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

1880 Rosenthal-Zukertort
London Match
Researched by Nick Pope

3 May 1880—25 June 1880
 Drawn11 1111 1 1    111 11
Format: The winner of the first seven games to be declared the victor, draws not counting.
Time Control: 30 moves in 2 hours and then 15 moves every 1 hour.
Purse: £200 (£100 a side).

Match Between Messrs Rosenthal And Zukertort.

M. Rosenthal, the French champion, has addressed a courteous letter to the winner of the Paris tournament, which is published in La Revue des Jeux, des Arts, et du Sport, and which conveys an open challenge for a chess match, reserving only three conditions, namely: That play shall not take place more than three times a week; the time limit shall be thirty moves in two hours; and the contest shall not be fought during the hot summer months. In every other respect, viz., the amount of the stakes, the place of meeting, the number of games, and other particulars, Herr Zukertort is at liberty to fix his own terms. Considering that the French champion came out below the six prize winners of the Paris congress, his proposition on such fair conditions can only be regarded as a chivalrous offer, and we have reason to believe that the challenge will be accepted, and the match will come off without greater delay than will be necessary for preparations and the settlement of the preliminaries.
London Field, 1880.02.28

Chess Intelligence.

[...] Herr Zukertort has accepted Herr Rosenthal’s challenge, and has fixed the stakes at a minimum of £100 a side. He proposes the modification of the time limit, to the effect that thirty moves should be played in the first two hours, and afterwards fifteen moves per hour. The victor will be the winner of the first seven games, and each game is to be played out at a sitting.
London Field, 1880.03.06

The Match Between Messrs Rosenthal And Zukertort

We learn, with great pleasure, that all the main preliminaries of this contest are at last satisfactorily settled, and the match is expected to commence shortly. Herr Rosenthal has already deposited his stakes of £100 with the treasurer of the Cercle des Echecs de Paris, M. Le Grande, and we understand that Herr Zukertort’s stakes will be ready by to-day, to be handed over to the hon. sec. of the St. George’s Chess Club, Mr. J. I. Minchin. Herr Rosenthal has engaged to arrive in London a fortnight after his receiving official notification of Herr Zukertort’s stakes having been deposited. The only important addition to the terms of the match as already published is that the contest shall be adjourned till October next whenever the temperature should reach 25° Centigrade (77° Fahrenheit) on three successive days.
London Field, 1880.04.10

The Match Between Messrs Rosenthal And Zukertort.

All the formalities in reference to the stakes of this match have already been fulfilled, and M. Rosenthal is expected to arrive in London next week, whereupon the day for commencement of the contest and other minor details will be speedily settled. M. Rosenthal is sure to meet with a warm reception; for whatever may be the opinions about the relative prospects of the two players, all lovers of the game can only admire the spirit and pluck which inspired M. Rosenthal’s challenge. The French representative may have little faith in tournaments as tests of skill, for a priori it seems unlikely that the first winner of a great chess congress should have to yield in the personal encounter to the seventh man. He may also have been stimulated by the success of Herr Englisch, who last year won the chief prize in the German Chess Congress, though the year before he was bracketed with M. Rosenthal for seventh and eighth places in the Paris Congress. At any rate, he backs his opinion for a handsome sum, such as has not been played for in this country in any public contest since the match between Steinitz and Anderssen in 1866; and, taking into consideration the fairness of his conditions, the straightforward manner in which the challenge was conveyed, and the dispatch and energy shown by the French champion in the conduct of the negotiations, M. Rosenthal will be fairly entitled to the fullest respect of his adversary and Herr Zukertort’s supporters, whatever the result of the following contest may be.
London Field, 1880.04.17

The Match Between Messrs Rosenthal And Zukertort.

M. Rosenthal arrived yesterday (Friday). We understand from the French champion that he will be ready to play on Monday week at the latest; but at the time of our going to press he has had no conference with Herr Zukertort. It is possible, however, that the match may commence in the latter part of next week.
London Field, 1880.04.24

The Match Between Messrs Rosenthal And Zukertort.

The two parties to the forthcoming most interesting contest were engaged last week in finally settling terms and in other necessary preparations. The main particulars of the regulations were agreed upon with difficulty, and are in effect as follows: The match is to be played every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, commencing on Monday next. Play will begin at two o’clock p.m., and proceed till half-past six, when an adjournment for two hours is to take place, after which the sitting will continue until the finish of the game, but no more than one game will be played on any day. The time limit, which will be regulated by stop watches, is thirty moves for the first two hours, and fifteen moves for every following hour. The Rev. W. Wayte will act as umpire for Herr Zukertort, and Mr Lindsay has accepted the same office for M. Rosenthal. The two umpires, who according to the conditions had to select a referee, have conferred that honour upon Mr Steinitz. All rights in reference to the proprietorship of the games in England have been reserved in the original conditions by Herr Zukertort, who has, however, made over to our journal the right of first publication.

M. Rosenthal met with the most cordial reception in metropolitan chess circles, and there can be no doubt that he will be treated with the courtesy and consideration due to a stranger who is fighting an honourable battle which will unite the interest of chess players all over the world. M. Camille Morel, who acted as secretary of the Paris International Chess Congress of 1878, and other members of the Paris Cercle des Echecs, are expected to come over from France for the purpose of witnessing the contest.
London Field, 1880.05.01

Game 1: Monday, May 3, 1880.

The Match Between Messrs Rosenthal And Zukertort.

In challenging the winner of the Paris tournament, M. Rosenthal virtually put tournament skill on its trial versus match play. That there is a difference between the two tests has long been recognised in theory and verified in practice. Anderssen was more successful in the majority of short encounters of a general melée than in longer single-handed contests; and immediately after the first Paris tournament of 1867 the fourth winner, Neumann, beat the second prize-holder, Winawer, without losing a single game, the latter only succeeding in drawing a few. While, however, many objections have been raised against the rules of previous tournaments, and more especially against the first Paris Congress, which was made a sort of handicap, owing to the ill-considered regulation that the drawn games should count fully against both parties, the Paris Congress of 1878 is generally admitted to have been conducted on fairer principles than any former general contest. We may therefore say, without in the least wishing to prejudice M. Rosenthal’s prospects, that his attempt to dislodge Herr Zukertort from the position the latter attained in the last Paris tournament can only be described as a bold one. Yet the denial of the superiority acquired by Herr Zukertort on that occasion comes from a quarter which, apart from technical considerations, appears fully entitled to enter the protest. M. Rosenthal and his French supporters were the chief promoters of the Paris tournament, which they brought to a successful issue at great expenditure of time and money. The case of the French champion, and the remembrance of his pluck and spirit, will therefore engage a good deal of sympathy; and the terms of the contest, which hold out the prospect of fair remuneration, as well as honour to the winner, will create a wide interest in the match amongst lovers of the game of all nationalities.

The First Game.—Played on Monday, the 3rd inst. The two players arrived before two o’clock-the time appointed for commencing the game—in order to discuss some further details. We have all along commended M. Rosenthal’s chivalry in the conduct of the negotiations, and we are glad to put on record an instance of reciprocation of this spirit of courtesy on the part of his antagonist. M. Rosenthal proposed that both parties should dispense with the assistance of bystanders in taking down the game or regulating the stop watches which mark the time limit, and Herr Zukertort at once agreed. This was a very courteous concession, for the winner of the Paris tournament would have found plenty of enthusiasts willing to relieve him of the troublesome duty of scoring the game, while M. Rosenthal, who employs the French notation, would have been very much limited in the choice of his assistants. In the absence of Mr Lindsay, M. Rosenthal’s umpire, the Rev. W. Wayte, Herr Zukertort’s representative, drew for the first move with Mr Salter, and this considerable advantage fell in favour of Herr Zukertort. Amidst breathless silence the first few moves were made by both players at a moderately quick rate of time, and the game assumed the aspect of the well-known Double Ruy Lopez, which often occured in the Paris tournament, M. Rosenthal having, however, designedly omitted the usual advance of P to Q R 3, in order to drive back the B to Q R 4, the tug of war began on the 7th move, when Zukertort instituted a new form of attack by P to Q 4, of which Mr Blackburne is the inventor. Rosenthal took a long time to consider his reply, and at last entered on a line of defence which appeared the simplest. On the 9th move it was Zukertort’s turn to deliberate for a long while on an important line of action, and he at last decided on a course of general exchanges, which, at least in his own opinion, led to a clear drawn game; for when, after making his 12th move, Rosenthal proposed a draw, Zukertort impetuously knocked down his king in agreement with the offer, play having lasted altogether about fifty minutes. This clearly breaking up of the game caused some natural disappointment, and the general impression was that the French champion had slightly the best of the result, and that the spell of Zukertort’s two successive victories against his present opponent in the Paris tournament was somewhat shaken. We believe that Zukertort had slightly the superior position; at any rate, he could run no risk, and the prospective moral effect of a third continuous victory would have made it worth while to go on longer. But both combatants pleaded indisposition for a continued hard struggle, which of course is a valid excuse; and Herr Zukertort, like some other great masters, does not easily work himself into form at the beginning of a great contest, for it will be remembered that his score in the first two rounds of the Paris Congress was the worst of the ultimate winners. The game, though it is very valuable for analysis and students of the opening, is the shortest match game on record, in point of number of moves, with the exception of one between Blackburne and Fleissig in the tenth match of the Vienna Congress, which was resigned by the latter on the eighth move under the misapprehension that he was bound to lose a clear rook, while it was afterwards proved that he could have relieved himself from difficulty with the lose of the exchange for a P only, with a fair game.

This first encounter resembles a reconnoitring fight before a great battle, or a feeler between two wrestlers who wish to ascertain each other’s strength. We publish it below with our comments; and in reference to the notes we intend to give throughout the match, we may be allowed to remark that we shall endeavour, to the utmost of our power, to do full justice to the two players and to the nature of the positions arising in the games; but we are much restricted in our examinations by considerations of space and by the time fixed for our going to press. We must therefore confine ourselves to the points which appear to us the most striking, and must leave the more detailed analysis to the periodicals exclusively devoted to chess. We have no doubt, however, that Herr Zukertort’s splendid analytical powers will fully satisfy the technical requirements of the match in the pages of the Chess Monthly, of which journal the winner of the Paris tournament is the chief editor.
London Field, 1880.05.08

Date: 1880.05.03
Site: ENG London
Event: Match, Game 1
White: Zukertort,JH
Black: Rosenthal,S
Opening: [C49] Four Knights
Annotator: Steinitz
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nf6
Rosenthal, as well as some other first-class practitioners, deliberately reject Morphy’s favorite defense of 3...a6 at this point, probably on account of the dulness of the positions which arise therefrom; for we do not think that any palpable inferiority can be demonstrated for the second player adopting that line of play. The turn which the present game takes shows, however, not the least improvement on the score of vivacity over most other variation of the Ruy Lopez, which seem to assume an early aspect of a draw.
4.Nc3 Bb4 5.0-0 0-0 6.Nd5 Bc5
Black might also without disadvantage take the knight followed by 7...Nd4. In reference to this line of play the novel idea has struck us that White might give up a piece temporarily with the certainty of recovering it and some possibility of obtaining the advantage of position, and we, therefore, think it right to call special attention to the following variations: 6...Nxd5 7.exd5 Nd4, (or 7...Ne7 8.Nxe5 Nxd5 9.c3 with slightly the better game, as the bishop must retreat to e7, where he will be obstructed by his d-pawn which must drive away the adverse knight from being utilized on the queenside, and on the kingside he will be of little use. The bishop cannot well retreat to c5, or else he will be shut out from action by the adverse d-pawn.); 8.Nxe5 Nxb5 9.a4 Nd4 (This is best. If 9...Qe7, White answers 10.Re1 with advantage; if 9...Qf6, White defends by 10.d4, and will afterwards recover the piece by the process indicated below; and if 9...Bd6, White retreats the knight to f3, and Black’s knight is lost immediately. Again, if 9...Nd6, White pursues the bishop by 10.c3, and then accordingly by 11.d4 or 11.b4, and ultimately by pawn to a5, regaining the piece with the better game.); 10.c3 d6 11.Nf3 Nxf3+ 12.Qxf3 Bc5 13.d4 Bxd4 14.cxd4, and the position is even on account of the bishops of opposite colors.
Zukertort adopts here a line of attack which first was first played against himself by Blackburne in the Paris Congress. On the occasion. However, Black (Zukertort) had already pushed the pawn to a6, and the white bishop had retreated to a4. This slight difference in the position enabled Black to defend in the following manner: 8...Nxd4 9.Nxd4 Nxd5, with the better game, for White will gain nothing by 10.Nb3, attacking the bishop, as Black would reply 10...Nb6, followed by 11...d6 in reply to 11.Nxc5.
The slight difference in the position makes all the difference, and the above-mentioned defense is no more practicable, for, in answer to 7...Nxd4, followed by 8...Nxd5, White would first takes the knight (d4), followed by 9.Nb3, Black having then no means of retaliation by attacking another piece. The point of the present attack lies in the danger threatened to Black by bishop to g5, for which reason neither knight nor bishop can take the d-pawn; e.g., in the first place: 7...Nxd4 8.Nxd4 Bxd4 9.Bg5 c6 10.Nxf6+ gxf6 11.Bh6, and wins the exchange; for Black has no time to take the bishop (b5), on account of the impending mate in two moves, commencing with 12.Qg4+. Secondly, 7...Bxd4 8.Nxd4 Nxd4 9.Bg5 Nxb5 10.f4 d6 11.fxe5 dxe5 12.Rxf6 c6 (This seems best; for, if 12...gxf6, the bishop retakes, followed by 14.Qh5, winning easily.); 13.Rg6 hxg6 (The queen cannot escape; for, if 13...Qa5, White would answer 14.Nf6+, followed by 15.Qh5; and if 13...f6, White takes the pawn with the bishop, and the rook dare not retake, on account of 15.Nxf6+, also winning the queen.); 14.Bxd8, and wins; for the rook dare not take the bishop, on account of 15.Ne7+; and, if 14...cxd4, the reply is 15.Qxd4, attacking the knight. Nevertheless, we do not feel sure of the soundness of the present attack, and we believe the following defense would be successful: 7...exd4 8.Bg5 Re8 (The object of this move is not alone to attack the e-pawn, but also to make room for the bishop at f8 in certain emergencies when the adverse bishop posts itself at h6. It should be observed that Black must be careful not to block his bishop by ...d6, until all danger is passed.) 9.Bxf6 (or 9.Nh4 Rxe4 10.f4 Be7 11.Bd3 Re6 12.f5 Re5, with two pawns ahead and a fine game.) 9...gxf6 10.Qd2 Rxe4 11.Qh6 Re6 12.Rae1 Ne5, threatening 13...c6 with an excellent game. Should White now answer 13.Qh4, for the purpose of taking the knight with the knight next move. Black might reply 13...Ng6, followed first by 14...Bd6, in case White answers 14.Qg3.
8.dxc5 Nf6
Zukertort thinks that this was Black’s best move, and that White would have obtained some ultimate advantage with his combined two bishops had Black here retreated the knight to e7.
Had the winner of the Paris tournament been better disposed, he would probably have elected to keep up the position, and to maintain his two bishops by 9.Qd3. The probable continuation was then as follows: 9.Qd3 Qe7 10.Be3 d6 11.Nd2, and Black will find it difficult to develop himself properly, for if 11...dxc5, White would first capture the knight, followed by 13.Nb3, recovering the pawn with the better game.
9...dxc6 10.Qxd8 Rxd8 11.Bg5 Re8 12.Bxf6 gxf6 ½-½
We believe that White had a small advantage in position. The knight is generally very strong when the opponent has a doubled pawn which cannot easily be dissolved, and we think White might have harassed the opponent considerably by knight to h4, followed at the earliest opportunity by pawn to f3 and pawn to g4. Of course he was bound in the meanwhile to guard against any danger from the opponent occupying the open d-file with his rook; but ultimately the knight might have been brought into play via g2 and e3, and White had then the better chance of winning.
London Field, 1880.05.08

Game 2: Wednesday, May 5, 1880.

The Second Game.—Played on Thursday [sic], May 5.—The two players punctually appeared before two o’clock, but the game did not commence till about a quarter past. Rosenthal opened with the Ponciani [sic] attack, much to the surprise of connoisseurs, for this opening has been practically abandoned since the invention by Steinitz of the defence of P to K B 3 on the 4th move, which has since been pronounced by all authorities as most satisfactory for the second player. Zukertort immediately adopted this defence, and it became evident that Rosenthal relied on a new plan of slow development by P to Q 3. Zukertort, we believe, lost some ground by an indifferent 6th move, which gave the opponent an opportunity of instituting an attack with his Q P, but then a struggle for position commenced on both sides, than which we have not seen any finer since the Paris tournament. Zukertort castled on the Q side in face of the advancing pawns, and pressed his pawns on the K side, driving back White’s pieces, and with the intention of opening the K file for his rooks. The thick of the fight was reached about the 22nd move, when a series of manoeuvres were made by both players, which alternately made the game look precarious for either party. Almost every move was a surprise, and kept the excitement of a large number of spectators alive, the French champion maintaining the attack in the end, until on the 31st move Zukertort, by a masterly coup, prepared a series of exchange which would have left the opponent with a weak P for the ending on the Q side. Rosenthal took nearly half an hour to consider his reply, and the time for adjournment (half-past six o’clock) having been reached, he marked his move on the score sheet, which was handed over in a sealed envelope to the editor of this department, who joined the two players at dinner at a West-end restaurant. It is one of the regulations of the match that the two opponents should not separate during the two hours of adjournment for refreshment. Such a provision is now always adopted in tournament, and is obviously necessary where many different parties are interested in the contest. Both masters are expert blindfold players and quite capable of analysing positions from memory, even when engaged in conversation. Yet their stopping together during the dinner hour must be satisfactory to both, and is calculated to keep up a friendly feeling between the opponents. At half-past eight o’clock the game was resumed and M. Rosenthal’s envelope on being opened, contained a move which at first sight appeared like a useless sacrifice of a pawn, and, therefore, like throwing away the game. But is soon became clear that the French champion had secured a draw at least, by a fine calculation; and Herr Zukertort, seeing through the danger of trying to maintain the P, forced a draw in a few moves by perpetual check. The conduct of this beautiful game on the part of the French champion pleads strong justification of his challenge even on the score of skill.
London Field, 1880.05.08

