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

1894 Lasker-Steinitz
World Championship Match
Researched by Nick Pope

15 March 1894—26 May 1894
Games 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Score
 Lasker 101000111110001100110
Format: The winner of the first ten games to be declared the victor, draws not counting.
Time Control: Fifteen moves an hour.
Purse: $4,000 ($2,000 a side).

When Lasker and Steinitz met at the Manhattan and City Chess clubs last Saturday, it was understood that they agreed upon all the conditions which would govern their proposed chess championship match. Steinitz gave Lasker to understand that he expected to receive from him a copy of the conditions. Lasker sent this on Wednesday accompanied by the following letter:

I have the honor to propose to you the following conditions in regard to a match for the championship of the world between ourselves. If the conditions meet with your approval, or if you have to propose any alterations or additions, kindly let me know at your earliest opportunity: also inform me of the date when you will be prepared to sign articles.

The following is a verbatim copy of the conditions mentioned above:

First—The match to be for a stake of $2,250 a side, the whole amount of the stakes, $4,500, to go to the winner.

Second—Winner to be who first sores ten games, drawn games not counting.

Third—Time limit to be fifteen moves per hour.

Fourth—The match to be played either in clubs or in a public hall, where entrance fee shall be charged. The clubs of Montreal, Philadelphia, and San Francisco have asked that a portion of the match shall be played under their auspices, shall be first considered. If a portion of the match is to be played in a public hall at the expense of the players, it shall be in the city of New York.

Fifth—The match to commence no latter than the second Monday in March, 1894. One week before the commencement of the match the stakes shall be deposited with the stakeholder. No later than three weeks before the commencement of the match each player shall deposit a forfeit of $250 with the stakeholder. If a player fails to deposit the balance of $2,000 to complete his stake at the time stated, he shall forfeit his deposit of $250 to his opponent.

Sixth—There shall be no less than three and no more than four days of play per week, and the duration of play on each day no more than six hours. The days of play to be determined before the commencement of each portion of the match by Mr. Steinitz and the committee of the club under whose auspices the portion of the match is to take place.

Seventh—If a game is finished within the hours fixed for play, there shall be no more play on such day. If a game is adjourned at the end of a day's play, it shall be resumed on the following day, irrespective of the appointed days of play. After the adjourned game is finished, no other game shall be commenced that day.

Eighth—Absentation from play can be secured by each player three times during the match by either player giving two hours' notice in writing before the time fixed for commencing a new game both to his opponent and to the official in charge of the match. This rule, however, shall not apply to adjourned games.

Ninth—Property right in the records of all games played in the match shall inure to each player, who shall have the separate right of publishing any or all the games during the match, and a collection of the games after the match; and that W. Steinitz and Emanuel Lasker may obtain a copyright for the games and his own notes both in America and England, or elsewhere, but that neither shall have any commercial claim on his opponent's published games or collection thereof.

Tenth—Referee to be the President of the club at which the concluding part of the match is played. The referee to be the stakeholder at the same time.

Eleventh—Each player shall nominate an umpire at each place where the match is to be played, prior to the commencement of each portion of the match. The umpire nominations shall be a member of the club under whose auspices that portion of the match is to be played, and his election shall be approved of by his opponent. Should either party, however, reject two men thus named, the committee of the club may be appealed to by the opponent for the purpose of electing another umpire, whose appointment shall be final. If a portion of the match is to take place in a public hall at New York, the umpires shall be chosen in the same manner, and in case of disagreements the referee may be appealed to for the purpose of electing another umpire, whose appointment shall be final.

Twelfth—The minor rules Nos. 2, 3, 4, up to and including 16 of the match Steinitz vs. Gunsberg, as published in the International Chess Magazine, November, 1890, shall be adopted. Rule No. 17 to be replaced by the following rule: "The entire correspondence between the two players shall be taken into consideration by the referee for the purpose of interpreting the conditions of the match."

W. Steinitz and Emanuel Lasker have settled their little differences about playing a match, and last Saturday night in the presence of Dr. E. W. Dahl, a director of the Manhattan Chess Club, they signed articles. Some time ago THE SUN published the articles as proposed by Lasker. After some alterations these have been agreed to. The great masters will begin the match in this city on March 15, and contest eight games, or until one of the players has won four games, draws not counting. Then they will go to Philadelphia, where the match is to be continued until one of the players has increased his score by two points, drawn games not counting, or until one of the players has won three games. The match will be concluded under the auspices of the Montreal Chess Club.

