Before the championship
The beginnings of chess are veiled in numerous legends and tales. In Indian and Arabic literatures chess was often used to settle wars and local disputes. Restrictions of competitions were mainly due to poor communication and long journey. From the 16th century with more safety and improvement of relations between countries, chess interest starts to rise and tournaments start to become very appreciated by kings. In 1571 the Italian Giovanni Leonardo, an Italian master, won the tournament organized under the auspices of the Court of the King of Spain. Leonardo was recognized as the strongest player of the World, which was at the time limited to Europe…End of the 18th and beginning of the 19th century, when France and England were sharing the power of the world, there was also a great rivalry between masters of those two countries. Many matches between masters were organised. We can easily say that Philidor by beating Stamma, de La Bourdonnais by beating McDonnel and Staunton by beating Saint-Amant, could be considered as the Champion of (Western) Europe. With the tournament of London in 1851, the strongest tournament organised at that time, a new era began. But the winner, the German A. Anderssen, could not be named World Champion as the strongest player, the American champion P. Morphy didn’t participate. They met seven years later in Paris and the final score 7-2 in favour of the American didn’t leave any doubt that the American was the strongest player in the World. Psychologically weak, Morphy didn’t want the title and shortly after he decided to step down from the chess scene. It is a moot point whether Paul Morphy was ever entitled to be called World Champion. As it is well known, Staunton consistently evaded the challenged of the American who defeated all the lesser lights of this time with ease. Many people considered that Staunton consistently forfeited automatically forfeited his ”title” by his refusal to play, as the following couplet addressed to Morphy after his victory over Anderssen in 1858 shows:
But one remains, the noblest heart,
At him thy dart be hurled,
Der Lasa conquered, then thou art
The Champion of the World
Wilhelm Steinitz (1836-1900) was born in Prague and at 18 years old came to Vienna to improve his chess level. Talented, hard worker he quickly reached to top of the Viennese players by winning in 1862 the Vienna championship with 30 out of 31 points. The first prize was an invitation to participate to the London chess club tournament. Because of lack of international experience, Steinitz finished only sixth, far away from Anderssen who finished first . Convinced that he could do much better, Steinitz decided to stay in London. After winning matches against masters and winning local tournaments he became the strongest player of the City and was invited to challenge Anderssen during the Summer of 1866 (July 18- August 10).
The deal was eight wins and 100 pounds for the winner. Steinitz won 8-6 (without any draws) and with them the right to regard himself as the world’s leading player, but could not proclaim himself world champion as despite Morphy official retirement the American would have protested. Steinitz decided to wait hoping to play one day…Morphy. There was no official recognition of Paul Morphy as world champion, but he was so de facto if not jure.
Johannes Zukertort (1842-1888) came to the top by winning with 22 out of 26 the 1883 London St Georges tournament front of…Steinitz who finished with 19 points. For the world of chess, Zukertort was the right challenger for Steinitz despite the fact that he lost already to Steinitz in 1873 (9-3) and after the dead of Morphy, which came one year later, nothing stood in the way of organizing a match for the world championship.
In 1884 Zukertort wrote: “Past experience has taught me that any direct negotiation with Mr. Steinitz would exhaust human patience and finally proven barren.”
It lasted more than two years to finalizing the negotiations with a lot of exchanged letters.
In November 1885, The International Chess Magazine published two important letters:
The following further correspondence has taken place between the representatives of the two parties since the publication of our last issue:
“Sr. GEORGES Chess Club,
“47 ALBEMARLE Steet, W., October 4
Dear Sir:
“I have the pleasure to acknowledge the receipt of your letter the 22nd September, and of your telegram of the same date, which reached me or the 2 intimating that Mr. Steinitz named the maximum stakes of 2000 dollars aside for the match.
“I quite gather from your letter that you do not anticipate any difficulty about obtaining from the American Chess Clubs where the match is proposed to be played, a guarantee for the payment to Mr. Zukertort of the personal expenses claimed by him, as stated in my letter of the 5 September, a result quite anticipated by me from the well known liberality of American amateurs.
“I am pleased to find that Mr. Steinitz accepts the main terms stated by me in my letter of the 5 September to which it is now only necessary to add that the stakes are fixed at 2000 dollars aside.
While Mr. Zukertort is quite satisfied from your letter, that his stipulation as to payment of his expenses will be acceded to, I do not think it right to forward on his behalf, 250 dollars, to be liable to forfeit in case the match falls through, until this point has been placed beyond the region of mere possibilities.
“Immediately that I learn that the Clubs in question have agreed to guarantee to Mr. Zukertort this payment, I will forward by cable to the Hon. Charles Buck, accepted by both parties as Stake Holder, the sum of 250 dollars, and from the date of its receipt by him, the six weeks stipulated for by Mr. Steinitz, before the commencement of the match may run.
“With reference to your suggestion that I should frame and send you a draft of Regulations, and minor conditions, while you promise that you will shortly forward a similar draft, I think it will be preferable for me to await the receipt of your promised communication, and note any objections that may be entertained on such minor points for submission to the Referee. It is quite possible that there may be no necessity to trouble that gentleman on points of difference which I trust may not arise.
Believe me
Very truly yours
James Innes Minchin.
The second letter:
NEW York, Oct. 23, 1885
James Innes Minchin.
London
“Dear Sir, Your letter dated the 4th ult. arrived in N. Y. on Sunday the 18th inst. and was received by me on the 19th.
“Owing to an obstacle having arisen in the completion of the required guarantees, I have missed writing by Wednesday’s steamer. but, fortunately, no time will be lost as this goes by the “Etruria” on Saturday and is likely to reach you as soon as if sent by previous mail. –
“It gives me now great pleasure to announce that, on behalf of the Manhattan Chess Club of New York and of the Chess, Checker and Whist Club of New Orleans, I can guarantee to Mr. Zukertort the payment of four hundred dollars if he wins or draws the match, or of six hundred dollars in case he lose. As for the balance of the respective sums, making the aggregate stipulated for by Mr. Zukertort, namely, one hundred dollars in case he win or draw and one hundred and fifty dollars in case he lose, Mr. Steinitz will, at least ten days before the commencement of the match, name the party, or parties, who shall be fully responsible to Mr. Zukertort, or else Mr. Steinitz will give such other security for the respective amounts as shall be considered acceptable by the Referee.
“It is due to state that, as matters stand at present, Mr. Steinitz has also undertaken the risk of a considerable portion of the remuneration which I thought ought to be allotted to him in common fairness, besides guaranteeing the above-named amounts, and I mention this in order to make it dear that Mr. Zukertort will have no further claim on any proceeds of the match than the lump sums agreed on.
“In reference to the set of minor conditions and rules of the match, I fully reciprocate the confidence you so handsomely express that there will be no occasion to trouble the Referee with any decisions on the matter, and you may depend upon it that on our side we shall endeavour to form the draft of such minor conditions and regulations in a spirit of perfect fairness to both parties. But I beg to remind you that the whole labour of negotiating for the required guarantees with the different Clubs has fallen on our shoulders owing to Mr. Zukertort having omitted to appoint a representative in this country for that purpose. We have therefore been unable to devote our attention to that subject up to the present, and you will also please remember that according to the terms of my letter of Aug. 18 the submission of such a draft was only due six weeks before the commencement of the match. We shall, however, take the matter in hand immediately and you may expect our final propositions to be dispatched probably before this reaches you.