Date: 1880.05.05
Site: ENG London
Event: Match, Game 2
White: Rosenthal,S
Black: Zukertort,JH
Opening: [C44] Ponziani:
Annotator: Steinitz
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.c3 d5 4.Qa4 f6
First adopted by Steinitz against Wisker in the handicap tournament of the British Chess Association of 1868.
5.Bb5 Nge7 6.d3 Bd7
The proper way of development was 6...Be6. The move in the text exposes him to a troublesome attack.
7.exd5 Nxd5 8.Qe4 Nb6 9.d4 a6 10.Be2 f5 11.Qc2 e4
Black could have exchanged pawns, thereby isolating the adverse d-pawn, followed by ...Qf6. But in answer to the latter move, White would probably castle, and afterwards obtain a considerable attack by Rd1 in case Black took the d-pawn.
12.Ng5 Qf6 13.Nh3 h6 14.a4 0-0-0
The course of the game proves this to have been hazardous. 14...g5 was, we believe, more worth trying. There was no more danger in the latter experiment than the king would have to move to d8 in answer to the bishop checking at h5; but in many games nowadays the king moves for lesser advantages then is here presented by the adverse h-knight being shut out from action, while to opponent’s pieces on the queenside are also quite undeveloped.
15.a5 [1:00-?:??]
At first site 15.Nf4, looks the stronger move, but it turns out inferior on examination, e.g.: 15.Nf4 g5 16.a5 gxf4 17.axb6 Bd6, with the superior game.
15...Nd5 16.Nf4 Nxf4 17.Bxf4 g5 [?:??-1:00] 18.Bd2 Bd6 19.b4 f4
Black energetically pursues his counter attack in the center, and in his general judgment Zukertort seems to have been quite correct. There was hardly any real danger to his king’s quarters.
White, on the other hand, was bound to proceed on the left flank, and could not afford to capture the e-pawn without exposing himself to a powerful attack, commencing with ...Re8.
20...axb5 21.Bxb5 Nb8
But now we think that the danger he wished to provide against was only imaginary, and it would have been more consistent to press at once the assault by 21...e3. White could not capture twice on account of 23...Rde8 followed next move by 24...Rxe3, whether king or queen defended. Nor would he gain anything by 22.a6, e.g.: 21...e3 22.a6 exd2+ 23.Kxd2 (best apparently) 23...bxa6 24.Bxa6+ Kb8 25.Qb3+ Nb4, etc. If White on the 24th move play 24.Qa4, in lieu of 24...Bxa6+, the answer is also 24...Nb4, and Black in the meanwhile remains a piece ahead, and ought to get some pawns for it.
An excellent move. White of course threatens to go on further with the pawn.
22...bxa6 23.Bxa6+ Nxa6 24.Rxa6 Bb5 25.Ra8+ Kd7 26.Rxd8+ Kxd8
The manner in which Black recaptures shows extraordinary foresight. At first it looks better to take with the rook, and to leave the latter free access on both wings; but Zukertort had, no doubt, already determined on his plan, and foreseen all its contingencies, and it will be found later on that he would have subjected himself to an inconvenient check of the adverse queen if he had left the king at d7.
27.c4 e3
All this is in high style.
The best answer. He obviously could not take the pawn twice, on account of the following continuation: 28.fxe3 fxe3 29.Bxe3 Re8 30.Kd2 (if the queen defends, Black answers 30...Bf4) 30...Bf4 31.Re1 Rxe3 32.Rxe3 Qxd4+ 33.Qd3 (best) 33...Bxe3+, and wins. It was equally useless to attempt 28.Bc3; e.g.: 28.Bc3 Bxc4 29.d5 exf2+ 30.Kd1 (Best. If the king moves elsewhere, Black wins accordingly either by 30...Re8+, or by 30...Bc5+) 30...Qf7 31.Bxh8 Qxd5+ followed by queening the pawn, thus regaining the rook with two pawns ahead.
28...exd2 29.cxb5 Qxd4 30.Nxd2 Re8 31.Nc4 [2:00-?:??] 31... Bb4
A beautiful resource. See our introductory remarks.
Rosenthal perceives now, with fine judgment, that his b-pawn will be weak for the ending, and that Black can force the exchange of rooks. He sacrifices the pawn temporarily, with the assurance of regaining it. We give a diagram of the position which occurred just after the adjournment.
32...cxb6 33.Rd1
Best. Rosenthal pointed out that if 33.Qa4, Black would have maintained the superiority thus: 33.Qa4 Qxc4 34.Rd1+ Ke7 35.Re1+ Kf6 36.Qxe8 Bxe1, etc.
33...Re1+ 34.Rxe1 Bxe1 35.Nxb6 Bxf2+
To avoid a troublesome and uncertain ending. If he took the knight, White recovered the piece by 36.Qd1+.
36.Qxf2 Qd1+ 37.Qf1 Qd4+ ½-½
London Field, 1880.05.08

Game 3: Friday, May 7, 1880.

The Match Between Messrs. Rosenthal And Zukertort

The third game, played Friday, May the 7th. We have only a few more general remarks to make about this game beyond what we hurriedly wrote on the Friday immediately after the finish. On closer examination we find that Rosenthal’s case was by no means hopeless after his opponent sacrificed the exchange, and that the former mismanaged his defence on the 22nd move. On the 29th move M. Rosenthal exhausted his second hour, and according to the strict regulations, he would have had to make his next move instantaneously. Herr Zukertort kindly offered a few minutes’ grace; but the French champion, in view of an unavoidable mate, preferred resigning at once. The allowance proposed by Herr Zukertort could be offered and accepted in a match where only two players are directly concerned; but in tournament in which the interest of other parties may be affected one way or the other, no deviation from the general rule by mere mutual consent of two opponents could be permitted, and the least alteration could only place with the unanimous approval of one and all the combatants and the committee.
London Field, 1880.05.15

Third Game, played Friday, May 7.—Zukertort won this game. The opening was, as in the first game of the match, a Double Ruy Lopez. Whether Rosenthal was afraid of the attack, of which a short analysis appears above, or whether he merely wished to introduce an alteration for which the opponent could not have been prepared, we cannot say, but he adopted the novel retreat of B to K 2 on the sixth move, in lieu of B to B 4, and he afterwards blocked his B out by P to Q 3. His game seemed cramped, and had all the appearance of a Philidor’s defence, with a move behind for the second player. Nevertheless, Rosenthal played up to the middle part most skilfully, and, owing to a premature advance of the K B P on the part of the opponent, the French champion obtained a strong attack on the K side, which we believe would have grown in time if he had nursed it carefully.

One of the greatest difficulties in chess is to know when to avoid difficulties, and in Rosenthal’s case there was no necessity for pressing the attack as he did, whereby he forced the opponent to a sacrifice of the exchange for a P, which gave Zukertort time and some compensation in position. Rosenthal then became hurried, and gave up another P uselessly.
London Field, 1880.05.08

Date: 1880.05.07
Site: ENG London
Event: Match, Game 3
White: Zukertort,JH
Black: Rosenthal,S
Opening: [C49] Four Knights
Annotator: Steinitz
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nf6 4.Nc3 Bb4 5.0-0 0-0 6.Nd5 Be7
Whether Rosenthal adopted this defense for the sake of variety, or because he was afraid of the attack by 7.d4 in answer to 6...Bc5, as played by Zukertort in the first game of the match, we cannot tell. Appearances, however, would prejudice this retreat of the bishop, and its subsequent blocking up by 7...d6. In reference to Blackburne’s attack, of which we gave an abstract in the notes to the first game, both players have pointed out a strong line of play for White on the 9th move, which we omitted to notice in our necessary brief analysis, and, as we consider 6...Bc5, at this point, at any rate, better than the move in the text, we supplement our remarks on this subject with the following variations: 6...Bc5 7.d4 exd4 8.Bg5 Re8 9.Re1 (This is the move proposed by Rosenthal and Zukertort for the attack, and is certainly difficult to meet; but yet we think that the defense ought to obtain a satisfactory game.) 9...Ne5 (It would be bad to advance 9...d6, on account of the reply 10.Qd2, threatening to continue the attack either with 11.Qf4 or 11.b4.) 10.Nxe5 Rxe5 11.f4 Rxg5 12.Nxf6+ (If 12.fxg5 at once, Black retreats 12...Ne8, threatening 13...c6.) 12...Qxf6 13.fxg5 Qxg5 14.e5 c6 (Necessary; for, if 14...d5 at once, White takes en passant, followed by 16.d7 [threatening 17.Re8+], in case Black should attack 15...Bg4.) 15.Bd3 d5 16.exd6 Bg4, and the two extra pawns and Black’s combined two bishops ought to prove fair consideration for the loss of the exchange.
7.d3 d6 8.Ne3
Anderssen would never hesitate in a similar position to take 8.Bxc6, for he held that the cluster of Black’s pawns on the queenside should ultimately prove a great disadvantage. In some variations of the Ruy Lopez, the defense against such a line of attack may fall back on the king fianchetto, followed by Bg2, with some prospects of a counter-attack; but here, where the bishop is shut up at e7, Anderssen’s favorite plan appears sound enough, and most feasible. The game might then have proceeded thus: 8.Bxc6 bxc6 9.Ne3 c5 (If 9...Ne8 at once, White would reply 10.d4.) 10.b3 Ne8 11.Bb2 f5 12.exf5 Bxf5 13.Nd2, with the better game.
8...Nd4 9.Bc4 c6 10.c3 Nxf3+ 11.Qxf3 Be6 12.Bb3 Qd7 13.Qe2
In preparation of a form of attack which does not turn out forcible. The whole aspect of the game, as now presented, would lead to the supposition that White should have been able to make, more of his position, even against best play, and the right process appears to us 13.h3, followed by 14.g4, and 15.Nf5. This knight was then either fixed at a strong post, or if Black took with the bishop, White opened the g-file for the attack with his rooks. Not the least danger would arise to White in the pursuance of this plan from the opponent opening the d-file in the meanwhile, e.g.: 13.h3 d5 14.g4 dxe4 15.dxe4 Bxb3 16.axb3 Qd3 17.Rd1 Qxe4 18.Qxe4, followed by 19.Rd7, with much the superior game.
13...d5 14.exd5 cxd5 15.f4 exf4 16.Rxf4 Bd6 17.Rf1 Rfe8
17...d4 looks strong, but nothing would have come of it if White first answered 18.Bxe6. If then 18...fxe6, the knight could retreat to c2; and if on the other hand 18...Qxe6, then it was quite safe to take the pawn, followed by Qf3, attacking the b-pawn. The move in the text prepares this attack.
The only move; for Black might also push the pawn with advantage in case White moved the queen out of the way; for instance, to f3. Still worse would have been 18.Qf2, e.g.: 18.Qf2 d4 19.Bxe6 Rxe6 20.cxd4 Bxh2+, followed by 21...Rxe3 should king take bishop.
Not well judged, on several accounts. In the first place, this was the kind of position where the reservation of the plan of placing the queen before the bishop by 18...Bc7, and 19...Qd3 would have been more threatening than this reversal of the battle order, which will leave his d-pawn weak; in the next place, he had already sufficient advantage of position, which we believe could have been augmented by 18...Ne4. Evidently White could not have then taken the d-pawn on account of the ultimate ...Ng3; and if he answered 19.Qf3, then Black would withdraw 19...Bc7, with a good game; for if White’s knight entered at f5, then the g-pawn might safely advance attacking it, as the check of the knight at h6 would only involve White into difficulties of ultimately extricating it, and Black’s king would stand safe at g7.
19.g3 Bh3
White throws away a fair game, and gives the opponent a strong attack, besides sufficient compensation in forces for the sacrifice of the exchange. He ought still to have moved 19...Ne4 to prevent the sacrifice; and if then White replied 20.Qg2 or 20.Qf3, he was bound to protect the d-pawn by 20...Qc6 with an even game.
He had nothing better, and this turned out good enough. He gains a compact surplus of two pawns on the queenside for the exchange, while Black’s extra pawn on the kingside is doubled and isolated, and therefore counts for little.
20...gxf6 [?:??-1:00] 21.Qh5 [1:00-?:??] 21...Be6
The only move. 21...Qd7 was of no use, for White would capture the d-pawn with the bishop, and then retreat the bishop to f3, thus threatening to block out the adverse bishop by pawn to g4.
22.Bxd5 f5
This additional sacrifice ot a pawn is quite untimely, and only helps the opponent’s rapid development. The only move that gave him any prospect of equalising the game was 22...Bf8, whereupon the game might have proceeded thus: 22...Bf8 23.Be4 (We see no better way of continuing the attack; if 23.Nf5, then Black might take the bishop, followed by 24...Kh8, in answer to the knight checking; and then, if 25.Qxd5, the rook would check at e1, followed by 26...Rxc1, and winning the knight, at the expense of an unimportant pawn.) 23...f5 24.Nxf5 f6, with a satisfactory game; for if the bishop attacks the queen the answer is 25...Qd7, and White apparently cannot press the attack by other means, for instance, by 25.d5, which would lead to the following continuation: 25.d5 Bxf5 (best; for if 25...Bf7, White wins by 26.Ne7+.) 26.Bxf5 Qc5+, and wins the d-pawn with a check in a few moves.
23.Nxf5 Bxf5 24.Qxf5 Re1+ 25.Kf2 Rae8
Altogether overlooking the opponent’s brilliant design. His only hope consisted in capturing the bishop, and then to make a fight with bishops of opposite colors; but no doubt with the exercise of common care White would have maintained a winning superiority even in that case.
26. Bh6
A master stroke. After this Black’s game becomes utterly hopeless.
26...R8e2+ 27.Kf3 Bf8 28.Rxe1 Rxe1 29.Qg5+ Kh8 [?:??-2:00] 30.Bxf8 1-0
London Field, 1880.05.15

Game 4: Monday, May 10, 1880.

The fourth game of the match, played on Monday, May 10. Rosenthal opened with the attack in the Ruy Lopez, adopted in the first game of the last Steinitz-Blackburne match; but Zukertort, in lieu of Blackburne’s 6th move for the defence B to K 2, followed our recommendation in the notes to that game, and turned into the K Fianchetto by P to K Kt 3, and B to K Kt 2. In developing the Q Kt, Rosenthal pursued the course taken in the above-mentioned game, namely, to bring it out via Q 2 and K B sq before developing the Q B; but he made the alteration of fixing K Kt 3 as the final destination of this Kt, instead of K 3. In accordance with the principles of this attack, the movements of White’s pieces were well concealed behind the pawns, until, on the 15th move, Rosenthal opened hot action by the brilliant sacrifice of the K Kt for the adverse K P. The French champion was bound to recover his piece, but unless we err much in our detailed analysis given below, he ought not to have come out actually with the superior game by best play on the other side. As it was, Rosenthal brought all his confined pieces into full play with a few effective strokes then forced the exchange of queens, and obtained a free and easy attacking position with the open file for his R on the extreme Queen’s wing. Zukertort defended himself with great ingenuity, but could not altogether release himself from difficulties. On the 32nd move—singularly enough, just the time of the adjournment, as in the second game of the match - the most critical moment arose, and Rosenthal gave his move in a sealed envelope, which was put into the care of Dr Ballard. This move enabled his opponent to equalise the game in a few moves after the adjournment. At that point, however, Rosenthal could have won the game, owing to an incautious movement of the K on the part of his adversary. From the discussion which ensued after the finish of the game, we gathered that Rosenthal had hit on the right idea, and in his calculation had demonstrated a win for himself against the very defence which Zukertort had intended to employ; but the former game up his plan, on the assumption that another defence by P takes P would turn out unfavourable to his projected attack. Zukertort, however, immediately proved that in that case White would also have won. It should be stated that Zukertort’s variation was by far the finer of the two, and, in fact, so subtle and ingenious that even Rosenthal’s best friends may excuse his not discovering the same in his forecast. We give a diagram of the position below, and have only to add that at the time when Zukertort consented to a draw we thought he had a slight superiority of position, but we are not prepared to say that it was sufficient to win by force.
London Field, 1880.05.15

Date: 1880.05.10
Site: ENG London
Event: Match, Game 4
White: Rosenthal,S
Black: Zukertort,JH
Opening: [C44] Spanish
Annotator: Steinitz
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nf6 4.d3 d6 5.c3 a6 6.Ba4 g6 7.Nbd2 Bg7 8.Nf1 0-0 9.Ng3 b5 10.Bc2 d5 11.0-0 h6
In order to prevent White releasing himself by Ng5, when the bishop is brought out to e3. Black could now exchange queens by 11...dxe4, but the opponent would have remained in first possession of the open file.
12.Bd2 Be6 13.a4
We have given frequent illustrations of the importance of this move when the opponent’s b-pawn is fixed at b5. It prepares the eventual opening of the a-file at a convenient moment, and in the present game this process greatly augmented White’s position at a later stage.
13...Qd6 14.Qc1 Kh7 15.Nxe5
An ingenious surprise, so far has he had calculated upon recovering the piece, but we doubt whether he ought to have had the best of the final position, after equalising the forces.
Of course he could not take with the queen, which would have been lost, in that case, by the reply 16.Bf4.
16.d4 dxe4
Retreating the e-knight anywhere would have been unfavorable; for White, after advancing 17.e5 and capturing the f-knight, had in most cases, a prospective source of a strong attack by Nh5; yet, by the move in the text, he allows all White’s pieces to obtain powerful positions for the ending game; and, on the other hand, we believe he might have retained the superiority by taking the e-pawn with the knight, this at once unmasking his confined g-bishop. The game might then have proceeded thus: 16...Nxe4 17.dxe5 (17.Nxe4 dxe4 18.dxe5 Qxe5 19.Bf4 Qd5 20.Bxc7 Rac8 21.Ba5 {if 21.Bf5, the game might proceed thus: 21.Bf5 b4 22.cxb4 Qc4 23.Bd1 Qxb4 winning another pawn, with a fine game.} 21...f5, and we prefer Black’s position, which at any rate, is much superior to the one he actually obtained.) 17...Nxg3 18.hxg3 (if he take the queen, Black checks with the knight at e2, and, after capturing the queen, he advances the c-pawn to c6 or c5, and the opponent’s far-advanced d-pawn ought to fall soon by ...Rfd8 and ...Bf8.) 18...Qxe5 19.Bf4 Qe2 20.Bxc7 d4, with an excellent game, for White dare not capture the pawn on account of rook to c8, as the attack of the queen by Bd1 will be of no use, since Black may answer ...Qc4, winning at last the exchange.
17.dxe5 Qxe5 18.Bf4 Qc5 19.Nxe4 Nxe4 20.Bxe4 Rad8 [?:??-1:00] 21.axb5
See our note to White’s 13th move. The opening of the a-file becomes now most effective; and recognising his advantage for the ending with keen judgment, the French champion forces the exchange of queens next move.
21...axb5 22.Qe3 Qxe3
The exchange could not be avoided, or else White would have increased his attack by Ra7.
23.Bxe3 f5 24.Bc6 f4 25.Bc5 Rf5
Zukertort develops powerful defensive resource, and makes the most of his extremely difficult game.
26.Bb4 Rd2 27.Rfe1 [1:00-?:??]
27.Ra7 at once strikes us as much stronger. Black’s best reply was apparently 27...Be5, for he could not allow the c-pawn to be taken with the rook, as by best play White ought afterwards to succeed in doubling the rooks on the seventh rank after opening a square for the king by the advance of the h-pawn, or else in winning also the b-pawn. The following was then a probable continuation: 27.Ra7 Be5 (if 27...Rf7, the answer is 28.Ba8) 28.Re1 Rxb2 29.h4, and should Black defend the b-pawn by 29...Bc4, he would lose through 30.Be4, followed accordingly by h5; or in case the rook moves to h5, the bishop attack again at f3, and ultimately at g4, with a winning game.
27...Bd7 28.Bxd7 Rxd7 29.Ra7 Rfd5 30.h3 Be5 31.Rb7 [2:00-?:??] 31...Kg7
An error which might have cost the game. He should have brought the king round, via g8, although it would have taken him one move longer to reach the center.
We give a diagram of this most interesting position, already alluded to in our introductory remark. The winning move would have been 32.c4. Rosenthal assumed Black would reply 32...bxc4, and though he saw that the rook might be sacrificed, he did not perceive the full effect of the beautiful line of play pointed out by Zukertort, and which goes on as follows: 32.c4 bc4 33.Rxe5 Rxe5 34.Bc3 Kf6 35.Rb5 Rde7 36.g4. The combination of this ingenious move with White’s previous attack had been overlooked by Rosenthal. Black dare not take en passant, on account of the winning answer 37.f4. White’s next move is Rc5, and then he brings up his king to f3, and while Black, after exhausting his pawn moves, can only play one rook backwards and forwards. White will await the most favorable moment for recovering the exchange, and will also gain both isolated pawns on the c-file, remaining with a strong passed pawn, which ought ultimately to win. Rosenthal, on the other hand, pointed out that the defense which Zukertort admitted he had relied upon in lieu of 32...bxc4, viz., 32...Rd1, would have proven unsatisfactory, owing to the following simple process: 32.c4 Rd1 33.cxb5 Rxe1+ (if 33...Bxb2 at once then White takes the rook, and after moving king to h2, wins also by b6 and Ba5.) 34.Bxe1 Rd1 35.Kf1 Bxb2 36.Ke2, followed by b6, and Ba5, winning.
32...Kf6 33.Kf1 Kf5 34.c4 bxc4 ½-½
We think now that if the game had gone on White’s far-advanced c-pawn (after 35.bxc4), which was not capable of much support, might have proved a source of trouble. Black could have now first exchanged one rook by ...Rd1, followed by ...Rd4 and ...Ke4.
London Field, 1880.05.15

Game 5: Wednesday, May 12, 1880.

