Steinitz (USA) – Gunsberg (HUN) 10½-8½
New York 9 December 1890 till 22 January 1891
On October 10. 1890 The New York Sun published an article where was mentioned the match between Steinitz and Gunsberg:
“…The season is now about to commence in earnest and the talk of the chess players all over the world is the match in which Mr. Steinitz, the hero of twenty-five years standings about to engage with I. Gunsberg from London…”
Isidore Arthur Gunsberg (1854-1930) was the strongest English master at the time. After his victory in matches to Bird (1830-1908) and Joseph Henri Blackburne (1841-1924) connected with the victories of Hamburg tournament of 1885 and London 1888, he became in 1890 the only possible Challenger to Steinitz. The World Champion was interested in playing the German Champion Dr. Siegbert Tarrasch (1862-1934) in Cuba or Max Wiess (1857-1927) who just won the New York tournament of 1899 equal with Chigorin. But both of them didn’t show interest to play him. Tarrasch, in a cable dated of October 4, 1890 sent to New York said ‘…Regards for my medical praxis forbid me to devote myself to chess more than once a year, or to stay away from home for so long at time…’’ The situation was very confusing. In April 1890 (ICM) Steinitz wrote that he accepted a challenge by Mr. Chigorin to play a match by cable and correspondence for two games for a stake of US$ 1,000 for a side. “In a similar manner the contemplated match between me and Mr. Gunsberg is still in its embryo stage at present, for nothing more than a verbal arrangement has been made on the subject…but a confirmation of terms by correspondence is needed to enable the Manhattan Chess Club to make preparations”.
In April 1890, Mr. Gunsberg wrote in his chess column published in the London evening post:’ I have received a letter from the Manhattan Chess Club requesting me to send the conditions under which I propose playing my match with Steinitz…I sincerely trust I may succeed in coming to an amicable arrangement with my great antagonist.”
In September 1890, Steinitz wrote:’ It was likely to fall through, but it appear that a subscription was made on the other side of the water for the purpose of supporting the contest in the shape of offering, I lieu of any stakes, a minimum prize to the winner, amounting to as much as the victor would receive at least if stakes were deposited. On the 2nd October Mr. Gunsberg cable to me that £75 had been subscribed to the purpose, and as this is equivalent to half of stipulated minimum stakes. Bravo England! It is the first time in the chess history that one country supports a master match to be played in another country, and the beautiful example will, I trust, be followed in the future.”
During October the players exchange few letters and argued on few points of the Rules especially the one (number 11) covering an adjourned game.
Finally, on December 9, 1890, both players agreed to terms and signed the contract: The winner would be first to 10 games (draws not counting), or most wins after 20 games. A draw would be declared in the case of 9 wins each. The stakes were $1,500 with 2/3 for the winner. Gunsberg received $150 traveling expenses from the Manhattan Chess Club. The winner of a game received $20, the loser $10 and in case of a draw, they both got $10. British amateurs contributed 75 pounds towards Gunsberg’s share of the prize fund
The first game could start…
The match was played for the second time in New York and the winner will be the first with 10 points.
The Games are based from the notes in the ICM 11-12/1890
Game 1
The fight for the Chess championship of the world began in the city of New York. Gunsberg, the English player, has been recuperating during the past week, and starts, in apparently good health, a contest which is looked upon in English Chess circles as a foregone conclusion in favor of Steinitz.
There is no avoiding the fact that enthusiasm over this match has not been raised to the customary high pitch which is manifested in a fight of such importance; and this is readily accounted for be the disappointment which has been, created by the interruption of the cable match—a contest which, as every Chess player knows, not only involved certain important principles entirely new to the Chess world, but had unquestionably reached the most interesting stage, during its progress. No doubt as the, present match between Steinitz and Gunsberg proceeds, that disappointment will gradually give way to the interest which must necessarily center around any prominent event which may be in progress.
Steinitz was draw to make the first move, and play was about to commence when Gunsberg entered an objection to the presence of reporters. Gunsberg’ s action, it is believed is almost, if not entirely, without precedent.
In the large club room on the floor below that in which the play was going on, a giant chess board was fixed against the wall, and the move was made in actual play.
Steinitz offered a Queen’s Gambit, which his opponent promptly declined, and when, a few in moves later, the game took a novel turning, things began to be pretty exciting. The introduction of some sort of a novelty has ever been one of the features of Steinitz’ s play. His idea seems to be to throw himself and his opponent, whenever practicable, on new ground, winch it is always his delight to explore. Connoisseur, however, would hardly anticipate that novelty could be brought out so early in the usually dull Queen’s Gambit as the 4th move, There it was that Steinitz introduced a sort of Giuco Piano on the King’s side, by 4. f3 in conjunction with the other opening. Moreover, he brought his King’s Knight out to h3 one of his many oddities and then to f2.
