Chess Archaeology HomeChess is a scientific game and its literature ought to be placed on the basis of the strictest truthfulness, which is the foundation of all scientific research.W. Steinitz

More Recovered Chess Games:
Steinitz, Pillsbury, Lasker and Capablanca
by John S. Hilbert

     I have written elsewhere of my passion for rediscovering forgotten chess games of the great masters of the past.(1)  The discoveries are there to be made, awaiting the efforts of the dedicated searcher. Through rolls of microfilm and dusty collections of chess columns one can perceive, on occasion, an effort of a great mind of the past, forgotten for decades or a century or more, left waiting to be brought forth again, hopefully someday to be reunited with that master’s canon. 
    Anyone who has actually gone to the trouble of attempting to track down such games realizes how often hopes are disappointed.  Dozens if not hundreds of games might be examined before possibly a few, newly found, remain to pass the gauntlet of the collections of the past.  Even then, some games that have passed such rigorous examination may fall by the wayside once the researcher’s discoveries are shared with his or her colleagues, and especially with the experts in the field of a particular master, period, or place.(2)
    As with any pursuit worth the effort, though, the researcher’s findings must survive such scrutiny in order to be considered true additions to a master’s canon.  What follows is a small collection of newly recovered games played by four of the greatest chess minds in the world.  The group spans a period of nearly thirty years, running from 1883 to 1911, and though not exclusively, do for the most part come from the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania region. 
Steinitz
    The largest collection of games played by Steinitz, incorporating previous works, is Sid Pickard’s The Games of Wilhelm Steinitz (Pickard & Son: 1995).  Over a thousand games, specifically 1,022, are included by Pickard.  The book does not suggest it is complete, which is readily understandable.  Collecting and checking all known Steinitz games would require extensive labors in chess and popular journals, newspapers, and other collections.  And even then, of course, no claim to “completeness” could be made.  Not even Ludwig Bachmann, in his seminal Schachmeister Steinitz (C. Brügel & Sohn, 1920-28, 4 vols.), pretended his work was complete.  Nor does any other reputable scholar, writing about the great masters of the past.
    But the time has come when the games of our great players of the past require such exceptional efforts as would be needed for more exhaustive collections.  Leonard M. Skinner and Robert G. P. Verhoeven have set a new standard for compilations with their extraordinary Alexander Alekhine’s Chess Games, 1902-1946 (McFarland: 1998).  Other writers have also done excellent jobs in putting together materials on past great players, including Kenneth Whyld on Emanuel Lasker and Nick Pope on Harry Nelson Pillsbury, to name but two.  But Steinitz continues to lack a truly exhaustive, and accurate, treatment.  Not only are there many games played by Steinitz not included in the Pickard collection, but details as to events surrounding the play, the context in which the games appeared, is also lacking, at least in relation to Steinitz’s canon as a whole.  Games played by Steinitz during his early days in the United States are, for example, one area where much more work needs to be done.
    Steinitz sailed to America on board the American Steamship Company’s Indiana, arriving in Philadelphia on November 7, 1882.  He stayed in the City of Brotherly Love until December 27, 1882.  After leaving Philadelphia, Steinitz traveled first to Baltimore and then to New Orleans, where from December 28, 1882, through January 28, 1883, he played various club members at the New Orleans Chess, Checker and Whist Club, as well as visited, briefly, Paul Morphy.  Neither Bachmann nor Pickard include the following game at odds, one of four played between Steinitz and Labatt during the first week of his visit, early in January 1883.  Steinitz won by the score of 3-1, and thus this game was Labatt’s only victory:
Steinitz,W — Labatt,LL
 
<Nb1>
Odds of knight
1883.01
USA New Orleans, LA
1.f4 c5 2.e3 b6 3.Nf3 Bb7 4.b3 e6 5.Bb2 Nf6 6.Qe2 Nc6 7.0-0-0 d5 8.h3 a5 9.a4 Be7 10.g4 d4 11.e4 Nb4 12.d3 Na2+ 13.Kb1 Nc3+ 14.Bxc3 dxc3 15.Qe1 b5 16.axb5 a4 17.Qxc3 Nxe4 18.Qe1 
18…Nc3+ 19.Qxc3 Bxf3 20.Be2 Bf6 21.Qxc5 axb3 22.c3 Qa5 23.Kc1 Qa2 0-1. 
Philadelphia Times, 1883.01.07
    Steinitz did not settle in the United States right away.  Instead, he returned to Europe later in 1883, only to decide to move his family to this country not long thereafter.  By the end of 1883 he was back in Philadelphia, where he played a number of offhand games, including the following hitherto forgotten game against one of Philadelphia’s most respected chess elders.
Steinitz,W — Elson,J
 
C00/01
French: Steinitz
1883.12
USA Philadelphia, PA (Philadelphia Chess Club)
Annotations by G. Reichhelm
1.e4 e6 2.e5 d5 3.exd6 Bxd6 4.d4 Nc6 5.f4 
White plays on the principle of keeping the e-pawn and queen’s bishop hemmed in.
5...Nf6 6.Nf3 0-0 7.c3 Nd5 8.g3 b6 9.Bd3 Bb7 10.0-0 
On 10.Bh7+ Kxh7 11.Ng5+, Black moves ...Kg6.
10...Nce7 11.Ng5 h6 12.Ne4 Rc8 
A subtle trap. Against an ordinary adversary the game would probably have continued with 12...Rc8 13.c4 Nb4 14.c5 bxc5 15.dxc5 Bxc5+ 16.Nxc5 Qd4+ and Black has won a pawn.
13.Qe2 c5 14.dxc5 Bxc5+ 15.Nxc5 Rxc5 16.Nd2 Nf6 17.Nf3 Qd5 18.Be3 Rcc8
19.Rad1 
Made with the idea that he could let the a-pawn go and then recoup himself with the advantage of an open file by returning to the corner with his rook. There is a subsequent point, however, in the proceedings, calculated upon by Mr. Elson, that had escaped the analysis of Mr. Steinitz.
19...Qxa2 20.Ra1 Bxf3 
This is the move that Black relied on and secures the pawn that had been taken.
21.Rxa2 Bxe2 22.Bxe2 Rc7 23.Rfa1 Nfd5 24.Bd2 a5 25.Kf2 Rd8 26.Ra4 Nb4 27.Be3 Nbd5 28.Rd1 Rcd7 29.Bc1 Nf6 30.Re1 ½-½. 
Black is still a pawn ahead, but as it would be very difficult to win with his advantage against the two White bishops, the game was declared drawn.
Philadelphia Times, 1883.12.16
    Of Elson, Reichhelm added that “it is a subject worthy of note that one of the most creditable, if not the most creditable, scores in America made against Champion Steinitz was achieved by Mr. Jacob Elson, of this city.  Mr. Elson played, in all, three games against Steinitz during his two visits to this country, and out of these three games he achieved two draws and lost but one game.  We, of course, do not pretend to lay any undue stress upon this performance, but as it is a most creditable showing we deem it worth this passing notice.”
    During the same stay in Philadelphia Steinitz played the following game, one Reichhelm said was “one of the last played by Champion Steinitz [during his recently finished stay in Philadelphia], though it is not a good exhibit of the strong play usually exhibited by his young adversary.”
Steinitz,W — Miller
 