The fifth game, played on Wednesday, May 12. Another draw. Generally, undecided games are of a dull sort; but this will never be said of the second and the last two games of this match, which are full of fine points. Again Zukertort opened with the Ruy Lopez, and Rosenthal defended in a manner little known hitherto; but the former introduced a new line of attack on the 7th move, whereby he gave up a P, but brought his pieces into rapid action. On the 11th move he recovered his P with the superior game; but on the 13th move we believe he missed a straightforward way of strengthening his advantage in position by B to K 2, and he entered instead on a complicated line of attack by another sacrifice of a P, followed soon by giving up a piece. Rosenthal was cool and collected in his defence. He accepted all sacrifices, but soon returned his gains, and took an opportunity of castling into safety just when he seemed to be at the point of the utmost danger. In a few moves afterwards the game was abandoned as drawn on the merits of the position; for the opponents had only one R and B each, the bishops were of opposite colours, and the pawns were quite even in number and well placed on both sides. Rosenthal’s play shows firmness and assurance, and he does not seem in the least discouraged by his first defeat in the match. His general bearing has gained him many friends, and amongst other marks of favour he received last week notice of his election as honorary member of the St. George’s Chess Club. The two players have agreed to suspend play on Monday next, on account of the general holiday.
London Field, 1880.05.15

Date: 1880.05.12
Site: ENG London
Event: Match, Game 5
White: Zukertort,JH
Black: Rosenthal,S
Opening: [C67] Spanish
Annotator: Steinitz
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nf6 4.0-0 Nxe4 5.d4 a6
This move is rarely adopted at this stage; the usual move here is 5...Be7.
6.Bd3 d5 7.c4
A new line of attack which appears very effective. The German Handbuch gives here the following continuation: 7.Nxe5 Nxd4 8.Re1 Be6 9.c3 Nc6 10.Nxc6 bxc6 11.Qa4 Qd7 12.Bxe4 dxe4 13.Qxe4, with an even game.
7...Be6 would equalise the game at once; but Black was apparently in hopes of retaining the pawn.
8.cxd5 Qxd5 9.Re1 Nf6
It would have been dangerous to try to defend the knight by 9...f5, e.g., 9...f5 10.h3 Bh5 (If 10...Bxf3 the pawn retakes, and Black may then get three pawns for the piece, commencing with 11...Nxf2; but as the majority of pawns is not compact but separated on the two wings, it would be dangerous to pursue such a speculation in a match game.) 11.g4 Bg6 12.gxf5 Bxf5 13.Bxe4 Bxe4 14.Nc3 Bxf3 (best) 15.Nxd5 Bxd1 16.Nxc7+, and the knight afterwards escapes at b6.
10.Nc3 Qd7 11.Nxe5 Nxe5
If 11...Bxd1, White would have maintained the advantage by 12.Nxd7+ (not 12.Nxc6+, on account of the reply 12...Qe6), followed by Bf5+, before taking the bishop.
12.Rxe5+ Be7 13.Qe1
Here we think that White would have done better to interpose the bishop at e2. The game might then have proceeded thus: 13.Be2 0-0 (If 13...Bxe2, the queen retakes, and Black will never be able to castle. The bishop cannot well retreat, for, if 13...Bf5, White pursues by 14.g4, 15.g5, and 16.Bg4, and, if 14...Be6, the d-pawn will obviously attack him again.) 14.Bg5 (It would be bad play to take the bishop with bishop, followed by 15.Rxe7, for the queen dare not afterwards capture the knight, a mate being threatened with the queen at e1.) 14...Bf5 15.Bf3 c6 16.d5, with much the superior game; for, if 16...cxd5, the knight takes, and, if Black replies 17...Nxd5, he loses a piece by the answer 18.Rxd5, followed by 19.Bxe7.
13...Be6 14.d5
The attack which follows after this sacrifice is harassing, but not strong enough to secure victory.
14...Nxd5 15.Nxd5 Bxd5 16.Bf5 Be6 [?:??-1:00] 17.Bg5
Black’s defense was very clever, and White could not now press the attack by 17.Bxe6, for Black would have taken with the pawn, and then coolly castled on the queenside in answer to 18.Rxe6, for the rook could not take the bishop, as the queen could simply take the rook. The move in the text is an ingenious but futile attempt at forcing the game by a violent and puzzling attack.
17...Bxg5 18.Rd1 Qe7
Good, though curious, for he secures now an even game by castling, as White must recover the piece by 19.Bxe6. But we think it would have been worth trying to remain with a pawn ahead by 18...Qa4; e.g.: 18...Qa4 19.Bxe6 fxe6 20.Rxg5 (If 20.Rxe6+, the king may move to f8; and it does not much matter that the h-rook remains confined for some time, as the latter can relieve himself soon by ...h5 and ...Rh6.) 20...0-0 21.Qxe6+ Kh8, with a pawn ahead, and the superior game; for, if White now play 22.Rd7, the answer would be 22...Qc2; or, if 22.b3, the queen may capture the a-pawn, threatening ...Qxf2+. We give a diagram of the curious position.
19.Bxe6 0-0 20.Bb3 [1:00-?:??]
He could have won the queen here, but at too great cost, e.g.: 20.Rd7 Qf6 21.Rxf7 Rxf7 22.Rf5 Qxf5 23.Bxf5 Rxf5 24.Qe6+ Rf7, with three pieces for the queen, and a winning game.
20...Qf6 21.Rd7 Kh8
He sees it, and all prospects of winning vanishes for White, who had threatened 22.Rxf7, winning the queen; for, if 23...Rxf7, the other rook checks at e8.
22.g3 Qc6 23.Rxf7 Rxf7 24.Bxf7 Qc1 ½-½
London Field, 1880.05.15

Game 6: Friday, May 14, 1880.

The Match Between Rosenthal And Zukertort.

The sixth game, played on Friday, the 14th of May. Another Ruy Lopez, and another draw, but again the struggle was distinguished by fine features, though of a different character from those of the previous games of the match, for the fight was, by an early exchange of queens, soon resolved into an ending game; and then came such a steady wrestling for small advantages as will delight the students of pawn play. M. Rosenthal, by a series of masterly manoeuvres, at last obtained a winning superiority with a well-supported passed P at Q 7, the adversary’s K being cut off by the White R, and another passed P having been forced on at the K B file. Instead, however, of supporting the latter with his K, he rushed on with it to B 6 on the 43rd move, not seeing that his subtle opponent though unable to capture it at once, could, by a fine manoeuvre of the B, secure its final fall. Owing to mismanagement in the early part, Zukertort had the inferior and the more difficult game throughout the greater part of the struggle, and his defence was mostly only of a negative character; but the manner in which he calculated the chances of prolongation and of an error on the part of the opponent when all seemed hopeless, as well as the way in which he at last force the draw in a position which was still extremely difficult, deserves the highest commendation. M. Rosenthal is of the opinion that the superiority which he by degrees acquired should be the natural outcome of his exchanging queens on the 9th move. He evidently differs in this judgment from the best authorities, who assumed the game to be so even at that juncture as not to bestow upon it further analysis; and as the present game is also, as far as we are aware, the first match game on record in which this exchange was adopted, we may conclude that M. Rosenthal’s views are at variance with those of other first-class practitioners. Our opinion on the subject is in accordance with the principles we have frequently laid down in out columns in our criticism of similar positions. We still maintain that Black’s majority of pawns on the Q side, though somewhat marred by a doubled P, ought, in combination with the two bishops, to prove at least an equal match against the adverse superiority of pawns on the K side. Though the aspect of the defence in the present game is not favourable to this theory, we think we shall be able to show, in our notes below, sufficient objections against Black’s 15th, 20th, and 22nd move to account for the failure of the defence on this occasion. The duration of the game was seven hours and a half.
London Field, 1880.05.22

Date: 1880.05.14
Site: ENG London
Event: Match, Game 6
White: Rosenthal,S
Black: Zukertort,JH
Opening: [C67] Spanish
Annotator: Steinitz
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nf6 4.0-0 Nxe4 5.d4 Be7 6.Re1 Nd6 7.Bxc6 dxc6 8.dxe5 Nf5 9.Qxd8+
The usual move is here 9.Qe2. As regards the general merits of this innovation, see our introductory comments.
9...Bxd8 10.Nc3 h6
Good play. He wishes to preserve his two bishops, and to prevent Ng5 in case he brings out his bishop to e6. It may be observed that he had nothing to fear now or before from the opponent endeavoring to exchange by Bg5, for he might well answer ...Nd4, threatening to double the adverse f-pawn by ...Nxf3+.
11.Ne4 b6 12.h3 c5 13.c3 Be6 14.Bf4 Ne7 15.b3 Nc6
Up to the present Black’s plan of development and the battle order of his pawns are very well devised; but this we consider a loss of time, and we hold 15...Nd5 superior. The following was then a likely continuation: 15...Nd5 16.Bd2 (Which seems best. We see no use for the bishop on any other square) 16...a5 17.c4 Nb4 18.Bxb4 axb4, and, we think that Black has a very fair game in spite of the two doubled pawns, owing to his being enabled to form an attack against the adverse a-pawn with both rooks. His best plan of getting his king into good position for that object would be to bring him out at once to d7 and then to c6, in order to prepare the eventual advance of the b-pawn. Should White try to prevent this by 19.Red1, the game might further proceed thus: 19.Red1 Be7 20.Rd2 b5, and if 21.cxb5, Black answers 21...Bxb3 with the better game, otherwise he will exchange pawns, followed by ...Ra3, also with superior position.
16.Rad1 Be7 17.c4 0-0 18.Nc3 Rfd8 19.Nb5
19.Nd5 was tempting but not good; e.g.: 19.Nd5 Bxd5 20.cxd5 Nb4 21.d6 cxd6 22.exd6 Bf6 23.d7 Nc2, followed by 24...Nd4 if the adverse e-rook moves. Should White now play 24.Bc7, then Black takes the rook with the knight, whereupon the knight must retake, and then the bishop interposes at d4, winning the pawn.
19...Rxd1 [?:??-1:00] 20.Rxd1 Bd8
This ill-considered retreat appears to us the root of all subsequent difficulties. We see not the least objection to 20...Rd8. White could not then escape exchanging rooks, for, if he removed the rook from the open file, Black would mostly answer 21...Rd7, and would soon obtain the better game. After the exchange of rooks Black would reach the queenside with his king in a few moves, or attack the knight and release the bishop for action viá e7. White, on the other hand, could not pursue the plan of fixing the knight at d5 without exposing his far-advanced pawns, e.g.: 20...Rd8 21.Rxd8+ Bxd8 22.Nc3 Kf8 23.a3 (This seems a necessary preliminary to Nd5, in order to prevent Black’s entrance with the knight at b4 after exchanging.) 23...Ke8 24.Nd5 Bxd5 25.cxd5 Ne7 26.d6 Nd5 (We consider this better than exchanging pawns first, for it compels the retreat of the adverse bishop on the kingside, as he is bound to keep the e-pawn supported.) 27.Bg3 Kd7 (And we prefer Black’s game, for White will be ultimately compelled to exchange pawns, which brings the bishop at once into a good position. In the meanwhile the surprise by 28.e6+, ought not to succeed by correct play for Black could answer 28...fxe6, and then safely capture the other pawn with the king in reply to 29.Ne5+.
21.Nc3 Ne7 22.g4 c6
On no account should we have done this now, if at all. It was so manifestly dangerous to allow the adverse knight the strong post at d6, which he could reach in two moves, viá e4, as to make it absolutely imperative to postpone such a move as long as possible. Nor do we see any immediate necessity for it; as we think the king ought to have moved at once to f8. If the adverse c-knight then entered at d5, Black gained at any rate an important move by ...c6; and, in answer to most other movements of the hostile c-knight. White could gain time by the counter threat of a4, with the view of breaking through by a5.
23.Ne4 Bc7 24.Bg3 [1:00-?:??] 24...Ng6 25.Rd2
A waiting move apparently, but one which we believe loses time. 25.Kg2 or 25.Ne1, had much more meaning.
25...Kf8 26.Kg2 Re8 27.Nd6 Rd8
Best. White would have soon obtained a winning superiority if he had taken the knight, e.g.: 27...Bxd6 28.Rxd6 b5 29.Nd2 bxc4 30.bxc4 Rb8 31.f4 Rb2 32.Kf3, with a winning game.
28.Ne1 b5
This looked plausible enough, and, to all appearance, it was a fair attempt at releasing his confined position; but in reality it led to a lost game, on account of the isolation of the c-pawn. 28...f6 was probably the best resource here, for White could not afford to protect with the f-pawn without weakening his centre pawn by allowing it to be isolated. If, on the other hand, he exchanged pawns first, then Black had certainly somewhat the inferior position, on account of his separated and isolated pawns on the kingside; but then there was no immediate danger, as the king was handy enough to support them. At any rate, White could not institute a very effective attack at once. Supposing 28...f6 29.exf6 gxf6 30.Nf3 (If 30.Re2, the answer is 30...Bxg4) 30...Ke7 31.Nf5+ (He will hardly obtain any advantage by 31.Ne4, and the move we suggest seems to require greater nicety of play on the part of the defense.) 31...Bxf5 32.Rxd8 Bxd8 (The only move. 32...Kxd8 33.Bxc7+ Kxc7 34.gxf5 Ne7 [This seems best if the knight move elsewhere; then White withdraws the knight to h2, threatening Ng4, and should the h-pawn advance, then White would win the same with a few moves of his king.] 35.Nh4 Kd6 36.Kf3, and Black dare not reply 36...Ke5, e.g.: 36...Ke5 37.Ng6+ Kd6 [Best; Black would lose immediately if he exchanges, for the pawn retakes, and then White moves Kg4 in reply to Black’s best defense, ...Ke6.] 38.Kg4, and he ought to win the h-pawn soon, which would decide the game in his favor.) 33.gxf5 Nh8, and, in case of danger, the h-pawn may be protected by ...Nf7. The a-pawn is also safe now, for if White play 34.Bb8, the answer will be 34...Kd7, threatening to block out the bishop by ...Kc7 in case he takes the pawn.
The correct rejoinder; Rosenthal plays this part with nicety and marked precision.
29...bxc4 30.bxc4 Bxd6
Zukertort pointed out that 30...Nxe5 at this juncture, would have given him some chance of a draw, for it was by no means easy for White to win in that case, e.g.: 30...Nxe5 31.Nxe5 Rxd6 (Best, if 31...Bxd6, White wins by 32.Nxc6) 32.Ng6+ fxg6 33.Bxd6+ Bxd6 34.Rxd6 Bxc4 35.Rd2 (Best; if 35.Rxg6 then Black checks with the bishop at d5, and afterwards attacks the rook alternately by ...Kf7 and ...Ke7) 35...Bd5+ 36.Kf1 Ke7, and it would be extremely difficult to point out a sure win for White, though no doubt he has the better chance of victory, and a certain draw at any time. The move in the text was the only other alternative, for if 30...Bb6, White would obviously obtain a winning superiority in a few moves by 31.f4.
31.exd6 Bxc4 32.Nxc5 [2:00-?:??] 32...f6 [?:??-2:00]
33.Nb7 Rd7 34.Nc5 Rd8 35.d7 Bd5+ 36.f3 Ne5 37.Bxe5 fxe5 38.Re2 Kf7
Had the king moved to e7, then White would take the e-pawn checking, followed by 40.Re8 in answer to 39...Kd6. He could then exchange rooks, and, after moving the a-pawn to a3, he would win easily, as the adverse king remained fixed, and the hostile bishop could never approach the strong pawn at d7.
Stronger than the tempting 39.Nd3, for Black would then reply - first 39...Kf6, followed by 40...B-K3, in answer to 40.Nxe5.
39...Bxa2 40.f4 g6 41.f5
Good enough. But it was also a sure way of winning to bring the king round to the queenside, viá f2 and e1, but not by way of e3, as he was bound to reserve this square for the rook, in case the adverse a-pawn advanced up to a4. The White king then threatened to come up at last to c7, after picking up the pawn on the road; and Black had no defense to stop this, for even if he sacrificed the a-pawn in order to be enabled to attack the d-pawn by ...Be6, White could defend by Rd3, and the hostile king could not come nigh at e7, on account of the winning reply Re3 pinning the bishop.
41...gxf5 42.gxf5 Bb1
In anticipation of White’s plan of attack, and a lucky guess.
A gross error. He had nothing to do but to bring up his king to f4 in support of the f-pawn, winning became only a question of time. According to the line occupied by Black’s bishop, he could then force the game either by Re6, or pawn to f6. We give a diagram of this position.
An excellent rejoinder. Of course, he could not take at once, or White would win by 44.Re8; but this preparation enables him to take it next time.
44.Kf3 Kxf6 45.Kf4 [3:00-?:??]
White could here win a piece by the following process: 45.Re6+ K-moves 46.Rg6 Kxg6 47.Ne6 Rd7 48.Nf8+ Kf5 49.Nxd7; but by cautious play Black ought to have little difficulty in securing a draw by the help of his pawns on the queenside.
45...Bf7 46.Rf5+ Ke7 47.Re5+ Kf6 48.Rf5+ Ke7 49.Re5+ Kf6 50.Rf5+ Ke7 51.Re5+
One of the conditions of the match provides that, after three repetitions of the same move or line of play, the repetition moves do not count any more in the time allowance for the player who first initiates the repetition; and, after six such moves, the game may be claimed as a draw by the opponent. This rule is framed in order to prevent any player gaining undue time in situations in which a certain line of play can be forced upon the adversary. It will be observed that Rosenthal alters his course just after the third repetition of a series of two different moves.
51...Kf6 52.h4 a5 53.Re4 h5
All this is played with great foresight. The effect of this fine move will be seen afterwards.
54.Re1 a4 [?:??-3:00] 55.Re3 a3 56.Rxa3 Be6 57.Rd3 Bg4
See our previous note. Without the bishop being able to fix himself on this square, Black could not save the game now, for the bishop could nowhere else command the line on which he attacked the adverse pawn, and enabled his own king to come near at e7. He could not at once move 57...Ke7, on account of the rejoinder 58.Re3, and if 57...Bf5, he would lose thus: 57...Bf5 58.Rd6+ Ke7 59.Rh6 Bxd7 60.Rh7+ Ke8 61.Nb7 Rc8 (Best, or else a whole rook is lost by 62.Rh8+.) 62.Nd6+, winning the exchange and the h-pawn, which ought to secure an easy victory.
58.Rd4 Kf7 59.Kg5 Rg8+ 60.Kf4 Rd8 61.Rd6 Ke7 62.Rxc6
Had he now attempted 62.Rh6, the game might have proceeded thus: 62.Rh6 Rf8+ 63.Ke3 (Best; if 63.Ke5, Black checks with the rook at f5, and then again at d5, and afterwards wins the pawn safely.) 63...Kd8 64.Rh7 Kc7, followed by ...Rd8 and then taking the pawn with the bishop.
62...Bxd7 63.Rh6 Rf8+ ½-½
London Field, 1880.05.22

Game 7: Wednesday, May 19, 1880.