Gunsberg’ s defense, by playing Nc6, which blockade his c-pawn, was based on the idea of breaking through the centre, and he then offered battle by the advance of the e5 Pawn o the 9th move, which forced the exchange of the Queen’s centre Pawn, but, on the other hand, he could not get rid of White’s e-pawn, which formed the head of a strong line of Pawns directed against black’s King’s side,
On the 11th move, Steinitz missed an opportunity of much improving his position by playing Nd3. The result was that his c-pawn became isolated, without his having two Bishops, which he would have obtained in other variations, and Black, by very clever maneuver made a counter demonstration on the Queen’s side against that weak Pawn, which for a long time delayed White’s attack out the other wing. This was practically the state of the game on Gunsberg’ s 26th move, which he sealed at the adjournment White was threatening the King’s side, while Black menaced the other wing.
Prior to the adjournment, Gunsberg, after the 18th move, offered his opponent a draw, which the latter declined. On the recommencement of play, at 7 o’clock, the same sort of struggle as had been going on before continued for two moves on each side, Queens and Bishops being shifted from one side to the other for purposes of attack. Gunsberg had then the best of the game if it came to an ending, but the chances of the middle fight were still somewhat in favor of White. Under the circumstances, the draw, which was this time offered by Steinitz, was readily accepted by Gunsberg.
When within half an hour after the resumption of play it was announced to the spectators that a draw had been offered and accepted, there was for the moment some little surprise manifested. This surprise, however, disappeared when the position was put up to the finish and examined. It was declared with confidence by some of those in the room that Steinitz could not possibly have possibly won the game, if it had proceeded.
Game 2
Before the opening of the game, it came an objection made by Gunsberg, which, resulted a total exclusion of reporters (except two) from the room which was considered too small to write their report. It was expected an Evans Gambit but finally it came a Ruy-Lopez. It is only fair to say, however, that Gunsberg has never been known to play the Evans Gambit in match games.
Steinitz played in accordance with the theory laid down in his book— defending the Ruy- Lopez by 3… d6 whereupon Gunsberg started one of the leading variations from the same work, 4.c3 and Steinitz not knowing whether his opponent had anything of a special nature prepared in that particular line of attack, immediately adopted other tactics, which have not yet been analyzed – On the 5 move he adopted a plan of development for the Night in e7, which, in a similar position, was first introduced by Mr Martinez in the Sixth American Congress- On the 7th move Gunsberg’s plan of action was declared, and his defence of d5 showed that he was playing for the crowding and blocking system, which, according to Steinitz ‘s theories, somewhat compromised the ending.
During the next few moves, Black simply developed the King’s side ready for castling, while White tried to maneuver his Knight into the center at e3 with a view to keeping to strong post at f5. Black on the 10th move entered upon a counter demonstration in the center, attacking the adverse c-pawn with his Knight, after defending and White after defending, took the earliest opportunity to attack that Knight with 12. b4, but Black’s piece gained the strong entrance into the hole at a4. White proceeded with the advance of Pawns on the
Queen side, while Black on the 14th move affected at long- prepared breach in the center with the advance of his f-pawn. After some moves for the development and preparation of an attack by Black, who had evidently the pull on both wings, the crisis came on his 17th move, which threatened a dangerous exchange that would have allowed Black’s Knight to jump at the ‘ hole’’ at f4-square.
In trying to avoid that, White lost the exchange. After this Black proceeded to force the exchange of Queens and then to get strong entrance with his Rooks, first on the open f-file and afterward on the d-file. At the time of adjournment, it being White’s 27th move which he sealed, Black threatened to occupy the strong post at d2 with one of its Rook, which seemed to win a Pawn.
On play being resumed at 7 o’clock, Black succeeded in capturing the Pawn, and being the exchange ahead, it only became a matter of time Steinitz pressed the pace, and Gunsberg resigned at his 41st move.
Game 3
When the third game of the Championship Chess match began Saturday morning at the Manhattan Chess Club in West Twenty-seventh Street, there was only a meager attendance of members in the large club room; but, as was the case on Thursday, as the afternoon progressed the number of spectators began to increase. What made matters more than ordinarily interesting from the start, was the fact that Steinitz again opened a Queen’s Gambit, which, as on the first day, Gunsberg declined by playing e3. The inference to be drawn from this proceeding on the part of Steinitz is that he had fully realized the mistake he made on the first day and was satisfied that he could do better, if not win. He was evidently of the opinion that he could rectify the errors of judgment, which marked his play in the first game, and presumably in this belief, he entered for the second time upon the same opening.
It is frequently the case that when a master loses or draws a game ins certain opening, he will take the earliest opportunity of playing the same opening again, provided he thinks he could improve on his previous play by substituting at times a different move or variation. From the point of view of the Chess student today’s game is a most valuable one, when studied side by side with that of Tuesday, for from such a study the weaknesses of the earlier game will probably be exemplified in the second one. It is worthy of note that Steinitz took five minutes’ consideration on his 4th move, and that be consumed twelve minutes upon his 8th move.
