3 (best) take either the Black b-pawn or d-pawn.  But White justly preferred to keep up his attack.
Steinitz: White could have won a pawn here by 12.Bxc6 Bxa3 (of course 12...Nxc6 13.d5 with a winning attack) 13.d5 recovering the pawn with a good game.
12...d5 13.Nc3 O-O 14.Ne2 Ng6 15.Qb3
** Gunsberg: 15.Qa4 was also a strong continuation at this point.
15...Ba5 [0:32-0:40]
** Steinitz: If 15...Be7, White would probably have answered 16.Nd2.
16.Ne1 Nce7 17.f4 Qb6
** Gunsberg: 17...Bb6 instead and subsequently ...f6 would have been preferable.
Steinitz: 17...f5 at once was superior.
18.Ba3
** Gunsberg: A good move, which effectually meets Blacks plan to force the exchange of queens by 18...c6, for White would retire 19.Bd3, and if Black takes the queen the pawn retakes.  Blacks best move would then be 20...Bd8 as both knight and bishop are menaced, and White has an excellent game by playing pawn to f5.  If Black, however, takes the knight at e1 instead of retiring the bishop to d8, then White retakes with the a-rook and proceeds likewise with pawn to f5, Black being compelled to play ...Re8.
Steinitz: A very fine rejoinder, which gives White the pull in a precarious-looking position.
18...f5
** Gunsberg: He has to stop the advance of the adverse f-pawn, but this move leaves White plenty of scope, for the array of his forces into an attacking position and gives him a powerful passed pawn.
Steinitz: If 18...c6 19.Bd3 Qxb3 20.axb3, threatening 21.Bxe7 as well as 21.f5 with an excellent game.
19.Qa4 c6 20.Bd3 Qd8 [0:45-1:12] 21.Qc2 b5
** Steinitz: Maneuvering with the pawns on the queenside was not advisable.  The text move weakens the c-pawn, and although there is apparently no danger at present, it is a source of trouble at a later stage.
22.Kh1 Bb6 23.g4 a5
** Gunsberg: Perhaps 23...Nh4 would have been preferable.
24.Rg1 b4
** Gunsberg: Not good, as the sequel shows.
Steinitz: Instead of this, Black would have done better to play 24...Qe8.
25.gxf5 Bxf5 [0:58-1:22] 26.Bxf5 Rxf5 27.Rxg6
** Gunsberg: A very good move, which at least wins a pawn.
27...bxa3
** Gunsberg: It is obvious that 27...Nxg6 28.Qxf5 would be in favor of White.
Steinitz: Black could again have improved his position here by 27...Qe8.
28.Rxc6
** Gunsberg: Here White might have kept up a promising attack by 28.Re6 or 28.Nf3 instead.
Steinitz: White must have looked far ahead before taking this pawn, for in several ways his game looked dangerous after this; but on examination it will be found that his position remains sound.
28...Nxc6 29.Qxf5 Nxd4 30.Nxd4 Bxd4 [1:22-1:30] 31.Qe6+ Kh8 32.Rd1 Bc3 33.Rxd5 (Adjourned)
** Gunsberg: At this point the time for adjournment had arrived.  Steinitz devoted nearly half an hour to the consideration of the extremely difficult situation before sealing his reply.  An examination of the highly interesting and complicated position shows that Blacks choice of good moves is limited.  Had he, for instance played the very plausible looking 33...Qh4, White would have had in all probability a winning game by 34.Ng2.
33...Qb8 (Sealed) ½-½.
** Gunsberg: The exposed position of the white king now enables Black to draw by perpetual check.
Steinitz: Probably better than 33...Qh4 34.Ng2 Qh5 35.Qc6 Rb8 36.Qxc3 Rb1+ 37.Ne1 Rxe1+ (Black had no time for 37...Qe2, as White would mate in a few moves beginning with 38.Qc8+) 38.Qxe1 Qf3+, and Whites king has more freedom, although by best play it would also end in a draw.  The probable continuation would have been: 34.Rd1 Bxe1 35.Rxe1 Qb7+ 36.Kg1 Ra6, and the game could hardly be won by either side.
The Sun, New York, 1891.01.11
The World, New York, 1891.01.12
New-York Daily Tribune, 1891.01.11

Return to Match Index

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