The seventh game, played on Wednesday, the 19th inst.—This is an extraordinary match. No other single-handed contest on record has been so evenly fought at starting. The opening was again a Ruy Lopez, and Zukertort introduced on the 8th move a form of attack which turned out as weak as it is comparatively unknown. As far as we can make sure in the short time at our disposal for the examination of the line of play suggested in our notes below, we should think that the bold sacrifice of the Kt for the BP would have led to a winning position for Black. But so much had the postion of the attacking player been misjudged that even the slow and steady process adopted by the French champion gave him the patent superiority, and it will be a matter of astonishment that such a master of the openings like Zukertort should have been in such a sad plight so early in the game as first player in a Ruy Lopez. On the 15th move Rosenthal had exchanged all the opponent’s active pieces on the K’s side; and while Zukertort’s Q side was quite undeveloped the French champion brought all his own pieces into full battle order, and mostly in a threatening attitude. But his tenacity gave way on the 19th move, and, instead of continuing to exercise a slow and sure pressure on the opponent’s development, by P to Q Kt 4, which we believe must have ultimately ripened into a winning advantage, he impulsively sacrificed a piece in a situtation which could only lead to a draw by perpetual check.
London Field, 1880.05.22

Date: 1880.05.19
Site: ENG London
Event: Match, Game 7
White: Zukertort,JH
Black: Rosenthal,S
Opening: [C65] Spanish
Annotator: Steinitz
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nf6 4.d4 exd4 5.0-0 Be7 6.e5 Ne4 7.Nxd4 0-0
It is evident he could not take the e-pawn on account of the reply 8.Re1.
See our introductory remarks. 8.Nf5 seeems to us a more feasible way of continuing the attack, but we do not think it would lead to more than an even position, e.g., 8.Nf5 d5 9.Nxe7+ Nxe7 10.f3 c6 followed by 11...Qb8+.
We believe that Black might have ventured on the sacrifice of the knight, for which he would have obtained sufficient attack, e.g., 8...Nxf2 9.Kxf2 (If 9.Nxc6 Black may retake with the d-pawn, and he will retain the pawn.) 9...Bc5 10.c3 [or 10.Bxc6 Qh4+ 11.Kf1 (If 11.Ke3, then follows 11...Bxd4+; and if 11.Ke2, then Black takes the bishop with the d-pawn, threatening ...Bg4+, with greatest effect; and should White then attempt 12.Be3, then follows 12...Rd8, recovering the piece, for White must guard against ...Bg4+, winning the queen.) 11...Bxd4 12.g3 (If 12.Qd2, then Black takes the bishop with the b-pawn, threatening ...Ba6+.) 12...Qxh2 13.Qxd4 dxc6 14.g4 f5 15.g5 (Best) 16...f4 15.e6 (Best) 16...Qh3+, followed by 17...Bxe6, remaining with three pawns for the piece and a strong attack. Besides that, White’s g-pawn should also fall soon. We cannot possibly enter into a more exhaustive analysis, and give the above variations only as example; but we feel satisfied of the strength of Black’s postion.] 10...Qh4+ 11.Kg1 Nxd4 12.cxd4 Bxd4+ 13.Kh1 Bf2 14.Re3 (Best; if 14.Re2, Black answers 14...Bg3 followed by 15...d5, which threatens ...Bg4.) 14...Be3 15.Bxe3 Re8 16.Qd4 (If 16.B-d4, Black goes on in the same way by ...c6 and ...d6.) 16...Qxd4 17.Bxd4 c6 18.Bd3 (It will avail him nothing to retreat the bishop to f1, for Black will also answer 18...d6, and if 19.exd6, the rook attacks at e1.) 18...d6, and either Black wins a third pawn for the exchange, or if 19.exd6, the rook checks at e1 and White’s pieces remain confined while Black will gain the d-pawn by ...Be6 and ...Rd8, remaining with two pawns for the exchange and a very fine game.
9.Qxd4 d5 10.exd6
Inconvenient as this is, it was his best. To allow the opponent four pawns against three on the queenside, while his fixed e-pawn at e5 could at any time be exchanged by ...f6, thus opening the adverse f-file for the rook, would have been still worse.
10...Nxd6 11.Bd3
Inch by inch he is driven back. He would have lost a clear pawn had he brought out the knight to c3, thus: 11.Nc3 Bf6 12.Qd3 (Best) 12...Bf5 13.Qe2 Bxc2 14.Qxc2 Bxc3, etc.
11...Bf6 12.Qb4 Re8 13.Qd2 Rxe1+
Though this has the effect of releasing the bishop, we cannot suggest anything better, and Black certainly obtained a strong advantage after the exchange.
14.Qxe1 Bf5 15.Bxf5
It was dangerous to allow the d-pawn to be isolated by bringing out the knight, e.g., 15.Nc3 Bxd3 16.cxd3 Nf5 17.Qf1 (This seems to be the best retreat for the queen) 17...Bxc3 18.bxc3 Qd5, with the superior game.
15...Nxf5 16.c3
No choice. He was bound to guard against ...Nd4, and to postpone his development in consequence. If he brouught out the knight to c3, then the bishop would take, creating an ugly doubled pawn, and if 16.Nd2, then followed 16...Nd4, which made 17.Qd1 compulsory; Black could afterwards play ...Qd7, and ...Re8, with a fine develpment, and by retreating the knight to c6 when attacked by the pawn, he could again shut in all the white pieces.
16...Qd7 17.Nd2 Re8 18. Qf1 Nh4 [?:??-1:00]
A fine move, which not alone prevents the adverse knight from gaining a convient post at f3, but also other ample attacking purposes, as will be seen.
19.Nc4 [1:00-?:??] 19...Nxg2
We give a diagram of this position. By this sacrifice Black throws away a very good prospect of winning the game. The correct move was 19...b5, as pointed out by Zukertort. White then had nothing better than to retreat the knight to e3, otherwise Black would sacrifce the knight for the g-pawn with much greater force. White’s bishop remained in that case shut up, and Black had certainly the much superior game.
20.Kxg2 Qg4+ 21.Kh1 Qf3+ 22.Kg1
The same two moves were repeated twice more, and then the game was abandoned as drawn. He could not afford to continue the attack by 22...Re4, for White would consolidate his forces by 23.Ne3, followed by 24.Ng2, and would win. But it was not easy to draw if he now played 22...Re2, threatening to win the knight by ...Qg4+. If White defended by 23.Ne3, the winning answer was 23...Bh4. Again, if he retreated 23.Nd2, the game might have proceeded thus: 22...Re2 23.Nd2 Qg4+ 24.Kh1 (Best; if the queen interposes mate follows in three moves by 24...Re1+; 25...Rxf1+; and 26...Qd1#.) 24...Be5 (Threatening ...Qh4) 25.f4 Rxh2+ 26.Kxh2 Bxf4+, and White must sacrifice the queen; for if 27.Kh1, then follows 27...Qh4+, 28...Qg3+, and 29...Qh2#. But the only move to draw in answer to 22.Re2, is, as pointed out by Zukertort, 22...Bf4. If Black then checks with the queen at g4, then White is compelled again to move the king; but White then threatens either 25.Bg3, or 25.Ne3, or 25.f3, according to circumstances, and Black has therefore no time to regain the piece, and must therefore draw by perpetual check.
22...Qg4+ 23.Kh1 Qf3+ 24.Kg1 Qg4+ 25.Kh1 Qf3+ 26.Kg1 ½-½
London Field, 1880.05.22

Game 8: Friday, May 21, 1880.

The Match Between Rosenthal And Zukertort.

The eighth game was played on Friday, the 21st inst. The Ruy Lopez is falling flat, and the two masters seem to excercise in vain their ingenuities for the purpose of improving the attack of the Spaniard, who according to Heydebrandt Von der Lasa, was in general deficient of inventive power, and inaccurate in his demonstrations. As regards M. Rosenthal’s variation, our remarks on the sixth game in our last week’s number received a practical verification. We gave it as our opinion that Black’s majority of pawns on the Q side, though somwhat marred by a doubled pawn, should, in combination with the two bishops, prove an equal match at least for White’s numerical superiority on the K side; and so it did, but of course Herr Zukertort greatly modified his defence this time. On general principles we would describe M. Rosenthal’s attack as a double-edged weapon, to use a chess critical metaphor of Herr Falkbeer, and, as regards the details of the combat, we cannot refrain from stating our view that the Frenchman’s mode of handling this attack does not seem efficient even from his own point of view. He manifestly lost several moves on this occasion as well as in the sixth game. The Q B is certainly not well placed at K B 4 if it is part of his ultimate plan to support the K P with the K B P. P to Q Kt 3 also appears to give the defence the desired opportunity of dissolving his doubled pawn. Zukertort, by a series of skilful and cautious manoeuvres, exchanged, in consequence, both Q B pawns and liberated his Q R P for a march on, which confined the opponent’s R, but, as he had to watch his own P with a piece of equal value, he was, for practical purposes, almost a P behind in the employment of his forces, when, by an ill-considered placement of his K, Rosenthal left himself open on the 32nd move to one of his opponent’s deep coups, which broke up White’s game on the K side. Five moves later on, Rosenthal committed a still graver error of judgment with a useless move of the K, of which Zukertort availed himself most cleverly. On the 45th move he missed his last chance of making the issue doubtful. He had already lost a P, but if he had first stopped the Q Kt P from advancing by B to Q Kt 2 matters were not hopeless. After that Zukertort finishedd with his accustomed skill by conducting alternately one of the two separated passed pawns to Q, and Rosenthal had finally to resign after a tenacious but hopeless defence. Duration, six hours.
London Field, 1880.05.29

Date: 1880.05.21
Site: ENG London
Event: Match, Game 8
White: Rosenthal,S
Black: Zukertort,JH
Opening: [C67] Spanish
Annotator: Steinitz
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nf6 4.0-0 Nxe4 5.d4 Be7 6.Re1 Nd6 7.Bxc6 dxc6 8.dxe5 Nf5 9.Qxd8+ Bxd8 10.Nc3 c5 11.Bf4 0-0 12.Rad1 b6 13.h3 h6 14.Nd5 Be6 15.b3 c6 16.Nc3
See our remarks above respecting the conduct of the opening on White’s part.
16...c4 17.g4 Nh4 18.Nxh4 Bxh4 19.Kg2 cxb3 20.axb3 Be7 21.Ne4 Rfd8
This appears to us an unnecessary delay in the advance of the a-pawn. The opponent could make no use with his rook on the open d-file.
22.f3 [1:00-?:??] 22...c5 23.Nd6 a5 24.Ne4 c4 25.bxc4 Bxc4 26.Rxd8+ Bxd8 27.Nd6 Be6 [?:??-1:00] 28.Be3 a4 29.c4 a3 30.f4
If anything can be made of this present opening, it is surely not the way to waste so many moves. There ought to be some means of advancing this pawn to his present post, where he seems to be necessary, in a quicker manner.
30...a2 31.Ra1 Ra3 32.Kf3
This gets him into trouble. 32.Kf2 was the proper move, and would most probably have led to an even position in a few moves; e.g.: 32.Kf2 Kf8 (If 32...Ra5, White pushes at once the pawn to c5, and, after gaining the a-pawn for the c-pawn, he gets the best of the game, either by Ra8 or Ra7.) 33.f5 Bd7 34.Ke2 Bc7 (If 34...Ba4, White goes nearer with his king to d2, and may afterwards even run into discovered check by Kc3, without sustaining loss.) 35.Bd4, and he will soon gain the a-pawn, either by Ne4-c3, or else by Bb2, and eventually bringing the king up. Should Black now take the h-pawn White may obviously take the a-pawn, for he may cover with the bishop in answer to Rh2+.
An excellent move, which effectually prevents White from dislodging the bishop by 33.f5, and gives him otherwise good chances of obtaining the superiority.
33.gxh5 [2:00-?:??]
Had he advanced the pawn to f5, the game might have proceeded thus: 33.f5 Bg5 34.fxe6 Bxe3 35.exf7+ Kf8 36.Ke4 (If 36.Nb5, then the bishop withdraws nevertheless to d4, checking, and after taking the rook and moving the bishop, must win the knight at least) 36...Bc1, and ought to win. Had White tried, in lieu of the text move, 33.Ke4, he would have also come out with the worst of the position, e.g.: 33.Ke4 hxg4 34.f5 Bd7 (It would not be sound to sacrifice the bishop by taking the h-pawn with the pawn; for White, after the capture, would ultimately obtain a strong defensive move in Bd4.) 35.hxg4 Ba4 36.Nb5 Bc2+ 37.Kf3 (Best) 37...Ra4 38.Nc3 Rxc4 39.Rxa2 (Best; 39.Nxa2 would lose sooner on account of the reply 39...Ra4.) 39...Rxc3 40.Ra8 Rd3 41.Ke2 Kh7 42.Rc8 Bb1, and, if White now play 43.Rc1, the winning answer is 43...Rxe3+.
33...Bxh3 34.Nb5 Ra4 35.Nc3 Rxc4 36.Nxa2 b5 37.Kg3
This very weak move strongly compromises his position. He ought to have opposed the rook at once, and he had then a good chance of drawing, e.g.: 37.Rc1 Rxc1 (Or, if 37...Be6, then White exchanges rooks, followed accordingly by Nb4 or Nc3) 38.Bxc1 Ba5 39.Ba3 Be6 40.Bb4, etc.
37...Be6 38.Rc1 Ba5
A beautiful move. White remains now confined with his pieces, while Black’s b-pawn is well supported for the advance.
39.Kf2 b4 40.Rxc4 Bxc4 41.Nc1 b3 42.Bd4 Bd2
All this is in good style.
43.Ne2 Bxe2 44.Kxe2 Bxf4
This throws away all chances of drawing. (See diagram). There was a great deal of fight left if he had now retreated the bishop to b2. The game might have then proceeded thus: 45.Bb2 Kh7 46.Kd3 Kh6 47.Kc4 Bg5 (If 47...Kxh5, or 47...Kg5, White draws by 48.e6.) 48.Kxb3 Be7 49.Kc4 Bf8 50.Kd5 Kxh5 51.e6, and ought to draw.
45...Bc1 46.Kc3 b2 47.Kc2 [3:00-?:??] 47...Kh7 48.Bc5 Kh6 49.Bf8 Bf4 50.e6
It avails him little, but he had no other chance of prolonging the fight, and, therefore, justly endeavors to separate the pawns.
50...fxe6 51.Kxb2 Be5+ 52.Kc2 Kxh5 53.Kd3 g5 54.Ke4 Bf6 [?:??-2:00] 55.Kf3 Kh4 56.Bc5 Kh3 57.Bb6 g4+ 58.Kf4 Bc3 59.Bf2 e5+ 60.Kf5 g3 0-1.
For, unless the bishop is sacrificed at once for the pawn, he is caught next move by 61...Bd4, and there is no further hope.
London Field, 1880.05.29

Game 9: Monday, May 24, 1880.

The ninth game, played on Monday, the 24th inst. At least there was a change of the opening, and Zukertort transferred the analytical battle-ground from Spain into Holland by adopting the Van t’ Kruyz début of 1 P to K 3. This opening is rarely used and little analysed, nor is there much to be said about it, as it belongs essentially to the close games. If the opponent answer P to K 4, White will gain the advantage of a move by entering into the Sicilian opening with P to Q B 4. If, on the other hand, Black answers P to Q 4, as done in the present game, the play on both sides must assume the aspect of the Q gambit declined. Both parties proceeded in a peculiar way. Zukertort castled early, and voluntarily withdrew his K Kt to Q 2, blocking out his Q B; and Rosenthal, on the other hand, deliberately allowed his centre K P to be doubled, relying on a prospective attack on the K side, which the opponent cleverly avoided by withdrawing the K R to K sq, thus making room for the defensive retreat of Kt to B sq before commencing his attack on the Q side. In pursuing the latter, we believe he lost time with a conventional move, P to Q R 3, and also by retreating his Kt to K B sq unnecessarily. M. Rosenthal seized the proper moment for dissolving this doubled K P by P to K 4. The onus of difficulty would, we believe, have rested with White’s game. As it went, the attack had the best of it, and Zukertort was the first to prepare a breach on the Q side, which, however, he opened too soon on the twentieth move. A studiously and carefully devised plan of exchanging the heavier pieces was then instituted on both sides, and the game had all the appearance of a blocked position. Zukertort after the adjournment, still tried on a concealed scheme of entering with his Q B at K 5, v K Kt 5, R 6, and Kt 7, but Rosenthal saw it in time, and prevented the design by a proper move of the K. By an apparently hazardous exchange, Rosenthal allowed at last his opponent a formidable-looking passed P at Q Kt 6, in combination with two bishops; but he had well calculated, as it turned out that neither party was able to break through the game, which was soon after given up as drawn. Duration, five hours and a half.
London Field, 1880.05.29

