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

THE GREAT CHESS MATCH.
THE THIRD GAME IN THE SERIES A DRAW.
STEINITZ AGAIN OFFERS THE QUEEN’S 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 Queen’s 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 Steinitz’s 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 queen’s 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 queen’s 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 Steinitz’s 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 opponent’s fifty-six minutes, whereas at the time of the adjournment, after twenty-seven moves had been recorded on the score-sheet, Mr. Gunsberg’s time stood at one hour and forty-six minutes and his opponent’s 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 opponent’s 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 White’s queen’s pawn was isolated, it greatly hampered Black’s game and might ultimately become very strong. Later on White succeeded in concentrating his rooks on the open king’s 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.  Black’s king and bishop, however, were confined, while White had a greater freedom for those pieces.  After the resumption of the play at 7 o’clock 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 Hungarian’s 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 Queen’s 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 yesterday’s 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 opponent’s Queen’s 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 Queen’s 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.  Black’s 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 adversary’s 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 white’s Q P, though isolated, greatly hampered his opponent’s 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 king’s file on the [sic] white’s 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 black’s 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 o’clock, 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: “Gunsberg’s twenty-seventh move, Q-Q3, was certainly a very good one, as it offered the exchange of queen’s, 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 Queen’s 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 Black’s defending with P-QB3.
    In yesterday’s 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)
D31/07
Classic Semi-Slav
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

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