“In regard to the option named by Mr. Zukertort in case both players score nine games, I may mention, at once, that Mr. Steinitz elects the match to be declared drawn in such event.
“It is settled that the first part of the match, up to either party scoring four games, is to be played under the auspices of the Manhattan Chess Club of New York, and the last part of the match at New Orleans under the auspices of the Chess, Checker and Whist Club of that city. But at present, I cannot definitely state the place of meeting for the second portion of the match and under whose auspices it is to he arranged. I shall, of course advise you as soon as matters are settled in that respect.
“As there can be no further obstacles in our negotiations, I only beg to request that you will kindly wire to my cable address the word “Yes”, on the day on which you send the deposit of two hundred and fifty dollars by cable to the Referee as promised, and the six weeks notice may commence from that date. Our deposit shall promptly meet yours in the hands of the Referee.
“Believing that all the difficulties, leading up to the final arrangements for the meeting of the Two Masters, have been met and vanquished
“I remain,
Very truly yours,
Thos. Frere.
On November 21, 1885 , Mr. Frere mandated by Mr. Steinitz contacted by letter Mr. Manchin mandated by Mr. Zukertort:
“Your cablegram conveying to me gratifying news of your final approval acceptance of the principal conditions of the match was received on 18th inst., at 12 o’clock, just a couple hours after I had dispatched my letter of the same date to you. It now gives me the greatest pleasure to enclose the draft of the Minor Rules and Regulations of the match promised…”
Mr. Zukertort arrived at New York by the “Etruria” on Sunday December 13, 1886 and was welcome by his opponent the American chess community.
The first World Chess Championship
Steinitz (USA) – Zukertort (GER) 12½ – 7½
New York, St Louis, New Orleans from 11 January till January 29, 1886.
The first world championship match began on January 11, 1886 at 2pm, in the Cartier Academy Hall on the 5th avenue in New York. The rules were the first with ten wins will be declared the winner and each game to be played with the time limit of 30 moves in 2 hours and 25 moves for each succeeding hour. The stake was US$ 2000 a side.
The International Chess Magazine of February 1886 comments the games:
Game 1
The two players appeared punctually at two o’clock on Monday, the 11th , before a large number of spectators, which rapidly increased to a crowd in the course of the afternoon, and included some ladies as well as several Chess enthusiasts from distant cities, who had specially travelled to New York or the purpose of witnessing the match. Conspicuous among the latter were Mr. D.M. L Martinez, the President of the Franklin Chess Club of Philadelphia, to whom a seat of honor was assigned near the players, M. J. Redding of San Francisco, Mr. K. Shipley of Philadelphia, Mr. Osborne of Ansonia, and Mr. Martinez, Jr.
After the two contestants had been seated before the historical board and men (loaned for the occasion by Mr. Thomas Frére) at which Paul Morphy won many of his brilliant victories, the two Umpires, Messrs. Thomas Frére and Mr. Adolph Moehle after having adjusted the clocks, tossed up for the first move which fell in favor of Mr. Zukertort who, admit breathless expectation, opened with 1. d4 and then, in reply to the corresponding same move from the other side, proceeded with the regular Queen’s Gambit which was already on the 2d move of the defense taken out of its usual groove when Steinitz advanced c6 instead of e6. The game then, for a few moves, assumed a form, almost identical with the position which occurred in the match between Messrs. Zukertort and Rosenthal, and in a justly celebrated game which Zukertort won of Winawer in the London tournament. A change of plan by both parties became, however, soon apparent, for Zukertort, contrary to his former practice, did not Castle on the King’s side, but at once pressed an attack with his Pawns on the Queen’s wing, while Steinitz first operated with his Pawns in the centre and then wheeled round one of his Knights for an early attack against the adverse King’s side, after having, by an advance of the h-pawn, made room for the co-operation of his Rook. The crisis was reached on White’s 15th move, when Zukertort, disdaining a defensive retreat of his Bishop, which, we believe, would have been his best play, subjected himself to a sacrifice of a piece for which the opponent apparently only gained two Pawns. But it seems that White had not taken into calculation that, with the help of the King’s Rook, Black could force the gaining of another Pawn, and that his own King would be confined for a long time to the detriment of his development, while Steinitz was enabled to form an attack with the preponderance of his Pawns. A great deal of fencing and manoeuvring ensued, in which Zukertort aimed at sacrificing a piece or the exchange for one or more Pawns in order to extricate himself from his embarrassment. But Steinitz frustrated that plan and carefully nursed his Pawns up to the adjournment of the game, at six o’clock, when he sealed his 32d move. – After the resumption of the game, at eight o’clock, his position became ripe for a final break-in with his f-pawn, which opened the file for his Rook, supported by the Queen, to such powerful action that Zukertort, on the 37th move, elected as a desperate resource to give up his Queen for a Rook. The game was then spun out for nine moves longer during which Zukertort laid some ingenious traps which, if not properly attended to, might have led to a draw or a protracted struggle. But seeing that his opponent finally preserved the advantage of Queen against Rook, with an irresistible attack, Zukertort resigned on the 46th move, the game having lasted 5 hours and 15 minutes, of which time the clock of Steinitz recorded 2 h 45 m., and that of Zukertort 2 h. 30 m. Captain Mackenzie regulated the moves on the suspended chessboard for the benefit of the spectators, Mr. Patterson acted as Teller during the afternoon and Dr. Simonson during the evening sitting.
Game 2
Some Chess masters consider it their best policy in matches to make themselves thoroughly familiar with one or two openings which they almost invariably adopt, while others prefer to develop original positions and to introduce novelties into different debuts. There is a great deal of danger connected with the latter practice, for even if a new idea happens to be sound, which is not always the case, the player who has deliberately drawn himself and his opponent on terra incognita has to waste a great deal of time in the investigation of new lines of play in the early part of the game, the course of which he is not well acquainted with, and both parties are liable to drop into pitfalls unmarked by previous analysis or to commit blunders under pressure time limit.
