The 1897 Franklin - Manhattan Chess Club
Telegraphic Team Match
by John S. Hilbert
|
|
The middle of the 1890s saw an extraordinary growth
of interest in inter-club team matches in New York City as well as elsewhere.
1894 brought numerous individual club matches in New York, including participants
of the strength of Harry Nelson Pillsbury and Jackson Whipps Showalter.
The next year the Metropolitan Chess League was formed, complete with a
formal constitution, adopted in October 1894, and including representation
by each of the six chess clubs involved: the Manhattan, City, Brooklyn,
Newark, Staten Island and Metropolitan. That rivalry, however, according
to Article 4 of its Constitution, was limited to any regularly organized
Chess Club within 10 miles of New York City on being elected to participate
by a two third vote of the members present at the Leagues annual meeting.
But what of rivalries involving much longer distance? |
The same year play began in the Metropolitan Chess
League, another inter-club rivalry began that was destined to last for
many years. 1895 saw the beginning of the annual team matches between
the Manhattan Chess Club of New York City and the Franklin Chess Club of
Philadelphia. Arguably these were, man for man, the two strongest
clubs in the United States at the time, though other New York area clubs,
including the Brooklyn Chess Club, which had in fact won the 1895 Metropolitan
Chess League, would certainly have objected to such a bald statement.
Few in Philadelphia, however, or elsewhere in the nation, would have questioned
the dominance of the Franklin Chess Club in the City of Brotherly Love. |
The 1895 match that inaugurated the Franklin - Manhattan
series was played by telegraph, with the rooms of the two clubs being directly
connected by wire. According to Gustavus C. Reichhelm in his seminal
volume, Chess in Philadelphia (Philadelphia 1898), written with
the assistance of Walter Penn Shipley, play started at 11 A.M. and ended
at 11 P.M., with the Philadelphians emerging victorious by a score of
7½-6½. The following year, on Decoration Day 1896,
the Manhattan players had their revenge when they traveled to Philadelphia,
there to defeat their hosts also by the odd point, 7½-6½. |
The scene was thus set for the third annual meeting
between the two clubs. Increased national attention was offered the
rivalry by the advent of what some would argue today was, at least initially,
the most impressive chess magazine ever to be released in America: the
American
Chess Magazine. Published by William Borsodi in New York City,
edited by Charles Devidé, and appearing with the cooperation of
a stellar list of contributors, including Pillsbury, Albert Hodges, Shipley,
Showalter and others, the American Chess Magazine (hereafter
ACM)
filled a void on the national chess scene that had been left by the collapse
of Steinitzs International Chess Magazine with the December 1891
issue. The very first issue of the ACM appeared in June 1897.
As the third annual Franklin - Manhattan team match had concluded May 31,
1897, the event not surprisingly received treatment in the magazines inaugural
issue. |
By 1897 interest in the club rivalry between Philadelphia
and New York had grown to national proportions. Few questioned New
Yorks status as the nations strongest chess center, and that fact is
remembered by many even today, over one hundred years later. What
few now recall, however, is that Philadelphia, then the countrys second
largest city, was also considered by many the nations next greatest repository
of chess talent as well as the home of one of the strongest city clubs
in America. The third annual meeting between the Franklin and the
Manhattan would do nothing to dispel such beliefs. If anything, following
the match the status of the Philadelphia club increased. |
Certainly New York players were well aware of the
inter-city significance of the match. The Brooklyn Daily Eagle
(hereafter Eagle) for May 27, 1897, briefly reviewed the two previous
matches, noting that special interest, therefore, attaches to the coming
event since the total scores to date being equal, both sides will naturally
make strenuous efforts to pull off a victory and thereby win the rubber. |
Another sign of the prestige becoming associated
with the series of matches between the Franklin and Manhattan clubs was
the selection of referee. Ex-world champion Steinitz filled this
capacity, and as would be seen, his services were certainly needed.
At the conclusion of the days play, only half of the fourteen games had
been concluded, and thus seven required adjudication. The high number
of adjudications was due to the circumstances of play. Like the first
match between the clubs in 1895, the May 31, 1897, event was conducted
by telegraph, the two teams situated nearly 100 miles apart. The
Eagle
reported that the New York players were gathered in the assembly room
of the United Charities building on East Twenty-second Street, and the
Philadelphians in the rooms of the Franklin club, on the eighth floor of
the Betz building in their city. |
Delays plagued play. Although the match was
originally scheduled to begin at 10:30 on the morning of May 31, the Eagle
would write that it was an hour later before the first moves were being
ticked off, owing to a hitch in establishing communication between the
two points. Two telegraph operators, one for receiving and one for
transmitting moves, were situated at each location. The dual transmission,
however, designed to speed up play, was undermined by the fact that one
of the wires had again broken down and all the work was being done by a
single operator as early as during the late mornings play. The
time lost in transmission of moves caused delays that could not be overcome
within the framework of a single day event. Play lasted for a grueling
thirteen hours, but finally was halted with victory still undecided, for
even after adjudication the score stood 6½-6½ with one game
outstanding. As it finally turned out, even this preliminary and
partial result would be questioned and ultimately changed. And as
will be seen, the match was not without its own share of drama, due as
much to events off the board as on it. |
Fourteen players appeared at each club on the morning
of May 31, 1897, for the start of hostilities. Frank Sweeny acted
as umpire for Philadelphia in New York, while H. Seymour filled similar
responsibilities, in Philadelphia, for the New York players. The
ACM
would include a collage of photographs from the rooms of the Franklin,
as well as a line drawing of the corresponding scene among the Manhattan
club players. |
The New York team in fact benefited from the delay
in starting the match. According to the Eagle, Showalter,
their star player, had only arrived the night before from Georgetown, Kentucky.
Showalter caused considerable anxiety by failing to put in an appearance
at the time for which the match was scheduled to being. The ex-champion,
who is noted for his tardiness, had overslept himself and arrived at the
hall just in time to be included among the competitors. |
The pairings saw the Franklin members playing White
on even numbered boards. The table that follows is based on the ones
appearing in the ACM as well as the Philadelphia Public Ledger
for June 15, 1897, at page 15, though certain changes in results had to
be made to both. In addition, full names of players have been added,
where they could be determined, based on original sources as well as Jeremy
Gaiges indispensable Chess Personalia: A Biobibliography. |
Board
|
Franklin Chess Club
|
Manhattan Chess Club
|
Opening
|
Score
|
1.
|
Hermann G. Voigt
|
Louis Schmidt, Jr.
|
Sicilian
|
½-½
|
2.
|
Alfred K. Robinson
|
Eugene Delmar
|
Queens Pawn
|
0-1
|
3.
|
David S. Robinson
|
Albert B. Hodges
|
Sicilian
|
0-1
|
4.
|
Gustavus C. Reichhelm
|
Nicolai Jasnogrodski
|
Spanish
|
1-0
|
5.
|
Julius A. Kaiser
|
William M. de Visser
|
Sicilian
|
0-1
|
6.
|
Joseph P. Morgan
|
David G. Baird
|
Queens Pawn
|
1-0
|
7.
|
Walter Penn Shipley
|
H. Davidson
|
Four Knights
|
½-½
|
8.
|
Charles J. Newman
|
Major J. Moore Hanham
|
Kings Gambit
|
½-½
|
9.
|
Mordecai Morgan
|
Gustave Simonson
|
French
|
1-0
|
10.
|
Elihu S. Maguire
|
August Vorrath
|
Four Knights
|
½-½
|
11.
|
Samuel W. Bampton
|
Charles B. Isaacson
|
Scandinavian
|
½-½
|
12.
|
Jacob Elson
|
Jacob C. Halpern
|
Spanish
|
1-0
|
13.
|
John W. Young
|
S. Lipschutz
|
French
|
½-½
|
14.
|
Emil Kemeny
|
Jackson W. Showalter
|
Spanish
|
1-0
|
Franklin Chess Club 8 - Manhattan
Chess Club 6
|
The Franklin Chess Club thus defeated the Manhattan
Chess Club by a score of 8-6. Board assignment order, as a glance
at the table above will suggest, was not made according to strength.
