Lasker (GER) – Steinitz (USA) 12½-4½
Moscow, 25th October 1896 till 2nd January 1897
Emmanuel Lasker won an even more crushing victory. Losing the first four games, Steinitz could never enter properly in his last word championship match and completely disgusted he gave up after the 17th game
Game 1
Steinitz played a sacrificial line of the Italian game. Usually White players seek for compensation with 9.d5, one move later the old grandmaster gave a full piece for the attack. Lasker kept his nerves and neutralized all threats. Move 20 he played h4, instead Rd8 was winning. That careless move allowed Steinitz back into the game. They changed queens, which stopped attack forever but made harder to win. However when the White bishop disappeared it was clear White would going to lose the game.
Game 2
In the Ruy Lopez, Lasker managed to occupy the centre, it gave him a nice space advantage, Black did not get anything in exchange. Move 9, White played a4, both Nd5 or Bg5 looked more promising. Steinitz gradually gained ground both sides and when he played f5, he was fully in the game. After the queens exchange he brought his king to the centre. While White Put his rooks on the e file. Black made careless 29.Bb6, instead of strengthen the e file. He probably missed 30.Bf4, which was a most imaginative move. White exerted more pressure. It brought its fruit, in the 32nd move, when Steinitz did not find the only Nf5 move. If he had maybe White would have tried 33.Nc5 dxc 34.Re6 piece sacrifice with an very exciting play. In the game Black lost with remarkable speed.
Game 3
Lasker deviated from the first game, this time he held only a pawn. He quickly got a superior position with long castle. Lasker sacrificed the pawn back to get an attack. Steinitz accepted it restoring material balance, however it would have been a more stubborn resistance to wait passively. With opposite color bishops on the board, Lasker first force the opponent open the long diagonal in front of the king. Then he put the front the queen and behind the queen. It was just matter of time when he would win. It was a nice game from the present world champion.
Game 4
Steinitz improved on the previous Ruy Lopez by exchanging the dark squared bishop early on. This time he wanted to avoid space disadvantage. He did it but at the cost of a double pawn on a semi open file. Lasker never let his opponent to get rid of the double pawns. After some exchanges Black king went to centre to protect the weak pawns. Move 39 Steinitz longer was able to wait passively, he wanted to open a file for his rook, but it backfired as White took the e5 square first. Later even won the h5 pawn. White king collected the a7 pawn with a witty march. In the end White pawn was going to promote, but Steinitz resigned.
Game 5
Steinitz switched to 1.d4, Lasker played the Orthodox queen’s gambit. The central pawns quickly disappeared; it looked like the game would take a peaceful course. However Steinitz doubled Black’s f pawn and forced f5. He did not hold back as went for g4 as well. Move 17. Lasker probably should have taken the d4, it would have hard for White to prove enough compensation. Steinitz managed to chase the king to the centre, but it was hard to bring new forces into the attack. It was Lasker’s turn to move the king to the middle of the board. White sacrificed an exchange as well. From that on, it was predictable, White would keep a perpetual. It actually happened.
Game 6
Lasker in the Ruy Lopez used his basic strategy, get a position with as many pieces on the board as possible and keep playing on till the ageing opponent gets wearied off. Steinitz got the two bishops, however White a bit of more space. Lasker made sure Black was not freeing the centre. The former champion started to push his queenside pawn. Later he took the adventure of going for a pawn by the queen to a2. Of course the champion tried to exploit that the Black queen was away. In a very exciting position a huge blunder came from Steinitz. It was an unusual way to lose an exchange, still at this high level one would expect this not to happen. It is a pity Black did not play 25.-Qb2. After Black could not have any realistic hope to save the game.
Game 7
Both players repeated their fifth game. Steinitz deviated first at move 11. He managed to get a small advantage, and gradually increased it. To get rid of the pressure Lasker sacrificed a pawn, with swapping the queen he managed to stabilize his position to a certain extend. His knight blocked well the extra pawn. It was maybe a mistake to let opposite bishops to occur. It was very close to a win For Steinitz, however he was not able to squeeze the full point, because Lasker’s stubborn defense.