Steinitz owes many of his defeats to kindred experiments, but as he believes that in the main his successes were due to his originality, he did not deviate from his old tactics on the present occasion and he startled his opponent and the spectators by his adoption of an opening, a Scotch Gambit, which he had never been known to have favoured before in the attack and of which actually no single instance is on record among his numerous published games. On the 4th move, Zukertort defended by Nf6 a line of play which, we believe, was first recommended by Prof. Berger of Gratz. Nothing of importance occurred in the development on both sides, until Zukertort, by well-planned entrance of his Knight on the King’s wing, forced the exchange of that Knight for a Bishop and obtained the advantage of two Bishops against Knight and Bishop. On the 16th move, however, he shifted his Bishop to an unfavourable position and thus allowed his opponent again to resume the attack which resulted in an exchange that left White the advantage of a Knight against a Bishop and a superior position. On the 24th move Steinitz could have much augmented his attack by occupying the open King’s file, but he had the better game, even the way he played, at the time of the adjournment. When Zukertort sealed his 31st move, both players had consumed their full-time allowance, and Zukertort’ s time marked about two minutes more than his opponent’s. But after the adjournment, Steinitz, who had wasted his tithe in useless attempts to force more oat of the position than was really in it after the excellent defense made by his adversary, all at once found he had to make several moves rapidly at a critical juncture. Some of those moves were naturally very feeble and included grave errors on the 41st and 43rd move. Zukertort had kept his composure admirably, and having previously cleverly fixed a well-supported d6, he finally took advantage of his opponent’s flurry by ingenious combinations, whereby he first won a Pawn and ultimately a piece, at which point Steinitz resigned. By a very curious coincidence, the number of moves on both sides was the same as in the first game, namely, forty-six.
Game 3
Zukertort’s well-known predilection for the Queen’s Gambit asserted itself again in the opening of the third game, hut on the 5th move he changed the mode of attack, which he had adopted in the first game, and introduced a novelty by the advance of c5, with the intention of forming at once a chain of Pawns on the Queen’s side. Steinitz stopped the latter plan by a5 and then a struggle for position ensued on the Queen’s side for the possession of the b-file, where Steinitz forced an opening on the 13th move, having previously Castled and placed his Rook at b8 in support of the attack. The game then rapidly assumed a favorable aspect for the second player who had blocked White’s position on the Queen’s side by an advanced Pawn at b5 besides having compelled the adverse Rook to be posted almost helplessly out of play at a7. Black then shifted his manoeuvring toward the centre and the King’s side and not alone succeeded in weakening the opponent’s e-pawn, but forced. the gaining of the h-pawn. Zukertort then defended himself with great ingenuity and commenced forming an attack on the King’s side, while Steinitz directed his pressure against the weak Queen’s wing which he could have broken up with ease on the 38th move, the time for the adjournment, by Ba5 at once. Strange to say, though he had plenty of time on hand, for his clock showed only 2h 05 min., he sealed instead a hasty move and almost sealed his fate at once by pawn takes pawn. However, he still more aggravated his case on the very next move after adjournment, when he adopted the move which, if made previously, would have won the game, but at that stage was nothing less than a blunder of which Zukertort was not slow to avail himself, for he at once offered an ingenious sacrifice of the Rook which, if taken, would have involved the loss of the Queen and, anyhow, at least secured a draw by perpetual check. After only one repetition of moves, Zukertort who had saved plenty of time, for his clock, before the adjournment, only marked 1h 57 min., but made better use of it, and after some deliberation formed a beautifully conceived attack with his Queen and Rooks on the King’s side, which completely immolated the adversary’s game within five moves.
Game 4
Steinitz adopted a form of the Ruy Lopez, which used to he considered very strong about twenty years ago, but which has not been much in vogue since the Berlin defense, the one played by Zukertort on the 5th move in this game, was introduced by the late Professor Anderssen. This defense usually hampers Black’s development for some time, but he generally obtains two Bishops and a Knight versus two Knights and a Bishop, and therefore a slight superiority for the ending, if he only conducts the opening and middle part with caution and care. Steinitz had, however, relied on the novel idea of retreating his Bishop all the way to f1 on the 8th move, and he had somewhat the pull in the struggle for the position which ensued, up to the 18th move. On the 21st move, he missed the opportunity of exchanging the adverse Knight for his Bishop before checking with the Queen, which would have led to an ending favourable for him. The 31st, 32nd and 34th moves were also weak, as he could on each occasion much improve his attack by other lines of play than those he adopted, as shown in our analysis. On the 37th move, however, he broke down with a fearful blunder, which threw away a piece for one Pawn only, in a hopeless position which compelled his resignation only two moves later on.
Game 5
Zukertort, who again played his favourite Queens Gambit, changed his tactics this time already on the 3rd move, when he adopted Nc3 out of its usual turn, and then, when his opponent brought out the Bf5 he immediately proceeded to exchange Pawns and, by an attack of his Queen at b3 , he forced the adverse Bishop back to his original square. Black had thus lost a move, no doubt, but we do not think that he suffered much thereby, as White’s Queen was indifferently posted. Zukertort, however, instituted a puzzling attack in the course of which he allowed his centre Pawns to be doubled, in order to retain two Bishops and a Knight versus two Knights and a Bishop, and to block the adverse position considerably on the King’s side. Steinitz lost a good deal of time in the useless attempt to break the centre and to open his f file on the 14th move, when he might have played f4 at once with advantage. He then manoeuvred with his forces chiefly against the extreme Queen’s wing, regardless of a hold and vehement attack which the adversary pressed on the King’s wing. Steinitz did not follow his own plan consistently, for on the 24th move he might have either weakened the opponent’s Pawns or won a Pawn by Bf5 which would have placed his Bishop in an excellent position both for attacking and defensive purposes. He, however, became florid and made some useless moves with his Knight and Rook. His gravest error was, however, committed at the 27th move, when he allowed his g’s file to be broken open unnecessarily. Zukertort then accumulated his forces against the King’s wing with extraordinary skill and judgment, and his game would have been won, anyhow, in a few moves at the time of the final catastrophe, when he endeavored to bring his Queen to the succor of the compromised Kings side, he lost a clear piece by a clever sacrifice of the opponent and thereupon abandoned the game.
The ICM of February 1886 commented the match so far:
The result of the first part of the great match was, we believe, a genuine surprise to the Chess world at large and, we venture to say, was probably also unexpected by Mr. Zukertort himself…He has thus obtained an excellent start over Mr. Steinitz, which is very credible to him, considering that the latter has never once lost the lead in any of his match excepting in that with the late Professor Anderssen, in 1866, during he was twice only one game behind.
By mutual agreement between the two players it has been decided to postpone the commencement of the second part of the match due to St Louis on February, 3rd.
The preparatory arrangements were of the same character as those which had been introduced in New York. An elegant set of chessmen had been lent by judge Krum for the occasion. The pendant chessboard and the pieces, on which the state of the game was presented to the spectators, were of the pattern invented by Mr. George T. Green, the President of the Manhattan Chess Club. The two players sat on a platform in a room adjoining the hall and in full view of the lookers-on.