Arrangements are now being made by the players for hiring a hall in this city for playing. There will be an admission fee of $1 per game; that is to say for the afternoon sitting, from 3 to 6 o'clock, and the evening sitting, from 8 to 11 o'clock; season tickets at the rate of $5 will be sold. About fifty season tickets have already been disposed of.

The player who first scores ten wins, draws not counting, will be declared the winner. The time limit has been fixed at fifteen moves an hour, while from three to four games will be played weekly. The stakes, which were reduced to $2,000, must be deposited with W. de M. Marlor, President of the Montreal Chess Club, on March 10. Each man has already posted $250 with the stakeholder. The winner will receive the total amount of the stakes and will be the champion of the world.

New York Sun, 1894.03.05, p6

In re the Steinitz-Lasker match for the championship of the world, the dreary stage of negotiation has finally been passed and next Thursday evening is stated of the opening game. The match is to be one of ten games up, exclusive of draws, with a time-limit of fifteen moves an hour. The stakes are $2,000 a side. The match will be played in New York, Philadelphia and Montreal, in the order named. In each city the players will name two umpires or seconds and a referee. For New York, Messrs. J. W. Baird and Showalter have already been chosen for umpires.

New York Recorder, 1894.03.11

(Special Dispatch to the Boston Herald.)
NEW YORK, March 14, 1894. Emanuel Lasker of London, who has signally defeated all of the noted European chess experts, will begin the battle of his life tomorrow in an attempt to wrest the world's championship from William Steinitz, who has successfully defended the title against all comers for over a quarter of a century.

Play will commence at 3 P. M. at the Union Square Hotel, and will be resumed every other day until either one scores four victories. The match will then be continued in Philadelphia and Montreal, and the stakes of $2000 a side an the world's championship will be awarded to the winner of the first 10 games.

Boston Herald, 1894.03.15

Game 1: Thursday, March 15, 1894.

W. Steinitz, the champion of the world, and Emanuel Lasker, the young and celebrated expert of Berlin, began their match for the championship of the world and $2,000 a side at the Union Square Hotel yesterday. Wesley Bigelow, the Vice-President of the Manhattan Chess Club, introduced the players to the spectators who had assembled to witness the beginning of a contest which was looked forward to by chess enthusiasts all over the world as a struggle which promised to be the most exciting chess event since Morphy made a brilliant showing in Europe thirty-four years ago.

Mr. Bigelow expressed himself as follows:

“To you. Mr. Steinitz, whose brow has been decorated with the laurels of many victories, the chess world will look with confidence for the highest illustration of our noble pastime, and to you, Mr. Lasker, who have also garnered distinguished laurels, both on the other side of the water and in this country, chess players will feel assured that your share in this match will be one to excite the keenest interest and admiration. I wish you both excellent health, not only for all time, but especially during this contest as upon your physical condition depends much of your mental powers, and therefore the quality of your play. Whoever wins can feel assured of receiving the hearty plaudits of the entire chess community, and he who loses will have the satisfaction of knowing that he lost only to a master.”

The umpires, J. W. Baird and J. W. Showalter, drew for the move, and on the latter (Lasker's umpire) winning the toss, the Teuton selected the whites and opened the first game of the match with a Ruy Lopez.

As a matter of course Steinitz selected his own defence 3...P-Q3, a move which has not been endorsed by many living experts, but which has won the champion many games. The game proceeded on well-known lines until Lasker, with 6.B-QB4, introduced a novelty, which seemingly intended to put black on his guard as far as the king's side of the board was concerned. Later on Lasker assumed a threatening attitude with 12.P-KR4 after having prepared to retire with his king into safety on the queen's side by means of castling.

The game was now beautifully and correctly played on both sides, each at times introducing fine and telling strokes. At 6 o'clock the game was adjourned in a pretty position. Steinitz having left his move. The game was resumed at 8 o'clock, and it soon became apparent that Lasker had the best of the bargain, inasmuch as he succeeded in isolating a pawn of his antagonist. He also had a knight against a bishop for the end game.