Game 8
Lasker got a hopeful position in the usual Ruy Lopez. He could have gained space on the queenside, which was promising. It seems Lasker strategy was to postpone the clash of the pieces as much as possible, hoping his older opponent concentration would fade. Black gained considerable space on the queenside, While White made some progress on the kingside. Move 27 Lasker gave away the b2 Pawn, probably it was based on a miscalculation. White could never create compensation for the Pawn, later Lasker sacrificed an exchange to stop Black’s passed pawn. Move 55 Black could have one with Rc1, but he made a horrible blunder. The champion exploited the mistake, he forced a draw by a rook sacrifice.
Game 9
The debate continued in the Orthodox Queen’s Gambit. Lasker this time equalized without any special problem. White deviated from repeating moves. Steinitz managed to exert some pressure, later he won a pawn, but Lasker used his rook very well to double his rooks on the second, he offered a draw. White accepted it as had no chance to hang on the extra pawn.
Game 10
Steinitz switched to the Ruy Lopez with 3…a6 and Lasker took on c6. The position was not stirred up. Black put his knight to d4. Maybe he should have played some more preparation and before it. Black played f5 to stop the f pawn becoming strong. It allowed White to have a passed pawn. One may have thought it, Black blocks that well. Lasker played very well indeed, he created threats on the king and changed one pair of rooks. Maybe Rad8 was not the best from the former champion. With fine maneuvering he managed to push the e pawn that decided the game. This was a nice victory from Lasker.
Game 11
Players repeated their lines used in the Orthodox once more, this time Lasker made a small twist, he tried to take back with the knight on c5. Steinitz gave back the pawn to create a weakness in Black’s position. It seems Steinitz’s castle was inaccurate as Black could forces White pieces to go backward. 17 f3 was a very strange move soon after White had changed the d5 knight, Black took back with c, no longer had the weak pawn. Black had a small edge, but Steinitz changed the heavy pieces on the c file and equalized. In the ending White did not stop Lasker’s Kingside space gaining pushes. Black slowly took over, won a pawn then the second move 64 White resigned.
Game 12
This time, another Ruy-Lopez, Lasker did not take on c6 as he did before. He forced Steinitz to have double pawns on the e file. But Black could have lived with it, as all his pieces worked well. Move 19 Lasker made an awful blunder, he not only dropped a pawn, but Black pieces started to work with full power. Move 30 the champion resigned.
Game 13
Steinitz played the same line of the Orthodox with Qb3 again. This time he did not play 9.c6, but just developed. Black easily got a good game. He stirred up the position with a pawn sacrifice. In this match player got the same pawn structure, with f2, f3 and e3 pawns several time. So far Black players had that formation. Lasker hoped for an attack, but Steinitz judgment was more precious. He not only stepped aside with the king but gained firm control over the d file. In order to keep the attack alive Black sacrificed first a knight later an exchange, but still the attack faded, and not only faded, but it was Steinitz who made a stylish first rank combination and won.
Game 14
Another exchange Ruy Lopez was chosen by Lasker. Steinitz played dangerously many pawn moves without backing them with pieces. On move 18 he lost one pawn of them when he took back to f8 with the bishop. Steinitz should have tried Kf8. The former world champion kept attacking with his pawns, when he should have just waited. Not surprisingly Lasker won another pawn. It looked like he was heading for another victory, when suddenly mistakes were creeping in. His opponent got close to a draw, in the 4 rooks ending. Then he changed a pair, may have been better to keep them all for Black. After the exchanges Steinitz still had reasonable drawing chances, 57 f4 looked the better than the game. After that Lasker played the ending really well.
