|
Lasker,Em — Steinitz,W
|
(7)
|
| 1894.04.03 |
USA New York, NY (Union Square
Hotel)
|
|
Annotations by Lasker &
Steinitz
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 d6 4.d4 Bd7 5.Nc3 Nge7
6.Be3
| ** |
Lasker: The game proceeded
on novel lines from the fifth move, when, in order to get more advantage
out of the position, I changed my line of attack completely. The
fundamental difference of the two treatments consisted in the early
castling
on the queenside and playing for an attack on the kingside.
Steinitz: A novel line of play for the
attack. |
6...Ng6 7.Qd2 Be7 8.0-0-0 a6 9.Be2 exd4 10.Nxd4 Nxd4
11.Qxd4
Bf6 12.Qd2 Bc6 13.Nd5 0-0 14.g4
| ** |
Lasker: It seems, however,
that I overreached my attack when playing 14.g4. A quiet move like
14.f3 first would have greatly solidified my position. |
14...Re8 15.g5
| ** |
Steinitz: This advance is
premature,
He evidently overlooked Black’s coming
scheme.
15.f3 was better. |
15...Bxd5 [0:45-0:46]
16.Qxd5
| ** |
Steinitz: This is bad and
should
have lost; 16.exd5 was the correct move. |
16...Re5 17.Qd2 Bxg5 18.f4
| ** |
Steinitz: This results in
the
loss of a second pawn, but is White’s
best
chance of attack now. |
18...Rxe4
| ** |
The following note appears
between
White’s 18th move and Black’s 23rd move.-[Pope]
Steinitz: A kingside attack was here
his
only chance and White now plays a rather ingenious one. |
19.fxg5 Qe7 20.Rdf1
| ** |
Lasker: Steinitz, by a very
finely laid trap, gained two pawns, and, although I could have won at
least
one of them back by 20.Bf3, I preferred to go on with my
attack. |
20...Rxe3 21.Bc4 Nh8
| ** |
Lasker: Apparently Black
underrated
the game, otherwise he would have played 21...Rf8. |
22.h4 c6 23.g6
| ** |
Lasker: Perhaps my
twenty-third
move was unexpected to him. When I sacrificed a third pawn he did not
see
his way clear to accept the offer, because I would have forced an open
h-file.
Steinitz: A little consideration ought
to have shown Black that he could safely capture, 23...hxg6, followed by
pawn to g5 upon the advance of White’s
h-pawn
to the fifth. |
23...d5 24.gxh7+ Kxh7 25.Bd3+ Kg8 26.h5 Re8 27.h6 g6
28.h7+
Kg7 29.Kb1 Qe5 30.a3 c5 [1:58-1:50] 31.Qf2 c4
32.Qh4
| ** |
Steinitz: At first glance it
would seem that White could win by 32.Bxg6. But this does not realize if
Black simply plays 32...fxg6 33.Qh4 Nf7 34.h8Q+ Rxh8 35.Rxf7+ Kxf7
36.Qxh8
Qxh8 etc. |
32...f6
| ** |
Lasker: On
Steinitz’s
thirty-second turn I expected 32...Kf8, whereupon again 33.Bf5 would
have
left me with good chances for a draw, as the bishop could not well be
taken
on account of 34.Rhg1. My opponent preferred to play 32...f6
instead,
which was a trifle risky. In consequence I held a very strong
position,
which should have been a warning for Black not to attempt to force the
win. In the end Black’s winning
chances were
almost annihilated, if indeed White had not the best of the
bargain. |
33.Bf5 Kf7 34.Rhg1 gxf5
| ** |
Steinitz: 34...g5 was
probably
better. |
35.Qh5+ Ke7 36.Rg8 Kd6 37.Rxf5 Qe6 38.Rxe8 Qxe8
39.Rxf6+
Kc5
| ** |
Steinitz: Now 39...Kc7 was
much better. |
40.Qh6 Re7 41.Qh2 Qd7
| ** |
Lasker: However, Steinitz,
still playing for a win, committed a great blunder on his forty-first
move,
lost the queen and knight or rook, and resigned shortly
afterward.
Steinitz: Disastrous. Black was,
however,
under pressure of time limit hereabouts. He should have played
41...Re6. |
42.Qg1+ d4 43.Qg5+ Qd5 44.Rf5
Qxf5
45.Qxf5+ Kd6 [2:55-2:52] 46.Qf6+ [2:56-2:53] 1-0.
|
The Sun, New York,
1894.04.04
|
|
New-York Daily Tribune,
1894.04.04
|
|
The Brooklyn Daily Eagle,
1894.04.04
|
|
New York Recorder, 1894.04.05
&
22
|
|