C29/01
Vienna Gambit
1883.12
USA Philadelphia, PA (Philadelphia Chess Club)
Annotations by G. Reichhelm
1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nf6 
This defense is faulty, as it allows the first player to offer the gambit with advantage.
3.f4 exf4 4.e5 Ng8 5.d4 Qh4+ 6.Ke2 
We have a sort of Steinitz gambit variation now.
6...g5 7.Nf3 Qh5 8.g4 
Taking a leaf out of old Anderssen’s book. A similar line of play was adopted by that celebrated master in the so-called “immortal game” against Kieseritzky.
8...Qg6 9.h4 gxh4 10.Rxh4 Be7 11.Rh2 Qxg4 
Black’s play in this game is by no means up to his usual form.
12.Bh3 Qg3 13.Qh1 Qg6 14.Bxf4 c5 15.d5 c4 16.d6 Bf8 
17.Rg1 
The position is very remarkable, indeed. Black has a check, it is true, but his game is lost.
17...Qxc2+ 18.Ke1 (…), 1-0. 
And wins, for, on ...Qd3, White plays Rd2, etc.
Philadelphia Times, 1883.12.23
    Another Steinitz game not included in any known collection of the world champion’s games is the following miniature.  Unfortunately, the game is merely introduced as showing “how Steinitz gives the rook,” without even mentioning where or when the game was played.
Steinitz — “Amateur”
 
<Ra1>
Odds of rook
188[3]  
Annotations by G. Reichhelm
1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.f4 exf4 4.e5 Qe7 5.Qe2 Ng8 6.Nf3 d6 7.Nd5 Qd8 8.exd6+ Be6 9.Nxc7+ Kd7 10.Nxe6 fxe6 11.Ne5+
11…Kc8 (# in 4), 1-0. 
Mate in four moves: 12.Qc4+ Nc6 13.Nxc6 bxc6 14.Qxc6+ Kb8.
Philadelphia Times, 1883.12.09
    Skipping ahead a few years, we find Steinitz again visiting the Philadelphia area, at which time he gave a twenty-three board simultaneous exhibition at the Workingmen’s Institute Hall in Germantown, on Wednesday, December 7, 1887.  According to Reichhelm, writing in the Philadelphia Times for December 11 of that year, Steinitz won twenty games and drew three, with no losses.  The three draws were made by Shipley, Young, and Magee.  Pickard includes two games from this exhibition in his book on Steinitz, both draws: numbers 897 (Magee) and 898 (Young).
    Two additional games from the Germantown simultaneous exhibition have now been found.  Reichhelm also offered some general commentary about the event: “Punctuality is the courtesy of chess kings as well as minor potentates and Herr Steinitz was therefore promptly on time, escorted by Mr. W. Penn Shipley.  His adversaries were all on hand and arranged around him in what is easiest described as an oblong square.  On board number one Mr. John Welsh Young, with the radiance of a full front, boldly inaugurated a secret counterplot, which engaged the full attention of the champion.  Mr. Young kept his eyes carefully riveted on the board, so as not to be too much moved by the plaudits of the spectators.  Mr. Young gallantly achieved a draw.  Board number two, Mr. R. T. Tatum, made a short but creditable defense, but on the neighboring table (number three), Mr. R. O. Benson was seen with his pale caste of thought elaborating the most polished combinations.  Mr. Benson played a tremendous game and Mr. Steinitz himself acknowledged that at one period Mr. Benson had the better of him. Mr. Benson’s game, however, lingered too long and finally, at 1:30 am, Her Steinitz again scored.  Messrs. J. Fischer Wright and Mordecai Morgan played very attractive games, while Mr. W. Penn Shipley, on table number six,” secured what Reichhelm called a “brilliant draw.”
Steinitz,W — Shipley,WP
Simul (1:23)
C52/05
Evans: Compromised (Anderssen)
1887.12.07
USA Germantown, PA
Annotations by G. Reichhelm
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 6.d4 exd4 7.0-0 
Reichhelm: This is the so-called “compromise defense” of the Evans’ Gambit, but the preponderance of evidence is now in favor of its soundness.
7...dxc3 8.Qb3 Qf6 9.e5 Qg6 10.Nxc3 Nge7 11.Ne2
11…b5 
Reichhelm: This counter sacrifice is a necessary feature of this defense, although authorities differ as to the exact time when the pawn should be offered. With his surplus of pawns Black can afford to give one back to divert the champion’s attack.
12.Bxb5 Rb8 13.Nf4 Qe4 14.Nd3 Qd5 15.Bxc6 Rxb3 16.Bxd5 Rxd3 17.Bc4 ½-½. 
Hilbert: Note that the New York Clipper for January 7, 1888, gives the same game score, but ends the game with 17.Be4, not 17.Bc4.(3)
Reichhelm: And the game was by mutual consent abandoned by both players.
Philadelphia Times, 1887.12.11
    Reichhelm then continued his description of the Germantown simul: “Next to Mr. Shipley sat the gallant Mr. Stokes, who had bounded into the arena early in the evening.  Mr. Stokes’ moves were complex and pleasing.  Following him Mr. J. Evans and Mr. J.W. Barker played sturdily, and further, at board number ten, sat the rising Germantown chess phenomenon, Master August Beckman, aged 15.  Herr Steinitz opened with a Giuoco Pianisimo on the queen’s side, but the boy defended himself so ably that not a piece or pawn was exchanged on either side for many moves and even the old players looked on and marveled at the boy.  Finally, however, the old master secured an advantage over the young one.  Passing over the well digested games of Carroll Smyth and H. S. Williams we come to the main body of the ‘Junior’ contingent [i.e., players from the so-called Junior Chess Club, who in fact represented some of the strongest players not only of the Franklin Chess Club, but of the city itself, regardless of age—JSH] on tables thirteen to seventeen.  J. P. Morgan held out bravely until after 2:00 am, and next to him sat President Magee, of the ‘Juniors,’ who played another of the star games of the evening ... At this point it was after 2:00 am, and Herr Steinitz, remarking that he was very tired, asked Mr. Magee to draw on account of the lateness of the hour.  Mr. Magee gallantly acceded. ... The next players, Messrs. W. H. Schultz, Henry S. Jeanes and S. W. Bampton, all had finally to ‘catch trains’...and at the last, but by no means least, board number twenty-three, sat Herman G. Voigt ... Voigt was especially unfortunate in losing his game by a mistaken touch and move after having an equal game.”
    In his January 1, 1888, chess column, Reichhelm gave another example of Steinitz’s play from the same Germantown, December 7, 1887, simultaneous exhibition.  Reichhelm considered it an excellent game.
Steinitz,W — Wright,MF
Simul (1:23)
C51/01
Evans: Declined
1887.12.07
USA Germantown, PA
Annotations by G. Reichhelm
1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Bc5 3.b4 Bb6 
Had Lieutenant Wright taken the pawn Herr Steinitz would doubtless have proceeded with 4.f4, offering McDonnell’s celebrated double gambit.
4.Nf3 Nc6 
Arriving by a transposition of moves at one of the variations in the Evans’ Gambit evaded. 
5.c3 a6 6.d3 Nge7 
It is nearly always preferable to post the knight at f6.
7.Ng5 d5 8.exd5 Nxd5 9.Qf3 Be6 10.Nxe6 fxe6 11.Nd2 Rf8 12.Qh5+ g6 13.Qxh7 Bxf2+ 
Through White’s eleventh move Black now obtains a winning position.
14.Kd1 Ne3+ 15.Ke2 Qf6 16.Ne4 Qf5 17.Qh3 Nxc4 18.Qxf5 exf5 19.Nxf2 Nd6 20.Bg5
20…Kd7 
Beginning a series of remarkable king moves with which to hoist Steinitz with his own petard.
21.a4 e4 22.d4 b5 23.a5 Ke6 24.Nh3 Kd5 25.Nf4+ Kc4 26.Ra3 Rae8 27.g3 Nf7 
White cannot take the g-pawn on account of ...Rg8.
28.h4 Nxg5 29.hxg5 Rh8 30.Rh4 Rxh4 31.gxh4 Ne7 32.Kf2 e3+ 33.Kxe3 Nd5+ 34.Kf3 Nxf4 
34...Re3+ is answered by 35.Kf2.
35.Kxf4 Re4+ 36.Kg3 Re3+ 37.Kf4 Re4+ 38.Kg3 Kd3 39.Ra1 Kxc3 40.Rc1+ Kxb4 41.Rc6 Kxa5 42.Rxg6 b4 43.Rg8 Ka4 44.Kh3 b3 45.Rb8 Rxd4 46.g6
46…Rb4 
This loses him a won game. Lieutenant Wright indeed saw that ...Rg4 would win, but made a mistake in thinking the move in the text a quicker way of doing it.
47.Rxb4+ Kxb4 48.g7 b2 49.g8Q Ka3 
The further moves were not recorded, but Herr Steinitz won.
1-0. 
The modus operandi of winning in this position would be about as follows: 50.Qf8+ Ka2 51.Qf7+ Ka1 52.Qf6 Ka2 53.Qxa6+ Kb3 54.Qd3+ Ka2 55.Qc2 Ka1 56.Qa4+ Kb1 57.h5 etc.
Philadelphia Times, 1888.01.01
    Another Steinitz game has surfaced from apparently the following year, 1888.  The difficulty in assigning the game a more precise place and time in Steinitz’s canon stems from the vagueness of Reichhelm’s introductory comment, given here in full: “Mr. Voigt of the home club, sends us the following instructive game he had with Steinitz.”  As Reichhelm’s references to players of “the home club” generally involved their play when not in Philadelphia, the location of this game, much less its precise date, is not known. Perhaps it was played in New York, and perhaps in July or August 1888, given the date of the column in which it appears.  In any event, the game involves one of Voigt’s pet openings, the Sicilian. 
Steinitz,W — Voigt,HG
 
