Ruy Lopez.
| White. Halprin. | Black. Pillsbury. |
White. Halprin. | Black. Pillsbury. |
| 1. P – K4 | P – K4 | 14. P – Kt6 | BP × P |
| 2. Kt – KB3 | Kt – QB3 | 15. Kt – Q5 | P × Kt |
| 3. B – Kt5 | Kt – B3 | 16. KR – K sq (ch) | K – B sq |
| 4. Castles | Kt × P | 17. R – R3 | Kt – K4 |
| 5. P – Q4 | Kt – Q3 | 18. R × Kt | P × R |
| 6. P × P | Kt × B | 19. R – B3 (ch) | K – Kt sq |
| 7. P – QR4 | P – Q3 | 20. B – R6 | Q – K2 |
| 8. P – K6 | P × P | 21. B × P | K × B |
| 9. P × Kt | Kt – K2 | 22. R – Kt3 (ch) | K – B sq |
| 10. Kt – B3 | Kt – Kt3 | 23. R – B3 (ch) | K – Kt2 |
| 11. Kt – Kt5 | B – K2 | 24. R – Kt3 (ch) | K – B sq |
| 12. Q – R5 | B × Kt | 25. R – B3 (ch) | K – Kt sq |
| 13. B × B | Q – Q2 | Draw. | |
This brilliant game, played at the Munich tournament, 1900, would be unique had the combinations occurred spontaneously in the game. As a matter of fact, however, the whole variation had been elaborated by Maroczy and Halprin previously, on the chance of Pillsbury adopting the defence in the text. The real merit belongs to Pillsbury, who had to find the correct defence to an attack which Halprin had committed to memory and simply had to be careful to make the moves in regular order.
Sicilian Defence.
| White. Pillsbury. | Black. Mieses. |
White. Pillsbury. | Black. Mieses. |
| 1. P – K4 | P – QB4 | 16. P × P | Kt – Q5 |
| 2. Kt – KB3 | P – K3 | 17. B × R | K × B |
| 3. P – Q4 | P × P | 18. R – R2 | B – K3 |
| 4. Kt × P | Kt – KB3 | 19. R – Q2 | R – K sq |
| 5. Kt – QB3 | Kt – B3 | 20. Castles | B – Kt6 |
| 6. KKt – Kt5 | B – Kt5 | 21. Q – Kt sq | B – Q4 |
| 7. P – QR3 | B × Kt (ch) | 22. B – Q sq | B × P |
| 8. Kt × B | P – Q4 | 23. K × B | Q – Kt4 (ch) |
| 9. P × P | P × P | 24. K – R sq | Q × R |
| 10. B – KKt5 | Castles | 25. B – Kt4 | Q – B5 |
| 11. B – K2 | P – Q5 | 26. R – Kt sq | P – B4 |
| 12. Kt – K4 | Q – R4 (ch) | 27. B – R5 | Kt – B6 |
| 13. P – Kt4 | Q – K4 | 28. B × Kt | Q × B (ch) |
| 14. Kt × Kt (ch) | P × Kt | 29. R – Kt2 | R – K7 |
| 15. B – R6 | P – Q6 | 30. Q – QB sq | Q × QP |
Drawn eventually.
This brilliant game occurred at the Paris tournament, 1900.
Evans Gambit.
| White. Anderssen. | Black. Dufresne. |
White. Anderssen. | Black. Dufresne. |
| 1. P – K4 | P – K4 | 13. Q – R4 | B – Kt3 |
| 2. Kt – KB3 | Kt – QB3 | 14. QKt – Q2 | B – Kt2 |
| 3. B – B4 | B – B4 | 15. Kt – K4 | Q – B4 |
| 4. P – QKt4 | B × P | 16. B × P | Q – R4 |
| 5. P – B3 | B – R4 | 17. Kt – B6 (ch) | P × Kt |
| 6. P – Q4 | P × P | 18. P × P | R – Kt sq |
| 7. Castles | P – Q6 | 19. QR – Q sq | Q × Kt |
| 8. Q – Kt3 | Q – B3 | 20. R × Kt (ch) | Kt × R |
| 9. P – K5 | Q – Kt3 | 21. Q × P (ch) | K × Q |
| 10. R – K sq | KKt – K2 | 22. B – B5 (ch) | K – K sq |
| 11. B – R3 | P – Kt4 | 23. B – Q7 (ch) | K moves |
| 12. Q × P | R – QKt sq | 24. B × Kt mate. |
This game is most remarkable and brilliant. The coup de repos of 19. QR – Q sq is the key – move to the brilliant final combination, the depth and subtlety of which have never been equalled, except perhaps in the following game between Zukertort and Blackburne:—
English Opening.