Game 6
The opening was a Ruy Lopez in which Mr. Zukertort again, as in the fourth game, adopted the Berlin Defense on the 6th move. Black’s Queen’s side being thus blocked by the Knight at d6, Steinitz, who considers the preservation of the King’s Bishop essential for the attack in the Ruy Lopez, ventured on the experiment, on his 9th move, of retreating it to d6, with the view of releasing the Q Bishop by means of the Queen’s Fianchetto and bringing his minor pieces to bear against the adverse Kings side and of keeping command of the centre with his Rook. By this plan of attack, and assisted by a weak 12th move of the opponent who ought to have then played Bd5, Steinitz, who had apparently on the 14th move left a Pawn en prise, the capture of which would, however, have cost a piece or exposed the opponent to a fatal attack, succeeded in forcing the diagonal for his Bishop and forcing the advance of the adverse f-pawn on the 17th move. Having also brought his Knight to the King’s side during his manoeuvres, he proceeded to weaken further the hostile Pawns on that wing by the advance of the h-pawn. He then compelled the adverse King out on f7 and at a critical juncture, on the 28th move, in order to keep within the average of his time limit, he forced a repetition of two moves on each side three times. Not five times as stated in several papers; our version is supported by the official score taken by Mr. Steinitz’ s Umpire as well as by the one in Mr. Zukertort’ s handwriting. As is well known, each player is entitled to six repetitions before either could claim a draw. On the fourth occasion, Steinitz varied the second of the series of his moves by a more decisive line of play which forced the exchange of Queens, Rooks and one Bishop on each side and won a Pawn for White. An intricate ending ensued which, at any rate, might have been made much more difficult for Steinitz who naturally played to win with a Pawn ahead. But by a hazardous diversion his opponent, on the 41st move, with the object of obtaining a passed Pawn on the King’s side enabled Steinitz to force, later on, the exchange of the Bishop for a Knight and to remain with Knight against Bishop and a Pawn ahead. The game was adjourned on the 46th move and afterward resumed and finished at the rooms of the St. Louis Chess, Checker and Whist Club. Zukertort made a stout defense and brought his King to the Queen’s wing where he swept off some Pawns and obtained a passed Pawn. The game still looked somewhat like a draw for some time, but by carefully devised Knight manoeuvres, Steinitz stopped the adverse Pawn, constantly threatening to sacrifice the Knight for it and to remain with passed Pawns on each wing, which could not be stopped by the adverse Bishop, until finally Steinitz captured the Bishop in a situation which made re-entrance into the game for the purpose of checking the advance of Black’s d-pawn easy, whereupon Zukertort resigned.
Game 7
Another Queen’s Gambit offered by Zukertort. Steinitz who, from the progress of the opening of the fifth game, had come to the conclusion that c6 following by Bf5, cause a lot of time, defended with 2…e6. A similar position as in the first and third games of the present match would then arise, and c6 may be played later on safely. On the 4 move already, Steinitz advanced c5 contrary to most authorities, On the 6th move, Zukertort attempted by a3 to establish his pawns on the queen’s wing in a manner which was first adopted by Steinitz against Anderssen in the Vienna tournament of 1873. Zukertort having elected the latter course, with the view of an ultimate attack on the King’s side, Steinitz, after Castling, directed a novel line of battle order against the queen’s centre. He brought out his Queen at a5 where she also commanded an eventual entrance on the King’s wing. Next, he proceeded to bear another piece against the centre by way of Ke7, after having retreated Bishop and opened the King Fianchetto by g6 . Zukertort’ s man in the meanwhile, with the object of obtaining an attack on the king-side, were ineffectual. On the 19th move Steinitz elected a post for the retreat of his Queen at a6 where she exercised a powerful influence for the security of Black’s game for several moves in succession after the 22nd move, the time of the crisis which Zukertort had deliberately forced on by an advance of the g-pawn on the adverse Knight. Steinitz then sacrificed his Knight for the d-pawn, being safe to recover it and also secure against a double attack on his Knight, owing to his Queen guarding the third row at a6. A series of exchanges followed which left Black with the superior game on both wings. By a weak 29th move Zukertort seriously compromised his King-side against which Steinitz then ,directed vehement attack with Queen and Bishop and ultimately wound up with the sacrifice of the Bishop on the 32nd move, the time of adjournment, which must have forced the winning of the adverse Queen five moves later, whereupon Zukertort resigned, having made only three moves after the resumption of the game.
Game 8
The two players commenced punctually at two o’clock, but already on the sixth move a defect was discovered in Mr. Zukertort’ s clock, and as a second set of double clocks had not been provided, a delay of about half an hour was caused, and the clock had to be sent to be repaired twice before it worked in regular order
The opening was a Ruy Lopez of the same description as the fourth and sixth game of the match, Steinitz acting on the principle of preserving the King’s Bishop. Zukertort altered on the 6th move the course he had previously taken by playing Be2 before exchanging Knights. This had only the effect of making White withdraw his Bishop earlier to d3, but otherwise might have probably only led, by a transposition of moves, to the identical position of the sixth game if Steinitz had not, on the 8th move, entered on a fanciful sort of attack on the king’s side by Qh4. His object was to sacrifice eventually two pieces if Zukertort had attempted g6 in reply, but the plan was faulty, for, on examination, we find that he had no more than a draw even in that case. Zukertort, however, made up his mind with great rapidity to evade this attack and almost instantly answered f5 White might then have obtained a very fair game by NxN, but he allowed himself to be deceived by appearances which promised a strong attack by doubling his Rooks on the king’s file, but in reality placed his Queen in a bad position. He had just time to rectify ins error of judgment by instituting a series of exchanges, on the 16th move, and he soon afterward informed his opponent that he would be satisfied with a draw. Mr. Zukertort answered that he would go on for a few moves, and there can be no doubt that he had nothing to lose by it, while Steinitz had systematically to offer exchanges before he could secure equality of position. After White’s 22d move, however, Zukertort intimated that he would be willing to draw the game, and Steinitz accepted the offer. Zukertort had played the whole game with fabulous rapidity and had taken for his share only twenty minutes altogether, while the clock of Steinitz marked 1 hour 15 minutes.
Game 9
The progress of the match in St. Louis had created such wide interest that a prolongation of the section of the contest due in that city was generally desired among the public, and even some of Mr. Steinitz’ s well-wishers freely expressed their hope that the ninth game would at least be drawn if not won by Mr. Zukertort, in order that the play in St. Louis should not come to a close.
It being Mr. Zukertort’ s turn to open the game, another Queen’s Gambit was introduced. Black defended practically on the same principle as in the seventh game but made an important modification in the execution of his idea, on the 9th move, where he played Nd7. As a matter of course, White, if he had chosen, could have dissolved the isolated d-pawn, producing a dry, dull game, but again Zukertort aimed at a more enduring attack, while Steinitz thence formed the plan of holding the Queen’s centre in front of the adverse QP with one of his minor pieces, taking good care not to be compelled to fill in that square with a Pawn, and not being in haste to develop his Bishop. The grouping of Black’s forces proceeded otherwise in a similar manner as in the 7th game. He brought his Queen to a5, his Rook on d square, and finally the other Rook at c sq., having in the meanwhile been compelled, in the pursuance of his plan, to exchange one of his Knights on the 16th move, thus allowing the opponent to strengthen his centre, but leaving the adverse QRP and QBP still weak. The struggle for the position then went on after some more exchanges on the opposite wings. Mr. Zukertort’ s attack on the King’s side culminated on the a move with an ingenious offer of sacrificing a piece which would have secured at least a draw and given him many good winning chances, especially as there was a probability of getting his opponent into difficulties toward the 30th move under pressure of time limit. But Steinitz refused the bait and proceeded with his attack chiefly on the Queen’s wing. By the help of finessing man especially the attack of the hostile Rook by Bh5 on the 27th move, he drew off the adverse Rook from the first rank and thus was enabled to stop the hostile centre Pawns and to fix his Bishop at c6 and subsequently at 55. An impetuous attack of the Queen with the Rook, 28th move on the part of Mr. Zukertort, assisted Black’s final assault greatly. In the actual game, we believe, White might have made the opponent’s winning at least very difficult if not uncertain if he had withdrawn his Rd2 at once at that point. Steinitz, however, gained ground step by step after that, and having succeeded in directing all his forces against the Queen’s side in a manner which must have forced the winning of a piece at least, Zukertort, as a last desperate effort, gave up his Rook for a Bishop, which would have led to a draw if Black had retaken with the Pawn. But on the latter capturing with the Queen. Zukertort resigned the game which had lasted four hours and seven minutes, of which the clock of Steinitz marked 2 h. 12 min., while Zukertort had consumed 1h. 55 min.