If this were otherwise, one would have to assume Jackson Whipps Showalter,
for example, who had held the United States Championship until the month
before, when he had been defeated by Harry Nelson Pillsbury in a closely
contested match by a total score of 11½-9½, was considered
the weakest of the fourteen players on the Manhattan squad. One would
also have to assume that three previous United States Champions, Hodges*,
Lipschütz, and Showalter, all ranked beneath the first board player,
Louis Schmidt. Similar comparisons could be made concerning the Franklin
Chess Club. For instance, Walter Penn Shipley, Samuel W. Bampton,
and Emil Kemeny, boards 7, 11, and 14, respectively, for Philadelphia,
were known to be three of the strongest players in Pennsylvania.
Though information explicitly stating how match pairings were made could
not be found, it appears that players were indeed ranked according to perceived
strength and paired accordingly, with actual board numbers then assigned
at random. |
Regardless of how board order was determined, there
could be little doubt that the twenty-eight players listed among the ranks
of the two teams represented much of the flower of chess talent in the
United States, though by no means all. Pillsbury, of course, was
unfortunately absent, as was the boy wonder from Brooklyn, William Ewart
Napier. Western players such as Max Judd were not present.
Frank James Marshall, who would hold the United States Championship
from 1909 until 1936, was not yet so strong as to be missed. He would
not make his international appearance until two years later, when he played
in the minor tournament associated with London 1899, and would not seriously
be noticed by the international chess community until his third place finish
at Paris the year after. Still, the listings for the Franklin and
Manhattan clubs were formidable indeed. And on paper, at least, the
New Yorkers would have had to be considered favorites. The final
result, with the match going to Philadelphia, a victory that gave them
a 2-1 lead in the match series, had to be considered a minor surprise.
The Manhattan Chess Club would in future years come to dominate the annual
Decoration Day matches between the two clubs. But on that day long
ago, May 31, 1897, such a result was still unknown, a fact awaiting a distant
future. |
For most of us, coverage of this chess event occupies
but an obscure corner of American chess history, though at the time the
eyes of the chess nation were very much fixed on the doings transpiring
over the telegraph wires between Philadelphia and New York. Even
the treatment of the match in the ACM, from which a number of the
remarks below surrounding the play are taken, provided only one game score
in its article proper, and a total of four of the fourteen games in its
Games Sections in its June and July 1897 numbers. Research, however,
has uncovered a total of twelve of the fourteen games, many of them with
detailed notes. They appeared in a variety of sources, including
Chess
in Philadelphia, the Philadelphia Public Ledger, with its chess
column edited by the Hungarian master and Franklin Chess Club player, Emil
Kemeny, and other contemporary sources. |
Rather than simply giving the games according to
relatively meaningless board order, the discussion below recreates the
unfolding nature of the telegraph match, along with the complications that
developed surrounding the play and subsequent adjudication of a number
of the games. The reader is thus invited to step back into the past,
and relive with Americas chess elite the tension, triumphs, and defeats
of that Decoration Day celebrated so long ago. |
According to the ACM, the match, almost
from the very outset, took a favorable aspect for the Quakers. It
took Mordecai Morgan exactly twenty-one [moves] to unhorse
Simonson. The full run of this pretty game, with notes by Edward
Hymes, are [sic] appended. Hymes indeed did briefly annotate
the game for the pages of ACM, and his notes are identified below
as coming from that publication. Reichhelm included the game in his
Chess
in Philadelphia with two brief comments appearing at the games conclusion.
But it fell to Emil Kemeny, who included the score first, in the Philadelphia
Public Ledger (hereafter Ledger) for June 1, 1897, at page 13,
to note that the first game finished and probably one of the most interesting
was the one between Mr. Morgan, of the Franklin Chess Club, last years
champion, and Dr. Simonson, of the Manhattan Chess Club. The opening
was a French Defense and played very evenly up to the twentieth move, when
Mr. Morgan sprung a surprise on his opponent by a beautiful combination,
which won a piece, whereupon Dr. Simonson resigned. Even the Brooklyn
Daily Eagle, obviously sympathetic to the New Yorkers plight, reported
the encounter as a brief but pretty game when it gave its readers the
score, belatedly, on June 10, 1897. |
|
Simonson,G (New York) Morgan,M (Philadelphia)
|
Board 9
|
1897.05.31 |
USA (Franklin-Manhattan Telegraphic Match)
|
|
Annotations by Edward Hymes & Gustavus
Reichhelm
1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 exd5 4.Nf3 Nf6 5.Bd3 Be7
Hymes: We prefer this to the stolid imitation of Whites move,
generally adopted with 5...Bd6. |
6.0-0 Bg4 7.c3
Hymes: There is more raison d etre in 7.Nc3 followed
by Be3 and eventually Ne2. White has nothing to fear from ...Bxf3. |
7...Nbd7 8.Nbd2 0-0 9.Qc2 c5 10.Ne5 Bh5 11.Nxd7 Qxd7 12.dxc5
Bxc5 13.Nb3 Be7 14.Nd4 Bg6 15.Bf5 Qd6 16.f3 Bd8 17.Kh1 Bb6 18.Bxg6 fxg6
19.Be3
Hymes: White seems utterly unconscious of the clever trap into
which he falls. The proper rejoinder was either 19.Qd2 or 19.Bg1. |
19...Rae8 20.Rae1
Reichhelm: Walking into a fine trap. |
20...Rxe3 0-1.
Hymes: A thunderbolt in the midst of seeming calm. |
Reichhelm: For, if 21.Rxe3, then ...Ng4 wins. |
American Chess Magazine, 1897.06,
p11
|
Chess in Philadelphia, Philadelphia
1898, p108
|
Philadelphia Public Ledger, 1897.06.01,
p13
|
|
Thus the Franklin team drew first blood, taking
a 1-0 lead. That lead was maintained, though not extended, when the
second game finished. As ACM wrote of it, Isaacson and Bampton
agreed upon a draw in an even position, each having two rooks and the bishops
being of opposite color. Kemeny, though, had much more to say about
the game, as he wrote in his chess column in the Ledger: The game
between Messrs. Isaacson and Bampton in the telegraphic match between the
Manhattan and Franklin Chess Clubs terminated in a draw. Mr. Bampton
selected the Center Counter Gambit, and he endeavored to establish an attack,
but his opponent selected conservative moves and managed to maintain an
even position. On the twentieth move an exchange of Queens took place
which virtually ended the game, for neither side had any winning chances.
