Steinitz (USA) – Lasker (GER) 7-12
New York, Philadelphia and Montreal, 15 March till 26 May 1894
The 25 years old Emmanuel Lasker (1868-1941) was not unknown in the world of chess when Steinitz gave him the right to become a challenger. Winner of the tournaments of London and New York plus couple of matches with only 1 game lost for 26 wins! Lasker was for the world the right choice. Steinitz was already 60 years old and just came out from a family tragedy when he lost in few months his wife and his daughter. However due to difficult world economical situation, his poor financial state and his ego to prove that his was still the strongest player of the world push him to play this very risky match.
On August 31, 1893 Lasker wrote to Steinitz:
“My dear Sir. From the notices in various newspapers you will have seen that it was my intention to challenge you for a set match of ten games up, for the championship of the world. I now beg leave to ask you to play such a match with me, under conditions which I beg to suggest to be as follows: first, winner to be lie who first scores ten wins; second, time limit to be fifteen moves an hour; third, minimum stake to be 3000 dollars a-side; fourth, the match to commence not later than January 1st 1894.
Awaiting the honour of your esteemed reply.
I remain, my dear sir, faithfully yours.”
On January 1, 1894, The New York Sun published an interview of Lasker who sated he will play the World Champion W. Steinitz. Few days later, Lasker wrote once more to Steinitz:
“When you proposed last December that we should put up a forfeit of US$ 250 I immediately began corresponding with all those who had promised to back me, in order to see just how much money I could rely upon. It has taken me up to date to get at a coned view of the situation. I am now in the position to say that I ant unable to guarantee a minimum stake of $ 3000, but that I am ready to deposit a forfeit of US$ 250 on January 22 upon the condition that the minimum stake shall be reduced to US$S 2250. I propose to stake the forfeit money with G. Hull, Treasurer of the Manhattan Chess Club, who is universally known in chess circles and I also propose that he should act as treasurer in the match, I further propose that the conditions of the Steinitz-Zukertort match should be retained in their essential parts. ”
On January 17, 1894 The New York Sun reported that Steinitz agreed to reduce the stake from US$ 3,000 to US$ 2,250.
On March 11, 1894 Steinitz stated in the New York Times: “…I have had no end in domestic trouble and bother during these last two years. Still I’m confident that I can play chess as heretofore. I never underrate an opponent, and I believe that Lasker is a really fine player. Moreover, the latter had the chance to study all my games, my books and therefore my style and if I do lose he will have to beat me with my own weapons…”
In September 1906, Lasker reviewed for the Lasker Chess Magazine the contest played twelve years early:
“When I challenged Steinitz in the autumn of 1893, I was full of the confidence which one has at the age of 25, and slowly loses with maturing experience. Steinitz had then held supremacy in chess for 28 years. The world was impressed by his achievements over the board; in analysis, he had undoubtedly advanced chess thought, and his personality had the halo which comes from uninterrupted success. But I had played over his match games and from them gained the conviction that in playing with me he would have to solve different problems than formerly. I was curious as to the outcome; not afraid of it.
I believed that I understood the principle preached by Steinitz, that an attack before it is undertaken must be well prepared. I appreciated the line conception of “balance” that Steinitz had discover, at which he had hinted. I resolved to make no attack until the balance of position had bee disturbed in my favor. And, for the rest I had faith. I was intensely interested to see how Steinitz would fare against an opponent who applies these principles in a sufficiently faultless fashion, conscious of the fact that he had never encountered such a style before. And to make that issue clear, I resolved to refrain from those openings in which it was notorious that Steinitz held unsound and crotchety opinions, viz., the Evans Gambit and the Two Knight’s defense.
When Steinitz entered this contest he felt sure of victory. But when fate went against him and he found him self, for the first time in his life, beaten, he behaved with the utmost chivalry. His way of resigning the last game of the match was to call for cheers for the new champion of the world.”
The match had the same rules than the previous ones: 10 win to be the champion and a prize of 2,000 US$. The match started at the Union Square Hotel
Game 1
The impressive moment of the first move draws near. The board is arranged, a large audience is gathered to watch the commencement of the match. Mr. J. W. Baird, the second of Steinitz and Mr. J. W. Showalter, my own second, tossed a coin for the choice of first move, and Mr. Showalter won. The onus of choosing the opening and making the first aggressive movement, therefore, fell on my shoulders. I did not try for more than the slight advantage which naturally accrues to the first player from a somewhat quicker development. Steinitz played an absolutely sound defense to my Ruy Lopez, such as with slight modification has come into vogue at the present moment. Still, his fifth move left something to be de sired, as it advanced black’s development only to a small degree. But quick development was not a thing which Steinitz aimed at.