B46/03
Sicilian: Barnes (Russian)
188[8]
[USA]
Annotations by G. Reichhelm
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 a6 4.d4 cxd4 5.Nxd4 e6 6.g3 g6 7.Nxc6 bxc6 8.e5 d5 9.exd6 Qxd6 10.Qf3 Bb7 11.Bd2 Bg7 12.0-0-0 Qb4 13.a3 c5 
A very neat retort. 
14.Qe2 Qb6 15.Rg1 Rd8 16.Na4 Qd6 17.Qc4 Qd4 18.Qxd4 Bxd4 19.Be3 Bc6
20.Nxc5 
Steinitz nods. Black now very cleverly wins the exchange. 
20...Bxb2+ 21.Kxb2 Rxd1 22.f4 Ne7 23.Bxa6 Rxg1 24.Bxg1 0-0 25.Nb3 Rb8 26.Bd3 Ba4 27.Bd4 Nd5 28.Ka2 h5 29.Nc5 Bc6 30.Be5 Ra8 31.Kb2 Ne3 32.Bd4 Nd5 33.Bc4 f6 34.Bb3 Kf7 35.a4 Ke7 36.Ka3 h4 37.Ne4 hxg3 38.hxg3
38…Nxf4 
By this plausible-looking capture Mr. Voigt gives away his slight chance of winning and enables Mr. Steinitz to draw by perpetual check in a very peculiar manner.
39.Bc5+ Kd8 40.Bb6+ Ke7 41.Bc5+ Kd8 ½-½. 
And the game is drawn. If Black attempts to alter his moves then White gets the chance to check with his knight and win a piece.
Philadelphia Times, 1888.08.19
    Few offhand games from Steinitz’s last years have made their way into anthologies.  No doubt the field is quite ripe for numerous additional finds.  Here, for instance, is an offhand game the great master played against Max Judd, one of the strongest players to reside in America’s Midwest.  The game, however, was played in Vienna, where Judd had at one time been United States Consul.  As with the other games in this article, this one has not yet made its way into the Steinitz canon.(4)
Judd,Max — Steinitz,W
Offhand
C62/01
Spanish: Steinitz
1897
AUT Wien
Annotations by G. Reichhelm
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 d6 4.d4 Bd7 5.Nc3 Nge7 
Now White should proceed with Bg5, etc.  The move in the text, however, which follows is recommended by Lasker. 
6.Bc4 exd4 7.Nxd4 Nxd4 8.Qxd4 Nc6 9.Qe3 Be6 10.Nd5 Ne5 11.Bb3 c6 
This, with the consequent flippant advance on the queenside, shows that Mr. Steinitz did not take the game very seriously.
12.Nf4 Bd7 13.Qg3 a5 14.a3 Qb6 15.0-0 a4 16.Ba2 h5 
Now he goes for him on the other wing. Mr. Steinitz is evidently on the sunny side of the street. 
17.h4 Ng4 18.Nd3 Be6 19.Bxe6 fxe6 20.Bg5 Qc7 21.Rad1 Qf7 22.f3 Nh6 
The veteran must now begin to fight, but Mr. Max has a win in hand. 
23.Rd2 Qc7 24.Nf4 Qf7 25.Rfd1 Ng8 
The sacrifice which follows is good, and should have won the game. 
26.Rxd6 Bxd6 27.Rxd6 Nf6 28.Nxe6 Rg8 29.Nc7+ Qxc7 30.Qe5+ Qe7 31.Re6 Qxe6 32.Qxe6+ Kf8 33.Bxf6 gxf6 34.Qxf6+ 0-1. 
The remaining moves are not recorded, but Mr. Judd in some way managed to lose the game.
Philadelphia Times, 1897.06.13
    In the spring of 1898, Steinitz once more came to Philadelphia, where on April 23, 1898, he gave a twenty-one board simultaneous exhibition at the Franklin Chess Club.  As Emil Kemeny described it two days later in his Philadelphia Public Ledger column, “W. Steinitz, who for twenty-eight years held the championship of the world, Saturday evening gave a brilliant exhibition of simultaneous play.  He met a strong team of twenty-one local players, but D. Stuart [Robinson] was the only one who succeeded in defeating him.  Play commenced at 7:30 pm.  Shortly before midnight play was stopped, and the unfinished games were adjudicated.  The final score was: Steinitz won ten, lost one, and drew ten.”  Kemeny also noted that “perhaps the best game of the series was the one won by D. Stuart [Robinson].  It was a Sicilian Defense.  The local player, in the middle game, obtained a powerful kingside attack, enabling him to win brilliantly.”
Steinitz,W — Robinson,DS
Simul (1:21) 
B20/01
Sicilian: Philidor
1898.04.23
USA Philadelphia, PA (Franklin Chess Club)
Annotations by E. Kemeny
1.e4 c5 2.Bc4 
2.Nf3 followed by 3.d4 is considered stronger. 
2...Nc6 3.Nf3 e6 4.Qe2 Be7 5.Nc3 a6 6.a4 
To avoid the threatening ...b5 and ...c4, winning the bishop. White might have played 6.d3 instead of 6.a4. 
6...d6 7.0-0 Bf6 8.d3 Nge7 9.Nd1 0-0 10.Bd2 Ng6 11.Bb3 d5 12.a5 Rb8 13.Re1 d4 14.Rf1 e5 15.Ne1
15…Bg5 
A powerful move. White intended to move f4, in order to break up Black’s strong center. The text move prevents this play, or at least necessitates the g3 preparatory move, which weakens White’s kingside.
16.g3 Kh8 17.f4 exf4 18.gxf4 Bh6 19.Ng2 
He could not well move 19.f5, for ...Bxd2 and ...Nge5 would have given Black the preferable game. The text play enables Black to move ...Bh3, ...Bxg2, and ...f5, with a very satisfactory position since White’s king is somewhat exposed.
19...Bh3 20.Qh5 
He could not well guard the pawn. The text play seems very promising, since White will win the c-pawn. The play, however, has serious disadvantages. White gets his queen out of play, while Black, with ...Qh4, will be enabled to establish a powerful kingside attack.
20...Bxg2 21.Kxg2 f5 22.Kh1 fxe4 23.dxe4 Bxf4 24.Bxf4 Nxf4 25.Qxc5 Qh4 26.Nf2 Ne2 
A powerful move, which leaves White without a satisfactory defense. ...Ng3+ is threatening, as well as ...Rxf2.
27.Kg2 Rf6 28.e5 
There was no better play. Black threatened ...Rbf8 and mate in a few moves.
28...Rg6+ 29.Kf3 Qh5+ 30.Ke4
30…Nc3+ 0-1. 
Brilliant and decisive. White is obliged to capture the knight, for otherwise ...Qe2 mates. After 31.bxc3, Black forces the win with 31...Qe2+ 32.Kd5 Rd8+ 33.Qd6 Rdxd6+ 34.exd6 Rg5 mate.
Philadelphia Public Ledger, 1898.04.25
 