Date: 1880.05.24
Site: ENG London
Event: Match, Game 9
White: Zukertort,JH
Black: Rosenthal,S
Opening: [D06] Queen’s Gambit
Annotator: Steinitz
1.e3 d5 2.d4 Bf5
Contrary to general practice, Black develops his c8-bishop on the kingside, and thus leaves some weakness on the other wing. It will be seen that he is later on, at the trouble of maneuvering this bishop back again; and though we doubt whether the retreat was compulsory at the time, at any rate Rosenthal’s view of such necessity would support the expediency of the policy adopted by most practitioners, who imitate White’s example, and shut the bishop by pawn to e6, reserving its use for the queenside.
3.Nf3 e6 4.Be2 Bd6 5.0-0 Nd7 6.c4 c6 7.Nc3 Ngf6 8.Nd2
Liberties of that sort may be taken with the rules of development in the close game. Yet 8.Ne1 presents a better appearance on general grounds, and especially it would more effectively meet Black’s counter plan of 8...Ne4. In that case White might capture the knight, followed by 10.f3, having not even a draw by perpetual check to fear from the reply 10...Qh4, as, after 11.g3, the knight may ultimately interpose at g2 should the adverse bishop be sacrificed.
An original and ingenious method of dealing with the close game. It sets the ordinary notions of pawn placement at defiance; and, at all events the progress of the present game would go to show that he runs not much risk in this deviation from commonly accepted principles.
Proper. Now let us understand that for the attack on the queenside, at which he evidently and judiciously aimed, the capture with the d2-knight was apparently more promising. But the kingside was then bare, and Black threatened to compel the advance of the g-pawn by ...Qh4, and then, after retreating the queen, the march of the h-pawn to h5 and h4 menaced a breach of the peace. We assume another alternative, and he fares no better, e.g., 9.Ndxe4 dxe4 10.f4 (to make 10...Qh4 useless) 10...g5 11.fxg5 Qxg5 12.Rf2 Qh4 13.g3 Rg8 14.Bf1 Qh6 15.Bg2 Nf6, threatening ...Ng4, with an excellent game.
9...dxe4 10.Re1
White also shows the master. The kingside is now perfectly safe, for he will not be under the necessity of touching any of the pawns in that quarter as the retreat of the knight to f1 will cover any danger.
10...0-0 11.a3
If he intended to advance pawn to b4, and then to leave the latter pawn and also the c-pawn abreast until he could do better, then this was quite right. But he denies the utility of this preparation only two moves later on, and consequently we may describe this as a loss of time, compared with 11.c5 at once followed by 12.b4.
11...Bg6 12.b4 f5 13.c5 Bc7 14.Bc4 Qe7 15.Qb3 Bf7 16.a4
Contradictory to move 11. Had he pursued the above plan, he would have taken time by the forelock.
16...Nf6 17.Nf1
Query, was it necessary to make room for bishop to d2; or could that bishop be better employed at a3. In the latter case the retreat of the knight was clear waste.
17...Nd5 18.b5 a6 [?:??-1:00] 19.Bd2 Be8
We cannot defend this defense. It was a proper occasion for an attack by 19...e5, not with the object of taking, but of leaving it alone until the advantage was properly nursed. We take it for granted that White could not capture the center e5-pawn, or else his c-pawn lost, and the other to follow. If he left all in statu quo, then Black would press still more with ...Qf6 and ...Rfd8.
Quite unripe. Now he had, undoubtedly, the best of the struggle for position by 20.Reb1. If Black tried to get relief by opening with either the 20...axb5 or 20...cxb5 then first possession of the open file for the rook was insured by retaking with the pawn, and also the adverse b-pawn was isolated for the ending. All he had to avoid was (assuming that 20...cxb5) the trap of 21.Bxd5, 22.Qxd5+, and 23.Qxb7, on account of the ultimate 23...Bxh2+, winning the queen. Otherwise, he could always maintain the superiority.
20...bxa6 21.a5 Bd7 22.Reb1 [1:00-?:??] 22...Rfb8 23.Qd1
Zukertort informs us that he though of afterwards giving up the exchange by fixing his rook at b6, but subsequently found it impracticable. We believe that the plan was feasible, if he had now moved 23.Qa4. After the sacrifice (which, of course, could only be followed up by retaking with the a-pawn on b6), he could bring his knight round, removing his d2-bishop first, viá d2 and b3, into the formidable post of a5. He stood then a fair chance of winning, without incurring any danger at either wing. The two adverse rooks were then helplessly blocked up, and the play of White’s minor pieces had much more scope for action.
23...Qd8 24.Rxb8 Qxb8 25.Rb1 Qd8 26.Qa4 Qc8 27.Ng3 Rb8 28.Rxb8 Bxb8 29.Qb3 Bc7 30.Ne2 Qa8 31.f4 Bc8 32.Ng3 Qb7 33.Qxb7 Bxb7 34.Nh1 Kf7 35.Nf2 g6 36.Nd1 Bd8 37.Nb2 Bc7 38.Kf2 Bd8 39.Be2 Bc7 40.Nc4 Ke7 41.Bd1 Bb8 [?:??-2:00] 42.Ba4 Bc7 43.Ke2
The plan of 43.Kg3 could be frustrated by the answer 43...g5.
43...Bb8 44.Be1 Bc7 45.Kd2 Kd7
The sacrifice of the knight for three pawns, commencing with 45...Nxf4, was unsound, as the bishop would ultimately by shut out by pawn to g3.
46.Bh4 Bb8 47.Bg5
The dulness of the maneuvering against the adverse barricaded position receives now some interest by presenting the real danger of his entering at g7, viá h6, with the view of gaining the fine post at e5. See diagram.
The only move. He recognises the opponent’s design, and prepares for ...Kf7, should White attempt Bh6.
48.Bd1 [2:00-?:??] 48...Bc7 49.g4 Kf7 50.Nb6 Bxb6
Apparently bold, but well calculated. White’s two bishops cannot act for aggressive purposes.
It was of no more use to take with the a-pawn, for Black could always find means of bringing his knight to b8 in case any danger arose for his own a-pawn.
51...Ke8 52.h3 Kd7 53.Bh4 Kd6 54.Bb3 Kd7 55.Bxd5 cxd5 56.Kc3 Kc6 57.Kb4 Bc8 ½-½
London Field, 1880.05.29

Game 10: Thursday, May 27, 1880.

The tenth game was played on Thursday, the 27th inst. By mutual agreement, play had been put off over the Derby Day, and the tenth meeting of the two masters took place on the Thursday. Rosenthal had the move, and again played a Ruy Lopex, with the continuation 5. P to Q B 3, already adopted in the fourth game of the match, making however, an alteration in the final placement of the KB, which he retreated to QN3. Strange to say, Zukertort committed a regular blunder as early as the 8th move, whereby he lost a P, without hope of delaying the ending game, for the opponent was enabled to exchange queens simultaneously. Rosenthal had then an easy game, and had only to exercise common circumspection to maintain his superiority. Zukertort’s defence would have been worthy of a better cause, but naturally had only a dilatory effect. Nothing remarkable occurred until the 28th move, when Rosenthal, by a fine coup, forced an exchange of pawns most favourable to himself, for he drew an adverse isolated P into his own quarter, where it would soon be reached with his K. Rosenthal then effected an exchange of pawns on the Q side, which left him free on the other wing for approaching with his K the unprotected hostile pawns. The position at the time of adjournment left Rosenthal with two combined passed pawns ahead - all other pawns being exchanged - and just when Rosenthal was on the point of writing down his move for the purpose of handing it over to the secretary, his opponent announced his resignation. This makes the score: Zukertort two; Rosenthal one; drawn seven.
London Field, 1880.05.29

Date: 1880.05.27
Site: ENG London
Event: Match, Game 10
White: Rosenthal,S
Black: Zukertort,JH
Opening: [C77] Spanish
Annotator: Steinitz
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nf6 4.d3 d6 5.c3 a6 6.Ba4 g6 7.d4 b5 8.Bb3
In the fourth match game he played 8.Bc2. This is more immediately aggressive.
An extraordinary blunder to make at such an early stage. He loses now a clear pawn, and must besides submit to the exchange of queens. Of course, he ought to have taken the d-pawn first with the e-pawn.
9.dxe5 Nxe5
Nor did he make the best choice in accepting the loss. It was clearly better to take with the pawn, e.g., 9...dxe5 10.Qxd8+ Nxd8 11.Nxe5 Nxe4 12.Nxf7 (if 12.Bd5, Black answers 12...Bb7) 12...Nxf7 13.Bd5 and, though White will remain a pawn ahead, his position is not so strong as it came out by the move in the text, which leaves Black with the cumbersome weak e-pawn to defend, and with less pieces on the board to make a fight, besides having forfeited the right of castling. He could, however, not escape the exchange of queens, for, wherever the f6-knight moves, White won by the answer 9.Qd5.
10.Nxe5 dxe5 11.Qxd8+ Kxd8 12.Bxf7 Bb7 13.f3 Ke7 14.Bb3 h6 15.Be3 Rhd8 16.a4 g5 17.axb5 axb5 18.Rxa8 Rxa8 19.Na3 Bc6 20.Kf2 Bf8 21.Nc2 Ke8 22.Nb4 Bb7 [?:??-1:00] 23.Rd1 Be7 24.Nd5 Nxd5 25.Bxd5 c6 26.Be6 Bc8
The exchanges weaken him, of course; and, though he was much limited in his defensive moves, we should have preferred waiting as long as possible before submitting to, much less offering, a reduction in forces.
27.Bxc8 Rxc8 28.h4
An excellent move (see diagram). Black must take, or else, after the exchange of pawns, his g-pawn will become untenable. The effect of the exchange of pawns is to draw the adverse h-pawn nearer to his own king, and therefore easier within reach of capture in case he succeeded in exchanging rooks.
28...gxh4 29.Bxh6 [1:00-?:??] 29...Kf7 30.Be3 Ke6 31.Ra1 Rg8 32.b4 Rc8 33.Ra6 Kd7 34.Ra7+ Ke6 35.Bc5 Bg5 36.Be3 Be7 37.Ra6 Kd7 38.Kg1
He hits on the right plan after having lost some moves with his rook. The king must be brought round on the h-file in order to secure victory.
The game could not have been saved under any circumstances, and this was about as good as anything else, though its immediate effect is to release White from any apprehension respecting the pawns on the queenside, and to allow him to devote his fullest energy to clearing the road on the other wing.
39.Rb6 cxb4 [?:??-2:00] 40.cxb4 Rc3 41.Bh6
The best move to avoid subsequent molestation. Wherever else the bishop went, the adverse rook could either harass the king with checks, or attack the bishop.
41...Bxb4 42.Rxb5 Bc5+ 43.Kh2 Bf2 44.Kh3 Bg3 45.Bg5 Rc2
It was altogether hopeless now, and quite irrelevant what he did.
46.Bxh4 Bxh4 47.Kxh4 Rxg2 48.Rxe5 1-0
London Field, 1880.05.29

Game 11: Saturday, May 29, 1880.

The Match Between Messrs. Rosenthal And Zukertort.

The eleventh game. The substitution of Thursday for Wednesday in the play calendar necessitated also a change of appointment for the end of last week, and consequently the eleventh game was played on Saturday, the 29th ult. Zukertort’s start was a surprise. 1 Kt to K B 3 has never been heard of, and the adoption of this odd novelty is, in one sense, a compliment to the knowledge of opening displayed by his opponent hitherto. On the other hand, it could have no deep meaning; and Rosenthal, by replying P to Q 4, clearly showed that he saw through it. The object of this curious beginning is apparently, perchance, to induce the adversary to answer Kt to Q B 3, and then White would proceed with P to Q 4, having gained a fine point of development, for in the Q P 2 opening Black’s Kt is badly placed at Q B 3 before his Q B P has moved. The early attempt to steal a march on the adversary did not repay the trouble as well as in the case of Anderssen, who twice baffled Morphy’s ingenuity by commencing with 1. P to Q R 3, and then obtained a fine opening by 2. P to Q B 4 in reply to 1. P to K 4, being a move in advance in the Sicilian opening. Rosenthal, as we said before, made the right reply, and the game resumed all the aspects of the opening in the 9th game of the match, with the exception of the addition on White’s part of the useless preparation 5. P to Q R 3. The French player treated his defence on the same system as in the ninth game, or, properly speaking, instituted a counter-attack by developing his minor pieces, almost regardless of the position of his pawns, as in an open game. Zukertort’s 9th move, R to K sq, might pass criticism, but is made remarkable chiefly by being completely retracted three moves later on, apparently for the purpose of avoiding a hostile attack, which gave the opponent at least a draw. We should be far from advocating argumentation through thick and thin in favour of a position once taken op, but this confession of error strikes us as an error in itself. He was bound to look out for some more dignified defence, and we believe he could have accomplished his object, even with less risk, by P to K R 3. As it was, Rosenthal could either win an easily defensible P, or obtain an attack which would have well repaid trial, as he had at least a draw by perpetual check in hand in a few moves, to fall back upon in case his calculations did not satisfy his attempting to win. The French master elected, however, to pursue a course which left the parties with no other minor pieces than bishops of opposite colours, rooks and queens still on the board, and all the forces as well as position, quite even. A prolongation of the struggle would have been useless, and the game was fairly given up as drawn on the sixteenth move, but altogether presents a feeble specimen of match play. Duration, two hours and a half.
London Field, 1880.06.05

Date: 1880.05.29
Site: ENG London
Event: Match, Game 11
White: Zukertort,JH
Black: Rosenthal,S
Opening: [D06] Queen’s Gambit
Annotator: Steinitz
See our introductory comments in explanation of the meaning of this odd initiation and of the merit of Black’s reply.
1...d5 2.d4 Nf6 3.e3 Bf5 4.Be2 e6 5.a3
We do not discern any utility for this move at the present stage.
5...Bd6 6.c4 c6 7.Nc3 Nbd7 8.0–0 Ne4 9.Re1
He stood now in the same position as in the ninth game, excepting that he was a move behind, owing to the thrown-away fifth move. Consequently he could not take the knight at once, as Black’s pawn would retake, and then the opponent would obtain a strong attack by 10...Qh4, forcing the advance of White’s g-pawn, which, after Black retreats the queen, furnishes a mark for the onslaught of his h-pawn. The expedient is adopted with the intention of capturing the knight, followed, if the pawn retakes, by the retreat of the knight to f1, viá d2, as in the ninth game.
Excellent. Perceiving the difference of the situation, with true judgment he settles his plan accordingly, and prepares even a better one than in the ninth game. It is evident that he now means to hold the adverse gap in the center with one of his knights, which promises to be more advantageous than fixing his pawn at e4.
Black threatened 10...Ng4, and, though White could in that case defend the f-pawn for the time by retreating 11.Rf1, he was always afterwards under the inconvenience that he could not drive either of the hostile knights from their respective posts. For, attacking one knight by 12.h3 was then obviously useless, as Black would advance 12...h5 in support, threatening to open the file for the rook with an irresistible attack should White take. Black could also sufficiently protect the other knight at e4 by withdrawing the bishop to g6, followed by ...f5, and White could never exchange without exposing himself to a powerful attack on the kingside, like the one pointed out in the note to White’s ninth move.
10...Nxe4 11.Bd2 Bg4 12.Rf1
Black threatened to win thus: 12...Bxf3 13.Bxf3 Bxh2+ 14.Kxh2 Qh4+ 15.Kg1 Qxf2+ , followed soon by ...Qxd2. But the move in the text is a poor resource. Sooner than submit to such a retreat we would have moved the d-bishop, and then Black had no more than a draw in the above indicated exchange and sacrifice. We think, however, that 12.h3 was better still.
If Black at once exchanged the two minor pieces by 12...Bxf3 and 13...Nxd2 he could get no more than a drawn position, on account of bishops of opposite colors, while the extra pawn he might gain in the exchange could not be maintained if attacked by Rc1. If, on the other hand, he offered to sacrifice the bishop by 12...h5, then White, of course, was not bound to take, but could proceed with 13.Rc1.
Lack of energy. He would have been quite justified in this position to attempt a win by 12...dxc4. This pawn was well defensible; and if White tried to recover it the game might have proceeded thus: 12...dxc4 13.h3 This seems best for the purpose; for, if 13.Bxc4 at once, Black will proceed in the same way as in the following variation from the 15th move, with much greater effect, as he will compel the advance of the hostile f-pawn, and then open the game by ...g5. 13...Bh5 14.Bxc4 Bxf3 15.gxf3 , best 15...Qg5+ 16.Kh1 and Black has already the choice of drawing by 16...Ng3+, followed by 17...Qxg3, which leaves no other resource than the reply by 18.f4; then, at least, perpetual check may follow by 19.Qh3 and 20.Qg3. He may, however, also pursue the attack by 16...Qh4, followed, in reply to 17.Kg2 by 17...Ng3, and 18...Nf5, or else by the simple retreat of 17...Nf6 at once, with the object of advancing the pawns on the king’s wing in each case with an excellent game. We give a diagram of the position in the text.
13.Bxf3 Nxd2 14.Qxd2 0–0
He would gain nothing by 14...dxc4, for the hostile rook would at once attack the same at c1, and Black’s b-pawn could obviously not advance to b5 in support, without leaving his c-pawn en prise of the adverse bishop.
15.Rac1 Qe7 16.Rfe1 Rfd8 ½–½
It would have been waste of time for either side to go on with this game.
London Field, 1880.06.05

Game 12: Monday, May 31, 1880.

The twelfth game was played on Monday, the 31st ult. This game will be memorable in the records of match play, owing to a breakdown at the finish, such as has very rarely been witnessed in a serious contest. The opening was the same as in the tenth game up to the 7th move, when Rosenthal, instead of continuing with the attack by P to Q 4, cautiously advanced the K R P to R 3, evidently in pursuance of a plan of slow development. Zukertort defended on the previously adopted system, but prematurely tried to open the game on the 9th move by P to Q 4. The consequence was that a hostile B planted itself most inconveniently for him at Q B 5, preventing his castling, while Rosenthal obtained the usual strong attack on the Q side by the advance of the Q R P. On the 14th move White missed a fine opportunity of much improving his game by taking the hostile K B before removing his own, thus creating an ugly double pawn for the opponent in the centre, and also weakening the other hostile pawns on the K side. Zukertort instituted a masterly defence, and we especially commend his 17th move to the attention of students. He castled, apparently leaving an important P en prise, which was, however, secured by a fine conception. Rosenthal avoided the bait, and still kept the initiative; but he missed again his chance of fortifying his game on the 23rd move. His manœuvres with his queen and the Q R were, to use a mild term, very indifferent, and had only the effect of enabling Black to consolidate and strengthen his pawns on the Q side, to drive the hostile rooks back, and to exchange queens, with free possession for his own rooks of the only open file. Rosenthal at last succeeded in getting rid of one of the hostile rooks, after bringing his K round in support of the challenge for the exchange; and the game had all the appearance of an easy draw, when, on the 42nd move, he committed as terrible a blunder as we have ever seen in a match game. He overlooked the loss of a clear piece by a simple combination only two moves deep, and, his game being hopelessly ruined, he had to resign a few moves later on. Duration, five hours and a half.
London Field, 1880.06.05

Date: 1880.06.05
Site: ENG London
Event: Match, Game 12
White: Rosenthal,S
Black: Zukertort,JH
Opening: [C77] Spanish
Annotator: Steinitz
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nf6 4.d3 d6 5.c3 a6 6.Ba4 g6 7.h3 Bg7 8.Be3 b5 9.Bb3 d5
Too early, certainly. It exposes the point at c5 to the commanding occupation of the hostile bishop.
10.Nbd2 h6
He wants to post his c8-bishop to e6 without being subject to the strong rejoinder Ng5. 10...d4 would have been useless; for White, after taking once, would have obtained a good post for his bishop at f4, and afterwards an attack with his rook or queen on the open c-file.
11.Bc5 Be6 12.a4 dxe4 13.dxe4 Nd7 14.Be3
It was unquestionably much stronger to take the e6-bishop first, Black could not avoid retaking, and consequently forming a weak doubled pawn in the center; for if he took 14...Nxc5, the winning answer was 15.Bd5, followed by 16.axb4 in case the queen protected the knight.
14...Bxb3 15.Qxb3 bxa4 16.Qc4 Qf6 17.Rxa4 0-0
Finely played. We give a diagram of this position. White dare not take the a-pawn, for Black would win then the exchange at least by 18...Na5, attacking the rook twice.
18.0-0 a5 19.Rfa1 [1:00-?:??] 19...Nb6 20.Bxb6 cxb6 21.Qb5 Na7 22.Qe2 Rfc8 [?:??-1:00] 23.Rc4
A move thrown away entirely. 23.Nc4, attacking the e-pawn once more, was the correct play, and he could then gain the strong post at d5 with his knight in two moves, viá e3. It is obvious that Black could not reply 23...b5, on account of the rejoinder 24.Rxa5, doubly attacking the black knight.
23...Nc6 24.Rca4
Sooner or later he must have beaten the retreat with his rook, for Black threatened to cut it off first by ...Bf8, with the intention of advancing the b-pawn on it.
24...Rab8 25.Qb5 Na7 26.Qd7
All these maneuvers of the queen are useless, and lead to no favorable result. He ought again to have tried to fix his d2-knight at d5, viá f1 and e3.
26...Nc6 27.Qd3
Notwithstanding the loss of time which he had incurred, he had still a fair game, and he evidently did not wish to give the opponent the option of drawing at once by constantly attacking the queen with the rook at d8 and c8.
27...b5 28.R4a2 Rd8 29.Qe2 Bf8 30.Nf1 Bc5 31.Ne3
He comes too late now. His opponent has, with due care, provided against the sally of the knight by preparing its exchange on the last move.
31...Bxe3 32.Qxe3 Kg7 33.Qc5 [2:00-?:??] 33...Qd6 34.Qxd6 Rxd6 35.Kf1 f5 36.Re1 Kf6 37.Raa1 Rbd8 38.Re2 a4 [?:??-2:00] 39.Ke1 f4
He closes the game upon the kingside, in order to be able to utilize his knight, which he could nor move before, as White would win a pawn by exchanging the f-pawn, and opening a double attack on the e-pawn.
40.Rd2 Rxd2 41.Nxd2 Na5 42.Ke2
An extraordingary oversight. He must have been worn out and tired to overlook the opponent's plain reply. 42.Rd1 would have made his game quite safe, and Black could expect no more than a draw at the utmost; for White could offer the exchange of rooks by withdrawing the knight, and Black would then have to take care of his loosely advanced b-pawn.
42...Rxd2+ 43.Kxd2 Nb3+ 44.Kd3 Nxa1 45.c4 bxc4+ 46.Kxc4 Nc2 47.Kc3 a3 0-1
London Field, 1880.06.05

Game 13: Thursday, June 3, 1880.

