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

THE MATCH BETWEEN MESSRS. ROSENTHAL AND
ZUKERTORT.
   THE eleventh game. The substitution of Thursday for Wednesday in the play calendar necessitated also a change of appointment for the end of last week, and consequently the eleventh game was played on Saturday, the 29th ult. Zukertort’s start was a surprise. 1 Kt to K B 3 has never been heard of, and the adoption of this odd novelty is, in one sense, a compliment to the knowledge of opening displayed by his opponent hitherto. On the other hand, it could have no deep meaning; and Rosenthal, by replying P to Q 4, clearly showed that he saw through it. The object of this curious beginning is apparently, perchance, to induce the adversary to answer Kt to Q B 3, and then White would proceed with P to Q 4, having gained a fine point of development, for in the Q P 2 opening Black’s Kt is badly placed at Q B 3 before his Q B P has moved. The early attempt to steal a march on the adversary did not repay the trouble as well as in the case of Anderssen, who twice baffled Morphy’s ingenuity by commencing with 1. P to Q R 3, and then obtained a fine opening by 2. P to Q B 4 in reply to 1. P to K 4, being a move in advance in the Sicilian opening. Rosenthal, as we said before, made the right reply, and the game resumed all the aspects of the opening in the 9th game of the match, with the exception of the addition on White’s part of the useless preparation 5. P to Q R 3. The French player treated his defence on the same system as in the ninth game, or, properly speaking, instituted a counter-attack by developing his minor pieces, almost regardless of the position of his pawns, as in an open game. Zukertort’s 9th move, R to K sq, might pass criticism, but is made remarkable chiefly by being completely retracted three moves later on, apparently for the purpose of avoiding a hostile attack, which gave the opponent at least a draw. We should be far from advocating argumentation through thick and thin in favour of a position once taken op, but this confession of error strikes us as an error in itself. He was bound to look out for some more dignified defence, and we believe he could have accomplished his object, even with less risk, by P to K R 3. As it was, Rosenthal could either win an easily defensible P, or obtain an attack which would have well repaid trial, as he had at least a draw by perpetual check in hand in a few moves, to fall back upon in case his calculations did not satisfy his attempting to win. The French master elected, however, to pursue a course which left the parties with no other minor pieces than bishops of opposite colours, rooks and queens still on the board, and all the forces as well as position, quite even. A prolongation of the struggle would have been useless, and the game was fairly given up as drawn on the sixteenth move, but altogether presents a feeble specimen of match play. Duration, two hours and a half.
The Field, London, 1880.06.05
Zukertort,JH — Rosenthal,S
(11)
D06/01
Queen’s Gambit: Grau
1880.05.29
GBR London
Annotations by Wilhelm Steinitz
1.Nf3
** See our introductory comments in explanation of the meaning of this odd initiation and of the merit of Blacks reply. 
1...d5 2.d4 Nf6 3.e3 Bf5 4.Be2 e6 5.a3
** We do not discern any utility for this move at the present stage.
5...Bd6 6.c4 c6 7.Nc3 Nbd7 8.0–0 Ne4 9.Re1
** He stood now in the same position as in the ninth game, excepting that he was a move behind, owing to the thrown-away fifth move. Consequently he could not take the knight at once, as Blacks pawn would retake, and then the opponent would obtain a strong attack by 10...Qh4, forcing the advance of Whites g-pawn, which, after Black retreats the queen, furnishes a mark for the onslaught of his h-pawn. The expedient is adopted with the intention of capturing the knight, followed, if the pawn retakes, by the retreat of the knight to f1, viá d2, as in the ninth game.
9...Ndf6
** Excellent. Perceiving the difference of the situation, with true judgment he settles his plan accordingly, and prepares even a better one than in the ninth game. It is evident that he now means to hold the adverse gap in the center with one of his knights, which promises to be more advantageous than fixing his pawn at e4.
10.Nxe4
** Black threatened 10...Ng4, and, though White could in that case defend the f-pawn for the time by retreating 11.Rf1, he was always afterwards under the inconvenience that he could not drive either of the hostile knights from their respective posts. For, attacking one knight by 12.h3 was then obviously useless, as Black would advance 12...h5 in support, threatening to open the file for the rook with an irresistible attack should White take. Black could also sufficiently protect the other knight at e4 by withdrawing the bishop to g6, followed by ...f5, and White could never exchange without exposing himself to a powerful attack on the kingside, like the one pointed out in the note to Whites ninth move.
10...Nxe4 11.Bd2 Bg4 12.Rf1
** Black threatened to win thus: 12...Bxf3 13.Bxf3 Bxh2+ 14.Kxh2 Qh4+ 15.Kg1 Qxf2+ , followed soon by ...Qxd2. But the move in the text is a poor resource. Sooner than submit to such a retreat we would have moved the d-bishop, and then Black had no more than a draw in the above indicated exchange and sacrifice. We think, however, that 12.h3 was better still.
If Black at once exchanged the two minor pieces by 12...Bxf3 and 13...Nxd2 he could get no more than a drawn position, on account of bishops of opposite colors, while the extra pawn he might gain in the exchange could not be maintained if attacked by Rc1. If, on the other hand, he offered to sacrifice the bishop by 12...h5, then White, of course, was not bound to take, but could proceed with 13.Rc1.
12...Bxf3
** Lack of energy. He would have been quite justified in this position to attempt a win by 12...dxc4. This pawn was well defensible; and if White tried to recover it the game might have proceeded thus: 12...dxc4 13.h3 This seems best for the purpose; for, if 13.Bxc4 at once, Black will proceed in the same way as in the following variation from the 15th move, with much greater effect, as he will compel the advance of the hostile f-pawn, and then open the game by ...g5. 13...Bh5 14.Bxc4 Bxf3 15.gxf3 , best 15...Qg5+ 16.Kh1  and Black has already the choice of drawing by 16...Ng3+, followed by 17...Qxg3, which leaves no other resource than the reply by 18.f4; then, at least, perpetual check may follow by 19.Qh3 and 20.Qg3. He may, however, also pursue the attack by 16...Qh4, followed, in reply to 17.Kg2 by 17...Ng3, and 18...Nf5, or else by the simple retreat of 17...Nf6 at once, with the object of advancing the pawns on the kings wing in each case with an excellent game. We give a diagram of the position in the text.
13.Bxf3 Nxd2 14.Qxd2 0–0
** He would gain nothing by  14...dxc4, for the hostile rook would at once attack the same at c1, and Blacks b-pawn could obviously not advance to b5 in support, without leaving his c-pawn en prise of the adverse bishop.
15.Rac1 Qe7 16.Rfe1 Rfd8 ½–½.
** It would have been waste of time for either side to go on with this game.
The Field, London, 1880.06.05

Return to Match Index

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