    Steinitz, in losing to D. Stuart Robinson, had lost to one of the Franklin Chess Club’s strongest members.  He had, however, drawn with John Welsh Young, another strong club man, as well as with Herman G. Voigt, who soon would be recognized as one of the nation’s strongest.  Voigt competed in no less than nine of the Anglo-American Cable Match contests, starting in 1899, and would in years to come draw his individual games with the likes of Atkins and Blackburne.  The complete list of all twenty-one of Steinitz’s simultaneous exhibition opponents appeared in the April 25, 1898, Philadelphia Public Ledger.
    Kemeny annotated another Steinitz game from the master’s simultaneous exhibition for his chess column in the Ledger.  The column’s introductory remarks reported that “the game between Messrs. Steinitz and Stark in Saturday night’s simultaneous exhibition at the Franklin Chess Club was won by the former most brilliantly, and it may be said that it is a rare exception when the simultaneous player is enabled to display such skill as did the veteran ex-champion on this occasion.  Stark declined to accept a King’s Gambit, but, failing to make the strongest moves, his opponent was enabled to establish a powerful King’s side attack.  Stark’s game soon became hopeless, and Steinitz followed up his advantage with skill.  The play from the twenty-third move to the end was a chain of brilliant moves, and Stark was obliged to surrender on the thirty-second turn, as his game then was a hopeless one.”
Steinitz,W — Stark,E
Simul (1:21)
C30/02
King’s Gambit Declined: Classical
1898.04.23
USA Philadelphia, PA (Franklin Chess Club)
Annotations by E. Kemeny
1.e4 e5 2.f4 Bc5 3.Nf3 d6 4.Bc4 Nc6 5.c3 Bb6 
Loss of time. 5...Bg4 or 5...Nf6 should have been played. 
6.Qe2 Qe7 
6...Bg4 or 6...Nf6 was still in order. The text move is too conservative.
7.d3 Nf6 8.f5 
Which gives White a decided advantage. Black’s queen bishop is shut out, and White, by the subsequent g4 and h4 play, will obtain a powerful kingside attack. 
8...Bd7 9.Ng5 
A powerful move. The object in view is to prevent Black from castling queenside. This is accomplished whether Black answers ...0-0 or ...Nd8. Black might have moved ...Rf8, which in all probability was superior. 
9...Nd8 10.Nd2 c6 11.Nf1 h6 12.Nf3 0-0 13.Bd2 d5 14.Bb3 a5 15.a4 Ne8 16.0-0-0 dxe4 
Inferior play which opens the d-file for the adverse rook.
17.dxe4 Nc7 18.g4 Kh8 19.h4 f6 20.Qg2 Nf7 21.Ng3 Na6 22.g5 Nc5 23.Nh5 
A brilliant move. Should Black capture the bishop, White would answer 24.Kb2, threatening to play gxf6, winning the queen or mate on the move. 
23...Rg8 24.g6 
If Black now plays 24...Nxb3+ and 25...Nxd2, then 25.Kc2 and 26.Qxd2, followed by Qxd7, with a winning attack. It would have been superior, however, to the continuation adopted.
24...Nd6 25.Bxg8 Rxg8
26.Bxh6 
A decisive move. Black cannot capture the bishop, for g7+ would win speedily. Black has no satisfactory answer; the ...Bc8 move is made in order to continue with ...Nd7 and eventually ...Nf8.
26...Bc8 27.Nxf6 
Another brilliant play. If ...Qxf6, then Bg5, h5, and h6 wins; if, however, ...gxf6, then White proceeds with Rxd6.
27...gxf6 28.Rxd6 Re8 
He could not capture the rook, for g7+ and queen mates would follow. 
29.Ng5 fxg5 30.hxg5 Kg8 
Necessary, since White threatened Bf8+, Rh8+, Qh3+, and Qh7 mate. 
31.f6 Nb3+ 32.Kc2 1-0. 
Causing Black to surrender. He cannot capture the rook, for f7+ and Bf8 mate is threatening.
Philadelphia Public Ledger, 1898.04.27