Five moves later a draw was offered and accepted. The annotations
below are Kemenys. |
|
Bampton,SW (Philadelphia) Isaacson,CB (New York)
|
Board 11
|
B01/11 |
Scandinavian: Classical
|
|
1897.05.31 |
USA (Franklin-Manhattan Telegraphic Match)
|
|
Annotations by Emil Kemeny
1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.d4 Nf6 4.Nc3 Qd8
4...Qa5 is often adopted at this stage of the game, yet 4. ...Qd8 seems
safer. |
5.Nf3 Bg4 6.Be2 e6 7.0-0 c6 8.b3 Nbd7 9.Bb2 Bxf3 10.Bxf3
Bd6 11.Qe2 0-0 12.Ne4 Nxe4 13.Qxe4 Qc7
13...Nf6, followed by ...Nd5, was, perhaps, better, though it must
be admitted there was hardly any chance to establish an attack. |
14.Qh4 Rae8 15.Rad1 e5 16.h3 f5 17.dxe5 Nxe5 18.Bxe5 Bxe5
19.Qc4+
19...Qf7
Black could not well avoid the exchange of queens, for ...Rf7, as well
as ...Kh8, was likely to give White the preferable game. Of course
the exchange of queens virtually ends the game, neither side having the
slightest winning chances. |
20.Qxf7+ Rxf7 21.Rd3 Rfe7 22.g3 Kf7 23.Rfd1 Kf6 24.Kg2
f4 25.gxf4 Bxf4 ½-½.
At this point a draw was offered and accepted. The position is
a perfectly even one, and the bishops being of opposite colors, no other
result could be anticipated. |
Philadelphia Public Ledger, 1897.06.12,
p18
|
|
Playing equally safe were two other players, Shipley
and Davidson. Simple as the result was, it did raise an interesting
question for purposes of conducting the match, and its first controversy.
According to the ACM, Shipley and Davidson soon followed
suit [after Bampton and Isaacsons draw]. The latter, however,
sought first advice from the captain of his team, to which the Franklin
Clubs umpire, Mr. Sweeny, objected. This gave rise to a controversy
over the wires, Mr. Shipley stating that, in his opinion, the captain had
no right to advise any of his players whether to play for a draw or not,
and he made the point that, for instance in an endgame, the captain, seeing
a possible win, might indirectly call the players attention to it by directing
him to continue. Mr. Shipley added that, when approached by a player
on his team, he invariably tells him to use his own judgment. Mr.
Davidson replied: I accept the draw, but maintain that the captain should
have the privilege of managing his team as regards playing or not.
This matter aside, the draw maintained the Franklins lead at 2-1. |
Concerning the game itself, Kemeny wrote of it that
it was carefully played and resulted in a draw. Mr. Shipley selected
the Petroff Defense, which, however, was shifted into a Double Ruy Lopez.
Mr. Davidson, on his seventh turn, made the conservative a3 move, instead
of the usual Ne2 play. This made the defense comparatively easy,
and, as a matter of fact, the Philadelphian experienced but little difficulty
in holding his own. After twenty-two moves were made all the minor
pieces were exchanged. Queens, both rooks and all the pawns remained
on the board, but the position was a perfectly even one. Neither
side having any winning chances, a draw was offered and accepted.
Shipley often played much more conservatively in team match play than he
did individually, no doubt the product of his personality, legal training,
and even his Quaker background, a background which has historically emphasized
for those who share it the good of the group over the display of individual
talent. |
|
Davidson,H (New York) Shipley,WP (Philadelphia)
|
Board 7
|
C49/01 |
Four Knights: Symmetrical
|
|
1897.05.31 |
USA (Franklin-Manhattan Telegraphic Match)
|
|
Annotations by Emil Kemeny
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nc3 Nc6 4.Bb5 Bb4
Showalter at this point prefers the 4...Bc5 play. The text move,
however, is more conservative, and in all probability better. |
5.0-0 0-0 6.d3 d6 7.a3
The usual play is 7.Ne2, followed by c3 and d4. The move selected
is hardly satisfactory. Black has the option to answer ...Bxc3 or
...Ba5. In both cases White lost time. |
7...Bxc3 8.bxc3 Ne7 9.Bg5 Ng6 10.Nh4 h6 11.Nxg6 fxg6 12.Bc4+
Kh7 13.Bh4 g5 14.Bg3
14...Qe8
An important move, which enables Black to continue ...Nh5 as well as
...Be6. The position now is equalized. |
15.Rb1 b6 16.Re1 Be6 17.Bb5 c6 18.Ba4 b5 19.Bb3 Bxb3 20.cxb3
Nh5 21.d4 Rd8 22.Rb2
Perhaps the only way to continue the attack. It is, however,
to no purpose. Black answers ...Nxg3, and there is no chance for
either side. At this stage a draw was offered and accepted. |
22...Nxg3 ½-½.
Philadelphia Public Ledger, 1897.06.07,
p19
|
|
The Franklin players maintained their minimal lead
following conclusion of the next game, once again due to conservative play
by the Philadelphians. Kemeny would write that the game between
Messrs. Maguire and Vorrath in the recent Franklin - Manhattan telegraphic
match was evenly contested and terminated in a draw. Mr. Maguire
selected the Four Knights opening, and he obtained a slight advantage.
His twenty-second move, however, was too conservative and enabled his opponent
to equalize the position. When twenty-five moves were made there
was no winning chance for either side and a proposed draw was accepted.
The ACM added that the game between Maguire and Vorrath had gone
on for twenty-five moves without a single pawn being exchanged, when a
block[ed] position ensued, which insured the draw. |
|
Maguire,ES (Philadelphia) Vorrath,A (New York)
|
Board 10
|
C48/01 |
Four Knights: Spanish (Rosenthal)
|
|
1897.05.31 |
USA (Franklin-Manhattan Telegraphic Match)
|
|
Annotations by Emil Kemeny
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bb5 d6
4...Bb4 or 4...Bc5 is the usual play. The move selected gives
Black a somewhat slow development. |
5.d3 Be7 6.0-0 0-0 7.Ne2 Nh5 8.Ng3 Bg4 9.Bxc6 bxc6 10.h3
Nxg3 11.fxg3 Bh5 12.g4 Bg6 13.Be3 c5 14.b3 c6 15.Qe2 Re8 16.Bd2 Bf8 17.Be1
f6 18.Nh4 Bf7 19.Nf5 g6 20.Ne3 Be6 21.Bh4 Bg7
22.Rad1
White at this stage of the game had the preferable position.
The open f-file should prove of value. The proper continuation was
21.Rf3, followed by Rdf1, and eventually Qf2. Black would have difficulty
in defending the f-pawn, and he would have been obliged to move ...g5,
which would have weakened his kingside. |
22...Rf8 23.Rf3 a6 24.Rdf1 Ra7 25.Be1 ½-½.
Whites twenty-second move was loss of time, and it gave Black the
chance to get his queens rook into play. If White had continued
Qf2 Black would have replied ...Raf7. White at this stage of the
game offered a draw, which was accepted. |
Philadelphia Public Ledger, 1897.06.09,
p16
|
|
Another draw as the hours went by, this one between
Newman and Hanham, only heightened the tension. Kemeny would write
that the game terminated in a draw after twenty-six moves. Newman,
who is noted for his aggressive style of play and brilliant combinations,
had in Major Hanham an opponent whose strong point was his conservative
play. The opening varied slightly from the book lines, viz. by 5.fxe5,
White endeavoring to turn the game on new lines. Black, however carried
it to the draw, through many interesting stages. |
|
Newman,CJ (Philadelphia) Hanham,JM (New York)
|
Board 8
|
C30/03 |
Kings Gambit Declined: Classical
|
|
1897.05.31 |
USA (Franklin-Manhattan Telegraphic Match)
|
|
Annotations by Emil Kemeny
1.e4 e5 2.f4 Bc5
Gambits are but rarely played in match games, but in the hands of a
player who is thoroughly familiar with the opening very often proves successful,
per example, in the Nuremberg Tournament, Charousek defeated Lasker, Blackburne
and Showalter, playing a gambit in each case. Blacks 2...Bc5 is
the favorite, and perhaps the strongest move for defending. |
3.Nf3 d6 4.c3 Bg4 5.fxe5
5.Bc4 or Be2 are both good moves. The text move simplifies the
game to some extent for Black. |
5...dxe5 6.Bc4 Nd7 7.d4 Bb6 8.0-0 Qe7 9.Qb3 Bxf3
The attack on Blacks f-pawn becomes very threatening. 9. ...Bxf3
stays it for the moment. |
10.Rxf3 Ngf6 11.Be3
11.Bg5 seems stronger than the line adopted. If 11...h6, then
12.Bxf6 with a good attack. |
11...0-0 12.Nd2 exd4 13.cxd4 Nxe4 14.Nxe4 Qxe4 15.Bxf7+
Kh8 16.Bd5 Qe7 17.Rxf8+ Rxf8 18.Bf3
White cannot capture the b-pawn with bishop on account of the reply
...Rb8. |
18...c6 19.Bf2 Qd6 20.Rd1 Nf6 21.Qc2 Nd5 22.Bxd5 Qxd5
23.b3 g6 24.Qc4 Qf5 25.Qe2 Rd8
26.Qd3 ½-½.