Game 15
Lasker easily equalized in their theme opening without too much trouble. They changed a lot of pieces early on. Both players played correct with no winning chance. Once all the rooks were swapped the draw outcome was very likely. Finally Steinitz decided to give perpetual checks.
Game 16
Lasker is back in the Ruy Lopez. He kept a position with as many pieces on the board as possible and then played on till the ageing opponent gets wearied off. Steinitz got the two bishops, however White a bit of more space. Lasker made sure Black was not freeing the centre. The former champion started to push his queenside pawn. Later he took the adventure of going for a pawn by the queen to a2. Of course the champion tried to exploit that the Black queen was away. In a very exciting position a huge blunder came from Steinitz. It was an unusual way to lose an exchange, still at this high level one would expect this not to happen. It is a pity Black did not play 25.-Qb2. After Black could not have any realistic hope to save the game.
Game 17
The very same Queens Gambit was played again. Steinitz, this time, took on c4 with his bishop. Black got an even game early on. To complicate matters, White decided to have an isolated pawn on d4. He tried to put up some pressure on the queenside, but all was neutralized, actually it was Black who improved on his position with e5. Then Steinitz blundered not the first, but the last time in this match. 33.Nxb4 was a suicide move, after that his position fall apart. Steinitz resigned only when he was going to get checkmated.
From the “British Chess Magazine of February 1897: “In our opinion, the question of present superiority ought now to be considered sufficiently decided. What would have been the result if Steinitz had met Lasker in the plenitude of his former powers, and if he had not given himself away by an obstinate adherence to untenable crotchets, we must leave an open question. We cannot, however, but admire the pluck of the veteran in coming forth as he has done to defend his title, and to show the courage of his convictions, notwithstanding frequent defeat; and as far as that defeat was caused by the natural infirmity of increasing years, we cannot but deeply sympathize with an ex-champion who is obliged to yield up to a younger man his pristine pride of place.
Herr Lasker on himself – In connection with the two games won by Mr. Steinitz, the following extract, published in a London evening paper from a letter by Herr Lasker, strikes us as being excessively humorous: “Today the match stands 7-0. Steinitz, to his credit be it recorded, takes the defeat so far like a man. His conduct leaves nothing to be desired although I have no doubt that he expected a different result at the start, or at any rate ‘to make a hard fight.’ The net advantage derived by the theory of the game from this match is that I have proved the worthlessness of Steinitz’s sacrifice of the Bishop in the Giuoco Piano, the 3…Bc5 in the Ruy Lopez, as well as the 3…d6, followed by Ne7. I venture to say that I have finally settled this question. I also believe that my treatment of the Queen’s Gambit Declined, since the fifth game, which was previously quite unknown, will prove of lasting value. The opening of the lines dxc4, followed by c5, as demonstrated in my last game, has proved valid. ‘Last but not least,’ 3…a6, in the Ruy Lopez, seem to be again discredited by the tenth game.” It would be a pity to spoil the rich humor of this paragraph by any comment. – “Hereford Times.”
In the “Daily News,” Mr. Gunsberg says: “Mr. Lasker could not have acted with his usual forethought and consideration when he penned a letter wherein he claims to have annihilated all his opponent’s theories, and generally assumes the tone of a victor.
But the letter has also its entertaining points, and has carried its own Nemesis along with it. The opening which the champion particularly claimed to have demolished was the P-QR3 defense to the Ruy Lopez, but lo and behold, by the very next post, comes the game in which Steinitz achieves his first victory with this very P-QR3 defense condemned by Lasker.”
The Field” says: “Steinitz has had his day; he was in the proud position of being the most successful match player for a longer period than any other player before, or during his time, and he must submit to the inevitable fate of yielding the scepter to younger hands, as Anderssen and others were compelled to do in the height of their ascendancy. Taking all the encounters between the two players, Lasker has beaten Steinitz in the proportion of three to one.