He was satisfied with a development sufficiently rapid to meet attacks, but sufficiently backward to leave many pieces unexchanged and to lead to many complications and ingenuous ideas of which nobody but Steinitz has ever know, the masterly execution. It was in nature of the things that black’s king’s knight had to make many moves before it arrived at a stable position. The fifth move implied that necessity. On the tenth move Steinitz weakened queen’s pawn by the advance c6. Knowing that Steinitz had taught the weakness of pawns that depend for support on pieces only, the critics could not comprehend a move so contrary to his own doctrine and for which, apparently, there was no necessity. But they overlooked the many compensations; for instance, the considerable restrictions of my Queen’s Knight that followed this move.
Generally speaking, it may be stated that the critics throughout this match frequently failed to take into consideration the relativity of all weaknesses. As life is said to be a continual com promise between conflicting necessities, so the chess master has often to choose the smallest evil—a very difficult problem.
But the task of choosing the right line of attack after a weakness has been declared is still more difficult. He who would shirk it can never hope to acquire mastery. It was in this spirit that I decided on my eleventh and twelfth moves. There, development would have been good enough and would not have involved any risk. But the position seemed to me to call for action. In this, however I was mistaken. Steinitz weathered the storm and on, the sixteenth move I had to abandon my aggressive plan. The game then entered into a stage of perfect equality. On my thirtieth move the position was slightly critical. My g-pawn was kept backward, thus leaving the advanced h-pawn in danger, and Steinitz prepared for an attack upon it. I extricated myself from this difficulty by a combination whose net result was to advance my g-pawn to the support of the h-pawn a moment when the Black f-pawn was engaged in blocking my f-pawn.
On the thirty-fourth move the difficulty of choosing between various evils fell on my opponent. Should he play Rxd5 and allow my Knight to enter at e4 at, or should he play cxd5, isolating it. He chose the latter. Again the critics pointed out its weakness, forgetting the dilemma. My thirty- seventh move took Steinitz by surprise. With that move his f-pawn and d-pawn were simultaneously exposed; one of them had to fall. Had he played 37.. Bc7, 38. Nd3 Rg5 39. Nb4 Re6 40.Nc2 Re5 41.Rd4 Re7 42. Rb4 attacking b7 and threatening Nd4+. The remainder of the game calls for no comment. Steinitz made a grand fight, but the odds against him were too much.
Game 2
There can be no doubt that Steinitz approached the second game of the match with a grim determination to vindicate himself. His face indicated energy, and his moves spoke of a passionate desire to overthrow his opponent in a vehement onslaught from the very beginning. For my part, I proceeded with my game ignoring the attack, and built up a favorable position. However, on my fourteenth move I made a serious mistake, of which I was conscious immediately. This must have been due to a miscalculation, overlooking white’s sixteenth move. Instead of exchanging I should have proceeded with an advance of the extreme Queen’s side pawns. By his sixteenth move, white gained the upper hand, but had I realized any danger I could have retained my position by playing 19 Ne3 instead of b5.
Playing in magnificent style, Steinitz completely ruined my hopes ever advancing the f-pawn, and offered a piece in order to exchange my Bishop. Whether the plan would have succeeded by force it is difficult to say. But I made the task easy for him in accepting the sacrifice, having over looked the force of the advance of his h-pawn, if I tried to retain my advantage of material.
I remember to have realized my faulty calculation and played on list-lessly in a hopeless position.
Game 3
This was a dramatic game. White’s attack succeeded in establishing a Ne6, the gain of a pawn even a piece. Naturally, White’s attack exhausted itself after that, and Black obtained a vehement counter attack. It commenced with an apparent threat of drawing by perpetual check, which I failed to see through. Otherwise I could have won easily by playing 27, KxRd7. The game was practically over on the thirty-eighth move, when an unnecessary sacrifice the exchange gave Black a new lease of life.
Game 4
When the fourth game was commenced the audience, in remembrance of Steinitz’ s brilliant victory in the second game, expected to see him open with the Ruy Lopez, and I, myself, was quite prepared for it. But to the surprise of everybody, Steinitz chose the Giuoco Piano. My opponent must certainly have considered the position arrived at on the fourteenth move of the second game unsatisfactory to him, and he, therefore, never gave me the same opportunity. The opening went on conventional lines, except that on my eighth move I kept my bishop on the King’s side instead of the usual position on b-line. In starting the middle game, I initiated an attack which involved the sacrifice of a piece, but I had overlooked that in stead of taking the piece my opponent could win an important pawn. This miscalculation forced me to a desperate attack which, of course, Steinitz met with his usual sang froid. The fall of the queen’s pawn, however, sealed the fate of this attack. I emerged into the end game with a pawn minus and undeveloped pieces. Had Steinitz played e5 on move 26 in order to keep my weak a-pawn always weak, my plight would have been great. But Steinitz was over confident of winning and I struggled desperately until I actually achieved a drawing position. But I broke down finally, and by unnecessary checks on moves 52 and I allowed his King to enter my game and I lost immediately.