This careful deliberation indicated that Steinitz was once more treading new ground, while Gunsberg consumed much less time, probably because he had his course of action clearly planned in accordance with long established principles.
Attention may be drawn to the fact that a clear advantage accrued to Gunsberg early in the game by his isolating his opponents Queen’s Pawn. Just before the time for the adjournment, many spectators declared that Gunsberg had thrown away the chances he had gained earlier in the game, and was obviously playing for a draw.
During the adjournment Steinitz was asked to give his opinion on the game as far as it had gone, and he said: “You are aware that though a Queen’s Gambit Declined, this game differs very much from the one we played on Tuesday in consequence of Gunsberg having adopted a different line of play on his 3rd move. Although the position was thus at once altered, I still proceeded with the same use of development as in the first game, commencing with 5.f3. My opponent answered this time with Bb4, thereby gaining a move, for in the first game, he had played Be7 in a similar situation then Bb4. My 8th move, Be2, was probably not as good as Bd2. I think I should also have done better by retaking with the Queen. Black’s 12th move was, in my opinion, not a good one, and in his place I would have played Bd7. White then compelled a withdrawal of his adversary’s Bishop back to e-square. An exchange of minor pieces soon followed, and it became evident that Black was playing for no more than a draw, and I think he could not do better than that. “The further progress of the game was marked by time concentration of the Rooks on the open King’s file on White’s part, while Black changed tactics and attempted an attack against the isolated Queen’s Pawn, evidently for winning purposes. He, however, soon recognized that he could not make much impression with his attempted attack, and again he entered on an exchanging policy with a view of drawing. At the time of the adjournment on the 27th move, the pieces and Pawns were even.”
Some of the spectators were prepared to see the game proceed for fifteen or twenty moves more, and therefore it was a source of some little surprise when it was announced that a draw had been agreed upon, practical without any additional, moves being made, for the only move recorded after the adjournment was the one which Gunsberg had sealed at 5 pm. 27…Qd6 was counted as a good one. This move made Steinitz think for twenty minutes, at the end of which time his opponent said:” It is nothing but a draw, Mr. Steinitz”, and the latter then assented to the proposal, saying: “Very well, all right.”
Game 14
Again the Evans Gambit, but Steinitz, in accordance with the intention of which he had already notified his opponent, declined to continue all through with the same defense he had adopted in the cable game against Chigorin. Of course, Gunsberg knew quite well that the veteran would alter his method, and, therefore, in again opening the Evans, Gunsberg manifested an enterprise at once admirable and courageous.
Speculation became rife after the opening moves as to where Steinitz would first depart from the cable game, and the spectators did not have to wait long before this point was decided. The twelfth game was adhered to up to the end of the 6th move. On Black’s seventh turn came the anticipated change. In his game by cable with the Russian player, and also in the first Evans Gambit between the two players, Steinitz moved on his seventh turn Kt—KR3, he varied this move by playing P—KR3. A spectator who was present when this move was recorded, stated that in tournament play a few years ago the same movement was made by a strong amateur against Steinitz himself, who on that occasion was playing White.
For some time the game was conducted on fairly even terms, Gunsberg pursuing the initiative with marked vigor and ability. At length the opinion of the spectators turned chiefly in favor of the Hungarian’s game, which was considered, long before the adjournment, to be the superior of the two.
Quite an hour before the usual time for adjourning one of the strongest club players exclaimed : “I think White has ‘busted’ him now.”
Steinitz took a long time to consider his reply and was still thinking when the time arrived for adjourning the afternoon sitting. At this time it was clear that he was playing for his only hope a draw.
The move which Steinitz sealed on the adjournment was one by which he.attained his object of drawing the game. When it had been opened an” the move made on the board of play, the veteran said to his younger opponent “You may think it over and tell me if you want to play for a win.” After a few moments’ consideration Gunsberg said that if his opponent’s remark was intended to be an offer of a draw, he was willing to accept it. The game was thereupon recorded as a draw. The greater part of Gunsberg’s play was counted by many as fine Chess, and altogether he has proved a surprise.
Steinitz makes the following comments upon the game:
“Gunsberg is certainly very plucky. He offered the Evans Gambit for the second time, although I had given him notice that I thought myself at liberty to alter my defence at any time. In his comments upon this notice he calls it a retraction of a challenge that ought never to have been made, but I do not think that fair-minded Chess players will agree with him, for all challenges ought to be accepted formally within a reasonable time, and Gunsberg could not expect that I should wait for his convenience and be bound to a long series of moves, while he would be at liberty to alter his tactics at any time or not play that opening at all.”
