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

    Third Game, played Friday, May 7. - Zukertort won this game.  The opening was, as in the first game of the match, a Double Ruy Lopez. Whether Rosenthal was afraid of the attack, of which a short analysis appears above, or whether he merely wished to introduce an alteration for which the opponent could not have been prepared, we cannot say, but he adopted the novel retreat of B to K 2 on the sixth move, in lieu of B to B 4, and he afterwards blocked his B out by P to Q 3.  His game seemed cramped, and had all the appearance of a Philidor’s defence, with a move behind for the second player.  Nevertheless, Rosenthal played up to the middle part most skilfully, and, owing to a premature advance of the K B P on the part of the opponent, the French champion obtained a strong attack on the K side, which we believe would have grown in time if he had nursed it carefully.
    One of the greatest difficulties in chess is to know when to avoid difficulties, and in Rosenthal’s case there was no necessity for pressing the attack as he did, whereby he forced the opponent to a sacrifice of the exchange for a P, which gave Zukertort time and some compensation in position.  Rosenthal then became hurried, and gave up another P uselessly.
The Field, London, 1880.05.08

THE MATCH BETWEEN MESSRS. ROSENTHAL AND
ZUKERTORT
    THE third game, played Friday, May the 7th.  We have only a few more general remarks to make about this game beyond what we hurriedly wrote on the Friday immediately after the finish. On closer examination we find that Rosenthal’s case was by no means hopeless after his opponent sacrificed the exchange, and that the former mismanaged his defence on the 22nd move.  On the 29th move M. Rosenthal exhausted his second hour, and according to the strict regulations, he would have had to make his next move instantaneously.  Herr Zukertort kindly offered a few minutes’ grace ; but the French champion, in view of an unavoidable mate, preferred resigning at once.  The allowance proposed by Herr Zukertort could be offered and accepted in a match where only two players are directly concerned ; but in tournament in which the interest of other parties may be affected one way or the other, no deviation from the general rule by mere mutual consent of two opponents could be permitted, and the least alteration could only place with the unanimous approval of one and all the combatants and the committee.
The Field, London, 1880.05.15
Zukertort,JH — Rosenthal,S
(3)
C49/01
Four Knights: Brentano
1880.05.07
GBR London
Annotations by Wilhelm Steinitz
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nf6 4.Nc3 Bb4 5.O-O O-O 6.Nd5 Be7
** Whether Rosenthal adopted this defense for the sake of variety, or because he was afraid of the attack by 7.d4 in answer to 6...Bc5, as played by Zukertort in the first game of the match, we cannot tell.  Appearances, however, would prejudice this retreat of the bishop, and its subsequent blocking up by 7...d6.  In reference to Blackburnes attack, of which we gave an abstract in the notes to the first game, both players have pointed out a strong line of play for White on the 9th move, which we omitted to notice in our necessary brief analysis, and, as we consider 6...Bc5, at this point, at any rate, better than the move in the text, we supplement our remarks on this subject with the following variations: 6...Bc5 7.d4 exd4 8.Bg5 Re8 9.Re1 (This is the move proposed by Rosenthal and Zukertort for the attack, and is certainly difficult to meet ; but yet we think that the defense ought to obtain a satisfactory game.) 9...Ne5 (It would be bad to advance 9...d6, on account of the reply 10.Qd2, threatening to continue the attack either with 11.Qf4 or 11.b4.) 10.Nxe5 Rxe5 11.f4 Rxg5 12.Nxf6+ (If 12.fxg5 at once, Black retreats 12...Ne8, threatening 13...c6.) 12...Qxf6 13.fxg5 Qxg5 14.e5 c6 (Necessary; for, if 14...d5 at once, White takes en passant, followed by 16.d7 [threatening 17.Re8+], in case Black should attack 15...Bg4.) 15.Bd3 d5 16.exd6 Bg4, and the two extra pawns and Blacks combined two bishops ought to prove fair consideration for the loss of the exchange.
7.d3 d6 8.Ne3
** Anderssen would never hesitate in a similar position to take 8.Bxc6, for he held that the cluster of Blacks pawns on the queenside should ultimately prove a great disadvantage. In some variations of the Ruy Lopez, the defense against such a line of attack may fall back on the king fianchetto, followed by Bg2, with some prospects of a counter-attack ; but here, where the bishop is shut up at e7, Anderssens favorite plan appears sound enough, and most feasible. The game might then have proceeded thus: 8.Bxc6 bxc6 9.Ne3 c5 (If 9...Ne8 at once, White would reply 10.d4.) 10.b3 Ne8 11.Bb2 f5 12.exf5 Bxf5 13.Nd2, with the better game.
8...Nd4 9.Bc4 c6 10.c3 Nxf3+ 11.Qxf3 Be6 12.Bb3 Qd7 13.Qe2