The attendance of spectators in St. Louis averaged over a hundred each day, and several amateurs came to that city from great distances in order to witness the contest.
In accordance with the rules of the contest after St Louis, the match had been fixed to take place in New Orleans on February 26th. The preparations for the play were of a similar character to those that had been in New York and St Louis except general public was restricted to the reporters and to special guests.
The contest will go on till either the party has scored six more games, unless the players score up to the figure of nine each, in which case, according to the condition, the match will be declared a draw.
ICM (1) reported: “A French proverb says “nothing is sure as the unexpected” and the majority of chess amateurs will probably consider the saying verify by the progress of the great match thus so far… The play in St Louis was of a far superior caliber to that of the first division of the match in New York…”
Game 10
Steinitz, having the move, again opened with the same form of the Ruy Lopez, which he had twice before adopted in St. Louis, and which derives its chief characteristic feature from the retreat of the Bishop to d6 followed by the Queen’s Fianchetto. The game progressed up to the 7 move on both sides as in the eighth game of the match, but on the 8th move Steinitz adopted Nc6 instead of Qa5, whereupon Zukertort exchanged Knights, followed by c6 and afterward, in reply to b3 he changed his tactics adopted in the sixth game by playing first Re8 before removing his Bishop from e7. This gave him the option of retreating Bf8, of which he availed himself later on when Steinitz, on the 11th move, adopted a threatening sortie with his Bishop at a3 instead of developing the Bishop at b2 as he had done in previous games. At this point White, we believe, would have obtained some little advantage in position by 12 Qe2 instead of 12 Re3. The latter move, however, seemed also to sustain the pressure of attack but for an ingenious entrance of Black’s Knight at e4 on the 13th move, which initiated a reduction of forces on both sides by systematically compelling a series of exchanges. On the 17th move Zukertort offered a draw which Steinitz declined, thinking that he had a slight advantage for the ending with his centre Pawns, but only four moves later on he came to the conclusion that he could not well utilize his middle Pawns for an attack unsupported by the King who, however, could not cross the centre without subjecting himself to dangerous counter-attacks. Steinitz thereupon in his turn offered a draw, which was immediately accepted, the game having lasted 1 hour and 21 minutes, of which 58 minutes were taken up by Steinitz, while Zukertort only used 23 minutes.
Game 11
It was Zukertort ’s first move, and for once in this match he adopted the other of his two favorite modes of attack, which he has hitherto pursued in his most important public contests. For, as is well known, Zukertort, as first player, mostly opens either with the Queen’s Gambit, or develops his two Knights on the 2d and 3rd moves, which, according to the lines of defense taken up by the opponent, leads to the Three Knights’ Game, Four Knights’ Game, or the Double Ruy Lopez. Steinitz, elected this time, to bring about the last-named form of opening contrary to his former practice in the tournaments of Baden, Vienna, and London, where he- usually avoided this dreary variation with a King’s Fianchetto on the 3rd move. It, however, became manifest already on his 7th move that he had relied on a new idea for the defense, which .at once took the game out of its usual grooves. He introduced a counter-attack by 7 …e5 which resulted in his obtaining a good, early development with greater freedom for his forces than his opponent could effect for his own pieces. On the 10th move Zukertort, by with drawing Bd3 attempted the sort of attack similar to the one which Steinitz had introduced in previous games of the match in the Ruy Lopez. As his Queen, however, was already posted at f3 his opponent, by 11… Qh4, could retard White’s development for a long time, unless the latter gave up the QP, which course Zukertort elected in order to free all his pieces for the attack. A series of entanglements ensued which might have easily led to such “brilliancies” as some critics seem to consider essential to good play, but which in reality occur among the best experts only very rarely, and then only when some grave offence against position judgment has been committed by one side or the other. The plot thickened on the 17th move when Zukertort sacrificed his Bishop for h7, which seemed to ensure him at least a draw, With apparently some winning prospects if the opponent tried to avoid a draw. After a little consideration, and though he could recover the piece on the 20th move, by c4 Zukertort came to the conclusion that the latter process would leave him with a simple inferiority of forces and position on the Queen’s side for the ending, and he initiated a series of checks with the object of drawing by perpetual check. A repetition of moves was then resorted to by both parties, with different objects, although neither of them was absolutely confined to the tactics which he adopted. The same series of two moves were, however, made on each side by a sort of tacit agreement for Zukertort, according to the rules, was entitled after six repetitions to claim a draw, which was all he could play for with a piece behind, while Steinitz, though he had some time to spare, wished to get over the 30th move in order that he should not be harassed by the time limit in his deliberations for the purpose of working out a combination whereby he could secure winning the game without any danger. It was an extremely difficult task, as will be seen from the game and the appended analysis. But in reply to Zukertort’ s sixth repetition of checks, Steinitz altered his course in a manner which in few moves, enable him to slip out of all danger with his King. Shortly afterward he forced the exchange of Queens. The superiority on the Queen’ side and the extra piece made him his opponent to resign few move later.
Game 12
For the first six moves, Steinitz followed up his previous attack in the Spanish defense but then deviated from his former tactic. Steinitz instead of pursuing the attack adopted defensive measures which lead to an exchange of Queens on the 18th move.
It was a question whether the powerful combined action of Black’s two Bishops formed a sufficient counter play to the disadvantage of his doubled Pawn on the Queen’s Bishop’s file. For, according to Winawer’s notion, which we agree with, a Knight is mostly much stronger than a Bishop in the ending, and after all other pieces are exchanged, if the player who remains with the Bishop has a doubled Pawn which cannot easily be dissolved. If therefore, White could exchange one of his Knights for an adverse Bishop, he would have a marked advantage. To effect a reduction of forces in that manner was White’s chief object after the exchange of Queens. But Zukertort evidently seemed to be of the opinion that he had the best of the game, for he ignored a clear opportunity to draw on the 20th move, when he might have equalized positions by a4 instead of which he allowed White’s a pawn to advance to a5 and then, we believe, the position of Steinitz was such that he could hardly lose, and retain many winning chances. Zukertort aggravated the inferiority of his position on the 25th move by playing Rd7, which allowed the adversary’ s Knight to gain attacking entrance on the Queen’s side. To prevent a sure collapse on that wing he had to resort to laying traps by the advance of his g and f pawns, which also weakened his Pawns on the King’s side, and as most of his pieces were awkwardly placed and could hardly move, he endeavored to break into the centre at the cost of two Pawns on the King’s side for one in the middle. But finding that he could not release his pieces even then, he attempted another trap on the 34 move, which ended disastrously. For, in consequence, Steinitz managed to get rid of all the pieces, which left him with three Pawns against one on the King’s wing, and though one of these Pawns was doubled, he could yet paralyze the action of the adverse King, while he could easily stop with his own King the opponent’s Pawns in the centre, which were ultimately broken up and fell one by one, where upon Zukertort resigned, the game having lasted 4 hours and 14 minutes, of which Steinitz had taken 2 hours, 39 minutes, and Zukertort 1 hour and 35 minutes.