Little by little he improved his position, and he finally won a pawn at the forty-first move. After this the position became very complicated indeed, and after fifty moves the game stood adjourned, to be resumed to-day at 3 P.M.

New York Sun, 1894.03.16

The great chess match for the championship of the world and $2,000 between William Steinitz, champion of the world, and Emanuel Lasker, the great German exponent of the game, began at the Union Square Hotel in this city yesterday afternoon, many spectators being present. Wesley Bigelow introduced the players.

J. W. Baird and J. W. Showalter, the umpires for Steinitz and Lasker, respectively, drew for the move. Lasker won the toss and took the white pieces. He selected a Ruy Lopez, which Steinitz defended with 3. P-Q3. both players introduced some novelties, and after the game had been in progress for about twenty moves the spectators considered the contest one of the finest exhibitions of chess on record. After twenty-seven moves the game stood adjourned, and play was resumed at 8 p.m.

After the adjournment, Lasker got somewhat the better game, and won a pawn at his forty-first move. At the fiftieth move the game stood adjourned. The contest will be resumed at 3 p.m. today.

New-York Daily Tribune, 1894.03.16

(Special Dispatch to the Boston Herald.)
NEW YORK, March 15, 1894. The great chess match between W. Steinitz and Emanuel Lasker of Berlin, for the championship of the world and stakes of $2000 a side, began today at 3 P.M. at the Union Square Hotel.

The leading conditions of the match are: Winner of the first 10 games to take the match, time limit 15 moves per hour; the games to be played in New York, Philadelphia and Montreal—three sections.

Lasker's umpire was successful in the toss for first move, and the Teuton opened with 1 P-K4. The game soon assuming the well known Ruy Lopez opening, Steinitz adopted his favorite 3 P-Q3 defence. At the sixth move Lasker adopted a novelty of doubtful value, whereupon Steinitz cleared his position from immediate attack. At the 12th move Lasker initiated a strong attack, which, however, Steinitz parried in a series of elegant defensive tactics.

The game continued about even until about the 41st move Lasker won a pawn, and at the adjourned position wins the exchange, but appears to allow Steinitz a very strong attack.

The game will be resumed tomorrow at 3 P.M. [...]
H. N. Pillsbury.