Game 5
The fifth was another of those games which though by no means free from mistakes, or perhaps on account of them, exhibited dramatic features. The opening was commonplace enough, except that White obtained the slight advantage of two bishops against bishop and knight. The bishops were marshaled against Black’s king’s side, but Steinitz took up such a defensive position that an attack upon it would have been a task of extreme difficulty and risk. On the twenty-second move Steinitz made a mistake and lost a pawn. in making a desperate counter attack he succeeded in confusing me and I ultimately had no choice but to propose an exchange of queens which though leaving me with a pawn to the good, deprived me of all chance of making a successful attack. All I could hope for was a draw, and my fortieth move assured that.
Game 6
The sixth game brought another Giuoco Piano, in which I followed the ordinary development. In the play for 1 Steinitz was out manoeuvred to the extent that he had to make a sacrifice. Playing with marvellous accuracy he gave a pawn for the exchange and left me with a doubled pawn that had little fighting chance.
A very difficult ending ensued in which, after various ups and downs, each of the parties playing to win alternately, a draw resulted.
Game 7
The seventh is the game of the match that has been oftenest quoted. After an opening in which I had a little advantage in that I had a freer game, I impatiently pushed on to a King’s side attack, and thereby fell into a peculiar trap, by which I lost two pawns. I realized then that only the pursuance of the attack against the king could save me. On the twenty-third move I offend the sacrifice of a third pawn whose acceptance would have allowed me to open all lines for the operation of my rooks. Though Steinitz rejected the offer my attack went steadfastly on. Had he, on his twenty-sixth move, played Rg3 he would probably have won. But playing to win my bishop he over looked an opportune square on which I could sacrifice it and thereafter the game became exceedingly doubtful. As often happens, he was under the influence of a past advantage that was imperceptibly dwindling away and therefore still played to win when he ought to have confined himself to purely defensive tactics. Encountering difficulties he made an impatient parry with 41.. Qd7 and lost the game by force. The result made a deep impression on Steinitz, and he did not recover from the shock which he had received until many weeks later.
Game 8
In the eighth game I chose the French Defense for the sake of variety. My impression is and always has been that this defense is the most difficult one to convert into a win for Black, supposing, of course, that White follows the right strategy. The opening of this game was not very far, out of the common. The position became very complicated, inasmuch ‘as only two pawns were exchanged and the pawn formation retained its pliability for a long time. Steinitz was the first to bring his supremacy of pawns on the queen’s side to bear. Strangely, all critics of that period condemned him for making this advance. His strategy, in my opinion, was very fine, and I was struggling under great difficulties to advance my pawns on the king’s side when my opponent on move twenty-six released his hold and forced the very advance that I was aiming at. Had he in stead played his Knight I should have been thrown on the defensive since c4 was threatening and could not well have been averted. This one move cost Steinitz dear, for afterwards I assumed the aggressive and slowly accumulated small advantages. It hardly needed an additional mistake which Black committed on his forty-third move by which he lost a knight, for me to score the game.
April 6th, 1894, saw the end of the New York portion of the match, and on April 14th the Philadelphia portion was begun. In the interval many were the encouragements received by the “old man,” as Steinitz used to be called by the chess fraternity. They reminded him of the beginning of his match against Zukertort, which was four games to one against him and yet ended with ten to five in his favor. They were sure of his success if only be would bring forth his heavy armor on which the aggressions of Zukertort and Chigorin had been unable to make a dent. Philadelphia harbored many admirers of the “old man,” and he played there in an environment eminently congenital to him.
For all that, he suffered there the most disastrous defeat of his career. He lost three short games, in none of which he had been able to make an attack.
It is said that critic brings out the best qualities of a man. It acts like the wind on the ripening grain. Steinitz had been all successful, his opinions had never undergone that weeding out process which it is the task of failure and criticism to per form. His wonderful talents had grown like the plants of a garden that had not known the care of a gardener. The Philadelphia disaster was needed to purify his style.
I, for my part, clung to the principles with which I set out to play the match. The attacks which I made were the outcome of ripe development.
The New York Times said: “…It is generally admitted all round that the games played in this contest have been very of a very high order. Those who have played over the game will have found that the champion has done remarkably so far, although he is two points behind his rival.”