“However, I did not abandon the leading idea of my defense; I played 6…Q—B3, which was the original bone of contention between Tschigorin and myself. On the 7th move I also advanced P—KR3, which was the line of play I had intended to adopt against Tschigorin, before knowing that he had included, in his conditions 7…Kt—R3_ Gunsberg then proceeded with a sort of Ruy Lopez attack by 8 B—Kt5, and threatened to gain a Pawn for two moves in succession. Black lost patience on the 9th move, and exchanged Pawns in a manner that gave his opponent a good center attack which could have been avoided by B—Kt 3 instead.
“The fight for the position soon afterward resolved itself into an attempt on White’s part to force on his KBP, while Black parried that attack and attempted a counter demonstration by the advance of his Pawns on the Q wing. This was hardly judicious, though it might perhaps have worked well, considering that Black was a Pawn ahead, if he had on the 27th move simply protected the weakened QBP by Q—K sq. As it was, White won the Q Pawn and obtained a past KP which, at the time of adjournment, loose I threatening. However Black had some compensation by the exposed position of the adverse King, while his own was in security, and he had also more freedom on the action for his Rook on the open files. It was a fair draw, considering that White’s King could be much harassed.
Game 15
At the fifteenth Game in their match for the Chess Championship, Steinitz and Gunsberg again discussed a Zukertort Opening on the initiative of the older player. Virtually Steinitz has now made the same opening eight times. Of course, he has varied the opening move by playing at one time P—Q4, fit another KKt—B3, but the result after a few moves has been that practically speaking, the position arrived at has been the same.
Gunsberg managed on this occasion to get his pieces more readily into play than in the thirteenth game in which his Q side, it will be remembered, was very much hampered. Eventually, Steinitz made an excursion with his Queen into her own territories and commenced a mode of attack which could hardly be reckoned as satisfactory for his own game. The result was that ultimately he lost a Pawn after a fight which was pretty evenly conducted on both sides.
Gunsberg captured the Pawn on his 26th move, and an exchange of Rooks followed. When the game was adjourned, after twenty-eight moves had been recorded, the position, indicated that Bishops on differently colored squares would be left on the board and that the most likely issue then would be a draw. This ultimately proved to be the case when Steinitz exchanged his QB for the opposing Knight, and a draw was announced after White’s 39th move.
Steinitz’s remarks on the game were as follows:
“There was little change from the usual turn in the early part of the opening, excepting that Black already entered on the Queen’s Fianchetto on his 3d move. Black’s 9th move, however, seemed to strengthen White’s center, and the latter threatened to occupy the usual strong diagonal with Bishop and Queen against the K-side, after withdrawing his Bishop to Kt sq. Black attempted a counter demonstration with his Bishop on the Q side, but this had only the effect of assisting White’s development of Rooks, which came in strongly on the QB file.
On his 20th move, White made an injudicious recapture, to which Black gave an excellent reply which won a Pawn temporarily. However, by a counter attack with his Rook on the 7th file White recovered the Pawn but his isolated QP had to fall soon, and he had the option of exchanging his QB for the Black Knight, thus remaining with Bishops of opposite colors, which almost invariably leads to a draw.
After the adjournment White effected the exchange indicated of QB’ against Knight; then he concentrated his Bishop at B’sq., and his Queen at K2 with a fair defensive position, though he was much hampered by the adverse ingenious attack, which kept his Queen and King confined.”
Game 16
After two-and-a-half hours’ play the sixteenth game in the Steinitz-Gunsberg Chess encounter was decided in a most unexpected manner It was an Evans Gambit which was again started by Gunsberg, and the spectators who were assembled in the large room at the Manhattan Chess Club found in a short time a new variation of the famous opening, which not only proved particularly interesting but in which Steinitz took up a line of defense superior to that which he played on the previous occasions. At any rate, after nineteen moves had been made on either side, there seemed to be no particular danger threatening him.
Naturally, the early moves were very rapid. The first deviation from the 14th game was made by Gunsberg on his 8th move. With this exception, Gunsberg’s attack in the opening was similar to that which he played in the previous Evans Gambit.
It was generally expected that Gunsberg would now proceed with Bx Kt and Q—Kt4, threatening mate, but this expectation was not realized, for he moved QKt—Q2. The attack and the defence were now conducted on fairly even terms. Steinitz succeeded in neutralizing the attack of his opponent and entered upon a counter-attack, for which, however, he had not made full preparation.
Although at the time when the middle-game was entered upon, Steinitz had not been able to Castle, his King seemed to be in safe quarters, protected by Pawns and minor pieces, while his Queen was engaged in an attack on the opposing King.
On his twentieth turn, Gunsberg made a move which was destined to at once change the whole aspect of affairs. At first sight, the object of this move, Kt—R4, was simply to drive back the adverse Queen at the risk of losing the Pawn which was thus left en prise. But in reality, it was a cleverly .conceived trap which had for its object the capturing of the Queen, the BP being the bait. It is sufficient to say that Steiniiz did not see the trap until he had made the fatal move, and when his opponent’s reply came, he at once gave up.