The thirteenth game, played on Thursday, the 3rd inst. The opening was the same as in the seventh game of the match up to White’s eighth move, when Zukertort adopted the attack by Kt to B 5 which we had recommended in our not (b) to that game. Rosenthal also pursued the defence given in our comments; but his adversary had evidently examined this variation beyond the limit of our notes; for, almost without any hesitation, he made a succession of moves instituting a perplexing attack whereby he left a P to be gained by the opponent, which, however, he would have recovered at least, with the better game, if Rosenthal accepted the offer. At the same time it would have been difficult for the French master always to make the right reply. Rosenthal exhausted a great deal of time and apparently useless calculation before he entered on the process of simplification, which gave him an even game in a few moves. The struggle for development was then transferred to the Q side, and White had somewhat the best of it up to the 26th move, when Zukertort left himself open to the loss of a clear P on the Q side. Rosenthal, who was short of time at that stage, did not see it, and, on the contrary, adopted a manœuvre whereby he lost a clear P himself. The French master played better after the 30th move, when the pressure of time limit had ceased, yet he missed his opportunity on the 33rd move of much improving his game. Zukertort was rather lax in his attention for some moves after he had gained the P, but his play from the 35th move was of a very high order. Rosenthal left a piece to be taken, evidently in result of a miscalculation, but it looked feasible enough at the time, and the sacrifice could only be defeated by the exact calculation which his opponent had evidently prepared. Every move of Zukertort combined attack and defence, and, though his K was apparently driven up to the dangerous hostile quarter, it soon became clear that the winner of the Paris tournament had in his forecast provided his final escape with an overwhelming superiority of forces. When Rosenthal resigned he was bound to lost a clear R, being at the time already four pawns behind. Duration, six hours and a half.
London Field, 1880.06.05

Date: 1880.06.03
Site: ENG London
Event: Match, Game 13
White: Zukertort,JH
Black: Rosenthal,S
Opening: [C65] Spanish
Annotator: Steinitz
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nf6 4.d4 exd4 5.0-0 Be7 6.e5 Ne4 7.Nxd4 0-0 8.Nf5
It will be remembered that in the seventh game of the match Zukertort adopted the much inferior move 8.Re1 at this point.
8...d5 9.Nxe7+ Nxe7 10.f3 c6 11.fxe4 Qb6+ 12.Kh1 Qxb5 13.Nc3 Qc5 [?:??-1:00] 14.Bg5
White rests his attack on the principle of rapid development, and his position is apparently worth the pawn he offers to give up.
Best. Had he played to gain the pawn, the game might have progressed thus: 14...dxe4 15.Nxe4 Qxe5 16.Nf6+ gxf6 (best; if 16...Kh8, then follows 17.Nxh7, 18.Qh5+ and 19.Rae1 as pointed out by Zukertort.) 17.Bxf6 Qd5 (best; any attempt to save the piece would be disastrous, on account of the reply 18.Qh5, or 18.Qd2, or 18.Qc1, always threatening either 19.Qg5+, or 19.Qh6, with a winning game.) 18.Qc1 Qh5 19.Bxe7, with the superior game. We may state that we thought at first that the capture of the e-pawn would be fraught with much greater danger, on account of the reply 16.Re1; but, on examination, we come the conclusion that Black might in that case retreat the queen to c7; and if the hostile knight sacrificed itself at f6, he might take, followed by 18...Nd5, and mostly afterwards by ...Qf4.
15.exd5 Nxe5 16.dxc6 Qxc6 17.Qe1
If 17.Nd5, the only answer was 17...Ng6.
17...f6 18.Bf4 Ng6 19.Rd1 Re8 20.Qf2 Be6 21.Rd6 Qc4 22.Rd4 Qc6 23.Rfd1 Qb6 24.Na4 Qa5 25.b3 Rac8 26.c4
Apparently an oversight. He endangers an important pawn thereby.
Black also overlooks that he could safely capture the c-pawn with the bishop, for the adverse knight was bound to lose ultimate support if White retook; and, in reply to 27.Bd2, the queen could keep its hold on the knight by 27...Qa6.
27.Bd2 Qc7
27...Qa6 looks awkward, but we feel sure that the legitimate result would not have justified the prejudice which appearances raise against it. It was certain to turn out better than to give up a clear pawn on the queenside, where he was already in a minority.
28.cxb5 Red8 29.Bc3 [1:00-?:??]
We should have preferred 29.Be3, which would have kept greater pressure on the root of Black’s position, his a-pawn, without ultimately necessitating the desertion of White’s queen from his kingside, which afterwards might have caused some trouble.
29...Rxd4 30.Qxd4 Nf8 [?:??-2:00] 31.h3 Qb7
White’s last move was weak. Black takes prompt advantage, for he also threatens now 32...Bxh3.
32.Kg1 Qxb5 33.Qxa7
Which now exposes him. See note to White’s 29th move.
Dr. Ballard subsequently pointed out that Black might have here obtained a very good game by the following line of play: 33...Qe2 34.Re1 (This seems best; if 34.Ra1, Black may capture the bishop, followed by 35...Qb2) 34...Qxa2 35.Rxe6 Rxc3 (not 35...Nxe6, or else he would lose by the answer 36.Qd7) 36.Re7 Rg3, etc.
34.Qd4 Qg5 35.Nb6
A beautiful move, which completely answers the opponent’s intended attack.
Had he taken the h-pawn, White would have checked with the queen at d5, and retaken with the knight, threatening 38.Ne7+.
36.Rd2 Re8 37.Qc4+ Kh8
Under a misapprehension. He exaggerates the attack he obtained by the sacrifice. Of course, the proper move would have been 37...Re6.
38.Qxc6 Re1+
Which required great courage, but he had clearly seen through all complications arising therefrom, as the sequel shows.
39.Kh2 Qe3
Nothing was to be gained by 39...Qf4+, followed afterwards either by 40...Qf1 or 40...Qe3, for the ultimate respective answers of 41.Rg2 or 41.Qg2 made White’s game secure.
Better than 40.Rd3, which would have made his defense troublesome, e.g.: 40.Rd3 Qg1+ 41.Kg3 Re3+ 42.Rxe3 Qxe3+ 43.Kh2 Qf4+, and if the pawn interposes, the queen checks again at f2, winning the knight if queen interposes, otherwise White will be much harassed before he can escape all hostile checks.
40...Qg1+ 41.Kg3 [2:00-?:??] 41...h5 42.Qb6
All this is very fine play. He apparently gives up a piece, but he would recover the same speedily with advantage.
Had he exchanged queens, the game would have proceeded thus: 42...Qxb6 43.Nxb6 Re3+ 44.Kh2 Rxc3 45.Rd8, followed by 46.Nd7, if the king defends the knight, winning.
43.Kxh4 Qh2 44.Bxf6 Re4+ 45.Kh5 Qg3
The last chance. He still threatens mate by 46...Rh4+, and 47...g6+, etc.
White’s play furnishes a fine example of modern style. He has worked his king up fearlessly, and now finishes off with a few energetic strokes. We give a diagram of the position.
46...Kxg7 47.Qf6+ Kh7 48.Qf7+ 1-0
London Field, 1880.06.05

Game 14: Monday, June 7, 1880.

The Match Between Messrs Rosenthal And Zukertort.
The fourteenth game was played on Monday, the 7th inst. This was the only game which occurred in the course of last week, two adjournments having taken place respectively on Saturday and Wednesday last. The delays were arranged in accordance with a bye-law to the conditions of the contest, which allows either player to claim exemption twice in the course of two months. We believe that in the true interest of match play it was no more than reasonable to introduce such a safeguard, which, in case of series illness would afford great relief, and occasionally would have also give either player time for recruiting himself from the effect of overwork and fatigue, or from the depressing influence of a defeat or series of reverses. The unusual length of the present contest must make such postponements welcome to both players; for it should also be remembered that Herr Zukertort’s attention is greatly engaged with the difficult editorial work in connection with the Chess Monthly; and M. Rosenthal, on the other hand, pleads that his state of health is not equal to the continued mental exertion of hard match play for weeks in succession. The two adjournments took place at the instance of the French master. On the first occasion—viz., in reference to the adjournment over Saturday—Herr Zukertort handsomely agreed no to count that postponement as one of the two exemption days to which M. Rosenthal is entitles with two months.

The game played on Monday was again opened by M. Rosenthal with a Ruy Lopez. It certainly seems, as a prominent member of the St. George’s Chess Club observed, as if the two masters held the opinion that the advantage of the first move cannot be maintained in any other opening that in the Spanish, or in the close game. The French player conducted the attack as in the fourth game, with the exception that he posted his K B at Q Kt 3 this time, instead of at B 2. He concentrated all the other minor pieces on the K side, and evidently aimed at opening by P to K B 4. Against the K fianchetto in the defence, which Zukertort had again adopted, such a plan appear unfavourable for the attack, for it opens the most important diagonal for the adverse K B, which ought to be kept shut out as long as possible. He had also given the opponent time for doubling his rooks on the Q file, and, almost as soon as he effected his design of breaking through on the K B file, Rosenthal had a dead lost game on the other wing. Zukertort, however, missed his best opportunity on the twentieth move, where he made the inferior retreat with his Kt to Kt 2, instead of removing it to B 2, with the intention of sacrificing the same if his opponent advanced the Q P. He would have obtained three clear pawns and R for two minor pieces, with an overpowering attack; while the way he actually played subjected him to a block on the Q side, and enabled the opponent to form an attack on the other wing. Rosenthal, thus released from one danger which might have proved at once fatal, soon rushed into another. He had the best of the game on the twenty-third move, when he could have finessed for position, and would have much improved his game if he had first played the Q to B 3, instead of at once to K 3. The latter move gave the winner of the Paris tournament occasion for one of his brilliant coups. He offered the sacrifice of the exchange, for which, if accepted, he would have obtained three pawns with the superior position. Under any circumstances, and as it actually went, he came out with a strong attack. A fine series of manœuvres followed on both sides; but the Frenchman had to struggle against the greater difficulty, and his time allowance was running short just on the thirtieth move, which, unfortunately for him, happened to be a decisive point, from the nature of the position. He decided wrongly. Instead of checking with the Q at B 7, and then retreating the Kt to B 2, which gave him a good chance of drawing, he withdrew the Kt to R 2, whence he had come, and thus enabled Zukertort, by a series of very fine manœuvre, to force the game. Herr Zukertort ultimately came out with a clear piece ahead by a very clever final process. Duration, our [sic] hours. Score—Zukertort, 5; Rosenthal, 1; drawn, 8.
London Field, 1880.06.12

Date: 1880.06.07
Site: ENG London
Event: Match, Game 14
White: Rosenthal,S
Black: Zukertort,JH
Opening: [C77] Spanish
Annotator: Steinitz
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nf6 4.d3 d6 5.c3 a6 6.Ba4 g6 7.h3 Bg7 8.Be3
In the fourth game of the match Rosenthal brought out the b1-knight, viá d2, before developing the bishop. In view of the plan of fixing this knight ultimately at g3, the alteration in the order of moves is insignificant; but we believe that the post at e3, which was chosen for this knight in the first game of the Steinitz-Blackburne match, is more adapted for attacking purposes, and should therefore be reserved.
8...h6 9.Nbd2 Qe7 10.Nf1 Be6 11.Ng3
See preceding note. In face of the adverse kingside fianchetto, in which Black’s g-pawn protects every square commanded by White’s knight for aggressive purposes. g3 does not appear a good place for the latter, which might better have been left at d2.
11...b5 12.Bb3 d5 13.0-0 0-0 14.Nh2
The whole plan of White’s attack does not sufficiently balance conflicting considerations. It is generally a sound principle to try to obtain the majority of pawns on the queenside, and he evidently aims at that object in preparing the advance of the f-pawn; but he does not make sufficient allowance for his opening the range of the hostile g7-bishop on his own queenside, and for the dangerous action of the two hostile rooks, which the opponent will be able to double on the open d-file.
14...Rad8 15.Qe2 Na5 16.exd5 Nxd5 17.Bxd5 Rxd5 18.f4 exf4 19.Bxf4 Rfd8
We should have preferred 19...b4 at once, which would have weakened the adverse queenside, for White could not take without exposing himself still more.
20.b4 [1:00-?:??]
An ill-considered advance, which might have cost the game on the spot.
Feeble. The proper answer was 20...Nc6, which would have gained at least one important pawn on the queenside, for White could not then advance the d-pawn and allow the opponent to sacrifice the knight, e.g.: 20...Nc6 21.d4 Nxd4 22.cxd4 Bxd4+ 23.Kh1 Bxa1 24.Rxa1 Qxb4 , and White can neither take the h-pawn not the c-pawn, on account of the immediately winning reply 25...Qc3, attacking two pieces. Consequently Black remains with three strong pawns and a rook for two minor pieces; besides that, the adverse a-pawn is weak and indefensible in the long run. The advantage clearly preponderates on Black’s side.
21.d4 R5d7 22.Rae1 Qh4 23.Qe3
He did not master the situation, or else he would have seen that he had to gain this point in a roundabout way, or he subjected himself to danger at present. The proper play was 23.Qf3, attacking the knight, whereupon the game might have proceeded thus: 23.Qf3 Bd5 24.Qe3 (now he can safely enter this square, as the opponent’s rooks are shut out) 24...Nd6 25.Nf3 Bxf3 26.Qxf3 , with the superior game.
23...Rxd4 [?:??-1:00]
A fine resource, which turns the tables, at least as far as the attack is concerned. We give a diagram of this position.
Perhaps best under the circumstances; but we are not quite sure whether he could not accept the proffered exchange, e.g.: 24.Nf3 Qxf4 25.cxd4 (it comes to the same if he take 25.Nxd4, for the adverse rook will always retake after exchanging queens) 25...Qxe3+ 26.Rxe3 Rxd4 27.Nxd4 Bxd4 28.Rff3 Bxa2 29.Kf1 Bc4+ 30.Ke1 Bxe3 31.Rxe3 c5 (if 31...a5, White may reply 32.Re7) 32.Ra3 cxb4 33.Rxa6, with a fair prospect of a draw.
24...Rd3 25.Qb6
Best. If 25.Bxd8 , then followed: 25...Qxd8 26.Qf2 (if 26.Qf4 , the g-pawn attacks again) 26...Bxc3 threatening 27...Bd4, and recovering the exchange with an excellent attack.
25...Rxg3 26.Rxe6
Again the only move. He could not take 26.Qxb7 at once before getting rid of the bishop, on account of the crushing reply 26...Bd5.
26...fxe6 27.Bxg3 Qxg3 28.Qxb7 Rd2 29.Ng4 h5 30.Nh2 [2:00-?:??]
Which throws away his last chance for a draw. He could not check with 30.Nf6+, for Black, after exchanging, would check 31...Rd1+, followed by 32...Qe3+, winning the rook. Nor could he retreat 30.Nf2 without subjecting himself to immediate disaster by the reply 30...Be5. But he might have checked first with 30.Qf7+, followed by 31.Nf2, and we very much doubt whether Black would then obtain a winning position by force, for if his bishop moved away he was always subjected to checks, and his rook had to guard against the opponent occupying the open d-file with his own rook. It should be observed that Black had no better answer to 30.Qf7+ than 30...Kh8; for, if 30...Kh7, the adverse knight would check at f6 and draw at least by perpetual check at g8 and f6, as the black king dare not then go back to h8.
30...Rxa2 31.Kh1 Re2
Quite right. He secures first the majority of pawns, in order that he should not be harassed by an offer of the exchange of queens, for instance, by Qf3.
32.Qa8+ Kh7 33.Rf7 Re1+ 34.Nf1 Qxc3 35.Qxa6 Qc4 36.Kg1 Rxf1+
White’s conduct of this difficult ending presents a model of finessing maneuvers.
37.Rxf1 Bd4+ 0-1
London Field, 1880.06.12

Thursday, June 10, 1880.

Complimentary Dinner

The complimentary dinner of the St. George’s Chess Club in honour of MM. Morel and Rosenthal, came off, in accordance with our previous announcement, on Thursday last, at the Criterion Restaurant. The Earl of Dartrey presided. After the repast the noble chairman, in proposing the loyal toasts, expressed his gratification, amidst loud cheers, at the club having the honour of counting a member of the royal family (H. R. H. Prince Leopold) amongst its members. The noble lord next proposed the health of M. Grévy, the President of the French Republic, who, before and since his elevation to his exalted office, had given his warmest support to the cultivation of the game in France. The next toast proposed by the noble lord was the health of M. Morel, one of the guests of the evening, who was received with warmest applause when returning thanks in French. Mr Lindsay, in proposing the health of M. Rosenthal, said that the members of the club felt the highest satisfaction at the election of M. Rosenthal as an honorary member. The French master numbered amongst his pupils some of the highest personages of all parties in France, and had also during his stay amongst us gained a great many friends through his personal qualities. M. Rosenthal was chivalrously fighting against one of the finest players in the world, and he (Mr Lindsay) hoped that both parties would be able to develope their best abilities, feeling sure that the members of the club only wished the success of superior skill, quite apart from the least personal considerations. (Loud cheers.)