Lasker has been reproached with the monotony of the repertoire. But why should he have discarded the Ruy Lopez so long as he was successful with it? He expected Steinitz to adopt persistently his own defenses, and for these he was thoroughly prepared. It was Steinitz’ s duty to change the openings. Having no faith in the defenses other masters adopt, why accept the Lopez at all?
There are plenty of other defenses, the Center Counter Gambit, the French and Sicilian defenses, etc. Surely he could not have fared worse with these than with his own Ruy Lopez defense. As first player he has abandoned the ill-fated Giuoco Piano variation, and drawn several of the Queen’s Gambits; but even in these he gave Lasker the advantage of letting him know beforehand that he must be prepared for one and the same variation only – an advantage, we consider, at starting. The natural inference is that Steinitz felt he could not have fared better in any other opening against Lasker, for, in his former matches against other opponents, Blackburne and Zukertort for instance, he always changed the openings. He virtually admits therefore, as indeed everybody else did before this match, Lasker’s supremacy.”
The Skakhmatny Zhurnal for January 1897 wrote:
“The match for the determination of who was to be the best in the world, the second such match, which Steinitz so strongly and persistently sought through all of Europe, predicting that he would surely beat Lasker, ended as could have been expected, with the total destruction of Steinitz. In the 17 rounds of play, Lasker won 10, lost 2 and drew 5. The winner receives 2000 rubles, the loser 1000 rubles. A personal wager of 500 rubles resulted in Lasker’s receiving 2500 rubles and Steinitz only 500. Travel expenses and those incurred during the players’ stay in Moscow were paid for by the Moscow Chess Circle and other chess supporters. The main contributors to the organization and cost of this interesting world championship competition were It N. Bostanzhoglo and D. N. Pavlov, donating almost all of the necessary monies.
The followers of Steinitz began to say that he was not the former Steinitz; that he was old and did not play as well. This view was not shared by the majority of the public. Steinitz was not that old; he claimed in print that he felt well and capable of outplaying Lasker. Even at the party celebrating the resumption of the interrupted tournament play, Steinitz said he would yet outplay Lasker.
The games of Steinitz show clearly that his play had not weakened and that he did play as well as the former Steinitz. Let someone other than Lasker challenge his power and skill at the game and he could prove that point. Chigorin in his observation of these matches thought that they were played well and a different move here or there would have led to a win for Steinitz. In this manner he supported our point of view, that Steinitz played quite as well as before, just not as well as Lasker, who under the stress of difficult and decisive situations always opts for the right move and misses no opportunities. These are the necessary qualities of a master playing for the championship of the world. It is of little comfort to a player to know that he might have won a game, but did not. That he had the advantage in a given situation, but did not make the best of it; that he played like a genius, but lost. Harrwitz and Anderssen were players no weaker than Morphy dining their match, but both lost to him; and no one at that time at time affirmed that they might have won, but did not. It is simple; they did not play as well and lost. Similarly, under the present circumstances, we are not going to deride Steinitz’ s game in the world of chess. However, we are also not going to belittle the accomplishments of Lasker, who upon entering the level of world competition has proven that has no rival. Until the time when someone can beat Lasker repeatedly, Lasker will be considered the number one player in the world. The Chess King—“Champion of the World.”
Looking over the rounds of this match in Moscow between Lasker and Steinitz, we must make note of the fact that Lasker played faster than Steinitz, using far less time to decide his moves. He played with ease, leading us to suspect that he did not tap all of his resources and has more in reserve for more challenging competitions. Lasker, playing in Steinitz’ s style and according to the theories of his New School, exhibits greater depth in his strategies and more confidence than Steinitz. Lasker stands out among his contemporary masters in the depth of understanding of various situations and his genius at the end of matches; no less a player than the great Morphy and presently every bit his match in skill and power…”
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Total
E. Lasker 1 1 1 1 = 1 = = = 1 1 0 0 1 = 1 1 12.5
W. Steinitz 0 0 0 0 = 0 = = = 0 0 1 1 0 = 0 0 4.5