Game 13
The game was the longest game of the match in point of duration and the number of moves. Zukertort opened with a Queen’s Gambit The manoeuvring on both sides was therefore virtually of the same description as in previous games, with slight modifications in detail, unless we except White’s attack by Nb5 on the 12th move followed by Bc7, which somewhat loosened Black’s Pawns on the Queen’s wing. Up to the 25th move, Zukertort taxed the defensive caution of his opponent by various complications on the king’s side, but did not succeed in effecting any impression. The scene of action was then transferred to the Queen’s centre and Queen’s wing, Zukertort having given up his isolated d-pawn, in order to gain the a-pawn for it. As in the ninth game of the match, Black’s Bishop winch had for some time kept watch at e-square at last attained a strong, offensive post at a4. After some hard manoeuvring Zukertort, on the 37 move, just before the adjournment, found himself in such a situation that he was compelled to lose at least the exchange, with a clear and simple winning game for the opponent. He elected to give up a piece for two Pawns, which, under the circumstances, was only a choice of evils, as his majority of Pawns was separated on two wings, his a-pawn was weak and must soon have fallen, and he would not have had the shadow of an attack if Black, on the 39 move, had played Qb6 instead of Qe7. But after the adjournment, the play of Zukertort who fought an up-hill battle against large material odds seemed to increase in vigor, while that of his opponent, partly under pressure of time limit, weakened perceptibly. Steinitz first lost the exchange, and on the 47th move he made a useless retreat of Bishop with the object of forming an attack against the King’s side, which ended in a disastrous loss of time, owing to Zukertort’ s fine defensive measures. The latter then assumed a powerful counter-attack, on the 49th move by a3 which broke up Black’s position on the Queen’s side, and loosened the mutual support of his minor pieces. Zukertort had now three Pawns, Rook and Bishop, against the adversary’s two Bishops and Knight, and, though one of his Pawns was bound to fall, he had a sufficient superiority of material for winning purposes in the ending, and he, therefore, proceeded to force the exchange of Queens on the 52nd move. Then, by a very fine coup, on the 54th move, he compelled the exchange of his Bishop for one of the opponent’s, and a beautiful ending ensued, which was conducted by Zukertort with such classical skill and judgment as will excite the profoundest admiration of the best experts. By a well- timed advance of the b-pawn, he drew off the hostile King from the support of the King’s side, and, at the proper moment, lie gave up the Pawn, in order to clear the King’s wing, and to remain with two combined passed Pawns on that flank. The struggle continued up to the s move, when Zukertort who had steadily advanced his two passed Pawns, and had brought his King up to h6 by finely-conceived man which were executed with great accuracy, at last, forced a position in which he could give up his Rook for a Knight, and queen one of his Pawns. Steinitz then resigned, after a fight of 8 hours and 5 minutes’ duration, of which 3 hours and 10 minutes had been marked for Zukertort, and 4 hours, 55 minutes for Steinitz.
By mutual agreement between the players and the authorities of the New Orleans Chess, Checker and Whist Club, it had been decided after the thirteenth game that the match should be adjourned for one week during the festivities of the Mardi Gras , as the carnival of New Orleans is called.
Game 14
The game was played on March the 12th. Steinitz reverted to the form of the Ruy Lopez, marked by the retreat of Bd6, which he had favoured in the majority of his previous openings in this contest. We believe that Zukertort struck the right key of the defense against this sort of attack in the present game by leaving his Bishop at e7; and retreating his Knight to e-sq., on the 10th move. This plan appears best to promote Black’s development for defensive purposes, and it seems, by proper play, as in this game, Black can defy the two combined Rooks on the open King’s file, as well as the opponent’s two Bishops placed on threatening diagonals on the King’s side. Zukertort having manoeuvred his Knight to e6 his position seemed to be unassailable, and Steinitz had to direct his attention in the first place toward exchanging Knights, which also led to the exchange of one Rook on each side. The game being thus simplified, Steinitz had to lose some time in correcting the battle-order of his Pawns on the Queen’s side which had been neglected and obstructed by his two Bishops in his attempt to form an attack against the adverse King’s side. The further development brought about an exchange of Queens on the 30th move. At this stage Zukertort offered a draw which Steinitz declined, but it was the latter who first regretted it for, a few moves later on, it was Steinitz who offered a draw, and Zukertort, who had in the meanwhile discovered a way for instituting a puzzling attack with his Pawns on the Queen’s wing, in his turn, elected to take his chance in proceeding to play for a win. Matters were, however, equalized again on the 37th move, and all points were well protected on both sides An exchange of Rooks followed on the 41st move. But the players fought on in an indifferent manner as if neither of them had any distinct hope to win, but merely wished to arrive at a point where the draw was quite clear. This indifference might have cost dearly to Steinitz, for, as McConnell immediately after the game pointed out, Zukertort had an opportunity, on the 46th move, of giving up a pawn, and blocking up the adverse Bishop which could not escape, and would ultimately have to he sacrificed for another pawn. In actual play, we believe, this process would have won. But Mr. McConnell, in an ingenious subsequent analysis, proved that by best play on White’s part a beautiful and unique position might have been arrived at, in which the draw could be forced with two pawns against Bishop and Pawn, and though White had only one passed pawn. As it was, however, Zukertort, on the 46th move advanced the pawn which was attacked, and the game was declared drawn two moves later on. Time, 4 hours, 16 minutes, of which Steinitz consumed 2 hours, 55 minutes, and Zukertort 1 hour, 21 minutes.
