| Six local chess enthusiasts have deposited $600
toward a second match between Lasker and Steinitz, the first part to be
played at Montreal, and the final portion at New York. Chess
players
here are confident that they will be able to raise another $1,500 or
$2,000
for Steinitz. |
|
The Sun, New York,
1894.05.20
|
|
|
Lasker,Em — Steinitz,W
|
(17)
|
| C50/04 |
Italian: Four Knights (Pianissimo)
|
|
| 1894.05.19 & 20 |
CAN Montreal, PQ (Cosmopolitan
Club)
|
|
Annotations by Lasker &
Steinitz
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.d3
| ** |
Lasker: A solid, well-known
variation of this opening. |
4...Nf6 5.Nc3
| ** |
Steinitz: A slow form of a
slow opening, transposing the position into a well-known variation of
the
Four Knights game. |
5...d6 6.Be3 Bb6
| ** |
Steinitz: As matters turn
out,
this only loses time. In this and similar positions I consider 6...Bxe3
at once superior. |
7.Qd2 Na5 8.Bb5+
| ** |
Lasker: In view of the
probable
intention of the second player to force the attack on the queenside.
This,
however, seems somewhat inferior to 8.Bb3 at once.
Steinitz: Tactics of a similar sort
have
been heretofore adopted in like positions by great masters with a view
to weakening the adverse queenside; but since Black’s
best subsequent plan seems to be to attack on this wing, and inasmuch as
he also creates a doubled pawn on this side for the opponent, it is
doubtful
whether the text move can be relied on as the best attacking
measure. |
8...c6 9.Ba4 Bxe3 10.fxe3
| ** |
Lasker: The doubled pawn
causes
trouble afterward and White seems unable to obtain a compensating file.
10.Qxe3 seems perhaps safer.
Steinitz: In entire accordance with
theoretical
and practical precedence in similar positions, but the progress of the
present game will probably tend to indicate that the open f-file does
not
outweigh the disadvantage of the doubled pawn in the center. |
10...b5 11.Bb3 Qb6 12.0-0 Ng4 13.Rae1 f6 14.h3 Nh6
15.Ne2
Nxb3 16.axb3 0-0 17.Ng3 a5
| ** |
Lasker: Black forces matters
on the queenside without loss of time, while White in the mean time is
unable to obtain any advantage either in the center or on the
king’s
wing. |
18.d4 Nf7 19.Qf2 Ra7
| ** |
Lasker: If 19...a4 at once,
White might well answer with 20.Ra1, thereby breaking the force of the
attack. |
20.Rd1 a4 21.b4 Qc7
| ** |
Steinitz: Black could not at
once advance the c-pawn on account of the continuation; 22.bxc5 dxc5
23.dxe5
fxe5 24.Nxe5 etc. |
22.Ne1 c5 23.Qd2
| ** |
Lasker: The only move at his
disposal. 23.Nd3 c4 24.Ne1 c3 was still more unsatisfactory. |
23...Be6 24.d5 Bd7 25.Ra1 cxb4
| ** |
Steinitz: 25...Rc8 in many
ways was preferable. |
26.Qxb4 Rc8 27.Qd2 Qc4 28.Rf2 Ng5
| ** |
Lasker: The time lost here
with the knight is finely compensated for by the increased weakness on
White’s king’s
wing after driving the knight away.
Steinitz: A sort of non-committal move
of a character sometimes adopted in order to add a move to the average
allowed under the time limit. However, it serves a good turn, as this
knight
cannot be dislodged without the weakening of White’s
kingside. But probably 28...Rac7 was still stronger. |
29.Qd3 Rac7 30.h4 Nf7 31.Qxc4 Rxc4 32.Rd2 g6 33.Kf2 Nd8
34.b3 R4c7 35.Rdd1 Nb7 36.Rdb1 Kf7
| ** |
Steinitz: In order to
neutralize
any attack on the d-pawn by 37.bxa4 bxa4 38.Rb6, which would render the
knight temporarily inactive. |
37.Ke2 Ra8 38.Kd2 Na5
| ** |
Lasker: Threatening
39...axb3
40.cxb3 Nxb3+, winning the exchange. |
39.Kd3 h5 40.Ra2 Raa7
| ** |
Lasker: Again threatening
the
combination 41...axb3 42.cxb3 Nxb3 43.Rxa7 Nc5+ with a winning game. The
reply in the last seems, therefore, forced.
Steinitz: Threatening 41...axb3 42.cxb3
Nxb3 43.Rxa7 Nc5+ etc. |
41.b4 Nc4 42.Nf3 Ra8 43.Nd2 Nb6 44.Rf1 Rac8 45.Nb1 Ke7
46.c3 Nc4 47.Raf2
| ** |
Lasker: At least, a grave
miscalculation.
If, however, 47.Na3 Nb2+ 48.Kc2 Rxc3+ 49.Kxb2 Rb3+ 50.Ka1 Rxe3 51.Rf3
Rxf3
52.gxf3 Rc3 winning a third pawn for the piece, and owing to the
indefensible
nature of White’s remaining pawns, his
game
would be untenable.
Steinitz: Anyhow weak, but 47.Na3 would
allow the continuation 47...Nb2+ 48.Kc2 Rxc3+ 49.Kxb2 Rb3+ 50.Ka1 Rxe3
51.Rf3 Rxf3 52.gxf3 Rc3 with a winning ending as White’s
remaining pawns seem indefensible. |
47...Na3
| ** |
Lasker: This appears to win
by force. If 48.Rxf6 Nxb1 49.Rf7+ Kd8 50.Rf8+ Be8 51.Rxb1 Rxc3+ and
should
win.
Steinitz: This appears to win by
force. |
48.Ne2
| ** |
Steinitz: If 48.Rxf6 Nxb1
49.Rf7+
Kd8 50.Rf8+ Be8 and wins. |
48...Nxb1 49.Rxb1 Bg4 50.Rc1 Rc4
| ** |
Steinitz: Threatening of
course
Bxe2+, followed by Rxb4. |
51.Rc2 (Adjourned) 51...f5
(Sealed)
0-1.
| ** |
Lasker: After
White’s
fifty-second move the win of two pawns, as pointed out by Mr. Steinitz,
is forced, for if 51...f5 52.Ng3 fxe4+ 53.Kd2 Bd7 54.Rc1 Be8 55.Ne2 Bf7
56.Rcf1 Bxd5 57.Rf6 Rg8 and eventually wins.
Steinitz: At this stage the game was
adjourned
for the day, Black sealing the text move. When the game was resumed
Lasker
resigned without continuing, the game being beyond remedy. If, for
instance,
52.Ng3 fxe4+ 53.Kd2 (best) 53...Bd7 54.Ne2 Be8 55.Rc1 Bf7 56.Rcf1 Bxd5
57.Rf6 Rg8 followed by pawn to a3 soon, and must win. |
|
|
The Sun, New York, 1894.05.20
&
23
|
|
New-York Daily Tribune, 1894.05.20
& 22
|
|
New York Recorder, 1894.05.24
&
06.24
|
|
|
