Page:1902 Encyclopædia Britannica - Volume 26 - AUS-CHI.pdf/812

This page needs to be proofread.



Problem No. XV. is a good example of a theme recurrent. It will be seen that the leading mate given by Q, B, and Kt is repeated, in all cases being perfectly pure, no less than four times. Problem No. XVI. is given to show the extraordinary lengths to which variety can be carried consistently with a scrupulous regard to the principles of construction. Every single variation results in a mate perfect in form. Problem No. XVII. is a modern (1896) version of the “ Bristol,” and shows the advance made, not only in the lighter, cleaner style, but in the addition of a secondary idea of merit. Problems XVIII. and XIX. are typical “modern style” prizewinners in leading tourneys, and illustrate the blending of several equally fine variations into a harmonious and finished whole. Problem XX. is an example of a sui-mate. Importakt Matches since 1834.


| I ! |

1S34 1843 1847 1851 1853 1858 1858 1858 1858 1861 1861 1862 1863 1866 1870 1872 1876 1876 1877 1881 1881 1886 1887 1887 1889 1890 1891 1892 1892 1893 1894 1894 1896

London Paris London London London Paris London Paris Paris London London London London London London London Leipzig London Leipzig London London America London London Havana Havana Havana Havana London St Petersburg America Nuremberg Moscow

Labourdonnais v. MacDonnell Staunton v. St Amant. Philidor v. Stamma Anderssen v. Lbwentbal Horwitz v. Lbwenthal Anderssen v. Horwitz Morphy v. Lbwenthal . Morphy v. Horwitz Morphy v. Anderssen . Anderssen v. Kolisch . Paulsen v. Kolisch (drawn) Anderssen v. Paulsen (drawn) Steinitz v. Blackburn e Steinitz v. Anderssen . Steinitz v. Blackburne Steinitz v. Zukertort . Paulsen v. Anderssen . Steinitz v. Blackburne Paulsen v. Anderssen . Zukertort v. Blackburne Blackburne v. Gunsberg Steinitz v. Zukertort . Blackburne v. Zukertort Gunsberg v. Blackburne Steinitz v. Tchigorin . Gunsberg v. Tchigorin. Steinitz v. Gunsberg (drawn) Steinitz v. Tchigorin . Lasker v. Blackburne . Dr Tarrasch v. Tchigorin (drawn) Lasker v. Steinitz Dr Tarrasch v. Walbrodt Lasker v. Steinitz

Comments. Steinitz v. Blackburne (1863).—A remarkable victory, judging from the figures, but Blackburne suffered from a severe cold all through the contest, and should have won at least three games on the merits of the positions. Paulsen v. Anderssen (1877).—Paulsen’s victory was out of proportion considering the respective strength of the players. Zukertort v. Blackburne (1881).—A legitimate victory, Zukertort being then at the height of his power. Blackburne v. Gunsberg (1881).—A fair average number of wins for Gunsberg, who was then gradually making his way to the front rank. Steinitz v. Zukertort (1886).—A memorable match. Zukertort started well ahead ; the second series of games was played at St Louis after an interval, which gave Steinitz time to recover from his despondency at the New York defeat. Zukertort lost courage in proportion as Steinitz gained it, so that the concluding series at New Orleans proved Zukertort’s ddb&cle. Blackburne v. Zukertort (1887).—Blackburne took full revenge for his previous defeat, but Zukertort was already merely the shadow of himself. Steinitz v. Tchigorin (1889).—A good fight on the part of Tchigorin, the result being exactly what was anticipated. Gunsberg v. Tchigorin (1890).—Even games being played, Gunsberg would not stake the result of the match upon a single decisive game, which Tchigorin proposed. Steinitz v. Gunsberg (1891).—Steinitz should have won by a larger majority, but he persisted in playing a number of Evans gambits, defending compromisingly with one of his own inferior variations Steinitz v. Tchigorin (1892).—Here the Russian master made a better stand than in the previous match, also owing to Steinitz indulging in hobbies. Lasker v. Blackburne (1892).—The first noteworthy achievement of the future champion. This was a better result, as far as quality is concerned, than Steinitz’s against the latter opponent, for whereas in the match against Steinitz Bkckburne had chances of winning some of the games, he had none in this. Dr Tarrasch v. Tchigorin (1893).—A fine match, well fought and