Pillsbury
    Although never world champion, Harry Nelson Pillsbury was clearly the strongest native born chess player in the United States during the latter half of the 1890s, in addition to being one of the half dozen strongest masters in the world.  By the time Pillsbury came to Philadelphia in 1899 for one of his many trips through that city, he had been United States chess champion for over a year, and had long held the reputation as being one of the world’s finest blindfold and simultaneous exhibition players.
    Pillsbury’s chess career, and in particular his tournament and match play, has been the subject of Jacques N. Pope’s Harry Nelson Pillsbury, American Chess Champion (Pawn Island Press: 1996), the largest collection of Pillsbury games published to date.  Pope’s work is a welcome resource for the person searching for forgotten games played by Pillsbury.  Pope, however, made no attempt to be as inclusive as possible concerning Pillsbury’s informal games, including those played blindfold, in consultation, or during simultaneous exhibitions.  And not unexpectedly, some newly discovered games have come to light.
    Pillsbury logically enough began his late 1899 chess tour in the United States with a stay in Philadelphia, by then his home.  On Saturday night, October 7, 1899, Pillsbury opened the season for the Franklin Chess Club with a simultaneous exhibition of eighteen boards, winning fifteen, losing two, and drawing one.  Walter Penn Shipley earned his draw at board nine, while the exhibitioner lost to D. Stuart Robinson on board ten and George H. Stout on board two. 
    Stout was by far the most successful of Pillsbury’s opponents during his first tour stop.  He not only won at the Franklin Chess Club simultaneous exhibition on October 7, 1899, but on the next Saturday, October 14, 1899, Stout was able to draw with Pillsbury when he played a twenty-three board exhibition at the Mercantile Library, winning seventeen, losing two, and drawing four (of which two, at boards seventeen and eighteen, were checkers games instead of chess). 
    Gustavus Reichhelm, Philadelphia’s chess chronicler for nearly fifty years, published Stout’s win at the Franklin exhibition in the pages of the Philadelphia Times.  The game does not appear in Pope’s collection.
Pillsbury,HN — Stout,GH
Simul (1:18)
C30/01
King’s Gambit Declined
1899.10.07
USA Philadelphia, PA (Franklin Chess Club)
Annotations by G. Reichhelm
1.e4 e5 2.f4 Nc6 3.Nf3 Qf6 
Not a recognized book defense. Black subjects himself to a loss of time or a crowded development.
4.Nc3 d6 
On 4...Nge7 White would move 5.Nb5. 
5.Bb5 Bd7 6.Nd5 Qd8 7.c3 Nf6 
Now White should have castled. 
8.Nxf6+ Qxf6 9.d4 exd4 10.Nxd4 Be7 11.0-0 a6 
After which the champion should retire Ba4. The plain English of it is that he underrated Black’s resources. 
12.Bxc6 bxc6 13.e5 dxe5 14.fxe5 Qxe5 15.Bf4 Qd5 16.Qe2 
16…c5 
Mr. Stout recognizes the true strategic move of the present position. He makes the coup juste. 
17.Rae1 0-0 18.Qxe7 cxd4 19.Bxc7 Bc6 20.Qe2 dxc3 21.Be5 Rae8 
From which the champion attempts to extricate himself by an adroit maneuver, but the game is lost.
22.Qf3 Qc5+ 
If 22...Rxe5 White plays 23.Rxe5.
23.Qe3 Rxe5 24.Qxc5 Rxc5 25.bxc3 Rxc3 0-1. 
And won in a few moves. 
Philadelphia Times, 1899.11.05
    The following year almost to the day found Pillsbury once more in Philadelphia, and once more conducting a simultaneous exhibition to open the season at the Franklin Chess Club.  As Reichhelm described it, “the opening of the chess season was well celebrated by a simultaneous séance of twenty-one boards by Champion Harry Nelson Pillsbury, at the rooms of the Franklin Chess Club last evening. The single performer was introduced by Dr. Persifer Frazer, president of the Franklin and ... then the business of playing single hand against more than a score of strong players was undertaken by the American Champion.”
    Pillsbury had already played that week a series of games of checkers with G. H. Kearns, then a well-known Philadelphia checker player.  The chess champion showed his mettle at checkers, too, annihilating his opponent by a score of nine wins to none, with eleven draws.  But it was Pillsbury’s simultaneous chess exhibition that saw him facing some of the strongest opposition in the country, outside of New York City, with the likes of Voigt, Shipley, D. Stuart Robinson, John Welsh Young and others sitting at boards around the room.  Despite the relative strength of his opponents, Pillsbury won sixteen games and drew the remaining five, finishing the exhibition without a loss.  Reichhelm added that “the surest game of the evening was with veteran Doerr, who made all his moves while you waited, and is always satisfied with the best moves.”
Pillsbury,HN — Doerr,FW
Simul (1:21)
C26/01
Vienna: Falkbeer (Mieses)
1900.10.06
USA Philadelphia, PA (Franklin Chess Club)
Annotations by G. Reichhelm
1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.g3 
The fianchetto form of the Vienna opening, but Mr. Doerr pays but little attention to the subtleties as he plays the Irishman’s gambit of hitting a head whenever he sees it.
3...Nc6 4.Bg2 Bb4 5.Nge2 d6 6.h3 Be6 7.Nd5 Bxd5 8.exd5 Ne7 9.c3 Bc5 10.d4 exd4 11.Nxd4 Bxd4 12.Qxd4 0-0 
Moving into easy street and preparing for brand new exchanges.
13.Bg5 Ng6 14.0-0-0 h6 15.Bxf6 Qxf6 16.Qxf6 gxf6 17.Rhe1 Rae8 18.f4 Re7 
The proper caper, White must exchange to prevent Black taking a double-up on the e-file. 
19.Rxe7 Nxe7 20.Re1 Re8 21.h4 Kf8 22.Kd2 
22…Nf5 
Good again. Insuring a pawn win.
23.Rxe8+ Kxe8 24.g4 Nxh4 25.Be4 Ng6 26.Ke3 Ke7 27.c4 a5 
Excellent judgment. It puts a quietus on the queenside pawn’s operation.
28.b3 b6 29.Bd3 Nf8 30.Kf3 Nd7 31.Kg3 Nc5 32.Bc2 Kf8 33.Kh4 Kg7 34.Kh5 Nd7 35.Kh4 Nc5 36.Bf5 ½-½. 
Philadelphia Times, 1900.10.07
    New faces were also appearing at the Franklin Chess Club, and Pillsbury would find himself, soon enough, across the board from them.  The following year, in 1901, Pillsbury played another simultaneous exhibition at the Franklin, where one of his opponents was a twenty-year-old by the name of Stasch Mlotkowski.  Mlotkowski would grow up as a player in the Philadelphia area before moving to the west coast, where among other things he would tie for first place with Norman Whitaker for the Western Chess Association title at stake at San Francisco 1923.  In 1901 in Philadelphia, however, even though he was twenty, he was still referred to as the “boy wonder” when he sat down at board fifteen to play against the United States Champion.
    As Reichhelm wrote of the encounter, “in these days of pawn grubbing and French and Sicilian defenses gambits are a rarity, but on the occasion of Champion Pillsbury’s recent simultaneous séance in the Franklin Chess Club a real live Kieseritzky gambit, trimmings and all, was in evidence.  It was on board fifteen, where the champion met the boy wonder, Mlotkowski.”
Pillsbury,HN — Mlotkowski,S
Simul (1:?)
C39/02
KGA: Kieseritzky (Paulsen)
1901.10
USA Philadelphia, PA (Franklin Chess Club)
Annotations by G. Reichhelm
1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 g5 4.h4 g4 
Here is a fork in the trunk from which two gambits spring. Were White now to move 5.Ng5 it would be the Allgaier gambit. But with 5.Ne5, actually made, it is the Kieseritzky.
5.Ne5 Bg7 
This defense introduced by Paulsen and considered the best but for offhand chess, the counter attack of ...d6, followed by ...Be7, gives the most interesting positions. 
6.Nxg4 d5 7.Nf2 dxe4 8.Nxe4 Nf6 9.Nbc3 0-0 10.d3 Nxe4 11.Nxe4 Re8 12.Be2 Nc6 
Menacing ...Nd4, ...Nxe2, etc.
13.c3 Bf5 14.Bxf4 Bxe4 15.dxe4 Rxe4 16.0-0 Qxh4 17.g3 Qe7 18.Bd3 Re6 19.Qh5 h6 20.Bf5 Re2 21.Bd3
21…Re6 
Must return to protect his h-pawn. Had Pillsbury, however, taken the h-pawn on move 21 Black would simply have traded bishops and then queens through ...Qe3+.
22.Qf5 Ne5 23.Bc2 Nd7 24.Rf2 Qc5 25.Qxc5 Nxc5 26.Bxc7 Be5 
As a net result of all the maneuvering White has won his gambit pawn back and nothing more.
27.Bxe5 Rxe5 28.Raf1 Rf8 29.Rf6 Kg7 30.g4 Ne6 31.Bb3 Ng5 32.Kg2 Re3 ½-½. 
And both players recognized the fact that only a draw was possible. A good, clean game.
Philadelphia Times, 1901.11.10
    As time passed, of course, Pillsbury’s ultimately fatal disease sapped his playing strength.  By 1904, at the time the following game was played, his ability to sustain the rigorous concentration needed for top flight chess had been severely impaired.  Yet Pillsbury continued to play, and not all his games from this period are marred by the blight that would in two years end his life. 
    Pillsbury’s doings remained significant chess news, regardless of his waning strength.  Reichhelm, writing in the pages of the North American for January 10, 1904, would note that “for the last week Champion Harry N. Pillsbury, who had been starring in the West, took a holiday rest in this city.  Being a constant visitor to the Franklin Chess Club, he took occasion to indulge his favorite pastime.  With Mr. Herman G. Voigt he played at one session two notable games.  In the first, opened by Voigt, the champion made a beautiful combination, which forced the win, although, in fact, he fluked it afterwards.”  Pope gives the game in his book on the champion as number 525.  But until now the second “notable game” of Pillsbury’s playing session with Voigt, one of Philadelphia’s strongest players and a veteran of numerous Anglo-American Cable Match contests, had not appeared.
    Reichhelm wrote of this game that “in their second partie, a Queen’s Pawner, by Pillsbury, play ran along smoothly, when the champion was a little too quick in his kingside attack.  Voigt was keen to observe the precipitation, and was quietly sawing wood on the queenside.  At the critical juncture after his attack had all but succeeded, Pillsbury was obliged to defend with his Queen, and Voigt won out with a series of deft pawn-winning checks.”
Pillsbury,HN — Voigt,HG
 
