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 Philidors
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 Rosenthals 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
|
|
|
Zukertort,JH Rosenthal,S
|
(3)
|
C49/01 |
Four Knights: Brentano
|
|
|
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
|
|