Game 15
Zukertort’ s opening was, as usual, the Queen’s Gambit, and he tried to hoist his opponent with the latter’s own petard. For, on the 4th move, he adopted the sort of reversed Roy Lopez, by Bg5 which Steinitz had first introduced against Anderssen in the Vienna International Tournament of 1873. Relying perhaps too much on the strength of the two Bishops in the early part of the opening, Steinitz, by the answer 4…c5 deliberately allowed his f-pawn to be doubled, and his QP to be isolated, in order to obtain that ecclesiastical combination. His game, however, did not bear a satisfactory aspect up to the 10th move, when Zukertort somewhat precipitated the attack by e4 which, though very dangerous against most lines of defense, only led to a general holocaust of pieces, when Steinitz castled in reply, and the exchanges left the position in Black’s favor. Zukertort gave up a Pawn, in order to free his pieces, but did not gain much relief, as the adverse Rook had obtained possession of the 7th row, and kept White’s forces occupied for defensive purposes. More could have been made of Black’s attack, we believe, at this stage of the game, but Steinitz became flurried, especially his 32nd move was made hurriedly, in order to escape some threatened checks from the combined action of the adverse Rooks. By this over-caution Steinitz let the opportunity slip for gaining a clear winning advantage, while Zukertort who had already previously man his Knight and Queen’s Rook with the greatest skill for the defense, now assumed a finely-conceived attack which was excellently worked out in the calculation of its details. One of his Rooks swept off a couple of Pawns on the King’s side, and by a systematic advance of his KRP, he compelled the adversary to adopt defensive measures which ended in the neutralization of the latter’s advantage, both in material and position, on the 45th move. The game proceeded only a few moves longer, when a book position arose, in which neither side could expect to effect more than a draw, and as such the game was given up on the 49th move, after 3 hours and 26 minutes play, of which 2 hours 14 minutes belonged to the score of Steinitz, while Zukertort had used 1 hour and 12 minutes.
Game 16
Steinitz, this time, played a form of the Ruy Lopez of which the main idea, as brought out in the early part of the opening, originated with Anderssen who already adopted 4.d3 against Morphy. Various improvements have since been made in that debut by different players, and notably the development of the Nd2 before bringing out the Bishop, was introduced by Steinitz in the first game of his match against Blackburne, in 1876. This time, he delayed that development until after he had advanced P—Q4, on the 6th move, which is a favourite attack of Rosenthal. Zukertort, in his defense, followed Paulsen’s usual lines of play, with the modification of Bd7, advocated by Englisch. On the 8th move, Steinitz formed a new line of attack by the exchange of the centre Pawns, which had the effect of liberating all the Pawns on the King’s side for a subsequent advance on that wing, and to block out the adverse Bishop, After sonic necessary preparation he cleared the Queen’s side, in order to Castle on that wing. Zukertort endeavoured to frustrate tins intention by advancing the a-pawn, which afterward became a source of weakness to him, but Steinitz nevertheless sheltered his King on that side, and subsequently effected some exchanges which gave White two Bishops against the adversary’s Knight and Bishop, one Rook on each side, and the Queens still remaining on the board. White’s man was for some time of a defensive character, as he had to secure his centre and King’s wing against hostile ingress. On the 30th move he was safely entrenched on both sides, and two moves later on, he broke in with an attack by advancing his c-pawn. After having well concentrated his forces on the Queen’s side, the hostile Pawns on that wing were bound to fail one by one, and Zukertort then thought it is his best chance to sacrifice a piece, in order to drive about White’s King. The latter, however, soon escaped all molestation, on the 43rd move the game was adjourned. After resumption Steinitz effected an exchange of Rook, and having manoeuvred his King into safety from all checks, he placed his opponent into a mating position from which there was no escape.
Game 17
Zukertort’ s opening was a Queen’s Gambit of the same character as that of the fifteenth game, but the defense was altered already on the 4th move by the substitution 4 . Be7 for 4… c5. Steinitz, in his development, treated the opening in the same manner as he had done in the ninth game, played at St. Louis. He exchanged his d-pawn for the c-pawn, and brought out his Nd7, blocking his Bishop. Next, he advanced c5 with the view of isolating the adverse d-pawn, and then playing Nb6. On the 10th move, however, Steinitz played hastily, and in an unaccountable manner, he reversed tile intended order of moves by 10 … Nb6 instead of first exchanging c-pawn for the d-pawn. From that point, he had much the inferior game, and his defense became hampered on both wings and in tire centre. Zukertort promptly took off the c-pawn, and, by attacking the Queen and then advancing his e-pawn forced a retreat of Black’s pieces which were clustered together almost beyond the hope of extrication. His attack became virtually irresistible, when, by some fine manoeuvring, he brought his Bishop from h4 via g3 and f4 and White could on the 27th move force the winning of a piece for one Pawn, with an otherwise excellent position. His attack was, however, still very strong, and especially his fine offer of giving up a piece on the 27th move, left no other resource to the opponent than to sacrifice the exchange, for which he ultimately gained a Pawn in the melee which ensued. White then pressed systematically for an exchange of minor pieces and Queens. In the pursuance of this plan, he allowed the opponent to maintain an extra passed Pawn on the b-file which, under ordinary circumstances, could not be sufficiently supported after the exchange of Queens. But, by a singular chance, Steinitz had the opportunity of executing the manoeuvre, after a series of checks with the Queen which place latter in such position as to allow him to gain an all-important move with the King with some chance of draw. Zukertort elected to exchange but Steinitz managed to create a dangerous past b- pawn which compensated the Rook on the 7th rank and to force the White to give perpetual check.
Game 18
Up to the 18th move on both sides the play was identical with that of the 16th game, with the exception of a transposition of White’s 11th moves, while Zukertort advanced a5 already on the 11th move, already in order to prevent the entrance of ‘Whites Knight at b3 and also in anticipation of White’s intention to Castle on the Queen’s side. On the 13th move, Steinitz retreated his Knight to f-sq., and then commenced at to form an attack by the advance of his Pawns on the King’s side whose progress was stopped on the 17th move by clever defensive strokes on part of Zukertort, which, however, somewhat weakened his f-pawn. Steinitz then directed his attention toward blocking the adverse Queen’s centre, as Black had first taken possession with his Rook of the open Queen’s file. With that object he manoeuvred his Knight to e3 following it up by c4 and Bd3 on the 18th, 19th and 20th moves respectively, and before developing his Queen’s side, An exchange of a Bishop for a Knight the 21st move, which Zukertort thought best to make, united White’s Pawns in the centre, and opened the c-file for the action of White’s Rook which then manoeuvred to c5 in order not to allow Black to open his Queen’s file. White’s operations against site Queen’s s included, on the 29th move, when Steinitz played Qf2, a menace against the adverse King’s side, and was afterward brought into execution a few moves after his Castling which had been deliberately delayed up to the 32nd move. For, on the 35th move his f-pawn advanced with a view of opening the f-file, and of forming a strong attack against Blacks weak f-pawn. Zukertort on the 37th move endeavoured to prevent the opening of the f-file by exchanging g for f-pawn but this did not give him even a temporary relief, as it left his h-pawn without protection against White’s attack by Qf3, and when this key to his position on the King’s side had to be abandoned, his game became untenable, and he resigned on the 40th move, the game having lasted 3 hours and 24 minutes, of which 2 hours and 9 minutes had been marked for Steinitz, and 1 hour, 15 minutes for Zukertort.
Game 19
For the first time during the match, Steinitz had obtained the same lead which Zukertort had gained after the New York series, namely, three games ahead. But, with only two more games to win, the advantage of the former was naturally considered greater than that of his opponent had been in the early part of the contest. Moreover, the previous game had already shown some falling-off in Zukertort’ s play, and this was attributed to the moral effect of his fighting against the odds in the score.