This is what Steinitz has to say about the game: “It proceeded in the same manner as the fourteenth, up to White’s 8th move, Q—R4, and then again White pursued the same sort of attack as in the former game, bringing his QB — QKt5, and the other B—QR3- Black again exchanged the centre Pawns and seemed to obtain a good game with his Knight posted at Q4, but on his 13th move he entered on a premature attack which he could not well support, as his pieces were still blocked in on the Q side, and he was unable to Castle.”
White defended splendidly; and especially owing to a weak move made by Black on his eighteenth turn, which blocked his own Queen, White emanated with a very good game, considering that he was a Pawn behind-On the 20th move. White attacked the Queen with his Knight at R4, which involved a simple two-move trap, whereby Black’s Queen was lost if she took the Pawn which was left en prise.
It should be stated that at this point Gunsberg touched the square at R4 with his Knight, and then retracted the move, and after taking some time to consider, and shaking his head as if he had made a mistake, he finally adopted the move. Thereupon I took the Pawn, and on seeing my opponent’s reply, Kt—K4, resigned.
Then I taxed my opponent on the manner in which he had made his 2oth move, which was calculated to mislead, and I reminded him that in his match with Tschigorin, he had in a similar case brought a charge against the Russian master. Gunsberg apologized and gave his word of honor that he had not done it willfully.”
Game 17
Those wh’o have been watching the struggle between Steinitz and Gunsberg for the Chess championship, began to realize after the previous game, that the finish is going to be an exciting one. One reason for this is because Gunsberg is running the champion so closely.
On account of its being so unexpected, Gunsberg’s good play through out is the subject of no little admiration, even among those who thought, before the Hungarian readied here, that Steinitz would run away with him.
Steinitz offered another Queen’s Gambit which the younger player promptly declined. As usual, some new and interesting variations were introduced in this familiar opening, and the development of the game brought out a number of exceptionally attractive and exciting positions. Queens were exchanged as early as the 6th and 7th moves, at which time Steinitz was a Pawn to the good, numerically, but he had a double Pawn on the K file. A few moves later Gunsberg retook the Pawn, and after thirteen moves had been registered, which led up to a series of brilliancies which were greatly admired.
After this Steinitz gave up two Pawns to capture a Knight, and about this time the spectators were unanimously of opinion that Gunsberg ought to have saved that piece by playing 18…KtxBP, and in case Steinitz then took the Knight, Gunsberg might have proceeded BxP ch., thereby regaining the Knight at R3, with a strong winning position. Gunsberg himself said that if he had taken the Pawn as indicated, he certainly would have saved the piece, but he would also have lost the game.
The move which Steinitz sealed on the adjournment gave Gunsberg food for thirty minutes reflection when play was resumed in the evening. A series of exchanges followed which left the board more clear, and although there seemed to be no possible issue but a draw, Steinitz appeared to have a slight advantage which justified him in continuing the fight. However, after fifty-six moves had been recorded, a draw was agreed upon.
Steinitz’s remarks on the game are as follows:
“Gunsberg declined the Queen’s Gambit on the 2d move in a novel manner, which, however, did not turn out advantageous to him, as White gained time to form a strong center. On the 5th move, Black gave up the KP, which, however, he recovered shortly afterward, but with a great inferiority of position, as Ins King blocked his pieces on the Q side. White could have very much increased his advantage on the both move by retreating his Kt—K3 instead of to QB3. After this he pressed the attack chiefly with his Pawns on the K-wing; his KBP became very strong and blocked the adverse pieces.
White sacrificed a Pawn on the (5th move and another on the 16th in order to break through on the KKt file, but owing to the ingenious defense of his opponent especially on his 18th and 20th moves he was compelled to get his Knight into a blocked position, from which it was very difficult to escape. White, however, had an excellent chance of releasing his Knight, with a winning game, or else of gaining a strong attack on the KKt file, if he had not precipitately, under pressure of time limit, advanced P—K5 on his twenty-fifth turn. His 26th move was also an inferior one, and he would have done better to move his K—QB4-
After the adjournment, White released his King in a few moves, and Black decided to regain the piece he had lost, but with a much inferior position in consequence. A hard struggle followed, Gunsberg defending excellently, and ultimately succeeded in obtaining a draw.”
Game 18
Excitement and interest in the Chess encounter between Steinitz and Gunsberg has been growing apace in the interval between the seventeenth and eighteenth games. It being Gunsberg’s turn to open, there was much speculation as to whether he would again offer an Evans Gambit, or turn his attention to one of his two favorites—the Giuoco Piano or Ruy Lopez.
