|
Lasker,Em — Steinitz,W
|
(9)
|
| 1894.04.14 |
USA Philadelphia, PA (Franklin Chess
Club)
|
|
Annotations by Lasker &
Steinitz
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 d6 4.Nc3
| ** |
Lasker: The fourth move of
White inaugurated not a mere transposition of the succession of moves,
as were played in former games, but it left White with the additional
advantage
of playing Bc4 either before or after pawn to d4.
Steinitz: Played by Chigorin vs.
Steinitz
in match at Havana in ’91, with the
continuation:
4...Bd7 5.d4 Nge7 6.Bg5 f6 7.Be3. |
4...a6 5.Bc4
| ** |
Steinitz: White could hardly
exchange and 5.Ba4 would have cut him off from the kingside. Black has
therefore evidently gained a move in the development as compared with
similar
positions. |
5...Be6
| ** |
Steinitz: Either this or
5...Be7
was now indispensable. |
6.Bxe6
| ** |
Lasker: The opening, after
Black’s fifth move, into well-known
lines
of the Philidor defense. It is doubtful whether the exchanging of
bishops,
or the retiring to b3, is preferable. |
6...fxe6 7.d4 exd4 8.Nxd4 Nxd4
| ** |
Steinitz: Too much
simplification
was the result of this exchange and 8...Qd7 was probably the best way to
avoid this. |
9.Qxd4 Ne7 10.Bg5 Nc6
| ** |
Lasker:
Black’s
tenth move was practically forced, as White threatened 11.Bxe7 with a
very
strong position. |
11.Bxd8 Nxd4 12.0-0-0 Nb5
| ** |
Lasker: Black evidently
overrated
his attack when he offered the exchange of knights on the twelfth
move.
Steinitz: As second player, Black
should
have been content with the slight advantage arising from doubling the
pawns
by 12...Nb3+, followed by 13...Rxd8. In trying to do more he seriously
compromises his position. Although he recovers the sacrificed pawn, his
doubled b-pawns become the source of trouble. |
13.Nxb5 axb5 14.Bxc7 Rxa2
| ** |
Steinitz: The better plan
was
anyhow 14...Ra6 15.e5 d5 16.a3 Kd7 17.Bd6 Bxd6 18.exd6 Rf8
etc. |
15.Bb6
| ** |
Steinitz: Obviously he could
not take the pawn on account of the check, and Black threatens
...Ra6. |
15...Be7
| ** |
Steinitz: Feeble as compared
with 15...b4, which would have rendered White’s
game very difficult. |
16.c3 Kf7
| ** |
Lasker: Probably 16...Ra4
and
if 17.Rhe1 b4 was Steinitz’s strongest
line
of play, as this was really his only chance to dissolve his doubled pawn
during the whole game. After this omission White got a slight
pull.
Steinitz: A grave error of judgment to
which the loss of the game may fairly be ascribed. 16...Kd7, followed
soon
by Kc6, would have brought the necessary support to the weak pawns on
the
queenside. If then, 17.Bd4 Rf8, or 17.Bc5 Kc6 18.Ba3 Ra1+ 19.Kc2 Rxd1,
with at least an even game. |
17.Kc2 Rha8 18.Kb3 R2a4 19.f3 R8a6
| ** |
Steinitz: Only driving the
bishop to a better square. Much superior was 19...g5 either on this or
the next move. |
20.Bd4 g6 21.Rd3 Ke8 22.Rhd1 e5
| ** |
Lasker: On account of the
weakness
of his d-pawn Black seemed compelled to push his e-pawn on his
twenty-second
turn.
Steinitz: Black overlooked the force of
White’s twenty-fourth move. 22...g5
was, under
any circumstances, much better. |
23.Be3 Kd7 24.Bc5
| ** |
Steinitz: A beautiful key
move
to splendid ending play in a series of fine moves carried through by
White
in a style that can hardly be improved upon. |
24...Ra1 25.R1d2 Ke6 26.Ba3
| ** |
Lasker: Now on my
twenty-sixth
move I might have avoided many complications by advancing 26.h3,
although
26...h5 would have been a very strong rejoinder on the part of
Black. |
26...g5 27.Rd5 Rb6 28.Kb4 g4 29.Ka5
| ** |
Steinitz: All in grand
style.
Black will gain nothing now by 29...Bd8, as White seems to answer
30.Rxb5. |
29...Ra6+ 30.Kxb5
| ** |
Lasker: In actual play I had
to make a very tedious maneuver in order to win the b-pawn. While I was
thus engaged in my scheme Black initiated a strong attack upon my
king’s
flank in a truly marvellous manner and I had to give my entire attention
to it, although I had a decisive superiority of pawns. |
30...h5
| ** |
Lasker: On
Steinitz’s
thirtieth move he might have continued 30...Rh1 31.fxg4 Re1 32.h3 Rxe4
33.c4; but he evidently thought that in this variation
White’s
kingside pawns would prove to be too dangerous.
Steinitz: Lasker himself was of the
opinion
that 30...Rh1 gave Black drawing chances. After the text move there
appears
to be no hope and Lasker plays the ending with his accustomed
accuracy. |
31.Rd1 Rxd1 32.Rxd1 gxf3 33.gxf3 Ra8 34.Kb6 Rg8
35.Kxb7
| ** |
Lasker: Had I, at my
thirty-fifth
move, continued with 35.Rd2, then my opponent would have replied with
35...Rg7,
thus saving his b-pawn, and he would have threatened to push his h-pawn,
which, in some variations, would have given him even a chance to
win. |
35...Rg2 36.h4 Rh2 37.Kc6 Bxh4 38.Rxd6+ Kf7
39.Kd5
| ** |
Lasker: My thirty-ninth move
was probably forced, as Black’s h-pawn
could
advance, for if 39.Rh6 Bg5 40.Rh8 Kg7 41.Re8 Bf4 42.Bd6 Kf7 43.Rh8 Kg7
44.Re8 Kf7 45.Re7+ Kf6 46.Rh7 Kg6 and it is very doubtful, indeed,
whether
White could win. |
39...Bf6
| ** |
Lasker: Black could have won
my bishop by 39...Rd2+ 40.Kxe5 Rxd6 41.Bxd6 Bg3+ 42.f4 h4 43.Bc5 h3
44.Bg1
h2, but my pawns would have won. |
40.Rd7+ Kg6 41.Ke6 h4 42.Rd1 h3 43.Rg1+ Rg2 44.Rxg2+
hxg2
45.Bc5 Bd8
46.b4 Kg5 47.Kd7 Bf6 48.b5 Kf4 49.b6
1-0.
|
The Sun, New York, 1894.04.15
&
16
|
|
New-York Daily Tribune,
1894.04.16
|
|
New York Recorder,
1894.04.17
|
|