| White. Zukertort. | Black. Blackburne. |
White. Zukertort. | Black. Blackburne. |
| 1. P – QB4 | P – K3 | 18. P – K4 | QR – QB sq |
| 2. P – K3 | Kt – KB3 | 19. P – K5 | Kt – K sq |
| 3. Kt – KB3 | P – QKt3 | 20. P – B4 | P – Kt3 |
| 4. B – K2 | B – Kt2 | 21. R – K3 | P – B4 |
| 5. Castles | P – Q4 | 22. P × P e.p. | Kt × P |
| 6. P – Q4 | B – Q3 | 23. P – B5 | Kt – K5 |
| 7. Kt – B3 | Castles | 24. B × Kt | P × B |
| 8. P – QKt3 | QKt – Q2 | 25. P × KtP | R – B7 |
| 9. B – Kt2 | Q – K2 | 26. P × P (ch) | K – R sq |
| 10. Kt – QKt5 | Kt – K5 | 27. P – Q5 dis. (ch) | P – K4. |
| 11. Kt × B | P × Kt | 28. Q – Kt4 | QR – B4 |
| 12. Kt – Q2 | QKt – B3 | 29. R – B8 (ch) | K × P |
| 13. P – B3 | Kt × Kt | 30. Q × P (ch) | K – Kt2 |
| 14. Q × Kt | P × P | 31. B × P (ch) | K × R |
| 15. B × P | P – Q4 | 32. B – Kt7 (ch) | K – Kt sq |
| 16. B – Q3 | KR – B sq | 33. Q × Q | Resigns. |
| 17. QR – K sq | R – B2 |
This game, played in the London tournament, 1883, is one of the most remarkable productions of modern times, neither surpassed nor indeed equalled hitherto.
End Games.—A game of chess consists of three branches—the opening, the middle and the end game. The openings have been analysed and are to be acquired by the study of the books on the subject. The middle game can only be acquired practically. The combinations being inexhaustible in their variety, individual ingenuity has its full scope. Those endowed with a fertile imagination will evolve plans and combinations leading to favourable issues. The less endowed player, however, is not left quite defenceless; he has necessarily to adopt a different system, namely, to try to find a weak point in the arrangement of his opponent’s forces and concentrate his attack on that weak spot. As a matter of fact, in a contest between players of equal strength, finding the weak point in the opponent’s armour is the only possible plan, and this may be said to be the fundamental principle of the modern school. In the good old days the battles were mostly fought in the neighbourhood of the king, each side striving for a checkmate. Nowadays the battle may be fought anywhere. It is quite immaterial where the advantage is gained be it ever so slight. Correct continuation will necessarily increase it, and the opponent may be compelled to surrender in the end game without being checkmated, or a position may be reached when the enemies, in consequence of the continual fight, are so reduced that the kings themselves have to take the field—the end game. The end game, therefore, requires a special study. It has its special laws and the value of the pieces undergoes a considerable change. The kings leave their passive rôle and become attacking forces. The pawns increase in value, whilst that of the pieces may diminish in certain cases. Two knights, for instance, without pawns, become valueless, as no checkmate can be effected with them. In the majority of cases the players must be guided by general principles, as the standard examples do not meet all-cases.
The handbooks as a rule give a sprinkling of elementary endings, such as to checkmate with queen, rook, bishop and knight, two bishops, and pawn endings pure and simple, as well as pawns in connexion with pieces in various forms. Towards the end of the 19th century a valuable work on end games was published in England by the late B. Horwitz; thus for the first time a theoretical classification of the art was given. This was followed by a more comprehensive work by Professor J. Berger of Gratz, which was translated a few years later by the late Mr Freeborough.
A few specimens of the less accessible positions are given below:—
Position from a Game played by the late J. G. Campbell in 1863.
| Obviously White has to lose the game, not being able to prevent the pawns from queening. By a remarkably ingenious device White averts the loss of the game by stalemating himself as follows:— 1. B Q2, P – Kt7; 2. B – R5, P – Kt8 = Q; 3. P – Kt4 stalemate. |
|
Position by Sarratt, 1808 
|
White wins as follows:— 1. P – Kt6, RP × P; 2. P – B6, P(Kt2) × P; 3. P – R6 and wins by queening the pawn. If 1. . . . BP × P then 2. P – R6, KtP × P; 3. P–B6 and queens the pawn. |