The forces and position both being even a draw was agreed upon.
Black might have continued 26...Qxd3 27.Rxd3, and then endeavored to win
Whites d-pawn, but it is difficult to ferret out anything more than the
draw. |
Philadelphia Public Ledger, 1897.06.14,
p17
|
|
The score was now 3½-2½, but Philadelphia
was about to extend its lead shortly before play was called. As the
ACM
reported, Jasnogrodski was rather unfortunate in being pitted against
so dangerous an opponent to his style of play as brilliant Gustavus Reichhelm.
Moreover, the Russian ill-advisedly selected Steinitzs Defense to the
Ruy Lopez, and, as a result, went down ignominiously before the Pennsylvanian.
Pillsbury annotated the game for the pages of the July ACM and those
annotations are identified below with his name. Not surprisingly,
Reichhelm himself included the game in his book about chess in his home
city. His brief comments are given too, and any notes not attributed
to Pillsbury are taken from that source. |
|
Reichhelm,GC (Philadelphia) Jasnogrodski,N (New
York)
|
Board 4
|
1897.05.31 |
USA (Franklin-Manhattan Telegraphic Match)
|
|
Annotations by Harry Pillsbury & Gustavus
Reichhelm
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 d6 4.d4 Bd7 5.Nc3 Nge7
Pillsbury: Most masters consider 5. ...Nf6 better; Steinitz,
however, prefers the text move. |
6.Bg5
Pillsbury: Adopted by Chigorin against Steinitz in their second
Havana match, also by Showalter against Hodges, 1894. |
6...f6 7.Be3 Ng6
Pillsbury: Steinitz in this position prefers 7. ...Nc8. |
8.h4
Reichhelm: This secures the advantage. |
8...exd4
Pillsbury: Perhaps 8...h5 is better, although weakening seriously
Blacks kingside pawns. |
9.Nxd4 Nxd4 10.Bxd4 Bxb5 11.Nxb5 c6
Pillsbury: Either 11...Qd7 or 11...a6 is superior to the text,
which weakens seriously the Black d-pawn. |
12.Nc3 Be7 13.h5 Ne5 14.f4 Nf7 15.Qg4 Rg8 16.Qf5
Reichhelm: An important step in
the combination. |
16...g6
Pillsbury: Though by no means satisfactory, 16...h6 would have
warded off the attack and given Black reasonable defensive chances, whereas
the text allows White an additional avenue of attack. |
17.hxg6 hxg6 18.Qe6 Qd7 19.Qb3 Rg7 20.0-0-0 Qc7 21.Rh3
b6 22.Rdh1
22...0-0-0
Pillsbury: Of course this loses at least a pawn, but Blacks
game was anyhow hopeless. |
Reichhelm: This hastens the end,
but his game was hopeless. |
23.Nd5 Qb7 24.Nxf6
Pillsbury: 24.Qc3 also wins at least the exchange instantly. |
24...Bf8 25.Qe6+ Kb8 26.Ng4 Ne5
Pillsbury: Tantamount to resigning, which he might do now with
good grace. If instead 26...Rg8 27.Rh7 Rd7 28.Qe8+ Qc8 29.Qxc8+. |
27.fxe5 c5 28.Bc3 Qxe4 29.Qf6 Rgd7 30.Qf3 Qc4 31.Rh7 Be7
32.Nf6 Bxf6 33.Qxf6 Qxa2 34.e6 1-0.
Chess in Philadelphia, Philadelphia
1898, p108
|
American Chess Magazine, 1897.07,
p116
|
|
Thus, the ACM noted that the score stood
4½-2½ when at 11 oclock play was called and Mr. Steinitzs
work began. Kaiser had Queen, rook, bishop and seven pawns against
Queen, two rooks and four pawns, but the rooks were doubled on the seventh
row and Mr. de Visser, in showing how he proposed to win, disclosed some
brilliant continuations which he had in store for his opponent.
He got the verdict. Not surprisingly, Philadelphia papers did not
include the game score, though New York, obviously, had a great deal of
interest in the game. The notes are de Vissers own, written especially
for
the Eagle. |
|
de Visser,WM (New York) Kaiser,JA (Philadelphia)
|
Board 5
|
1897.05.31 |
USA (Franklin-Manhattan Telegraphic Match)
|
|
Annotations by William de Visser
1.e4 c5
A very popular defense in Philadelphia, which we would have done well
to have looked up a little and let alone the new wrinkles in the Ruy Lopez
and King Gambits we had in store. |
2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 d6
This and the following two moves are a favorite of Lasker. |
5.Nc3 g6 6.Be3 Bg7 7.g3 Nf6 8.Bg2
I am told that this King fianchetto attachment in the attack against
the Sicilian Defense is also recommended by Herr Lasker, but I fancy, after
the present experience, that Lasker would play h3 before Bg2 to prevent
the Black knight coming to g4. |
8...Ng4
This gives Black the better position already, for White cannot well
afford to allow his e-pawn to be doubled. |
9.Nxc6 bxc6 10.Bd2
Giving up a pawn for an attack which is hardly justified by the results. |
10...Qb6 11.0-0 Qxb2
Mr. Kaiser doesnt get bluffed easily. |
12.Rb1 Qa3 13.h3 Ne5
BestI wanted him to play ...Bxc3, in which case I should have gotten
the best of it by Rb3 and Bxc3. |
14.Rb3 Qa6 15.Re1 Be6 16.Rb4 Qc8 17.f4 c5
I think this pawn was better where it was. |
18.Rb1 Nc4 19.f5 Bd7 20.e5 Nxe5
The best move, which gives Black much the better game. Had he
attempted to save the exchange, he would have subjected himself to an overwhelming
attack. |
21.Bxa8 Qxa8
22.Bg5
This is a strong move, and at the same time a trap. It
is meant to entice Black to check with the knight at f3, when he would
have lost, Mr. Kaiser, after the match, telegraphed that he could have
won at this point by checking, but in reply to this claim I submit the
following for his respectful consideration: 22.Bg5 Nf3+ 23.Qxf3 Qxf3 24.Rb8+
Bc8 25.Rxe7+ Kd8 26.Rxf7+ Ke8 27.Re7+ Kd8 28.Rxg7+ and mates next move.
