The Gunsberg-Steinitz Match,
World Championship 1890-91
Researched by Nick Pope
|
THE GREAT CHESS MATCH.
THE THIRD GAME IN THE SERIES A DRAW.
STEINITZ AGAIN OFFERS THE QUEENS GAMBIT AND MAKES AN
INTERESTING VARIATION.
|
:
|
By degrees the interest in the Steinitz-Gunsberg
match steadily grows, and although, when the masters sat down to begin
their third game at 1:30 p.m. yesterday, there was only a small
attendance,
during the afternoon and evening the club-rooms of the Manhattan Chess
Club, where the match is being played, were well filled. |
Steinitz, in offering again the Queens
Gambit,
at once put an additional interest into the encounter. The offer
was just as promptly declined by Gunsberg as on Tuesday, and in exactly
the same manner. Chess players who expected that after this
Gunsberg
would proceed with the same defence which he had previously adopted were
doomed to disappointment, for the Hungarian on his third move deviated
from the first game by playing P-Q B 3, instead of Kt-K B 3. |
Naturally this change might be considered a
desirable
one by some followers of the game, the more so that this new variation
promised much in the shape of instruction. It followed now as an
obvious consequence that Steinitzs proceedings had to be altered
and fitted
to the new tactics of his opponent. Eventually Gunsberg managed to
isolate the pawn of his adversary on the queens file, which ought
to have
given him a considerable advantage. Several of his succeeding
moves,
however, which were described by the spectators as premature if not
actually
useless, enabled Steinintz to double his rooks on the queens file
and
to assume a consequently threatening attitude. Gunsberg thereupon
found himself compelled to proceed with a rapid exchange of pieces,
which
not only brought to Steinitzs isolated pawn, but gave Steinitz the
opportunity
of redeeming the time which he had lost in the early part of the
game.
This will be readily seen when it is stated that after twenty moves had
been made Steinitz had consumed one hour and twenty-two minutes to his
opponents fifty-six minutes, whereas at the time of the
adjournment, after
twenty-seven moves had been recorded on the score-sheet, Mr.
Gunsbergs
time stood at one hour and forty-six minutes and his opponents at
one
hour and forty-five minutes. |
Dealing in more minute detail with the game it
will
be seen that after the variation on the third move Steinitz proceeded
with
the same development as in the first game, by playing 5 P-K B 3.
His opponent next gained a move by playing B-Kt 5, instead of first
moving
the Kt to B 2 and then to Kt 5 as he did in the first game. He
then
immediately entered upon an attempt to break the centre by Q Kt-Q 2, and
Steinitz played K Kt to B 4 instead of to K B 2 as he did in the first
game, and this he himself looks upon as an improvement upon his previous
play. His eigth move, B-K 2, however, was hardly as good as B-Q
2.
He might also have done better by retaking with the queen. Afterward
White
forced the withdrawal of his opponents K B. An exchange of
minor
pieces soon followed, and it then became apparent that Gunsberg was
aiming
at a draw, which was probably the best thing he could do, for
although
Whites queens pawn was isolated, it greatly hampered
Blacks game and
might ultimately become very strong. Later on White succeeded in
concentrating
his rooks on the open kings file, and Black then altered his
tactics with
winning purposes in view. He directed his attack upon the isolated
Q P, but soon recognizing that he could not make much impression in this
direction, he returned again to the exchanging policy with the view of
drawing. |
At the adjournment, when Gunsberg sealed his
twenty-seventh
move, the pieces and pawns were even, each side having a queen and one
rook on the board. Blacks king and bishop, however, were
confined,
while White had a greater freedom for those pieces. After the
resumption
of the play at 7 oclock only one more move was made on the board,
this
being the twenty-seventh move of Gunsberg, which had been already sealed
when the game was adjourned. It was certainly a very good one, as
it offered the exchange of queens, which it would have been a very
difficult
matter for White to avoid, and it furthermore liberated the confined
king.
For the space of about twenty minutes deliberated upon a reply, and then
he finally agreed upon a draw, which was suggested by
Gunsberg. |
New-York Daily Tribune,
1890.12.14
|
|
THE EXPERTS AT CHESS.
ANOTHER DRAWN BATTLE - BOTH MASTERS AT THEIR
BEST.
At First Gunsberg Made a Good Stand, While the Champion Had to
Think - Later the Hungarians Position Became Difficult,
but Fine Play on His Part Secured for Him the Division of
Honors.
|
:
|
When the third game in the championship chess
match
began yesterday morning at the Manhattan Chess Club in West
Twenty-seventh
street there was only a meagre attendance of members in the large club
room; but as was the case on Thursday, as the afternoon progressed the
number of spectators began to increase. What made matters more
than
ordinarily interesting from the start, was the fact that Steinitz again
opened a Queens gambit, which, as on the first day, Gunsberg
declined
by playing P-K 3. The inference to be drawn from this proceeding
on the part of Steinitz is that he had fully realized the mistake he
made
on the first day, and was satisfied that he could do better, if not
actually
win. He was evidently of the opinion that he could rectify the
errors
of judgment which marked his play in the first game, and presumably in
this belief he entered for the second time upon the same
opening. |
It is frequently the case that when a master
loses
or draws a game in a certain opening he will take the earliest
opportunity
of playing the same opening again, provided he thinks he could improve
on his previous play by substituting at times a different move or
variation.