M. Rosenthal, who returned thanks in French, said that he felt deeply grateful for the honour accorded to him, and, no matter what might be the result of the contest in which he was engaged, he would always entertain a vivid recollection of the hospitality bestowed upon him by the members of the St. George’s Chess Club. He had been treated with perfect fairness in reference to the match, and with great kindness and consideration in his private capacity, and he felt proud of belonging to a body of devotees to the game who were so evidently inspired by sentiments of honour and justice.

Lord Randolph Churchill, M. P., next proposed the health of the hon. members, coupled with the name of Herr Zukertort. The noble lord, amidst loud cheers, expressed his deep regret at the loss which the club had sustained by the death of Professor Anderssen, but he was happy to see that the other luminaries of chess who were on the list of honorary members were still living, though not all present. His Excellency Baron Heydebrandt von der Lasa had, with his great analytical works, raised the noble game to a real science, and Paul Morphy, probably the greatest chess genius who ever lived, had left an indelible mark on the history of our pastime. The noble lord then alluded in handsome terms to the hon. members present, Messrs Rosenthal, Steinitz, and Zukertort, and especially bestowed high praise on the latter’s anaytical labours in the Chess Monthly.

Herr Zukertort briefly returned thanks.

Mr F. H. Lewis, in a humorous and complimentary speech, proposed the health of the chess-masters, coupled with the name of Herr Steinitz, and, in the course of some clever-observations in reference to the game, he wished an answer to the question, what were the necessary mental qualifications for forming a chess master?

Herr Steinitz, who warmly returned thanks, said that he could not answer the question from a scientific point of view, but he felt sure that chess was a school for strict honesty and truthfulness. The game was free from trickery and deception, and he had always observed that the strongest players were those who merely tried to arrive at true conclusions, without speculating in the least on the opponent’s weakness. The illustrious President of the French Republic, who some time ago wrote in the album of a French lady the true words “Life is a game of chess,” and he expressed the hope that people would come to the conclusion that deception does not play in the long run, any more in life than in chess, for the deceiver merely deceives himself.

The Rev. W. Wayte, who, in a humorous address, proposed the health of the hon. secretary, Mr Minchin, congratulated the latter on having come out decisively as this year’s champion of the St. George’s Chess Club, by winning both the Lowenthal tournament and the winter handicap of the club. The speaker then related some anecdotes from the “Life of Lord Palmerston” to show that chess had been a favourite game with the late Prince Albert and Her Majesty the Queen, the following amongst others: On one occasion Her Majesty played a game with the Queen of the Belgians, who was then on a visit to England, and in the course of the contest Lord Palmerston strained his constitutional privileges so far as to give his sovereign some hints about the game, which, notwithstanding his assistance, was win by the Belgian royal lady. “It was the fault of your Majesty’s humble adviser,” said the Prime Minister, consolingly. The toast was received with great applause, and with musical honours. Some other speeches followed after Mr Minchin’s reply. The greatest cordiality prevailed throughout the meeting, and the French guests of the evening were duly honoured in most of the speeches. M. Sipier, a member of the Paris Cercle des Echecs, was a visitor at the dinner.
London Field, 1880.06.12

Game 15: Saturday, June 12, 1880.

The Match Between Messrs Rosenthal And Zukertort.

The 15th game was played on Saturday, the 12th inst. The finest game of the match, and really one of the finest actual ending games on record, ensued this time from a close opening adopted by Zukertort. As in the 11th game, Kt to K B 3 was his first move, and the struggle developed itself on both sides on the principles on which the 9th and 11th games were conducted. Some alterations occurred in the order of moves, which were treated in the routine style by the first player, who pursued the usual course, while we believe White could have obtained a strong array of pawns on the Q side as early as the 5th move, by P to B 5, after Black had brought out the B to Q 3 untimely, thus allowing the advance of the hostile P, with the gain of a move for the opponent. White’s attack on the Q side soon assumed the threatening aspect usually obtained in this opening, and Black ought to have sought compensation by breaking through on the other wing, but missed this opportunity on the 14th move, when we believe he could have advanced the K P with advantage. Again, on the 19th move, Rosenthal, much to his own disadvantage, altered the course he had adopted in the 9th game, and captured the advancing hostile Q Kt P, thus opening the Q R file, of which the opponent could retain full possession. Black had then already the inferior game; but his best chance of fighting for a draw consisted in capturing the Kt P too, instead of which Rosenthal allowed the latter to advance, and to block up the black K B completely. Zukertort had thus planted a forest of pawns from K 3 up to Kt 6, indestructible for the enemy, and covering the movements of his own pieces, for which he had retained freedom of action, and sufficient access on the Q side for a final break through. Rosenthal apparently did not suspect his insecurity in that quarter, and his movements were of a waiting nature, while his opponent executed a series of masterly manœuvres with the object of being enabled to exercise a pressure alternately on either wing. Rosenthal’s 25th move was faulty, and certainly assisted the adverse design. Later on, Black might have blocked the K side in order to concentrate his attention on the defence of the other wing. But we allowed the advance of the hostile K R P to R 5, which Zukertort accomplished by a well-calculated system of moves of hs R for gaining time. Rosenthal was then reduced to a mere spectator of what the opponent was going to do, and made several moves with his R and Q of an insignificant character, altering the squares on which he posted the two pieces evidently only for the purpose of avoiding flagrant repetition moves. A curious question might have here arisen if Rosenthal’s choice of squares had been more limited. He would have been deprived of the benefit of the repetition moves for the time limit after the third occasion, and the opponent, besides being able to claim a draw, could slowly prepare the attack in hand, altering the course at his own convenience, and might ultimately speculate on the enormous advantage of time pressure in framing the final assault. This would have been a great hardship in the present case, and appears quite unjust on principles. We think that the rule in future should be altered to the effect that competent umpires should decide whether the repetition moves are compulsory or not. The plot thickened from White’s 26th move up to his 36th move, and it became evident in the meanwhile that Zukertort aimed at the exchange of queens, and to manœuvre his K to the other side in support of an ultimate attack on the root of Black’s position, the Q Kt P. When the plan was fully divulged on the 45th move, at which point Zukertort offered a beautiful sacrifice of the K B, the scheme had been prepared with the utmost exactitude in the position of White’s pieces, and Black could find no means of escape on either wing. His movements with the B to gain the K Kt P came too late, and Zukertort increased the advantage obtained on the Q side with a beautiful sacrifice of the exchange, which gave him a well-supported passed P. A few elegant and vigorously executed manœuvres with his K and the two bishops ended in the gain of a clear piece, and ultimately White had also a passed B P which could go straight to queen, whereupon Rosenthal resigned. Duration, six hours.
London Field, 1880.06.19

Date: 1880.06.12
Site: ENG London
Event: Match, Game 15
White: Zukertort,JH
Black: Rosenthal,S
Opening: [D06] Queen’s Gambit
Annotator: Steinitz
1.Nf3 d5 2.d4 Bf5 3.e3 e6 4.c4 Nf6 5.a3
The position is only slightly altered from the eleventh game of the match; and we cannot therefore alter our opinion that this is loss of time.
Wrong, we have no doubt. Even in close game he cannot afford to lose moves so early.
It was quite good enough to advance 6.c5 at once, followed by 7.b4. However much Black might have struggled to break the pawns by ...b6 and ...a5, he could never get rid of the phalanx, if White only brought out the bishop to b2, and Black’s game was badly blocked at once.
6...c6 7.b4 a6 8.Bb2 Nbd7 9.Be2 Ne4 10.Nxe4 Bxe4 11.c5 Bc7 12.0-0 0-0
He could have equalized the game now by 12...Bxf3, followed by 13...e5. White could then hardly allow the e-pawn to advance further, as the opponent, who had not yet castled on the same side, would obtain afterwards the usual sort of attack, viz., ...Qh4, and the subsequent pushing of the pawns on the kingside.
13.Nd2 Bg6 14.a4 Nf6
At any risk, we should have preferred attempting a diversion in the center by 14...e5 at this point. The game might then have proceeded thus: 14...e5 15.dxe5 Nxe5 16.f4 Nd3 17.Bc3 d4, and whether pawn or bishop takes, the answer would be 18...Nxf4, with a good game.
15.f3 Qb8
A good move, which forces White to submit to a weak pint at e3.
16.f4 Ne4
But now he could have better utilized his previous maneuver. He should have advanced 16...b5, and either he would soon create a block on the most vulnerable queen’s wing, or else obtain a good attack for himself, e.g.: 16...b5 17.cxb6 Qxb6 18.a5 (if 18.Qb3, Black would again attack by 18...Rab8, followed by 19...a5) 18...Qxb4 19.Ba3 Qc3 20.Bxf8 Qxe3+ 21.Kh1 Kxf8, winning another pawn for the exchange, with an excellent game.
17.Nxe4 Bxe4 18.Qd2 Qd8 19.b5 axb5
Bad. As in the ninth game, he ought never to have taken, but should have moved 19...Qd7 at once.
20.axb5 Qd7
Worse. Once he had captured, he was bound to exchange both pawns, and not to allow himself to be blocked in altogether. Under any circumstances, if he intended to allow the hostile advance, he should have moved 20...Qe7 at once, which saved him the trouble of gaining that post on the 23rd move.
21.b6 Rxa1 22.Rxa1 Bb8 23.Bc3 Qe7 24.Qb2
This maneuver prevents the hostile plan of breaking through in the center with ...f6; for, even should Black support this attack once more by 24...Re8, White may keep him engaged by the answer 25.Ra8.
Some bolder course was now imperative. He ought to have advanced 24...g5; for White could not take without losing an important pawn. Black would, therefore, open the g-file, followed by ...Kh8 and ...Rg8 with some attack on the kingside as a set-off for his cramped position on the other wing.
25.Be1 Kh7 26.Bg3 f5 [?:??-1:00]
Very feeble. He not alone blocks up his other bishop, but deprives himself of all chance of liberating himself in the center. 26...f6 was the right move, and would have kept most of White’s pieces engaged to prevent the advance of ...e5.
27.Bf1 Rg8 28.Qf2 [1:00-?:??] 28...Rf8 29.Be2 Rg8 30.Ra8 Rf8 31.Ra3
The last two moves of the rook were superfluous. He might have advanced the h-pawn at once.
31...Rg8 32.h4 Qf7 33.Ra1
But this time there is a great finesse in the movement of the rook. He wishes either the hostile rook or queen from their present respective positions, in order to advance the h-pawn, and then to be enabled to take with the f-pawn in case Black replied ...g5. At present he would be in danger if he pursued that plan—e.g.: 33.h5 g5 34.fxg5 Bxg3 35.g6+ Rxg6 36.hxg6+ Qxg6, threatening ...Qg5 and ...Qh4, with a winning attack.
See our opening remarks. We should have advanced 33...h5, blocking the kingside afterwards by ...g6, and he had then a fair prospect of drawing.
34.h5 Qf7 35.Bh4 Re8 36.Qg3
An excellent move. After this Black’s game may be regarded as lost.
36...Rg8 [?:??-2:00] 37.Ra8 Re8
He is hampered in every direction. It would have been useless to attempt 37...g5, for White could take 38.hxg6+; and if 38...Rxg6, he would give up the queen by 39.Rxb8. The b-pawn was bound to fall ultimately by Rc8 and Rc7, even if the queen kept defending it, and then the passed pawn would win. It is also plain that if 36...Bxf4, White would win a piece by the answer 37.Qg6+.
38.Kf2 Kg8
White makes it somewhat easier for the opponent, who intended to exchange queens, having prepared a brilliant winning maneuver on the other wing.
39.Qg6 Qxg6 40.hxg6 Kf8 41.g3 Rc8 42.Ke1 Ke8 43.Kd2 Bg2
Had he played 43...Kd7 the game might have proceeded thus: 43...Kd7 44.Bh5 Rf8 45.Bf6 gxf6 (if 45...Bd6 White may reply 46.Ra7) 46.g7 Rg8 47.Bf7 Rxg7 48.Rxb8, and wins, for Black dare not take the bishop, or else White takes 49.Rxb7+, and exchanges rooks, going afterwards to queen without hindrance.
44.Kc3 Bh3 45.Ba6
A master coup, which decides the game. We give a diagram of the position:
He could not hope for the least relief by sacrificing the exchange—e.g.: 45...bxa6 46.b7 Kd7 47.bxc8Q+ Kxc8 48.Bf6 Kb7 49.Rxb8+ Kxb8 50.Bxg7, followed by 51...Be5+, and wins.
46.Bxb7 Re8 47.Kb4 [2:00-?:??] 47...Bg4 48.Ka5 Bh5 49.Ba6 Bxg6 [?:??-3:00] 50.Ra7+
All this is in splendid style.
50...Bxa7 51.bxa7 Kc7 52.Be7
Finis. After this fine stroke winning becomes a matter of course.
52...Ra8 53.Bd6+ Kd8 54.Kb6 Be8 55.Bb7 Rxa7 56.Kxa7 g5 57.Kb6 g4 58.Bxc6 Bf7 59.Bb5 1-0
London Field, 1880.06.19

Game 16: Thursday, June 17, 1880.

The sixteenth game, played on Thursday, June 17. It is no compliment to M. Rosenthal to dwell on the fact that the match is still proceeding, though his opponent has only one more game to win since Saturday last, for the former is merely fulfilling a plain duty in holding out. Nor can it be the least offensive to Herr Zukertort to suggest that his victory is no absolute certainty at the present moment, though no doubt the odds are immensely in his favour. Strange things have happened in some previous contests, and in several instances on record a similar preponderance in the score was not sufficient to secure the final superiority. In the famous match between Harrwitz and Lowenthal for the first eleven games, the latter stood at nine games to two at one time, but afterwards could gain no more than one game, while his opponent kept on winning and drawing, until at last the victory fell to Harrwitz. In the match between Kolisch and Paulsen (ten games up), the latter stood at six to one in the early part of the contest, which, however, had to be drawn ultimately after a series of hard fights, the final score being Paulsen seven, Kolisch six, drawn nineteen. Still more striking is the case of Campbell against Barnes, which was a match for the first seven games. The latter had scored six game without a break, but did not succeed in winning one more game, while his opponent pulled up gradually to the full score, and actually won the match. This ought to be a warning, as much against over-confidence on the one side as against premature despair on the other.—Rosenthal again opened with a Ruy Lopez of the same description as in the fourteenth game, which Zukertort defended in the same style as on the last occasion. Rosenthal remedied this time the defect in his plan of posting the Q Kt pointed out in our last week’s issue, and he left that Kt at Q 2, as suggested in our note (b) to the fourteenth game. He obtained a good opening with a well-supported development of pawns in the centre, and we believe he could have instituted an earlier attack by R to Q B sq on the 13th move. His 15th move was indifferent, as well as his 21st. On the latter occasion he could have much improved the formation of his lines by Q to B 2, followed by Kt to Q B 4. But he obtained sufficient pressure on the Q side to compel the opponent to sacrifice the exchange for two pawns. We agree with Rosenthal in the opinion that the adverse pawns were not superior to his own advantage, as they could be attacked by one R in the rear, and their advance could be finally stopped by bringing up White’s K, which was near enough to for the purpose. As it went, Zukertort overlooked a fine manœuvre of the opponent, which cost a clear P, and his game would have been utterly hopeless had Rosenthal brought his K to the rescue at the right time, viz., on the 37th move. Rosenthal committed a fatal error as far as his chances of winning were concerned, on the 38th move, where he could have safely exchanged pawns, and then again he had time to play his K round. Instead thereof, he allowed an important P to go, which ultimately compelled his returning the exchange gained, and the game then became equalised. Rosenthal tried some useless dodges in the ending after the adjournment, but could not succeed in disturbing the balance in his own favour. Duration, six hours. Score: Zukertort six, Rosenthal one, drawn nine.
London Field, 1880.06.19

Date: 1880.06.17
Site: ENG London
Event: Match, Game 16
White: Rosenthal,S
Black: Zukertort,JH
Opening: [C77] Spanish
Annotator: Steinitz
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nf6 4.d3 d6 5.c3 a6 6.Ba4 g6 7.h3 Bg7 8.Be3 Qe7 9.Nbd2 h6 10.Qc2 Be6 11.d4 exd4 12.cxd4 Bd7 13.d5
His opening moves were sound and in accordance with the principles of this form of attack; but here we should have preferred 13.Rc1 . If Black took the e-pawn, White would recover the pawn, with the superior game, by 14.d5.
13...Ne5 14.Bxd7+ Nexd7 15.Qd3
Loss of time. 15.Qc4, at once was much better.
15.Q to B 3 is given in the issue of June 19; corrected to 15.Q to Q 3 on June 26. -[Pope]
15...0-0 16.0-0 Rfe8 17.Rfe1 Rad8
His hesitation to open the game gets him into a cramped position. We see no objection to taking the e-pawn, fearless of the pinning maneuvers, and the game might have proceeded thus: 17...Nxe4 18.Bd4 (if 18.Bxh6, the answer is 18...Ndc5) 18...f5 19.Bxg7 Kxg7 20.Nd4 Ndc5, followed mostly by 20...Qf7, attacking the d-pawn with the superior game.
18.Rac1 Nc5 19.Bxc5 dxc5 20.Qc4
Which at any rate proves that he had previously lost a move (see note to White’s 15th move). Under any circumstances, it was stronger move to retreat 20.Qc2, followed mostly by 21.Nc4.
20...Nd7 21.b3 b5 22.Qc2 Qd6 23.Rcd1 Re7 24.a4 [1:00-?:??] 24...c6
Hazardous. Zukertort informs us that he foresaw the opponent’s maneuvers, but gave up the exchange designedly, having faith in the strength of his two passed pawns. We should have preferred doubling the rooks on the e-file.
25.e5 Nxe5
Of course he could not capture the d-pawn, or the answer 26.Ne4, followed by 27.Nxc5, would have been ruinous.
Zukertort points out if 26.Ne4 at once, he would have taken 26...Nxf3+, followed by 27...Rxe4, and afterwards mostly 28...Bd4, threatening then ...Qg3+, etc.
26...Rxe5 27.Ne4 Rxe4 28.Qxe4 cxd5 29.Qe7
Well played. This was the best way to fight against the pawns’ superiority.
29...bxa4 30.Qxd6 Rxd6 31.Re8+ Kh7 [?:??-1:00]
Interposing the bishop was better; but even then the pawns could be successfully stopped, and Black would have been kept on the defensive—e.g.: 31...Bf8 32.bxa4 d4 33.Rc8 Rb6 34.Ra8, followed by 35.a5, threatening ultimately to fix himself at b6 with his rook, via b3, whenever Black’s rook leaves the b-file.
32.bxa4 c4 33.Rc8 c3 34.Rc5
Which wins the most important pawn, and ought to have won the game; for, even if the d-pawn advances, White can take the c-pawn.
34...Re6 35.Rdxd5 Re1+ 36.Kh2 Re2 37.f4
Already loss of time. We see no defense against 37.Kg3. Of course we cannot enter into a full analysis, and give only what seems to us the most plausible way of continuing the resistance: 37.Kg3 Rd2 38.Rxd2 cxd2 39.Rd5 Bc3 40.Kf3 Kg7 41.Ke2 a5 42.Rd3 Bb4 43.Rd4 Bc3 (he must move the bishop, or White would take it off) 44.Rc4, and wins.
37...g5 38.Rd7 [2:00-?:??]
A grave error. We give a diagram of the position.
He could safely take the pawn, and all he had afterwards to care for was not to take the second time if Black retook or advanced the c-pawn—e.g.: 38.fxg5 c2 (if 38...hxg5, then also 39.Kg3) 39.Kg3 Bb2 40.Kf3.
38...gxf4 39.Rxf7 Kg6
He threatens now to win by 39...f3 and 40...f2, in case the adversary removes to c7 to stop the other pawn, and he must recover the exchange.
If 40.Rxc3, then followed, of course, 40...Be5.
40...Kxg7 41.Rxc3 Kf6 42.Kg1 Re4 43.Rc6+ Re6 44.Rc4 Kf5 45.Kf2 Re4 46.Rc5+ Re5 47.Rc8
It was not worth while to go on with this, and there is no further interest in the movements on both sides. The game is too even.
47...Ra5 48.Rc4 Re5 49.Rc6 [3:00-?:??] 49...Re6 [?:??-2:00] ½-½
London Field, 1880.06.19 & 1880.06.26

Game 17: Saturday, June 19, 1880.