I really expected the following: 22...Nf3+ 23.Qxf3 Bd4+ 24.Kg2 Bc6 25.Rb8+
Qxb8 26.Qxc6+ and will win. |
22...f6 23.Nd5 Qc8 24.Bf4 Bxf5 25.Bxe5 dxe5
26.Qf3
This I think was about the best move I made in the game, and I imagine
Mr. Kaiser did not quite see all it threatened. |
26...Be6 27.Rb7! Bxd5
Of course, if 27...Qxb7 28.Nxf6+ wins the queen. White now has
the best of the game. |
28.Qxd5 e6 29.Qb3 0-0 30.Rd1 c4 31.Qb5 f5
I think that here ...Re8, followed by ...Bf8, might have been a little
better, but White has now a winning game anyhow. |
32.Rdd7 Bf6 33.Rdc7 Qd8 34.Rd7 Qc8 35.Rbc7 Qb8 36.Qxc4
(Adjudicated by Steinitz), 1-0.
Brooklyn Daily Eagle, 1897.06.03
|
|
Steinitz made short work of the game between Alfred
K. Robinson and Eugene Delmar. The ACM merely mentioned that
Delmar, being a piece ahead, also got the decision. Unfortunately
the game score has not been located. Initially, another game caused
little controversy, though that would change shortly. According to
the June 1897 issue of ACM, Mr. Hodges play against the Sicilian
Defense can serve as a model and his position was so manifestly superior
that the Franklin Club tacitly gave up the game. Mr. Hodges asked
Mr. Steinitz to reserve decision, as he wanted to submit analysis proving
a win, but in the absence of any claim by the Franklin players, Mr. Steinitz
awarded him the game then and there. Hodges accordingly annotated
the game for the next issue of the ACM, in which publication it
duly appeared in July 1897. Hodges views on the Sicilian Defense,
curiously given in his own annotations at the point where the game was
adjudicated rather than in immediate context, make interesting reading
for players at the end of the next century. |
|
Hodges,AB (New York) Robinson,DS (Philadelphia)
|
Board 3
|
B73/03 |
Sicilian: Classical Dragon (Richter)
|
|
1897.05.31 |
USA (Franklin-Manhattan Telegraphic Match)
|
|
Annotations by Albert Hodges
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 d6
Preferable to 4...g6, for after 4...g6 5.Nxc6 bxc6 6.Qd4 White has
a superior position. |
5.Nc3 g6 6.Be3 Bg7 7.Be2 Nf6 8.0-0 0-0 9.Qd2 Bd7
It is all book so far. Here 9...Qa5 is often played and the best
of players sometimes overlook the threatened loss of the e-pawn, as is
well illustrated in a game played in this match. |
10.Rfd1
A more enterprising line of play is 10.h3, to be followed later by
f4, but the attack is premature. The theory of the modern school
is to play for position, and White, with that end in view, adopts a quiet
development. |
10...a6 11.Rab1 Rc8 12.f3 Qc7 13.Qe1 Rfe8 14.Qf2 Ne5 15.Rd2
Nc4 16.Bxc4 Qxc4 17.Nde2 b5
18.b3
The counter attack made on the weak c-pawn is well conceived by Black.
The purpose of White in making the text move is not alone to force the
queen to retreat, but also to limit the action of Blacks minor pieces.
18.Rd4 or 18.a3 would not have this effect. |
18...Qc6 19.Nd1 Qb7 20.Nb2 h5 21.Nd3 Be6 22.Nef4 Bd7 23.Rbd1
Bc6 24.Nb4 Kh7 25.h3 Bh6 26.Nfd5
The exchange of pieces which follows quickly simplifies matters. The
resulting weakness of Whites c-pawn is not so serious as that of Blacks
center, upon which White now has the opportunity of making a direct attack. |
26...Bxd5 27.Nxd5 Nxd5 28.exd5 Bxe3 29.Qxe3 Qc7 30.Qf4
Kg7 31.a4 Qc5+ 32.Kh2 b4 33.Re2 a5 34.Rd4 Qc3 35.Rde4 Rc7 36.Qg5 Kf8 37.Qh6+
37...Qg7
This move was probably made under pressure of the time limit and is
inferior to 37...Kg8. But Black, in maintaining his position on the
queenside, apparently did not foresee the danger. After Whites reply
he must play ...Qc3 or White improves his position with Rc4. |
38.Qf4 Qc3 39.Re6 Kg7 40.Rxd6
Master players as a rule do not look with favor on the Sicilian,
probably for the reason that Blacks center pawns are apparently weak.
The opening moves in this game appear to have been made with accuracy,
and though White in the endgame has the advantage, it does not necessarily
indicate that the defense is analytically unsound, but experience teaches
us that it is well to avoid playing games of an irregular character in
important chess contests, when the defense can with less difficulty maintain
an equality by developing from the center of the board. |
(Adjudicated by W. Steinitz), 1-0.
The game was adjourned at this move and according to the rules adjudicated
by Mr. Steinitz, who decided it a win for White. Numerous variations
may be given which all result in favor of White and from them we select
the following. After 40.Rxd6, should Black play ...exd6, then this
continuation is practically forced. 40.Rxd6 exd6 41.Rxe8 Qxc2 42.Qxd6
Qc5 43.Qd8 Qc1 44.Rg8+ Kh7 45.Rh8+ Kg7 46.Qf8+ Kf6 47.Qd6+ Kg7 48.Ra8 Qc5
49.Qd8 and wins. Should Black, instead of capturing the rook on his
fortieth move, play ...Qc5, the following line of play is probable: 40...Qc5
41.Qe5+ f6 42.Rxf6 exf6 43.Qxe8 Qxd5 44.Re7+ Rxe7 45.Qxe7+ Qf7 46.Qxf7+
Kxf7 47.Kg3 Ke6 48.Kf4 g5+ 49.Ke4 f5+ 50.Kd4 Kd6 51.Kc4 Kc6 52.g4 hxg4
53.hxg4 f4 54.c3 bxc3 55.Kxc3 Kc5 56.b4+ axb4+ 57.Kb3 and wins. |
American Chess Magazine, 1897.07,
p114-115
|
|
But the matter did not end there. In fact,
once Hodges published his analysis in the July number of the ACM,
Robinson, no doubt aided by other Franklin club members, offered a rebuttal
of Hodges analysis and Steinitzs conclusion. The new magazine was
no doubt pleased to offer its readers another viewpoint, introducing the
page devoted to the matter by writing that Mr. D. Stuart [Robinson],
and, we may say, the entire Franklin Chess Club, is of the opinion that
Mr. Steinitz erred in awarding the above game to the Manhattan Chess Club
(compare
ACM, No.2, game 16, p.115). Their claim is based
on 41...Rd2, a move not considered by Mr. Hodges in his notes to the game.
We append Mr. Stuarts [Robinsons] analyses. |
David Stuart Robinson introduced his comments by
saying that in the analysis given by Mr. Hodges, in the second number
of this magazine, page 115, he suggests two lines of play for Black, which
calls to mind a note frequently made to inferior moves, I wonder why?