What gave this game a deeper interest was the bearing which its result would have upon the final issue of the match. Should Steinitz win it, it was considered that the match would be decided in his favor, for it would require that Gunsberg should win both the remaining games to even draw the match. Should the game be drawn, there would still remain a chance for Gunsberg to draw, if not actually win the match, white if he should win this game, his chances to make the match a draw would be a little short of a certainty, and his hopes of winning it would be raised considerably. It will thus be seen that the interest was enhanced to an almost incalculable extent by these various considerations and that the members and visitors at the Manhattan Chess Club were full en rapport with the prevailing spirit of the fight.
It was an Evans Gambit which Gunsberg offered for the fourth time, and which Steinitz on this occasion varied on his seventh turn by playing KKt—K7 instead of P—KR3 which latter move he adopted in the fourteenth and sixteenth games of the match. This fresh variation gave Gunsberg an opportunity of playing a mode of attack somewhat similar to the one adopted by Tschigorin in the cable match, viz., 8 Q—R4, followed by B—QKt 5, Kt—R3, and so on, but before he decided to adopt this course, the younger player reflected for a period of twenty-three minutes.
After awhile Steinitz instituted a counter-attack by advancing his Pawns on the Q side, taking care to retain the gambit Pawn, but on his 30th move. he apparently overlooked a pending combination on the part of his opponent, lost a Pawn, and what was still worse, allowed his force of Pawns on the Q wing to be broken up.
When play was resumed a tough and protracted struggle was entered upon. Gunsberg’s position grew worse by degrees, although he fought well and with admirable tenacity. Steinitz, however, conducted the attack, which he had now created, with his old-time skill. At one time it was thought that Gunsberg might bring about a draw, but ultimately the spectators came unanimously to the conclusion that Steinitz had a won game, and thereafter it became to them only a question as to how he would effect his object. It was nearly ten o’clock before Gunsberg found himself compelled to conclude his spirited and plucky defense by capitulating on his fifty-fifth turn.
What Steinitz had to say about the game is subjoined: “The defense proceeded on the same lines as in the games played in the early pan of the match between Tschigorin and Steinitz at Havana. White, however, altered the attack from that of Tschigorin, and the upshot of it was that Black had no need to block his pieces, as is usual in this opening, and he was able to get his Queen at Kt3, with a good game.
“There were some lively complications from the 10th to the 12th moves on either side, especially when Black on the latter move threatened to give up a Rook for two minor pieces. An exchange of Black’s Knight for White’s QB followed, and this greatly relieved Black’s game, for he was able to Castle and form an attack with his Pawns on the Q side. He, however, weakened his position considerably on the 2oth move, and his adversary, taking full advantage of the situation, most skilfully formed an attack in the K-centre.
This part of the struggle ended in White gaining a Pawn on the K-side, while Black was two strong Pawns ahead on- the opposite wing. On the 30th move Black committed an error that lost him one of these Pawns, and perhaps from that point, it might have been possible for White to draw, but he injudiciously went in for a K-side attack, instead of defending himself on the other wing. Black then advanced his QBP systematically, and though it seemed to be in danger of falling, he managed to reach the seventh square, and then after exchanging Queens, that Pawn was bound to cost the opponent a piece, and eventually it won the game for Black.”
Game 19
Steinitz was greeted on Wednesday night after he had won the eighteenth game in his match with Gunsberg, as possessor of “half the championship,” and received the congratulations of his friends and supporters on having, at the very least, insured a draw by the brilliant victory which he had achieved. By drawing the nineteenth game in the contest, he became once more his old self, the Chess Champion of the World, which proud title he has held undisturbed for a quarter of a century.
To the spectators at the Manhattan Club the interest in the game was reduced to the question of whether Steinitz would succeed in either winning or drawing it, and thereby secure the final victory, or whether Gunsberg. would manage to win, and thus give the twentieth and concluding game of the match preeminence over all the other in point of supplying Chess players with the matter which would excite in them a lively interest and enthusiasm.
Having the turn to open, the veteran chose the Queen Pawn Opening, which ultimately was resolved into a regular Queen’s Gambit Declined. The play was conducted very rapidly .on both sides. Queens were exchanged on the l0th move, and some active maneuvering followed.
Matters were still further precipitated by a series of additional exchanges which quickly ensued after the game had reached the 18th move. The position was still more simplified thereby, and apparently the only issue to be expected was a draw. Gunsberg did not seem to make any great effort to win, and from the nature of the play, it seemed as though Steinitz, too would be satisfied with a draw, although when the game reached the end stage, the spectators were of the opinion that he was making an effort to win. He marched -out with his “fighting monarch” as far as QB5, where
he surrounded him with the few remaining officers, while Gunsberg confined himself almost, entirely to defence, making very few aggressive moves in the end game. A drawn position was finally arrived at, and this conclusion was agreed upon after 41 moves. The total time occupied in play was considerably short of three hours.