The opening of the present game, a Queen’s Gambit Declined as usual, was nevertheless conducted by Zukertort in a spirited and original manner, as compared with the modes of attack he had hitherto adopted. It was a part of his early tactics to keep back the e-pawn, in order that he might gain a move by e4 in case Black took the c4. As Steinitz, however, Castled without having taken the c-pawn, Zukertort advanced the latter to c5 on the 6th move. This was the line of play which Steinitz had tried to avoid in the fifteenth game, when he played 4 … c5. But since then he had come to the conclusion that he would obtain a good game against that attack by replying b6, which he did accordingly. This allowed Zukertort to establish the majority of Pawns on the Queen’s wing, which is usually an advantage. But owing to White’s pieces on the King’s side not being developed, and especially as White’s e-pawn had not yet been moved, the situation arrived at allowed Black a counter-attack by a5 followed by d4 which threatened to break up White’s Pawns on the Queen’s wing, and to gain a Pawn thereby after exchanging Queens. Zukertort had probably relied on the apparent strength of his exchanging the Knight his Bishop on the 10th move, but as Black did not mind a doubled Pawn on his f- file and retook with a Pawn, the latter’s centre was fortified by that exchange. On the 11th move, Steinitz might have obtained a plain advantage by exchanging Pawns, followed by Nc6 but he preferred to make room for the development of his pieces by e5 and thus gave the adversary time to advance b5, and to prevent the opening of the a-file. On his 12th move Steinitz again might have simplified the game without losing his advantage by Qd5 In playing Be6 instead, he needlessly subjected himself to the locking up of his pieces on the Queen’s side through b6. It seems, however, that neither party had paid sufficient attention to the possibilities in the train of that advance, for on general principles it is mostly inadvisable to push the Pawns too far in the early part of the game. It proves that this case was no exception from the rule, and that by proper play White would have been worsted. But in the actual game, we believe, it would have been difficult for Black to discover the correct course. Zukertort at that point made an outlet for his Bishop by g3, and Steinitz then stopped the advance of the adverse Pawns by c6 which also forced the opening of the b-file for his Rook and brought his Knight into good play. On the 16th move, he initiated a strong attack in the Queen’s centre by the advance of d3, and was soon enabled to form a fine array of three Pawns by pushing e4 and then supporting the diagonal by f5. Black’s 19th move, Re8, was made in anticipation of any attempt on the part of the opponent to break up the Pawns by g4 or perhaps f3 Zukertort injudiciously elected the latter course which allowed Steinitz by a hidden combination, commencing with the sacrifice of a Knight, to advance his centre Pawns in such a manner that, albeit his being a piece behind for six moves, Steinitz was bound to gain a Knight and a Rook for his two Pawns and to remain with a clear Rook ahead, whereupon Zukertort resigned. Duration, 2 hours and 4 minutes. Zukertort’ s time being exactly one hour.
Game 20
This game was due to be played on March the 26th Mr. Zukertort, however, on that date claimed a days rest on the ground of general indisposition, attested by medical certificate, but which did not state the exact nature of Mr. Zukertort’s malady, as, we believe, would have been required according to the spirit of the laws of the match. Undoubtedly, however, Mr. Zukertort was not in good condition to continue the contest on that day, for the state of his score was not calculated to relieve him from the distressing effects which the severe mental strain imposes on the nervous system of players engaged in heavy chess contests, and which did not spare his opponent. Mr. Steinitz, therefore, considered Mr. Zukertort’ s demand to be perfectly fair for once, but he intimated to some of his friends that he would object to any further delay of the contest, except on such grounds as would be fully warranted by a strict interpretation of the rules.
The match was resumed on the 29th of March, and play commenced at the usual time, at one o’clock p.m. For the first time in this contest Mr. Steinitz introduced his home-made Gambit, in which he generally feels more at home than in other openings, but which, nevertheless, he did not venture on before, chiefly for the reason that the conduct of this attack requires extraordinary and constant attention, and though he considers the gambit sound in theory, he did not feel himself justified by the state of the score when he had the first move at previous stages of the match to increase his difficulties in actual play. Various defenses to this opening have been suggested and tried by analysts and practitioners, but Mr. Steinitz has succeeded with that debut in the majority of games against first-class players, and theoretical researches have not demonstrated any grave defect in the strategy of this opening. The last innovation for the defense was first proposed by the Rev. G. A. MacDonnell, of London, and had been successfully adopted against Steinitz by Messrs. English and Chigorin in the London Tournament of 1883. Its aim is to effect a draw by perpetual check in the early part of the opening, and on the strength of the two victories gained respectively by the Austrian and Russian champions over Steinitz, it was contended that the attack is unsound unless the first player is satisfied with a draw. Mr. Steinitz, however, was of opinion that he could give the odds of tile draw in the position in which it was sought and that his defeat in the two games in London was merely due to tactical errors on his own part. This opinion was supported by theoretical examinations of Mr. R. Steel, of Calcutta, and seems to have been shared, in some measure at least, by Mr. Zukertort himself, who, in his chess Monthly, recommended a modification of the defense adopted by Chigorin on the 9 move, and which is the one essayed for the first time in practice on this occasion. As a matter of course, the outcome of this one game can not furnish any conclusive evidence as to the merits of this variation. But as far as can be gathered from the progress of the defense on the present occasion, the line of play advocated and adopted by Mr. Zukertort includes some clever traps which, if avoided, leave, however, sufficient scope of action for the attack to compensate for the Pawn minus. For, as shown in our analysis, White had to be much on his guard from the 10th up to the 15th move against surprises which might have involved him into serious trouble, and especially on the 13th move Zukertort endeavoured to tempt his opponent to institute an attack by Ng5, in reply to which he had shrewdly prepared the sacrifice of a piece, by QxP ch., that would have given him three passed Pawns on the King’s side, and altogether two Paws majority for the exchange. A preparation move on the part of Steinitz by Bf4 and his bringing another piece to the fore, one move later, brought Zukertort’ s Queen into difficulties front which he could not extricate himself without the loss of a piece. There was in reality no good move on the board at that stage, but what he actually did, namely, Nh6 accelerated the collapse of his game which was virtually over when he lost a clear piece on the 17th move. The next two moves which he made, and which involved the loss of the Queen, were almost mere formalities, and Mr. Zukertort resigned the game and the match on the 19th move, after 1 hour and 4 minutes play, of which time the second player had consumed 34 minutes.
The final score of the match: Steinitz won ten, Zukertort five, drawn five.
After the championship
Steinitz didn’t come out very popular after the contest. His cold character and unsocial personality made the defeat of Zukertort bitter and regrettable for many. Zukertort on his return lamented it all on the climate. He came back to Europe completely demoralized and was hoping for a return match under more favorable condition…but he never got the match. Without any taste for life, and without energy he died two years later.
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | Total | |
| Steinitz | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | = | 1 | = | 1 | 1 | 0 | = | = | 1 | = | 1 | 1 | 1 | 12.5 |
| Zukertort | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | = | 0 | = | = | = | 1 | = | = | 0 | = | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7.5 |