D60/04
QGD: Orthodox (Lipschütz)
1904.01
USA Philadelphia, PA (Franklin Chess Club)
Annotations by G. Reichhelm
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 Be7 5.e3 0-0 6.Nf3 Nbd7 7.Bd3 c5 8.cxd5 Nxd5 9.Bxe7 Qxe7 10.Nxd5 exd5 11.0-0 c4 
A declaration for a queenside attack, which White regards lightly.
12.Bc2 Nf6 13.Ne5 b5 14.Qf3 a5 15.Rfe1 Ra6 16.Kh1 Qe6 17.Rg1 Ne4 
A move well taken. If Pillsbury wins the pawn he must expect ...f6. 
18.Qe2 f5
19.a4 
Made to weaken the Black pawn chain. At the same time it makes White’s game more difficult. 
19...b4 20.g4 b3 21.gxf5 Qxf5 22.Bxe4 Qxe4+ 23.f3 Qc2 24.Qe1 
A bid for direct attack. 24. Qxc2 was the conservative move.
24...Qf5 
Of course he cannot play 24...Qxb2 on account of 25.Rg2.
25.Qh4 Raf6 26.Rg5 Qh3 27.Qf2 Bf5 28.Rag1 g6 29.R1g3 
Burning his bridges behind him. 
29...Qh6 30.Kg1 
Intending h4, and on ...Qxh4, Rxg6+ etc.
30...Qg7 31.Qd2 Qc7 32.h4
32…c3 
Fine play, as it makes White’s queen inoperative.
33.bxc3 
Must. 
33...Rb6 34.Qb2 h6 35.Rxf5 
Hobson’s choice.
35...Rxf5 36.f4 Kh7 37.Kf2 Qe7 38.Rg4 h5 39.Rg5 Rxg5 40.hxg5 Qe6 41.e4 Qh3 42.Qa3 Qh2+ 
Again remarkable. Black must take one or the other pawn with a check.
43.Ke3 Qg1+ 44.Kf3 Qf1+ 45.Kg3 Qe1+ 46.Kh2 Qf2+ 47.Kh3 Qe3+ 48.Kg2 Qxe4+ 49.Kg1 Rb7 0-1. 
The North American, 1904.01.10