** In preparation of a form of attack which does not turn out forcible. The whole aspect of the game, as now presented, would lead to the supposition that White should have been able to make, more of his position, even against best play, and the right process appears to us 13.h3, followed by 14.g4, and 15.Nf5. This knight was then either fixed at a strong post, or if Black took with the bishop, White opened the g-file for the attack with his rooks. Not the least danger would arise to White in the pursuance of this plan from the opponent opening the d-file in the meanwhile, e.g.: 13.h3 d5 14.g4 dxe4 15.dxe4 Bxb3 16.axb3 Qd3 17.Rd1 Qxe4 18.Qxe4, followed by 19.Rd7, with much the superior game.
13...d5 14.exd5 cxd5 15.f4 exf4 16.Rxf4 Bd6 17.Rf1 Rfe8
** 17...d4 looks strong, but nothing would have come of it if White first answered 18.Bxe6. If then 18...fxe6, the knight could retreat to c2; and if on the other hand 18...Qxe6, then it was quite safe to take the pawn, followed by Qf3, attacking the b-pawn. The move in the text prepares this attack.
18.d4
** The only move; for Black might also push the pawn with advantage in case White moved the queen out of the way; for instance, to f3. Still worse would have been 18.Qf2, e.g.: 18.Qf2 d4 19.Bxe6 Rxe6 20.cxd4 Bxh2+, followed by 21...Rxe3 should king take bishop.
18...Qc7
** Not well judged, on several accounts. In the first place, this was the kind of position where the reservation of the plan of placing the queen before the bishop by 18...Bc7, and 19...Qd3 would have been more threatening than this reversal of the battle order, which will leave his d-pawn weak; in the next place, he had already sufficient advantage of position, which we believe could have been augmented by 18...Ne4. Evidently White could not have then taken the d-pawn on account of the ultimate ...Ng3; and if he answered 19.Qf3, then Black would withdraw 19...Bc7, with a good game; for if Whites knight entered at f5, then the g-pawn might safely advance attacking it, as the check of the knight at h6 would only involve White into difficulties of ultimately extricating it, and Blacks king would stand safe at g7.
19.g3 Bh3
** White throws away a fair game, and gives the opponent a strong attack, besides sufficient compensation in forces for the sacrifice of the exchange. He ought still to have moved 19...Ne4 to prevent the sacrifice; and if then White replied 20.Qg2 or 20.Qf3, he was bound to protect the d-pawn by 20...Qc6 with an even game.
20.Rxf6
** He had nothing better, and this turned out good enough. He gains a compact surplus of two pawns on the queenside for the exchange, while Blacks extra pawn on the kingside is doubled and isolated, and therefore counts for little.
20...gxf6 [?:??-1:00] 21.Qh5 [1:00-?:??] 21...Be6
** The only move. 21...Qd7 was of no use, for White would capture the d-pawn with the bishop, and then retreat the bishop to f3, thus threatening to block out the adverse bishop by pawn to g4.
22.Bxd5 f5
** This additional sacrifice ot a pawn is quite untimely, and only helps the opponents rapid development. The only move that gave him any prospect of equalising the game was 22...Bf8, whereupon the game might have proceeded thus: 22...Bf8 23.Be4 (We see no better way of continuing the attack; if 23.Nf5, then Black might take the bishop, followed by 24...Kh8, in answer to the knight checking; and then, if 25.Qxd5, the rook would check at e1, followed by 26...Rxc1, and winning the knight, at the expense of an unimportant pawn.) 23...f5 24.Nxf5 f6, with a satisfactory game; for if the bishop attacks the queen the answer is 25...Qd7, and White apparently cannot press the attack by other means, for instance, by 25.d5, which would lead to the following continuation: 25.d5 Bxf5 (best; for if 25...Bf7, White wins by 26.Ne7+.) 26.Bxf5 Qc5+, and wins the d-pawn with a check in a few moves.
23.Nxf5 Bxf5 24.Qxf5 Re1+ 25.Kf2 Rae8
** Altogether overlooking the opponents brilliant design.  His only hope consisted in capturing the bishop, and then to make a fight with bishops of opposite colors; but no doubt with the exercise of common care White would have maintained a winning superiority even in that case.
26. Bh6
** A master stroke. After this Blacks game becomes utterly hopeless.
26...R8e2+ 27.Kf3 Bf8 28.Rxe1 Rxe1 29.Qg5+ Kh8 [?:??-2:00] 30.Bxf8 1-0.
**
The Field, London, 1880.05.15

Return to Match Index

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