If we accept the two lines laid down by Mr. Hodges in his continuation
of the game, as the strongest for Black, the game is certainly lost to
Black, but if Black on his fortieth move plays ...exd6, we would suggest
the following lines of play for Black, beginning with his forty-first move:
[The formatting of Robinsons argument has been altered below, but hopefully
not its substance.] |
Hodges - Robinson
Analysis by D. Stuart Robinson
40
exd6 41.Rxe8
41...Rd7 {41...Qxc2, as suggested by Hodges for Black, is suicidal,
for it not only allows White to obtain an overwhelming attack, but gives
him a passed pawn. The purpose of Black should be [to] defend this
pawn as long as possible, and when White abandons the e-file, [to use
it] as a means of counterattack on the exposed position of Whites
king.} 42.Ra8 {There are several variations, which seem to be open
to White, and we will first continue with a line of attack pointed out
by Rocamora, in the presence of Steinitz, which seemed to win, but
the proper continuation for Black was not then seen. [Robinson latter
returned to Whites forty-second move, however, claiming that if instead
42.Qe4 he would have responded with 42...Qf6, concluding that in this
position, if there is any win it is very difficult to find, and under the
custom of adjudicating adjourned games, a clear win should be shown by
some line of play after eight or ten moves. Black would now maintain
the position that he has secured and wait till the e-file is vacated, or
White advances the pawns on the kingside, which seems hardly advisable.
He noted too, concerning 42.Re2, that if White is forced to this
variation, the win seems still more remote. After 42...Qf6 43...Qc4
White has now no attack that Black cannot answer with counter attack on
the kingside. Similarly, Robinson believed that if instead now 43.Qxf6+,
then 43...Kxf6, and the Whites d-pawn is lost or his game prejudiced.]}
42...Qa1
43. Rxa5 {We give this continuation first, as it was the object to
win the a-pawn, but the capture is fatal. [Robinson later added that
43.Qe4 Qf6 44.Rxa5 Re7 45.Qxb4 h4 that the last move forces a draw.
He then continued, saying that if 44.Re8, the foregoing analysis seems
to force the rook to return to the e-file, but Black has thereby gained
an important move, and preserved the d-pawn, and as the same variation
can be secured by playing for White on his forty-second move 42.Qe4, 42.Ra8
is fruitless for White. He concluded this sub-line by saying Black
would then respond with 44...Rc7, effectively repeating the position.]}
44.Qxd6
{If 46.Qxb4, it is equally bad, for then 46...Re1 wins.}
44...Re1. [Robinson
apparently felt the final position required no commentary, in order to
further demonstrate that no clear win for White appeared in the position.]
American Chess Magazine, 1897.08,
p139
|
|
Though the analytical controversy was finally not
resolved in the pages of the ACM, Hodges victory over Robinson
remained on the books, and the final match result includes this tally.
Had Robinson persuaded Steinitz to reconsider his decision, as Steinitz
was to do involving another game, and had he been successful in convincing
the referee of the merits of his claim, the Franklin clubs margin of victory
over the Manhattan players would only have increased. |
The Franklin players did benefit from one matter,
though. According to the ACM, Mr. J. P. Morgan had an ideal
attack against D. G. Bairds King with rook pawn and knight pawn advanced
to the sixth and rooks behind, but somewhat let up by bartering away his
rooks for the Queen. Mr. Sweeny claimed the game on the ground that
Mr. Baird had exceeded the time limit, and the claim was allowed.
Mr. Morgan probably would have gotten the decision anyway. The gamescore
has unfortunately not been found. Apparently the Manhattan team did
not contest the decision, and the game was awarded to the Franklin club. |
Kemeny and Showalter, clearly two of the strongest
players present, conducted a game of course closely watched, both during
play and during Steinitzs adjudication. The ACM wrote that
Kemeny claimed a win against Showalter and got the verdict. The
game was a Ruy Lopez, Kemeny playing the same variation against Showalter
which the latter repeatedly had adopted against him in their match.
A draw position had been arrived at when Showalter, under the impression
that he must win in order to save the match, effected a break which cost
him the game. Kemenys column introduced the game as follows. [After
extensive reading of Kemenys many columns, the author suspects either
Kemeny did not create the final draft of the introduction, or else, perhaps
more likely, tried to write of his own performances as he did everyone
elses, without acknowledging he was one of the players involved.]
The game between Messrs. Kemeny and Showalter in the telegraphic team
match between the Manhattan Chess Club of New York and Franklin Chess Club
of Philadelphia, was adjudicated by Umpire Steinitz in favor of the local
player. The game was a Ruy Lopez, the Kentuckian adopting the Berlin
Defense. Mr. Kemeny, on his 9th turn, deviated from the usual Nd4
continuation, adopting the b3 move. The venture hardly proved a success,
for Showalter was enabled to obtain a pretty good game when he played his
14th turn ...Bf5. The position then became interesting, and for a
time
it looked as if Showalter would win. He, however, selected a rather
conservative continuation, which enabled his opponent to inaugurate a winning
kingside attack. Reichhelm also included the game in his book on
Philadelphia chess, noting that it was a great battle. |
|
Kemeny,E (Philadelphia) Showalter,JW (New York)
|
Board 14
|
C67/04 |
Spanish: Open Berlin (Fianchetto)
|
|
1897.05.31 |
USA (Franklin-Manhattan Telegraphic Match)
|
|
Annotations by E. Kemeny
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nf6 4.0-0 Nxe4 5.d4 Be7 6.Qe2
Nd6 7.Bxc6 bxc6 8.dxe5 Nb7 9.b3
The usual, and probably the best, continuation is 9.Nd4, followed by
b3. The play selected develops the queenside quite rapidly, but the
White knight is prevented from occupying the important d4 square. |
9...0-0 10.Bb2 Nc5 11.Nbd2 Ne6 12.Rad1 d5 13.Nd4 Nxd4
14.Bxd4 Bf5
Well played. White cannot well answer 15.Nf3 on account of ...Bg4,
nor can he properly guard the c-pawn. The move c4 is pretty nearly
forced, which enables Black to establish a passed pawn on the d-file.
Black was enabled to select this continuation through Whites ninth move.
At that stage Nd4 should have been played, as pointed out above. |
15.c4 c5 16.Bb2 d4 17.Ne4 a5 18.Ng3 Qc8 19.Nxf5 Qxf5 20.f4
h5
An important move. White threatened g4, followed by f5, with
a pretty dangerous attack on the kingside, which continuation is stopped
now. |
21.Rd3
21...Rfd8
21...a4, it seems, was the proper play. The move selected is
too conservative. Black, with 21...Rfd8, wanted to prevent White
from b4, in reply to Blacks ...a5 play. The text move enables White
to move a4, stopping the advance of the a-pawn. |
22.a4
An important move. Though it renders Whites b-pawn weak, it
was the best play he had at his disposal. White can sufficiently
guard the b-pawn, and it was necessary to stop the advance of Blacks a-pawn,
which would have given Black a promising attack on the queenside. |
22...Ra6 23.Bc1 Rb8 24.Bd2
24...Bd8
If there is any winning chance at all for Black it rested with the
...f6 play. Black should have tried to obtain the command of the
open e-file. The play he selected, namely, 23...Rb8, 24....Bd8, followed
by ...c6, is inferior, and enables White to turn the tables. Black
desired to guard his a-pawn with his bishop. By doing so he compromised
his position, and White is enabled to start a kingside attack, which proves
successful. |
25.Qf3 c6 26.Qh3 Qxh3
Forced, for if he moves ...Qg6 or ...Qe6, White continues with f5. |
27.Rxh3 Bc7 28.Rff3 g6 29.Rd3 Ra7 30.Rhf3 Kg7 31.h3 h4
32.Be1 Rh8 33.Bd2
33...f6
Black should have answered ...Rb8. The move selected proves disastrous.
It weakens Blacks g-pawn, and White is enabled to start a winning attack
by advancing the g-pawn, and by the subsequent command of the open g-file. |
34.exf6+ Kxf6 35.g4 hxg3 36.Rxg3 Rh5 37.Rg4 Ra8 38.Rdg3
Rg8 39.Rg5 Rxg5 40.Rxg5 Bb6
(Adjudicated by W. Steinitz), 1-0.