Lasker
    In considering Emanuel Lasker, the long-time world champion, those searching for forgotten games have the advantage of consulting Kenneth Whyld’s The Collected Games of Emanuel Lasker (The Chess Player: 1998), without question the most comprehensive compilation of Lasker’s games, both formal and informal, ever produced.  In addition to the 1,390 games appearing in the book, Whyld has provided an equally valuable treasure for the researcher in his detailed listing of all known simultaneous displays Lasker gave, listing when available date, location, number of games played, and how Lasker faired in terms of wins, losses, and draws.  This listing occupies four and a half pages of very small, double columned print at the front of the book, and can quickly give the researcher information not so readily available anywhere else.  Attempting to search for additional Lasker games without Whyld’s book would be foolish.
    By providing such an extensive list of Lasker’s simultaneous exhibitions, Whyld has also allowed researchers to begin to fill in gaps in the record.  For example, according to Whyld, Lasker was known to have played a simultaneous exhibition at the Mercantile Library Association in Philadelphia in the spring of 1905.  Although a date of May 23, 1905, was suggested by Whyld, this date appears questionable.  Reichhelm, in a column written for The North American and dated, by hand, in a scrapbook in the White Collection at the Cleveland Public Library as May 7, 1905, informs us that at the Mercantile exhibition, “Champion Lasker won fifteen, drew three (with H.J. Chilton, George H. Stout and Lewis Hopper) and lost one to Sydney T. Sharp.”  As there is no suggestion Lasker played two such simultaneous exhibitions at the Mercantile Library Association in the spring of 1905, it appears an earlier date for the exhibition is in order, one either near the end of April or the beginning of May of that year.
    Reichhelm added that “the losses of men like Morphy or Lasker are always entertaining,” and then gave Sharp’s victory over the champion, a game not yet among Whyld’s 1,390 contests played by Lasker.  The condensed language Reichhelm used for his notes in this game was one of his less fortunate trademarks, but understandable, at least when space was limited for his column.
Lasker,Em — Sharp,ST
Simul (1:19) 
C39/06
KGA: Kieseritzky (Berlin)
1905.0[4]
USA Philadelphia, PA (Mercantile Library)
Annotations by G. Reichhelm
1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 g5 4.h4 g4 5.Ne5 Nf6 6.Bc4 d5 7.exd5 Bd6 8.d4 
Here Lasker could have played the Rice Gambit by 8.0-0 and sacrificing the piece. 
8...Nh5 9.Nxg4 
9.Nc3 is better, but even then Black has game for choice. 
9...Ng3 10.Rh2 Qe7+ 11.Ne5 
Relatively best. White relies on an after-attack.
11...f6 12.Bxf4 fxe5 13.Bg5 Qf7 14.Nc3 Rf8 15.Qf3 exd4 16.Nb5 Bb4+ 17.c3 dxc3 
Misses a chance. Should have traded queens. 
18.Qe3+ Kd7 19.bxc3
19…Bc5 
If 19...Re8, then 20.Qe6+. Move in text gives piece back for new lease in position.
20.Qxc5 Re8+ 21.Kd1 Na6 22.Qd4 Re4 23.Qh8 Re8 24.Qf6 Qxf6 25.Bxf6 Nf5 26.Kd2 Ne3 27.Bb3 
With new attack in view. 
27...Ng4 28.Nd4 Nxf6 29.Ba4+ c6 30.dxc6+ Kc7 31.Rf1 Ne4+ 32.Kc2 b5 33.Nxb5+ Kb6 34.Nd4 Nac5 35.Bb3 Bg4 36.Rf7 h5 
A move toward Easy street.
37.Ba4 
Needs explanation. Lasker had touched bishop, with idea of going to c4, but saw ...Nd6 in reply. He then played move in text, because on ...Nxa4 it left b7 open for rook check.
37...Nxa4 38.Rh1 Rf8 39.Rhf1 Rxf7 40.Rxf7 Rd8 41.Rb7+ Ka6 42.Nb5 Rd2+ 43.Kb3 
All up, anyway, now. If 43.Kb1 then ...Nac5 and White’s attack, 44.Nc7+ Ka5 45.Rb5+ Ka4, amounts to nothing.
43...Nac5+ 0-1. 
 The North American, 1905.05.07
    As with the exhibition by Lasker above, for which Whyld had not yet been able to give some of the specifics, another exhibition Lasker gave in Philadelphia six years later can now be elaborated on.  Lasker appeared in Philadelphia on November 11, 1911, Armistice Day, and gave a twenty-one board séance, as a number of annotators of the day liked to call such simultaneous displays.  So much had been known before.  Now, however, thanks to another chess column, this one appearing in a Philadelphia paper, possibly, though unlikely, the Philadelphia Inquirer, for November 26, 1911,(5) we learn that in fact Lasker’s November 11, 1911 Philadelphia simul was played at the Franklin Chess Club and that Lasker won seventeen games, drew two, and lost two.
    Shipley’s loss to Lasker from this exhibition was published on December 3, 1911, in what appears to be the same newspaper.  Interestingly enough, this game was played twenty-four years after Shipley’s simultaneous exhibition draw against Steinitz, included earlier as game number five, thus suggesting something of Shipley’s longevity in Philadelphia chess circles.
    The author of the chess column wrote that “below will be found the game won by Dr. Lasker from the president of the Franklin Chess Club.  Black adopted his favorite defense in the Queen’s Gambit and one, so far as we are aware, that was first played by Dr. Lasker on his first visit to this country, against A. B. Hodges.  The opening of the game will be found of interest to the student, as Dr. Lasker adopted the strongest attack against the defense, one first analyzed, we believe, by the late H. N. Pillsbury, who considered that it yielded White the advantage.”
Lasker,Em — Shipley,WP
Simul (1:21)
D52/07
QGD: Cambridge Springs
1911.11.11
USA Philadelphia, PA (Franklin Chess Club)
Annotations from unattributed newspaper clipping.
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 c6 5.e3 Nbd7 6.Nf3 Qa5 
The foregoing moves constitute the line of defense referred to in our introduction. Unless White conducts the attack with considerable skill, Black will speedily obtain a powerful counter attack.
7.Nd2 
This move was suggested by Pillsbury and likely is the strongest method of meeting Black’s line of play.
7...Bb4 8.Bxf6 Nxf6 
It is a question whether Black should now capture with the knight or with the pawn. In the game above referred to played by Lasker against Hodges, Lasker captured the bishop with the pawn, thus opening the g-file for attack, should White castle on the kingside.
9.Qc2 Bd7 10.Bd3 0-0 11.0-0 dxc4 12.Nxc4 Qh5 13.Ne2 Be7 14.Ne5 Rfd8 15.f4 g6 16.Rf3 Qh6 17.g4 Qg7 18.Kh1 c5
19.f5 Bd6 20.Nxd7 Nxd7 21.Raf1 exf5 22.gxf5 g5 23.f6 Qh6 24.Ng3 Bxg3 25.Rxg3 Nxf6 26.Qxc5 Nd5 27.Rf5 Rac8 28.Rgxg5+ Kh8 29.Rxd5 Re8 30.Qd6 f6 31.Rg1 Rxe3 32.Rh5 1-0. 
Microfilm of Philadelphia chess columns, John G. White Collection,  reel for 789.4 P531, column dated 1911.12.03