Here is what Steinitz had to say:
“Naturally, as there has been some comment upon the frequent repetition of the same opening on my part, the public ought to be reminded that in some of the best matches this has also been the case. In the match between Staunton and St. Amant, each of the players, throughout a contest of over twenty games, played the Queens Gambit. Morphy mostly played the Ruy Lopez. Kolisch, the Giuoco Piano. Buckle, the great historian,
Our attention has been called to the fact dial this statement is erroneous, for though Morphy undoubtedly favored the KKt opening, in general commencing with 2 KKt — B3, it cannot be said that he showed any partiality for the Ruy Lopez in his matches, to which we especially wish to refer. This attack only occurs twice in heavy contests when Morphy was the first player, namely, once against Anderssen and once against Lowenthal. Against Harrwitz he played four times 1 P— K4, P— K4; 2 KKt — B3, but as his opponent adopted each time Philidor’s Defence. 2…P — Q3, it can only be conjectured whether Morphy intended to proceed with the Ruy Lopez, or to offer an Evans Gambit which was undoubtedly one of his favorites in play in general.
As the first player adopted the Giuoco Piano, and as the second player, the French Defense. Numerous other instances might be cited. Now, I have never in my life played the French Defence which is the dullest of all openings, and only once, as far as I can remember, the Sicilian, assecond player. I always play an open game when I am on the defence, and accept any gambits that are offered, but, as the first player, I have latterly adopted a safe and sound opening like the Ruy Lopez against Zukertort, and the Queens Gambit against Chigorin and Gunsberg, and I made up my mind not to alter the openings until I was a good number of games ahead. As all those matches were pretty close, I had little opportunity of varying, though in former days, when I had a clearer memory, I ventured into a variety of attacks.
As the score stood in the present match, it would have been simply folly in this game to have hazarded a new line of play, and the opening proceeded in the usual manner. There was no deviation of importance. On the 14th move Black made an attempt of a counter-attack which, however, was quickly repelled, and as the game progressed, it seemed almost as if Black was playing for a draw himself, for he offered opportunities for effecting various exchanges, including both Rooks. The result was that only two minor pieces were left on each side—Bishop and Knight—with even Pawns.
At that stage I offered a draw, but Gunsberg said he would rather go on, and he made some attempt at getting his King into play on the Q-side, which, however, greatly compromised his position, as his King and Bishop were driven right back by the adverse Pawns, and White ultimately obtained the command of that wing, while Black’s centre was blocked. The game proceeded to the 42nd move when Black offered a draw which White accepted.”
After this Gunsberg proposed to Steinitz that they should finish the game, and the latter assented to this proposal and suggested a small stake, at the same time giving his opponent the odds of a draw. On this understanding they continued the game just for pleasure, and after about a dozen moves Gunsberg’s position became untenable, and he resigned. Steinitz contends that nobody will blame him for having agreed to a draw when he did, because, had he played on before securing the match, he might have made a mistake, as he did on the previous day, and this might have cost him the game.
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | Total | |
| W. Steinitz AUT | = | 1 | = | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | = | = | 1 | = | 0 | 1 | = | = | 0 | = | 1 | = | 10.5 |
| I. Gunsberg ENG | = | 0 | = | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | = | = | 0 | = | 1 | 0 | = | = | 1 | = | 0 | = | 8.5 |
Article published by the World Champion in his magazine ICM dated of January 1891.
PERSONAL AND GENERAL.
The match for the Championship of the World is over, and I am still the holder of the title. It is always a very difficult task for me on such occasions to perform my functions as a critic, and I can only say that I try to divest myself to the best of my ability and judgment of all personal feeling on such a subject, and I must let the public judge whether or not I succeed in my efforts. Mr. Gunsberg has made apparently the best score against me of any player whom I have ever met for nearly thirty years, barring the late Professor Anderssen, who won six to my eight, with no draws, in 1866. Still, I consider it due, in justice to some masters, dead or living, with whom I have previously contested, to point out that the limitation of the number of games, which were fixed at the maximum of twenty, gave my opponent an opportunity of playing for draws, with the mere object of reducing my score of wins, and this is large odds in the bands of a very skilful player like Mr. Gunsberg. My encounter with Mr. Tschigorin at Havana was also, it is true, played under the same conditions, but the fact that only one draw occurred in that contest, and this one only in the last game, may be taken as evidence that the Russian master did not exert himself to take advantage of the limitation of the number of games. It is also noteworthy that Mr. Tschigorin obtained the lead twice by one game, whereas my late opponent scored a majority of one only once in the early part of the contest. Still, if some people thought that I could have run away with the score against Mr. Gunsberg, they will find themselves, on close analysis of the games, much mistaken. Part of his play, for instance in the seventeenth game, belongs to the highest order that I have ever come across in past records, as well as in my own practice. His antecedents, as a match and tournament player, were also of such a character as not to warrant any foregone conclusion too much in my favor. His score against Chigorin alone, with whom he tied in a long match of twenty-three games, at Havana, would entitle him to rank among the greatest players of the age. Anyhow, he has greatly added to his reputation in the last match, and it is a mere matter of conjecture and of opinion whether or not I could have done better against him under other conditions.