At this point play was stopped and the game was adjudicated by Referee
Steinitz in favor of White. The win is forced by f5, which forces
Black to answer ...Rg7 or ...Kf7. White then plays Rxg6 followed
by fxg6. Blacks king is obliged to remain on the kingside in order
to stop the advance of the h-pawn. The white king is enabled to move
to the queenside capturing the pawns, which gives him a win. |
Philadelphia Public Ledger, 1897.06.03,
p6
|
|
The final game of the match to be decided at that
time, leaving aside for the moment the matter of Elson - Halpern, was the
one played between Lipschütz and Young. Young claimed an advantage,
wrote the ACM, while Lipschütz made a strong claim for the
game. The game was finally awarded to the Manhattan Club.
At least, that was the case in time for the press for the June issue of
the magazine. Kemeny summed up the feelings of the Philadelphia players
in his introduction to the game: what is most puzzling to the local players
is the Lipschütz - Young game, which was decided in favor of the former.
The moves, with the diagram showing the position where the game was to
be adjudicated, is given below. The position has been analyzed by
several players of the local team, yet there is not the slightest advantage
to be found in favor of Lipschütz. Correspondence concerning
this game is going on at present, and it is expected that as soon as Mr.
Steinitz receives the correct position and the defense offered by Mr. Young,
he will change his decision and declare the game a draw. |
In fact it transpired that the circumstances were
even more confusing than that, at least during the course of the games
play. The ACM wrote that some hitches occurred on boards
one [Schmidt - Voigt] and 13 [Lipschütz - Young].
On the former, two pieces had been shifted by outsiders during the recess
for supper at the Manhattan end, while on the latter board the Philadelphians
made a wrong move, placing Lipschützs rook at e1 instead of g1, as
transmitted. Upon discovery of the errors a compromise was effected.
Game 1 [Schmidt - Voigt] was given a draw, although Philadelphia
was a pawn ahead and, in return, six moves were taken back on board 13
[Lipschütz - Young], and the game continued from the twenty-second
move. |
The record of what happened following the match
was also carried in the pages of the local press. The Ledger
for June 15, 1897, p.15 noted that Philadelphia won the match, notwithstanding
an unfortunate error in the decision of the Lipschütz - Young
game. Mr. Steinitz admitted that he made a mistake when he awarded
the game to New York, and he stated that he would change it if the New
York Club consents to it. This would make the final score of 8 to
6, in favor of Philadelphia. Three days later, the Ledger noted
that indeed the Manhattan club had consented to Steinitz revisiting his
decision, and the latter subsequently determined the game a draw. |
Reichhelm the following year in Chess in Philadelphia,
at page 109, summarized the matter thus: Adjudication time arrived and
the game passed into Referee Steinitzs hands for treatment. Mr.
Lipschütz was sure he could win, and offered to wager $50 that he
could demonstrate. He proceeded: 31.fxg6 h6 32.Rf2 Be3, etc., and
Mr. Steinitz was so impressed that he awarded the game to White.
Lipschützs analysis was wrong, and 32...Qe3 at least draws.
Mr. Steinitz acknowledged his error, and at the request of the Manhattan
Chess Club corrected his decision and awarded a draw. Reichhelms
last sentence appears to conflate the request for correction made by the
Franklin Club with the agreement by the Manhattan team to consent to Steinitz
revisiting the issue, but Reichhelms summary was otherwise essentially
correct. The net result was that the game allowed the Franklin Chess
Club to eventually win the match 8-6 instead of 7½-6½. |
|
Lipschütz,S (New York) Young,JW (Philadelphia)
|
Board 13
|
1897.05.31 |
USA (Franklin-Manhattan Telegraphic Match)
|
|
Annotations by E. Kemeny
1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.e5 Nfd7 5.f4 c5 6.dxc5 Nc6
7.a3 a5 8.Be3 Nxc5 9.Nf3 f5 10.Bxc5 Bxc5 11.Bd3 Bd7 12.Nb5 0-0 13.Qe2 Na7
14.Nbd4 Qb6
Mr. Young has conducted the defense with great good judgment, [and]
has at least an equal game. |
15.c3 Nc6 16.Qf2 Nxd4
He should have delayed this capture. |
17.cxd4 Be7
Mr. Young, however, wished at all hazards, to nip any attack on his
kingside. |
18.0-0 Rac8 19.Rad1 Rc6 20.h3 Rfc8 21.Kh1 R6c7 22.Rg1
At this point the move inadvertently played on Youngs board in
Philadelphia was 22.Re1, and as noted above, this was the position the
game was six moves later returned to in exchange for the immediate draw
between Schmidt and Voigt on board one.author |
22...Bb5 23.Bb1 Ba4 24.Rd2
White plays with the sole aim of facilitating his kingside project. |
24...Rc1 25.Bd3 Qc7 26.g4 fxg4 27.hxg4 Rxg1+ 28.Nxg1 Qc1
29.Qh2 g6 30.f5 Bg5
½-½.
Philadelphia Public Ledger, 1897.06.05,
p18
|
|
As noted above, part of the compromise to take back
moves in Lipschütz - Young was the agreement to a draw in the
game Schmidt - Voigt, on board one. Voigts agreement to a draw hardly
was a sacrifice. As Kemeny wrote in the Ledger for June 4,
1897, a lively game between Messrs. Schmidt and Voigt in the telegraphic
match resulted in a drawn game. Mr. Voigt adopted the Sicilian Defense,
and by brilliant play he won a pawn on the twelfth move. The advantage
thus gained might have proven sufficient, but the local player permitted
his opponent to simplify matters by the exchange of rooks and minor pieces.
When thirty-one moves were made Mr. Voigt was still a pawn ahead, yet his
winning chances were pretty near gone. He offered a draw, which was
readily accepted. |
|
Schmidt,L Jr. (New York) Voigt,HG (Philadelphia)
|
Board 1
|
B72/04 |
Sicilian: Classical Dragon
|
|
1897.05.31 |
USA (Franklin-Manhattan Telegraphic Match)
|
|
Annotations by E. Kemeny
1.e4 c5 2.Nc3
2.Nf3, followed by 3.d4, is better. White then has the option
to develop the queens knight to c3 or to d2. He also may fortify
his center by moving c3. |
2...Nc6 3.Nf3 g6 4.d4 cxd4 5.Nxd4 Bg7 6.Be3 d6 7.Be2
7.Bc4 is, perhaps, a preferable continuation. |
7...Nf6 8.h3 Bd7 9.Qd2 Qa5 10.0-0 0-0 11.a3
White failed to observe the brilliant play his opponent had on hand,
winning a valuable pawn. He should have played Nxc6 or Rd1 or f3. |
11...Nxd4
12.Bxd4
12.Qxd4 would have saved the pawn, though it places the queen in a
somewhat exposed position. The move selected results in the loss
of a pawn, as 12...Nxe4 proves. |
12...Nxe4 13.Nxe4 Qxd2 14.Nxd2 Bxd4 15.c3 Bg7 16.Rfe1
d5 17.Rad1 Ba4
A powerful looking move, which, however, does not prove satisfactory.
The bishop will be forced away by the b3 reply of White and Black loses
time. Instead of ...Ba4 he should have moved ...e6. |
18.b3 Bc6 19.c4 Bc3
19...dxc4, followed by ...e6 and ...Rd8 was a better continuation.
Black should have endeavored to maintain his bishops, being a pawn ahead
it was likely to secure a win. |
20.Bf3 dxc4
20...e6 was probably the best play at this stage of the game.