Capablanca
    One game by later world champion José Raúl Capablanca has also been recently recovered.  Unlike most of the earlier games presented here, in which local Philadelphia papers supplied more detailed information, and games, of masters against Philadelphia chess players than available elsewhere, the game that follows was played in Buenos Aires, though reported in the pages of the Philadelphia Inquirer
    The finding of a hitherto forgotten game played by Capablanca in Buenos Aires in the pages of a local Philadelphia chess column appears less surprising when one remembers that Walter Penn Shipley was editor of that column, published in the pages of the Philadelphia Inquirer.  Shipley and Capablanca had long been friends.  Indeed, Capablanca, on March 3, 1911, several months before the game below was played, had very happily provided Shipley, then about to take a trip to Cuba, with a letter of introduction to Sr. Dón Paredes, the President of the Havana Chess Club.(6)  That Capablanca in another letter might have himself supplied Shipley with the following game, for publication in Shipley’s Inquirer column, is certainly the most logical hypothesis for a hitherto forgotten simultaneous game from Buenos Aires appearing in a Philadelphia paper.
    Shipley wrote that “the following game was played recently by Capablanca at Buenos Ayres, South America, in his great simultaneous exhibition in that city.  Capablanca played against thirty opponents, winning twenty-five, drawing four, losing one.”  A glance at Hooper and Brandreth’s excellent work, The Unknown Capablanca (Dover, Second Revised Edition: 1993), shows this exhibition was played on May 7, 1911.  The brief notes that follow are Shipley’s.
Capablanca,JR — Nollman
Simul (1:30)
C14/02
French: Classical (Alapin)
1911.05.07
ARG Buenos Aires
Annotations by W. P. Shipley
1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 Be7 
The McCutcheon Defense of 4....Bb4 yields Black a more aggressive defense.
5.e5 Nfd7 6.Bxe7 Qxe7
7.Nb5 
Hardly as good as f4, Qd2, Nd1, etc. 
7...Na6 
We prefer ...Nb6 or ...Qd8. 
8.c3 0-0 9.f4 f6 10.Nf3 fxe5 11.fxe5 Rf7 12.Bd3 Nf8 13.0-0 Bd7 14.Na3 Nb8 15.Qd2 h6 16.Rf2 c5 17.Raf1 cxd4 18.cxd4 a6 19.Nc2 Nc6 20.Ne3 Qb4 21.Qd1 Kh8 22.Bb1 Ne7 23.Nh4 Rxf2 24.Rxf2 Nh7 25.a3 Qa4 26.Bc2 Qb5 27.Rf7 Nf5 28.Nexf5 exf5 29.Bxf5 Be8 30.Re7 Qxb2 31.Bxh7 Kxh7 32.Nf5 Rc8 33.Rxg7+ Kh8
34.Rg8+ Kh7 ½-½. 
Drawn at the suggestion of Capablanca. He cannot avoid the threat of ...Rc1 except by the perpetual check.
Philadelphia Inquirer, 1911.07.09

    The seventeen recently recovered games presented here by four of the world’s finest chessplayers from the turn of the last century form merely a small contribution to the ever-expanding canons of these players.  Much work is left to be done.  Many more such games are waiting to be discovered by those who are willing to take the time required to seek them.

(1)  See, for example, “Recovering the Past: Capablanca, Pillsbury, and Lasker,” The Chess Journalist, June 1999, pp. 3-6; “Stalking the Blue-Eyed Chess Score,” at The Campbell Report, an On the Square article, released April 28, 1998, http://correspondencechess.com/campbell/index.htm; and “Examining the Past: Essential Tools for Exploring Chess History,” Lasker & His Contemporaries No. 5, 1997, pp. 52-58. 
(2)  The author is grateful for the help of a number of chess historians, most notably that of Jacques N. Pope, in the preparation of this article. 
(3)  Jacques N. Pope has also recovered this game, in his case from the New York Clipper for January 7, 1888, but as noted above, the final  move varies between the Clipper and the Times.
(4)  Although the game appears here as published in the Philadelphia Times, Jacques N. Pope informs me he also recovered this game from The Field for May 29, 1897.  It is included here because for most readers it remains unknown, the game having appeared neither in Bachmann nor Pickard.
(5)  The column alluded to above was found on a microfilm reel at the John G. White Collection.  The reel, under call number 789.4  P531, is entitled “Chess columns of the Philadelphia Papers,” but a note indicates that the clippings come from “various Philadelphia paper, principally the Philadelphia Inquirer.”  The same November 26, 1911, column, however, speaks in quite glowing terms of a group of local chessplayers, including, by name, Walter Penn Shipley.  Knowing of Shipley’s Quaker modesty and reserve, I find it unlikely this particular column was taken from the Philadelphia Inquirer, as Shipley was himself that column’s editor.
(6)  I am indebted to Nancy Shipley Rhoads, granddaughter of Walter Penn Shipley, for use of the family records to obtain this information.  Shipley’s extensive association with chess is the subject of a full length work in progress by this author, tentatively entitled Walter Penn Shipley: Philadelphia’s Friend of Chess.
© 2000 John S. Hilbert.  All rights Reserved.

[Archive] [Excavations] [Gallery] [Journal] [Library] [Links] [Legend] [Market]
© 1999-2017 Jacques N. Pope. All Rights Reserved.