producing instructive games. This, and Tchigorin’s victory at Budapest, were his best performances. It must be remembered that Dr Tarrasch was then considered the greatest living player. Lasker v. Steinitz (1894).—A memorable match. It was said at the time that Steinitz was ill-advised to accept the challenge of the rising master. So he was. But pecuniary circumstances compelled him to play and to stake a lifelong reputation upon the issue of this contest, even if he had known that he would be beaten. In better circumstances he refused to play with Mason, who challenged him after the match with Blackburne. Dr Tarrasch v. Walbrodt (1894).—The latter was no match against the famous doctor, and no other comment is required. Lasker v. Steinitz (1896).—This return match should never have been played. Pecuniary circumstances again induced Steinitz to venture upon a hopeless task. In fact, he insisted on playing, Lasker not being particularly eager. The result was a foregone conclusion, Lasker standing at the height of his fame, having just won the first prize at the great Nuremberg tournament. After the match Steinitz had an attack of mental aberration, which was erroneously ascribed to the “strain upon his mind” which the contest involved. But age and a shattered career, coupled with a predisposition to hypochondria, were the real causes. Games. The following is a selection of noteworthy games played by famous masters:— Queen’s Gambit Declined. Black. White. Black. White. Dr E. Lasker. W. Steinitz. Dr E. Lasker. W. Steinitz. Kt - Q5 21. Kt - B3 P-Q4 1. P-Q4 Kt x B (ch) P-K3 22. Q x P 2. P-QB4 R - Kt sq 23. P x Kt Kt - KBS 3. Kt - QB3 R- Kt3 24. QxP B-K2 4. B-B4 RxP Castles 25. Q - B4 5. P - K3 B-R2 P-B4 26. P-KR4 6. R - B sq Q-Q3 BxP 7. QPxP 27. B - K4 PxP 28. P-B4 8. Px P Q-Q2 Q - Kt5 29. B - Kt2 Kt - B3 9. Kt - B3 Kt - B4 30. Q-Q3 P-Q5 10. B - Q3 B-K6 Kt x P 31. Kt - K4 11. PxP RxB 32. R-B3 B - KKt5 12. Castles Kt x P (ch) 33. K x R B x Kt 13. Kt - QKt5 Kt x R (ch) 34. K - R2 Kt-K3 14. P x B Kt - R5 (ch) 35. K-Kt2 Kt-R4 15. B - K5 Kt - B4 Q - Kt4 36. K-R2 16. K - R sq P-R4 QR - Q sq 37. R - QKt sq 17. B - Kt3 R - R sq Q-R3 38. R- Kt5 18. Q-B2 RxP 39. P-R3 R - B sq 19. QR- Q sq Resigns. P-R3 20. Q-Kt3 This game was played in the St Petersburg tournament 1895, a fine specimen of Lasker’s style. The final attack beginning with 21...with Kt-Q5 furnishes a gem of an ending. Bishop’s Gambit. Black. White. Black. White. Charousek. Tchigorin. Tchigorin. Charousek. K-K2 P-K4 13. QxP (ch) 1. P - K4 Kt x Kt PxP 14. Kt x P 2. P - KB4 P-R3 15. B x Kt Kt - QB3 3. B-B4 B-B5 16. Kt - B3 Kt-B3 4. P-Q4 R - B sq P-Q4 17. P-K6 5. P - K5 PxP 18. B-B7 B - Kt5 6. B - Kt3 RxB 19. B x Q (ch) 7. Q-Q3 Kt - KR4 20. Q - Kt7 (ch) R-Q2 Kt - Kt5 8. Kt - KR3 KxR 21. R-B7 (ch) Kt - R3 9. Q-QB3 B-K2 22. Q x R (ch) B-K7 10. Castles R - K sq 23. R - K sq P-B3 11. B-R4 (ch) Resigns. 24. P - QKt3 PxB 12. B x P (ch) This pretty game was played in the tie match for first prize at the Budapest tournament 1896. Rice Gambit. Black. White. Black. White. Professor Rice. Major Hanham. Professor Rice. Major Hanham Kt - B7 P-K4 15. Q - R3 1. P-K4 B-K3 16. R x B (ch) PxP 2. P-KB4 Q - R8 (ch) P - KKt4 17. K - B sq 3. Kt - KB3 Kt - R6 18. Kt - Kt sq P - Kt5 4. P - KR4 P-B6 19. P x Kt Kt - KB3 5. Kt - K5 Q - Kt7 (ch) 20. B - Kt5 6. B-B4 P-Q4 21. K-K sq P-B7 (ch) B-Q3 7. PxP P-B8 = Kt 22. K - Q2 B x Kt 8. Castles (ch) Q-K2 9. R - K sq K-Q2 23. K-Q3 P-Kt6 10. P - B3 K-B2 24. PxB (ch) Kt - Kt5 11. P-Q4 K - Kt3 25. Q - K7 (ch) QxP 12. Kt - Q2 RxQ Q-R3 26. Q - Q8 (ch) 13. Kt - B3 P-B3 27. B x Q and mates 14. Q - R4 (ch)