Game 9
On April 14, 1894 the match resumed at the Franklin Chess Club in Philadelphia with a fine victory by Lasker which was, according the American journalist and writer Fred Reinfeld, his best performance in the match. Steinitz went into dubious lines and with 12..Nb5 weakening his pawn structure. Lasker fixed all the weaknesses and went on with a subtle Bishop (24.Bc5!) and King’s maneuvers to catch the enemy pawns and score the point.
Game 10
Steinitz was probably in an off day. A very suspected opening with a questioning 4. f3 in the Queen Gambit gave to the champion a very passive and difficult game. Steinitz with only defensive alternative missed a nice sacrifice (21…Nd4!) which gave a definitive advantage to Lasker.
Game 11
Lasker didn’t have too much after the opening phase. The Queens were already off the board after the 8th move. This tactic was probably chosen to get a quite draw. The idea to keep the two Bishops with 16…Be8 was rather suspicious and since there Steinitz gave up the positional advantage to his opponent. 23. e4 was the killing move. White opened the position and got a strong isolated central pawn. The rest was just a matter of technique.
Let us continue with Lasker and his comments:
Game 12
After an interval of two weeks the Montreal portion of the match commenced with the twelfth game on May 3rd , 1894. I must confess that, with a score of seven to two against him I thought Steinitz would be unable to make a serious resistance. In my experience continued failure and continued success have this in common; that by playing in fear or hope they confuse the reasoning faculty. After serious losses every chess player becomes demoralized, like an army that has suffered defeat. Nothing proves the genius of Steinitz more conclusively than that, at Montreal; he could recuperate his powers and courageously defend a position that seemed absolutely hopeless.
In the twelfth game Steinitz essayed that – aggressive treatment of the queen’s pawn opening which has since been adopted by all masters and which is improperly attributed to Pillsbury, who merely improved, but did not discover. The seventh move of White was in line with the policy that had brought Zukertort his great success in 1883. It was only the counter threat of Black’s ninth move for which my previous move was a necessary preparation that counteracted the incipient advance of the queen’s wing. Had Steinitz played BxBe7 my intention was to continue with NxNc3. Hence Steinitz was obliged to choose another line of play and I was enabled to recover the lost pawn. A marked weakness remained on the Black king’s side, however, and I was driven to precipitate the attack on the queen’s side by the sacrifice of a pawn, and to force, the exchange of queens. The activity of my king’s bishop was so harassing that I could regain my pawn and, after many exchanges, the positions drifted naturally to a draw.
Game 13
The thirteenth game of the match is a very pleasing exhibition of the combinative power of Steinitz. The opening was hardly in his favor but by fine position. Judgment and the sacrifice of a pawn for weakening purposes Steinitz obtained an attack that under all circumstances would have been difficult to meet In any case, however, I did not play with the best of judgment, and, after Steinitz had conducted the attack for forty-six moves, I surrendered.
Game 14
In the fourteenth game my style was very much like that of Zukertort when he encountered Steinitz in 1886. And Steinitz played as he did against Zukertort. After a fairly even opening, I began an attack on the king’s side; but, precipitating it by the eighteenth move, I never had the time to bring my Queen’s Rook into action and, lost three pawns for the exchange. It would still have been difficult for Steinitz to win had I not omitted on my 27th and the move to take possession of the king’s file, which would have prevented his king from crossing to the support of his passed pawns.
After the fourteenth game I felt in need of a rest. According to the terms of agreement each of the players had the option of six days’ intermission. I went to a little watering place near Montreal where I was very hospitably received and spent my time in walks, in conversation and in living the simple life.
Game 15
I returned refreshed, full of a determination to adhere strictly to the strategy which I had intended to follow all through the match and from which I had deviated in the three last games; i.e. by making premature attacks. The fifteenth game is the best I played in this match. Only the a-pawn and the b-pawn were a possible mark for my attack and that in a position where they were easy to defend. But I carried out my idea by the advance of the c-pawn and a-pawn although this involved four moves during which time the Black pieces bad to be kept at bay, the Black b- pawn to be prevented from advancing, and the a-pawn had to be compelled to advance. Such program is very difficult to execute when the forces and the positions are almost evenly balanced.
Game 16
My last win had encouraged me considerably and damped the flickering hopes of Steinitz. He now played as if he was determined to lose with honour,, but had given up all expectations of ultimate success.
I made a vehement onslaught which was beaten back. But I emerged into the end game with a slight advantage that unnerved Steinitz so that he committed an error on his 37th move and lost.