Boston Herald, 1894.03.16, p7

Date: 1894.03.15 & 1894.03.16
Site: USA New York, NY (Union Square Hotel)
Event: 1894 World Championship Match (Game 1)
White: Lasker,Em
Black: Steinitz,W
Opening: [C62] Spanish
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 d6
Lasker: Steinitz's well-known defense.
Pillsbury: The Steinitz defence.
Steinitz: The revival of this defense met with much opposition, but I have seen nothing as yet to vitiate the equalizing effect, which, in my opinion, it possess.
4.d4 Bd7 5.Nc3 Nge7
Steinitz: An important key move to this defense which I first adopted in my match against Gunsberg.
Lasker: Apparently loss of time, but the good position of that bishop seems ample compensation.
Pillsbury: A novelty of doubtful merit.
6...Nxd4 7.Nxd4 exd4 8.Qxd4 Nc6 9.Qe3 Ne5 10.Bb3 c6 [0:18-0:19] 11.Qg3
Pillsbury: This and the 12th are strong attacking moves.
Steinitz: Of doubtful merit. 11...Be7 at once was preferable.
Lasker: 12.Be3 was strong enough in this position. However, the text move embarrasses Black's development of pieces.
Pillsbury: The only satisfactory answer.
13.Bxe6 fxe6 14.Bg5 Be7 15.0-0-0 e5 [0:45-0:50] 16.Be3 0-0
Lasker: If 16...Bxh4 17.Qg4, and now Black cannot play 17...Qc8, as 18.Rxh4 would follow, and he cannot stir the bishop on account of 18.Rxh7.
Steinitz: If 16...Bxh4 17.Qg4 Be7 18.Rxh7, and should win.
17.Ne2 Rf7
Steinitz: Again Black would expose himself to great danger by 17...Bxh4 18.Qg4, followed soon by Qh5.
Lasker: It would have been risky to leave the pawn on its fourth, and to proceed with an attack by means of 18.Kb1. It might, however, have been promising enough.
18...Nf4 19.Bxf4 exf4 20.Qf3
Pillsbury: Obviously if 20.Nxf4 Rxf4; and if 21.Qxf4 Bg5 wins the queen.
Steinitz: Obviously if 20.Nxf4 Rxf4, and the queen dare not retake.
20...Qa5 [0:56-1:20] 21.Kb1 Qe5 22.Nd4 Bf6 23.c3 Re8 24.Rhe1 Bd8 25.Qg4 Bc7 26.Nf3 Qf6 27.Nd2 Rfe7 28.f3 d5 29.Rh1 Re5
Steinitz: 29...Qf7 was by far better.
Steinitz: A masterly coup, which relieves his position on the kingside, no matter what Black reply.
30...Rg5 [1:45-1:59]
Lasker: Of course if 30...fxg3 31.f4, and Black would do best to sacrifice the exchange.
31.Qd7 Qf7 32.Qxf7+ Kxf7 33.g4 Bb6
Steinitz: Inferior to 33...Rge5.
34.exd5 cxd5
Pillsbury: Perhaps 34...Rxd5 was better.
Steinitz: 34...Rxd5 is preferable, leading to a natural draw position, with which I should have been content under the circumstances.
35.Nb3 Re6 36.Rhf1 Rge5 37.Nc1
Lasker: This forces the win of a pawn.
37...Bc7 38.Nd3 Rg5 39.Nb4
Pillsbury: The knight moves are very fine chess and force the win of a pawn.
39...Ree5 40.Rd4 Bb6 [2:00-2:28]
Lasker: A very fine move, which nearly would have turned the tables.
41.Rxf4+ Kg8 42.Nd3
Steinitz: Much inferior to 42.Nc2, which wins easily.
42...Re2 43.Rd1 Be3 44.Rb4 b6 45.Ra4 a5 46.b4
Steinitz: This gives Black a chance for a counter-attack, which I believe should have equalized the game at least.
46...d4 47.c4
Lasker: White has nothing better as 47.cxd4 would be neutralized with 47...Rb5.
47...Bd2 48.b5 Bc3 49.Rg1 Rd2
Lasker: Black intends to sacrifice his exchange and very nearly succeeds in scoring the game thereby. As will be seen by the subsequent play, Black excels in detecting means of attack, which could only be met by a series of difficult and forced moves on the part of his antagonist.
Steinitz: Ill-judged. 49...Kf7 seems better, with the following probable continuation: 50.f4 Rc5 51.Nxc5 bxc5, with better drawing chances.
50.f4 Rxg4 (Adjourned) [2:43-3:00] 51.Rxg4 (Sealed)
Pillsbury: The continuation is, of course, 51.Rxg4 Rxd3.
Pillsbury: The only move to win.
Steinitz: Black cannot recover from the effects of this splendid move.
Steinitz: If 52...Rd1+ 53.Kc2 Rd2+ 54.Kb3 (54.Kb1 drives by 54...d3) 54...bxc5 55.Kc4, and wins.
53.Rc4 d3
Pillsbury: An ingenious attempt to save a hopeless game.
54.Rg1 d2 55.Rd1 bxc5 56.b6 Bd4 57.b7 Re8 58.Kc2 Rb8 59.Rb1 Kf7 60.Ra4 [2:55-3:55] 1-0
Pillsbury: As if 60...d1Q+ 61.Kxd1 Bc3 62.Kc2 Bb4 63.a3 and wins. Lasker has played the whole ending with great accuracy.
Boston Herald, 1894.03.16 & 17
New York Sun, 1894.03.17
New-York Daily Tribune, 1894.03.16 & 17
New York Recorder, 1894.03.17 & 18

Game 1 concludes: Friday, March 16, 1894.

(Special Dispatch to the Boston Herald.)
NEW YORK, March 16, 1894. A large gathering of chess enthusiasts was present today at the Union Square to witness the finishing of the game between Steinitz and Lasker.

The position at adjournment yesterday was a most interesting one. Lasker being left with the advantage of exchange, one of his rooks being very badly blocked. By an ingenious sacrifice of pawns, Lasker released the rook, forming a passed pawn, which he pushed with the utmost accuracy to the seventh row; and, avoiding a number of traps laid by Steinitz, who fought bravely, Lasker won on the 60th move. [...]

The next game will be commenced Saturday at 3 P.M.
H. N. Pillsbury.