From the point of view of the chess student yesterdays game is a
most
valuable one when studied side by side with that of Tuesday, for from
such
a study the weaknesses of the earlier game will probably be exemplified
in the second one. It will be seen, upon reference to the score,
that Gunsberg thought it well not to pursue the same course which he
adopted
on Tuesday, for, as early as his third move, he entered upon a different
course
of defence. Instead of playing Kt-K B 3, as he did in the first game, he
moved P-Q B 3. It is worthy of note that Steinitz took five
minutes
consideration on his fourth move and that he consumed twelve minutes
upon
his eighth move. |
This careful deliberation indicated that Steinitz
was once more treading new ground, while Gunsberg consumed much less
time,
probably because he had his course of action clearly planned in
accordance
with long-established principles. |
It may be pointed out that when fifteen moves had
been made by each player Steinitz had consumed an hour, and Gunsberg
only
39 minutes. Attention may also be drawn to the fact that a clear
advantage acerned [sic] to Gunsberg early in the game by his
isolating
his opponents Queens pawn. |
Just before the time for the adjournment of the
afternoon session many spectators declared that Gunsberg had thrown away
the chances he had gained earlier in the game, and was obviously playing
for a draw. And here it was, too, that Steinitz, on his
twenty-seventh
move, brought into operation one of his pet ideas by putting his
king into play, with the idea of making use of him as a fighting
monarch. |
At the adjournment Gunsberg sealed his
twenty-seventh
move [...] |
During the adjournment Steinitz was asked to give
his opinion on the game as far as it had gone, and he said: You
are aware
that though a Queens Gambit declined, this game differs very much
from
the one we played on Tuesday, in consequence of Gunsberg having adopted
a different line of play on his third move. Although
the position was thus at once altered, I still proceeded with the same
line of development as in the first game, commencing with 5 P-K B
3.
My opponent answered this time B-Kt 5, thereby gaining a move, for in
the
first game he had played B-K2 in a similar situation, and
afterward
B-Kt 5. He then proceeded immediately with an attempt to break the
centre by Q Kt-Q 2, and I then played my K Kt-B 4, instead of K B 2, as
in the first game, which, I believe, was some improvement. My
eighth
move, B-K 2, was probably not as good as B-Q 2. I
think
I should also have done better by retaking with the queen.
Blacks
twelfth move was, in my opinion, not a good one, and in his place I
would
have played B-Q 2, White then compelled a withdrawal of his
adversarys
K B and proceeded. An exchange of minor pieces soon followed, and
it became evident that black was playing for no more than a draw, and I
think he could not do better than that, for whites Q P, though
isolated,
greatly hampered his opponents game, and experts will recognize
that in
similar positions which arose in the game between Labourdonnais and
McDonnell
the Q P became ultimately very strong. |
The further progress of the game was marked by
the
concentration of the rooks on the open kings file on the
[sic]
whites part, while black changed tactics and attempted an attack
against
the isolated Q P, evidently for winning purposes. He, however,
soon
recognized that he could not make much impression with his attempted
attack,
and again he entered on an exchange policy with a view of drawing.
At the time of the adjournment, on the twenty-seventh move, the pieces
and pawns were even, and there was this difference of position that
blacks
king and bishop were confined, while white had more freedom for those
two
pieces, each side having queen and one rook on the board. |
Some of the spectators were prepared to see the
game proceed for fifteen or twenty moves more, and therefore it was a
source
of some little surprise when it was announced that a draw had been
agreed
upon, practically without any additional moves being made, for the only
move recorded after the adjournment was the one which Gunsberg had
sealed
at 5 oclock, when the two players arose for their two hours
rest, viz.:
27. Q-Q 3, which on all hands was counted a good one. This
movement
made Steinitz think for about twenty minutes at the end of which time
his
opponent said: It is nothing but a draw, Mr. Steinitz. and
the latter
then assented to the proposal, saying: Very well, all
right. This
is what Steinitz has to say about the termination of the game:
Gunsbergs
twenty-seventh move, Q-Q3, was certainly a very good one, as it offered
the exchange of queens, which white could hardly avoid, and it
furthermore
liberated the confined king. After I had looked a good while for
my reply, Gunsberg interrupted by offering a draw, which was
accepted. |
The Sun, New York,
1890.12.14
|
|
STEINITZ STILL LEADS.
The Third Game in the Chess Contest a Draw.
GUNSBERG HAS NOT WON A VICTORY.