Match Between Messrs Rosenthal And Zukertort.

The seventeenth game, played on Saturday the 19th inst., was a dull and common place affair. Zukertort commenced with the Englisch [sic] opening, 1.P to Q B 4, and Rosenthal answered P to K 4, as in the London game of the London and Vienna match. Such a defiance of the close opening by the second player ought to be disadvantageous for the latter, and we believe the best continuation for White is then P to Q R 3, whence would arise a position similar to the game between Anderssen and Morphy, in which the former opened with P to Q R 3. Zukertort brought out the Q Kt before adopting that precaution, and Rosenthal then followed the Vienna tactics of developing his B to Q Kt 5. The opening struggle resulted in Black getting the first break through in the Q centre, while White had secured two bishops, which, however, were not well developed. The game maintained its close character up to the 11th move, when Black began an exchange of pawns, which soon led to a general exchange of minor pieces and queens, evidently by both sides. The two parties were left each with two rooks, bishops of opposite colours, and even pawns on the 19th move, and the natural result was a clear draw a few moves later on. Duration, two hours.
London Field, 1880.06.26

Date: 1880.06.19
Site: ENG London
Event: Match, Game 17
White: Zukertort,JH
Black: Rosenthal,S
Opening: [A22] English
Annotator: Steinitz
1.c4 e5 2.e3 Nf6 3.Nc3
See introduction. 3.a3, now or on the previous move, would keep Black’s f8-bishop shut up.
In the style of the Viennese players in the match between London and Vienna by telegraph and correspondence. The b4-bishop is an incumbrance to Black’s game, and cannot be conveniently posted in the opening. It is better to try and exchange it.
He cannot allow the pawns to be doubled at this stage. His two bishops are no compensation, as they cannot find commanding situations. On the other hand, his doubled pawn cannot be dissolved against proper play of the adversary, and the latter has the advantage with his two knights in such circumstances.
4...0-0 5.a3 Bxc3 6.Nxc3 d5 7.cxd5 Nxd5 8.Be2 Nc6 9.0-0 Be6 10.d4 Nde7
A good move. Black wishes to preserve the superiority of pawns on the queenside, and justly does not mind the adverse superiority on the king’s wing. For the ending the former would stand better.
The correct reply, which forces equalization in a few moves.
11...exd4 12.exd4 Bc4 [?:??-1:00]
A thrown-away move. The adverse bishop is only driven to an important open file thereby. It was preferable to take the pawn at once, whereupon the game might have proceeded thus: 12...Nxd4 13.Bxb7 Bb3 14.Qd3 (This seems best; neither at g4 nor at h5 is the queen apparently better placed, for she will be subject to attacks by the pawns sooner or later) 14...Rb8 15.Be4 (He cannot now endeavor the maneuver 15.Bd5, as Black would answer 15...Nc2) 15...g6 16.Bh6 Re8, followed mostly by ...Nef5, and also threatening to win a pawn at least by ...Bc2, with a good game.
13.Re1 Nxd4 14.Bxb7 Rb8 15.Bd5
Which speedily counteracts all complications, and reduces the positions to a level. We give a diagram presenting the game at this, its only interesting juncture.
A good answer. He draws the adverse knight back into a less commanding position before accepting the offer of exchanging.
16.Nxe2 Qxd5 17.Nc3 Qxd1 18.Nxd1 Nd5 19.Ne3
Which means as much as offering a draw.
19...Nxe3 20.Bxe3 a6 21.Rec1 Bd5 22.Rxc7 Rxb2 23.h3 Rfb8 24.Rd1 Bb3 ½-½
London Field, 1880.06.26

Game 18: Monday, June 21, 1880.

The eighteenth game, played on Monday, the 21st inst., was a fine and interesting contest from the beginning almost to the very end. Though analysts will seriously complain about the uniformity of the openings adopted in this match, yet lovers of theoretical novelties may be satisfied with the new varieties introduced in the course of this contest within the limits of the openings chosen. Rosenthal experimented this time on another form of the Ruy Lopes, hitherto unknown. He introduced 5. Kt to Q B 3 in the Anderssen form of this opening, in lieu of P to Q B 3, which constitutes the Steinitz variation. Zukertort’s reply, P to Q R 3, was waste to time; and Rosenthal, with keen perception, exchanged the B for the Kt, thus creating one of Anderssen’s favourite positions with a move ahead, as clearly shown by comparing the game after Black’s 6th move with the first game between Anderssen and Blackburne in the Vienna Congress. Rosenthal again had the best of the development, and kept up the attack towards the middle, of which we believe he ought to have made more. But it came to no more than an exchange of pieces, with bishops of opposite colours and even forces and positions, when on the 17th move Zukertort left a P apparently as a bait, as its capture seemed very dangerous. Rosenthal’s replies on the next two moves proved abundantly that he had looked beyond the opponent’s scheme, for he accepted the proffered P, and defended himself against all consequent menaces in a manner which threw on the opponent the onus of exchanging queens, and afterwards of fighting for a draw. For White had two compact passed pawns on the extreme Q wing, which looked very formidable, though bishops were of opposite colours. The way in which Zukertort defended himself in this difficulty was a fine piece of strategy. He actually created mating positions on the opponent’s K wing, by the advance of his K R P, and by fixing his B at K B 6, threatening to sacrifice one of his rooks in support of his attack. Rosenthal was on his guard, and perhaps would have succeeded in getting safe and asserting his superiority if he had not lost time on the 25th move. As it was, Zukertort, by some masterly movements with his pawns, rook, and bishop, brought the adverse pawns to a standstill, exchanged one of the hostile rooks, and obtained such an attack against the exposed opposite K as to force his adversary to declare himself satisfied with a draw, after about three hours’ fight.
London Field, 1880.06.26

Date: 1880.06.21
Site: ENG London
Event: Match, Game 18
White: Rosenthal,S
Black: Zukertort,JH
Opening: [C48] Four Knights
Annotator: Steinitz
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nf6 4.d3 d6 5.Nc3
A very good move at this stage, to all appearance. It rests on the new idea of gaining time for Anderssen’s line of play, who generally took 5.Bxc6, creating a doubled pawn, and then aimed as straight as possible at exchanging pieces, and bringing about and endgame.
He does not perceive that he remains a clear move behind. In the game between Anderssen and Blackburne above referred to, the latter had adopted 3...a6, and Anderssen had, as usual, withdrawn 4.Ba4.
6.Bxc6+ bxc6 7.d4 exd4 8.Qxd4 c5 9.Qd3 Bb7 10.0-0 Be7 11.e5 Nd7 12.exd6 cxd6 13.Nd5
Bringing out a fresh piece was more in accordance with the usual rules of the attack, and was also more effective in the present instance. He ought to have proceeded with 13.Bf4, and the game might have gone on thus: 13.Bf4 Nf6 (This seems best, for the knight will probably be wanted on the kingside, and he is therefore better placed here than at b6) 14.Rfe1 (threatening 15.Rxe7+, followed by 16.Bxd6 in case the opponent castles) 14...d5 15.Rad1 d4 (if 15...Ne4, 16.Nxe4, followed by 17...Qc3) 16.Qe2 0-0 17.Qxe7 Qxe7 18.Rxe7 Bxf3 19.gxf3 dxc3 20.b3, with the superior game; for Black’s pawns on the queenside are hardly supportable in the ending.
13...0-0 14.Nxe7+
Even now 14.Bf4 was stronger, and might have led to the following continuation: 14.Bf4 Bxd5 15.Qxd5 Nf6 (if 15...Nb6, 16.Qc6, followed by 17.Qb7, in case the rook attacks her) 16.Qc6 d5 17.Rad1 , and then 18.Rfe1, with the better game.
14...Qxe7 15.Re1 Ne5 16.Nxe5 dxe5 17.Be3 Qe6
This trap was not laid deep enough.
White accepts the bait, and escapes with it scot-free, as will be seen.
18...Qc6 19.Qf3
This fine rejoinder must have been overlooked by Black in his forecast on the 17th move.
He had nothing better, and only risked worse if he took the bishop, e.g.: 19...Qxc5 20.Qxb7 Rab8 21.Qxa6 Rxb2 22.Qd3, and White’s a-pawn becomes formidable.
20.gxf3 Rfc8 21.b4 Bxf3 22.Rxe5 a5 23.c3 axb4
Black is fighting under great difficulties now, and extricates himself in a masterly manner. He designedly relieves the adverse passed pawns from all control of the only pawn he possess on this side, and in this exceptional case he proves right, for he supports a fine scheme thereby.
24.cxb4 Rd8 25.h3 [1:00-?:??]
That Black threatened 25...Rxa2, which could not be retaken on account of the impending mate, was obvious; but had he seen at once the purport of Black’s next fine rejoinder, he would have advanced 25.h4 at once, thus gaining the required time for pushing 26.a4 which probably would have won.
We give a diagram of this position.
The main object of this beautiful move is to stop the immediate advance of the adverse a-pawn.
Whereby he acknowledges a previous error. He could not now advance the a-pawn, for the opponent might have taken it; e.g.: 26.a4 Rxa4 27.Rxa4 Rd1+ 28.Kh2 h4 29.Ra8+ Kh7 30.Rh5+ Bxh5. Black thus recovers his pawn, with a very good game. White has nothing better to save himself than 31.Kg2; and then Black stops the advance of the b-pawn by ...Rb8, or ...Be2; and afterwards his king comes up to g6 and f5, followed by ...g5, with a strong attack on the kingside. Yet we believe that he would have accomplished his object better by 26.Kh2 at this point. If, then, 26...h4, 27.Re3, followed by 28.Rc3, in case 27...Bc6. This gave him more chance of making use of his combined two passed pawns, for he might even aim at sacrificing his e3-rook for the adverse bishop when opportunity offered itself, and his pawns would then more than cover the loss of the exchange if they could cross the white squares.
26...f6 27.Re3 Bc6 28.a3 Rd2 [?:??-1:00] 29.Re6 Rd7 30.Rd6 Rxd6 31.Bxd6 Bb5 32.Kh2 Kf7 33.Bc5 Ke6 34.Re1+ Kf5 35.Re3 Re8 36.Rf3+ Kg6 37.Rg3+
His h-pawn remained now too weak to allow him to speculate on bringing his king round to the queenside after exchanging rooks; besides, Black was also near enough with his king, and had thus the option of playing for attack or defense.
37...Kf7 38.Rc3 Re4
This forces equality. It would be loss of time, for neither side can now play to win.
39.Re3 ½-½
London Field, 1880.06.26

Game 19: Friday, June 25, 1880.

The Nineteenth And Last Game Of The Match.

The contest was decided yesterday in favour of the winner of the Paris tournament. Herr Zukertort again adopted the English opening; Rosenthal castled early, and obtained some attack with his two knights against the adverse centre. Zukertort had great difficulty in The defence, but at last found time to get his K secure, by castling on the K side. On the seventeenth move he had equalised the game, and then instituted a very fin manœuvre, which comprised a deep trap, without the least risk for his own position. Rosenthal did not see through the scheme, and lost a clear piece. He then fought out the hopeless game with the tenacity of despair; he sacrificed another piece to get the adverse K into some trouble, but he failed to make any lasting impression on the opponent’s game, and Zukertort compelled his resignation with a few vigorous strokes at the end. Duration, three hours.
London Field, 1880.06.26

The Late Match Between Messrs Rosenthal And Zukertort.

The final score of seven decided games against one, which Herr Zukertort accomplished in the match just concluded, makes the fair mark of eleven draws on the part of his opponent all the more conspicuous. The final score of the victor seemed to be out of reach of probability, when it is remembered that after the eleventh game of the match he counted only two games to one and eight draws. Yet M. Rosenthal’s deficiency in one important quality, which by no means belongs to the higher attributes of a chess master, will in the eyes of connoisseurs sufficiently account for his ultimate breakdown. It soon became evident that the Frenchman had no staying power either for a long game of for a long match. His complete downfall dates, in our opinion, from the twelfth game, where he left a piece almost en prise at the end. He then lost heart and consequently was outplayed in three successive game, whence he only recovered sufficient moral force to delay the opponent’s final victory for four sittings. One of M. Rosenthal’s minor defects is, that he does no know how to economise his time. Thus we saw him waste nearly an hour over a move in the early part of the thirteenth game. He naturally became fidgety and restless at the most important turning point, and not alone missed his best chances of gaining the superiority, but committed mistakes of reckoning under the pressure of time limit, while his opponent, who had moved in the opening with great rapidity, could remain cool and fresh, just in the most difficult part of the struggle. But, on the other hand, it stands to the credit of the French master that he did actually get out with the best of the opening and the early part of the middle in the majority of games played.

It is generally difficult to draw the line of demarcation between the loser’s faults and the winner’s merits; but apart from Herr Zukertort’s greater powers of endurance, there is a marked superiority in the conduct of the ending game on the part of the winner of the Paris tournament. Notably does the beautiful end play of the fifteenth game stand out as a masterpiece of Herr Zukertort’s genius for exact and clever calculation, not alone at the deciding point, but even more so in leading up to it from the complicatious [sic] of the middle part. Of his fertility of resources in difficult and sometimes inferior positions, the course of the match furnished several instance, and the finish of the third game is an example of brilliant tactics such as rarely occurs in hard match play.

The contest was watched with the keenest interest by members and visitors of the St. George’s Chess Club, and amongst the regular attendants on play days were the Earl of Dartrey, Lord Randolph Churchill, M. P., Lord Lindsay, Prince Teano, Messrs Catley, Francis, Lindsay Minchin, Wayte, and others.
London Field, 1880.07.03

Date: 1880.06.25
Site: ENG London
Event: Match, Game 19
White: Zukertort,JH
Black: Rosenthal,S
Opening: [A28] English
Annotator: Steinitz
1.c4 e5 2.e3 Nf6 3.Nc3 Nc6
An alteration from the course taken in the seventeenth game, where Black played 3...Bb4 at this point. Zukertort informs us that he intended to reply with the move adopted by Anderssen in the Paris Congress, viz., 4.Nd5, had Black now pursued the same line of defense as on the last occasion and that he considers White’s game superior in that case, albeit Black being enabled to double the pawns.
4.Nf3 Bb4
4...e4 would have lost a pawn, thus: 4...e4 5.Ng5 Qe7 6.Qc2 Nb4 7.Qb1 d6 8.Ngxe4, and it would be of no use to pin the knight with the bishop at f5, either before or after exchanging one of the knights, for White might safely reply Nxd6+.
5.Nd5, which, as stated above, Zukertort considers sound in a similar position on the fourth move, would not be favorable now that the c6-knight is already developed, for Black might exchange knights, followed by 6...Ne7.
5...exd4 6.exd4 d5
The superior plan was to take off the knight, followed by 7...d6. White’s doubled pawn was then a great hindrance to his game. The move in the text enables White to gain an important move by attacking the bishop, or to force an exchange which strengthens his center.
7.a3 Bxc3+ 8.bxc3 0-0 9.h3
This appears to us entirely superfluous, and we do not see how it assists the development in any way, or how it could be necessary for defensive objects. 9.Be3 at once would have kept White a move ahead.
9...Ne4 10.Qc2 Bf5 (threatening 11...Ng3, etc.) 11.Qb2 Na5 12.cxd5 (if 12.c5, Black would reply 12...b6) 12...Qxd5 13.Qb4 Nd6 14.Ne5 b6 15.c4 Qe4+, threatening 16...c5, with the superior game; for White cannot develop his f1-bishop without losing his g-pawn.
10.Be3 Ne7 11.Bd3 Nf5 12.Ne5 dxc4
12...Ne4 13.0-0 (This seems best; for, if 13.Bxe4, 13...dxe4 , threatening to win a piece by 14...f6, followed by 15...h5; and Black also threatens to capture the bishop, followed by 15...Qh4+) 13...f6 14.Nf3 Nxc3 15.Qc2 Ne4 16.cxd5 Ned6, with the better game; for, should White now attack by 17.g4, Black would gain time by taking 17...Rxe3.
13.Bxc4 Nd6 14.Bb3 Be6 15.0-0 Nd5 16.Bd2 Ne4 17.c4
See diagram. In our general notice of this game published last week, we were wrong in stating that the deep trap laid here was attended with no risk. On further examination we find that, beautiful as the combination is worked out in one direction, the initiatory move was not as correct as the straightforward line of defense by 17...Rf8.
17...Nb6 18.Ba5 (if 18.c5 , Black may capture the d-pawn with the queen) 18...f6 19.d5 (We see nothing better; for, whatever else he does, the answer 19...fxe5 will also gain a pawn, with a still better position) 19...Bxd5 followed by 20...Rxe5, with a pawn ahead, and a good position. It may also be observed that Black, in lieu of the disastrous move in the text, could also equalize the game by 17...Nxd2, for White had no better answer than 18.Qxd2, as 18...fxe5 would lose, e.g.: 17...Nxd2 18.cxd5 Bxd5 19.Bxd5 Qxd5 20.Qxd2 Rxe5, with a pawn ahead, and a fine game.
18.Bxc3 Nxc3 19.Qc2
This beautiful move decides the game absolutely in White’s favor. No doubt Black has speculated on the adverse queen defending the d-pawn now, either at d2 or d3, whereupon he would capture the d-pawn nevertheless, afterwards recovering the queen by 20...Ne2+.
19...Qxd4 [?:??-1:00] 20.Nf3 Qf6 21.Rfc1
All this is played with great foresight and precision. Attacking with the other rook was inferior.
21...Ne2+ 22.Qxe2 Bxh3 23.Qd2 h6 24.Qc3 Qf4
It was no more Black’s good play, but the remote chance of White playing badly, that could possibly save the game; and it is entirely a question of style how to go on with such a hopeless case. Nevertheless, we cannot see the least prospect for him in throwing away another piece, since White, with proper precaution, had made room for the retreat of the king at f1 on the twenty-first move. If anything was better than resigning, it was to exchange queens, and to face the ending game with two pawns ahead. Such a defense was more feasible, though quite unlikely to succeed in drawing, for Black’s majority was separated on the two wings.
25.gxh3 Re6 26.Re1 Rg6+ 27.Kf1 Rf6 28.Re3 [1:00-?:??] 28...Qf5 29.Ke2 Qxh3 30.Rg1 Kh8 31.Bc2 Rd8 32.Qe5 Qd7 33.Rd1 Rd6 34.Rxd6 cxd6 35.Qe7
Straightforward and correct. It is no use wasting calculations on such a position.
35...g6 36.Qf6+ Kg8 37.Re7 1-0
London Field, 1880.07.03

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