Game 17
The final act of the drama is now reached. The score is nine to four and I had to score only one more game. And yet the “old man” fights on; indeed, he produces his best game in this match, In the seventeenth game I only committed one slight mistake with 24.d5 instead of which I should have kept his e-pawn engaged. From that moment Steinitz by slow processes of masterly strategy combined with faultless execution forced me to resign.
Game 18
There are various situations in the 18th game in which the play is exceedingly intricate and artistic. Yet the game as a whole contains some mistakes which mar its effect. The opening runs on lines which have long since been classic. Only the needless advance of 12. g3 instead of which White should have castled gave Black a slight opening. The development of Black’s queen’s side has also become the pattern of modern play. The advance of Black’s queen’s side pawns had to be timed so as not to permit White to keep the c-pawn backwards. As it was, that pawn advanced just in the nick of time, on the 19th move. After this an interesting encounter of the pieces followed in which Black had the attack and where White was able to retain the balance only by the marvelously fine move of 33. Kf1. But on his 40th move White made a mistake and I could have won by Bxf3. Two stoves later I had another easy opportunity by N6e5 followed by Bxf3 and I missed that also. I am glad that I did not win the match in such a fashion.
Game 19
The nineteenth proved to be the last game of the match. In it there was a great deal of that fencing for position which has become the preliminary stage for all modern attacks. Steinitz’ s seventeenth move was at fault. His knights were useless on the king’s side and – should have crossed, where they could have done some work. Instead, he advanced on the king’s side with the next result that he had to exchange a bishop for a knight, leaving White with two powerful bishops. After this strategical mistake, a tactical error followed on move 26 of which I took immediate advantage and won the game 26 moves later.
The Herald reported:
“Steinitz on the 52nd move finding that any chances he might have had for a draw were now over, gracefully resigned, and in the most chivalrous manner congratulated Lasker on his victory, at the same time proposing three cheers for the new champion, which were warmly given by all present. Lasker, after returning thanks in a neat speech proposed in retum three cheers for the great Steinitz who held so ably the proud title of chess champion of the world for twenty-eight years. The cheers were given with a hearty good will and the grand old victor in many a well fought battle acknowledged the compliment in a suitable way.”
The English master H. E. Bird concluded the event in his book on the match:
“The result of the match, so far as can be judged, came with surprise on the great majority of the chess community, and especially so on well-known patrons and friends of Mr. Steinitz, who had such unbounded confidence in him, that nearly up to the last game hopes of his success, or, at least, a severe and close match, were not entirely abandoned. The masterly and splendid play on both sides in the first four games aroused expectations that the contests in their entirety would rival, if not excel those of Labourdonnais and Macdonnell, Staunton and Morphy’s victorious games. Such hopes and anticipations, however, have not been completely realized, as will be judged from the summarized description of them.
In reviewing results, we think that games 1, 11 and 15 were the best merited victories for Lasker, and 2, 13, 14, and 17 were well earned by Steinitz. Of these, game 13 nearest approaches to a correct masterpiece. , 6 and 12 were excellent contests, making ten good games. Game 18, a tough combat of 61 moves, is somewhat marred by the mistake at 39, when Lasker could have captured f-Pawn with Bishop. Game 16, also an exciting contest of 54 moves, has a flaw in the opening which Steinitz did not take advantage of; and though he appeared to have an inferior game throughout, he might have drawn towards the last. Game 8, which promised so well for Steinitz, was spoiled by his injudicious exchange at 34 and his subsequent blunder. No. 7 is Steinitz’s great misadventure, which gave the first lead in the match away to Lasker, whilst the remaining five games, 3, 9, so, it and 19, come under the category of very bad games, on Steinitz’s part, which would reflect no credit on any chess artist.”
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Total
W. Steinitz 0 1 0 1 = = 0 0 0 0 0 = 1 1 0 0 1 = 0 7.0
E. Lasker 1 0 1 0 = = 1 1 1 1 1 = 0 0 1 1 0 = 1 12.0
In the New York Time of June 1984, Steinitz challenged Lasker:
”To Emanuel Lasker, chess champion of the world: having received factory assurances of the support for the purpose I have the honor of challenging you for a return match on the same conditions in the main as those which regulated our recent encounter, with the provision that the new contest shall commence no later than the early part of December next. Arrangements of the details would no doubt be an easy matter, and I trust to receive an early and favorable answer, which please direct to my private, address at Upper Montclair, N.J.
William Steinitz.
The Russian press published an article in March 1886 stating that W. Steinitz was in Russia and busy to play exhibitions and a match with Schiffers which ended with Steinitz the winner. The match was well appreciated and thanks to the generosity of Mr. Bostanzholo of 200 rubles, Steinitz could ask Lasker for a revenge match.