In response of my remarks on this subject, Mr. Gunsberg has the following to say in a New York contemporary. The World, in which journal, by the way, he will conduct a weekly column by correspondence from London, where be will again take up his residence:
“MR. STEINITZ CAVILS.
“Where Mr, Steinitz’s ego or amour propre is concerned he is anything but generous. From his remarks on the match just concluded, he said that I played for a draw all through. Considering that he has won the match, he might very well have contented himself without saying anything on the subject, especially as exactly the reverse was the case. Mr. Steinitz was leading from the seventh game right up to the end. It was I, therefore, who gave Mr. Steinitz the odds of the draw all along. This is not only proved by the fact that whenever I had the move I played an attacking game, including four Evans Gambits, but it is also borne out by Mr. Steinitz’s play in adopting the Queens side openings, whose chief merit consists in the fact that it gives the first player a safe drawing hand. Even there, as shown by the games themselves, I endeavored to the best of my ability by varying the Defence to give the game a livelier character, in which effort I mostly succeeded. A man in Mr. Steinitz’s position, who undertakes and ventures nothing beyond a Queen side opening should say as Mule as possible about his opponent playing fur a drawn game.”
As it is well-known, the issue of a draw meant the absolute loss of the match for Mr. Gunsberg when he played the nineteenth and last game. Everybody, and most of all myself, fully expected that he would play that game desperately to win or lose, in order to take his last chance of a tie, as only one more game had to be played after that. Greatly to my astonishment, my opponent seemed to aim quite early in the opening at a reduction of forces and a simplification of the position, which, as a matter of course, was easily effected. Still more was I naturally surprised, when after the game was over, Mr. Gunsberg informed me that he had already cabled to London at 2 o’clock when scarcely more than half-a-dozen moves had been interchanged, that the game had ended in a draw. A friend of his, who was present, explained that Mr. Gunsberg had done (his in order to obtain “a heat” over other cable correspondents. When I asked Mr, Gunsberg what he would have done if either of us had committed an error and lost the game, he answered that he took his chance upon that. As every connoisseur knows, who has watched match and tournament play between nearly equal opponents, the risk was only a very slight one. It would have been the height of folly on my part, as the score stood, not to be satisfied with a draw, when the opportunity offered itself, and as my opponent undoubtedly assisted toward bringing about that issue, the result could be reckoned upon almost to a certainty. It becomes, therefore, clear that in the very last game, with nothing more to lose, and though he had still some prospect of being the match, my opponent’s object was only to reduce my possible score of wins, and the conclusion is a fair One that he played for that purpose, more or less, all along during the match. Not that he could be blamed for that, especially under the circumstances that, as he informed me, he had contributed ₤.30 out of his own pocket toward the prize fund, in consideration for which I had agreed that, in the case of a tie, the whole prize money should be returned to him. But his denial and the offensive tone and manner which he adopts need scarcely be further commented upon.
Mr. Gunsberg’s other critical remarks on the play of the match are evidently calculated for “the gallery,” but will scarcely leave any impression on anyone who understands the subject. As is well known, I was severely handicapped when he suddenly sprung upon me the Evans Gambit, for, as he could easily foresee, I was morally forced to retain at least the chief features of my defence against Mr. Tschigorin, and yet I could not, in justice to my supporters in the cable match, divulge my intended line of action against my Russian opponent; and especially in the first Evans I had to select an inferior move, which had been thoroughly analyzed by Mr. Gunsberg and some other strong players of the Manhattan Chess Club. Mr. Gunsberg also talks as if he had given me the lead quite voluntarily, and that in consequence, I had the odds of the draw, of which I availed myself. With the exception, perhaps, of the play on both sides in the last game, I do not think that anyone competent to judge will draw such a conclusion from the analysis of the games, and I feel sure that the seventeenth game alone, in which I sacrificed two Pawns, after Queens were exchanged, and offered a third in order to avoid an exchange which would have led to a clear draw, will be sufficient evidence to the contrary. As regards the repetition of the opening on my part, I have only followed the example of the greatest match players before my time, with the exception that I never play a close game like the French or Sicilian in the Defence. But while on this subject I think it right to correct an erroneous assertion which I made by attributing to Morphy a special favoritism of the Ruy Lopez in his match play. My attention having been called to the subject, I find that in his match contests he played twice the Ruy Lopez and twice the Evans. He. however, opened four times against Harrwitz with the King’s Knight’s opening, 2 KKt—B3. But as his opponent always answered with the Philidor’s Defence, 2… P—Q2, it is only a matter of conjecture what continuation Morphy intended to, select, and it can only he said that the King’s Knight’s opening, in general was his favorite.