White could not then well move Re3 on account of d4. |
21.Bxc6 bxc6
22.Re3
Excellent play. The move forces Black to answer ...Bxd2, followed
by ...cxb3. Temporarily Black is two pawns ahead, yet White
is bound to win one of them, and he obtains the best drawing chances. |
22...Bxd2 23.Rxd2 cxb3 24.Rxb3 Rfd8 25.Rc2 Rac8 26.Rb7
e6 27.Rxa7 c5 28.Kf1 c4 29.Ra4 Rd3 30.Raxc4 Rxc4 31.Rxc4 Rxa3
After this move Black offered a draw, which of course was readily accepted.
Black is a pawn ahead, and he has some winning chances. By correct
play, however, the advantage is not likely to be sufficient to secure a
win. |
½-½.
Philadelphia Public Ledger, 1897.06.04,
p5
|
|
Only one board escaped Steinitzs evaluation on
the evening of May 31, 1897, and that was the game between Elson of Philadelphia
and Halpern of New York. At the time, as noted above, especially
with the Lipschütz - Young game recorded as a win for the latter,
the outcome of the match appeared to hinge on the adjudication. |
Because of the games significance, it received
special treatment from the ex-world champion. According to the Eagle
for June 3, 1897, Steinitz called for the two players analyses, and
upon receiving it intended to give the position careful examination.
The paper continued, noting that the Philadelphian, Elson, with a passed
pawn to the good, naturally claimed a win, but this Halpern as firmly contested,
holding that there was a draw in the position with the possibilities of
a win for him in case his opponent tried to force matters. Steinitz
said on Monday that the presumption of superiority was with White, he being
a pawn ahead and having at least an equal position and that under ordinary
circumstances he would have awarded him the game. Considering its
importance, however, he had complied with the request of both sides to
subject it to thorough analysis. |
The position to be adjudicated was published by
Kemeny
in the Ledger, as it was in the Eagle, though neither paper
ran the whole score. Reichhelm did, however, include the game, with
light notes, in his book. The one additional note by Kemeny that
appeared in his column with the games final position is identified below. |
|
Elson,J (Philadelphia) Halpern,JC (New York)
|
Board 12
|
1897.05.31 |
USA (Franklin-Manhattan Telegraphic Match)
|
|
Annotations by Gustavus Reichhelm
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nf6 4.d3 Bc5 5.c3 d6 6.Nbd2 0-0
7.Nf1 Ne7 8.Ng3 Ng6 9.0-0 c6 10.Ba4 Qc7 11.Bc2 Bg4 12.h3 Be6 13.Be3 Bb6
14.d4
The first advance on the center for the purpose of growing an attack. |
14...Rad8 15.Qe2 h6 16.Nd2 d5
This attempt to force the fighting gives White the advantage. |
17.dxe5 Nxe5 18.f4 Nc4 19.Nxc4 dxc4 20.Kh2 Bxe3 21.Qxe3
Rfe8 22.e5 Bd7 23.Ne4 Nd5 24.Qg3 Kh8 25.Nd6 Rf8
Must lose pawn now, but he foresees that Nxf7+ will not pay. |
26.Nxc4 f5 27.Rae1 Be6 28.Nd6 Kh7 29.Bb3 Qe7 30.Re2 b5
31.Bc2 g6 32.Qf2 Nb6 33.b3 Nd5 34.Qc5 Qc7 35.Bd3 Qb6 36.Qxb6 axb6 37.c4
Nb4 38.Bb1 bxc4 39.bxc4 Ra8
(Adjudicated by W. Steinitz), 1-0.
The continuation is, say, 40.Rb2 c5 41.Rf3 Ra6 42.Rfb3 [Emil Kemeny
instead noted in the Ledger for June 15, 1897, p.15, that the win is forced
by the following continuation: ... 42.a3 Nc6 43.Rc3 followed by Rd2, Nb5,
and Rd6.] 42.Rb8 43.g4 fxg4 44.hxg4 Bxg4 45.Ne4 etc. |
Chess in Philadelphia, Philadelphia
1898, p109
|
|
Although the Manhattan players eventually consented
to having Steinitz reconsider his decision in Lipschütz - Young as
well as to extending time, at Steinitzs request, for further examination
of Elson - Halpern, that willingness to lengthen the matter had clearly
not been their initial desire. The Eagle for June 10, 1897,
had paraphrased Colonel Morse, who had the management of the match on
Decoration Day, as remarking in effect that the Franklin Club [
]
had declined on the day of play to consider the suggestion of calling the
match a draw and replaying it at an early date, when this seemed the most
sensible course to pursue considering the closeness of the score and the
many unsatisfactory features which had attended the play. Perhaps
what sounded most sensible to the New York players, who perhaps could hear
the match slipping away from them, did not strike a similar chord with
the Philadelphians. |
In any event, de Visser added at the same time that
the experience of this match has acted strongly against any further telegraphic
contests being played by us, at all events, when over the board play can
be substituted with very little, if any, more expense or inconvenience
to the players, and this feeling, I know, is shared by players of the Franklin
club as well as of the Manhattan. And indeed, the classic series
of inter-club matches between these two powerful teams proceeded in future
years over the board. |
Thus ended the third annual match between the Franklin
Chess Club of Philadelphia and the Manhattan Chess Club of New York City.
The two clubs would play annually for many years, usually with victory
falling to the lot of the New York players. Little more could, or
would, be said of this match in years to come, though no doubt the victory
was one long cherished in Philadelphia. The Ledger for June
15, 1897, did add that the expenses of the match are to be divided between
the two clubs. The local club will receive an engrossed score card
as a trophy of its victory. An illustration of the score card appears
on page 12 of the June 1897 issue of American Chess Magazine. And
understandably so, since the magazine itself presented it to the winning
club. In those glorious days of inter-club rivalry, such a trophy
no doubt was worth much more than its weight in gold to the victors. |
|
* Whether Albert Beauregard Hodges ever legitimately
held the title of United States Champion should be a subject of some controversy
among American chess history scholars. I am indebted to Nick Pope
for first bringing the issue to my attention. The generally held
view is that Hodges did hold the title, but this conclusion is based upon
the assumption that Lipschütz, the previous title holder, had in fact
given up his crown when he moved out West for reasons of health. Lipschütz
would later deny that he had abdicated, thus casting into doubt the legitimacy
of Showalter having again assumed the title prior to the moment Hodges
defeated him in a match. Hodges did, however, resign his title, or
at least his claim to it, shortly thereafter, due to the pressure of his
business commitments, and Showalter took up the title once more.
Any question as to Showalters later supremacy over Lipschütz was
answered in a subsequent match between the two, played once Lipschütz
had returned East. This article, however, is not the place to attempt
a detailed evaluation concerning such matters. They involve complex
questions of pedigree, ones requiring long and careful study of the historical
record as it pertains to the high throne of American chess. |
|
|
The author wishes to thank Andy Ansel, Eduardo Mercere
and Nick Pope for their assistance with this essay. |
|
Errata (Added 2000.01.16)
There is an error in the Franklin
- Manhattan 1897 telegraphic match piece. Dr. Albert C. Simonson playing
Mordecai Morgan on board nine on the chart would be quite a trick, since
Albert Simonson wasn't born until something like 17 years after the match. |
It should be Gustave Simonson. The
change needs to be made in the chart, at board nine, and then again in
the header for the first game, to read Simonson,G - Morgan, M. |
Sorry about that. - J.S.H. [No Problem
- N. P.] |
|
© John S. Hilbert 1999. All rights
Reserved.
|