While the Veteran Player Has a Shade the Best of the Match
Thus
Far Honors Are Rather Equally Divided - A Close Analysis of
the
Important Moves Last Night - The Game in Detail.
|
:
|
The first week of the championship chess match
has
passed and while the younger player has not as yet a victory to his
credit
he has by no means reason to feel discouraged. He has twice
succeeded
in wresting the attack from his famous opponent, who had the advantage
of the first move and who played an entirely novel variation, which, to
all appearances, he had carefully prepared and analyzed. Although
thrown upon wholly unknown ground Gunsberg came out both times with an
advantage in position. Mr. Gunsberg failed to make good his advantage,
but his friends assume that in the course of the match he will be able
to do so despite the stubbornness of his opponent, for which he is so
justly
famous. |
Mr. Steinitz having the move, again selected a
Queens
gambit, to which Gunsberg replied with P-QB3 on his third move.
This
move, recommended by Rosenthal, and adopted in his match against
Zukertort,
is a favorite defense of Gunsberg, who has played it successfully
against
Blackburne and others. Mr. Steinitz, too, chose this defense in
the
first part of his match against Zukertort, his QB, however, having been
played previously to B4. In his analytical notes he disapproves of
Blacks defending with P-QB3. |
In yesterdays game white pursued his plan
of the
first game, with the modification of playing his Kt-KB4 instead of
B2.
Black, as in the first game, rapidly developed his pieces, and, assuming
the counter attack by P-K4, succeeded in isolating the hostile QP.
On the fourteenth move, however, he impaired his chances of winning by
allowing his KB to be exchanged, and, while the position was still in
his
favor, the road to victory was not clearly discernible. |
After the adjournment, while Mr. Steinitz devoted
twenty minutes to the consideration of the move by Gunsberg, the latter
proposed a draw, which was accepted. |
The score is now: Steinitz, 1; drawn, 2. |
The World, New York,
1890.12.14
|
|
|
Steinitz,W Gunsberg,IA
|
(3)
|
1890.12.13 |
USA New York, NY (Manhattan Chess
Club)
|
|
Annotations by Gunsberg &
Steinitz
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 c6
** |
Gunsberg: Recommended by
Rosenthal
and invariably adopted by Gunsberg.
Steinitz: With a view of playing
...dxc4
and then supporting the captured pawn by ...b5. |
4.e3 Nf6 5.f3
** |
Steinitz:
Blacks
third move does in no way counteract Whites
tactics, which are still quite feasible, and it also gives the first
player
a slight pull. |
5...Bb4
[0:06-0:03]
** |
Steinitz: Certainly superior
to 5...Be7 as played in a similar position in the first game of this
match. |
6.Nh3 Nbd7
** |
Gunsberg: While White moves
by carrying out his plans of development, Black brings his pieces
rapidly
into play with a view of assuming the attack.
Steinitz: Also better than 6...0-0 and
7...Re8; he gains his point of breaking in the center much
sooner. |
7.Nf4 0-0
** |
Gunsberg: Better than 7...e5
at once. |
8.Be2
** |
Steinitz: This was probably
not as good as 8.Bd2. |
8...dxc4
[0:29-0:18]
** |
Gunsberg: In order to avert
the danger of his d-pawn becoming isolated he ought to have exchanged
pawns. |
9.Bxc4 e5 10.Nfe2
** |
Gunsberg: After 10.dxe5 Nxe5
11.Qxd8 Rxd8, the position would be in Blacks
favor. |
10...exd4 [0:40-0:21]
11.exd4
** |
Steinitz: Here 11.Qxd4 was
undoubtedly stronger. |
11...Nb6 12.Bb3 Bf5
** |
Steinitz: The bishop here is
exposed to attacks and to being shut in; 12...Bd7 was much
preferable. |
13.Bg5 Be7 14.0-0 Nfd5
** |
Gunsberg: He would have done
better to preserve his dark-square bishop, which would have rendered
powerful
assistance in keeping up the pressure on Whites
weak d-pawn. |
15.Bxe7 Nxe7 [1:00-0:39] 16.Ng3
Bg6 17.Nce4 Nbd5 18.Qd2 b6
** |
Gunsberg: To prevent the
adverse
knight from entering at c5.
Steinitz: Black conducts his defense in
an extremely difficult position with very good judgment. |
19.Rae1 Qd7 20.Re2 Rad8
[1:22-0:56]
21.Rfe1 Nf5 22.Nc3 Nxg3 [1:30-1:20]
** |
Gunsberg: Perhaps 22...Nde7
would have been preferable. |
23.hxg3 Nxc3
** |
Gunsberg: Not having adopted
the line of play indicated above he had nothing better, for instance,
23...Nf6
24.Re7 Qxd4+ 25.Qxd4 Rxd4 26.Rxa7, with a slight pull. |
24.bxc3 Rfe8 25.Qf4 Rxe2
[1:40-1:30]
** |
Gunsberg: Rather forced, for
White would exchange rooks, followed by 28.Qc7. |
26.Rxe2 Kf8
[1:40-1:30]
** |
Steinitz: For, if 26...Re8
at once, then 27.Qc7 Qd8 (best) 28.Qxd8, followed by Re7, with an
excellent
game. |
27.Kf2 (Adjourned) [1:45-1:46]
27...Qd6
(Sealed) [2:06-1:46] ½-½.
The Sun, New York,
1890.12.14
|
The World, New York,
1890.12.14
|
New-York Daily Tribune,
1890.12.14
|
|
Return to Match
Index
|