Boston Herald, 1894.03.17, p10

There was a crowd of spectators at the Union Square Hotel yesterday afternoon, when Steinitz and Lasker renewed their play in the first game of the chess match for the championship of the world. Lasker's move, which he left sealed when the game stood adjourned on Thursday night, was forced, and so was Steinitz's reply, but the German's fifty-second move came as a surprise to the champion, who could not then save the game. Eight moves later he resigned.
W. Steinitz had the following to say about the play:

Recently I have seen an article in a paper in which a sort of parallel is drawn between chess matches and prize fighting, and it was pointed out in a manner derogatory to chess amateurs, that the art of fighting in the ring seemed to be more popular, in spite of its being legally prohibited, than a contest in the art of human reason, as chess had already been termed by the Duke of Brunswick some centuries ago.

Although I am a friend of athletic sports, and even to a certain degree not opposed to prize fighting, I cannot admit that chess is less popular, considering its international character. Games of chess are vividly reproduced by means of the press and by cable, literally all over the face of the globe, and I feel satisfied that a game of chess between masters, if well commented upon, attracts more general attention, though not of a local character, than any kind of exhibition in common sports.

The public, however, scarcely realizes that the mental strain required for hard match play at chess taxes the physical capacities of the contestants in a greater measure than the heavy athletic exercises. An eminent physician at Havana, whom I consulted during my last match there, said I overworked myself as an amateur, both at chess and at the gymnasium, and I cannot imagine anything that so affects simultaneously all the vital organs—brain, nerves, heart, kidneys, liver and stomach—as the excitement of playing hard chess under public responsibility.

It cannot, therefore, be wondered at that the early part of a great chess contest very rarely draws out the best form of both parties, and this was the case with the first game of the present match. Nevertheless, some of its points, especially on the part of my opponent, belong to the finest exhibitions of play. My belief is that I had the best of the game up to my twenty-ninth move, viz., R-K4. The time limit might have expired at the thirtieth, and, as often happens before the players work themselves into condition, one or the other will get “rattled” under the apprehension of getting short of time, even if he is not actually in that danger.

This happened to me here, for I had several minutes to spare, and I made a hasty move with the view of saving some more time, and I overlooked a grand coup of Lasker's, 30 P-KKt3, whereby he consolidated his compromised King's side. Under the influence of disappointment, and feeling that it came to an even ending, I made a bad move on the thirty-fourth turn, isolating the Queen's Pawn instead of retaking with the Rook, which would have given me a clear draw.

Mr. Lasker then broke into my game in the most woful [sic] manner and won a Pawn, blocking my pieces, and he had things almost all his own way. He, however, gave me, needlessly, another chance of a counter attack by dislodging his Rook, but after the adjournment till next day, he recovered ground and the first move he made in answer to mine on resumption of the play was one which completely disorganized my game.

New-York Daily Tribune, 1894.03.17

When Steinitz and Lasker resumed play in the chess match for the championship of the world at the Union Square Hotel yesterday afternoon there was a large attendance of spectators. Neither Lasker nor Steinitz, when seen by THE SUN reporter, cared to forecast the result.

It will be remembered that Lasker left his fifty-first move sealed, and it was well known that this move would be the capture of the rook and that Steinitz would take the knight. The fifty-second move, P-QB5, set Steinitz to thinking a great deal, and, although he fought on gamely, he could not prevent a defeat. When he had to make his sixtieth move he resigned. In speaking about the game and chess in general the champion said:

“I saw an article in a paper recently, in which a sort of parallel was drawn between these matches and prize fighting, and it was pointed out, in a manner derogatory to chess players, that the art of fighting in the ring seemed to be more popular. Although I am a friend of athletic sports and to a certain degree, not opposed to prize fighting. I cannot admit that chess is less popular. A game of chess between masters, if well commented upon, attracts more general attention, though not of a local character, than any kind of exhibition in common sports.

The public, however, scarcely realizes that the mental strain required for hard match play at chess taxes the physical capacity of the contestants to a greater extent than heavy athletic exercises. An eminent physician, whom I consulted during my last match at Havana, said this to me: ‘You have overworked yourself, both at chess and at the gymnasium, I cannot imagine anything that so affects simultaneously all the vital organs as the excitement of playing hard chess.' It cannot, therefore, be wondered at that the early part of a great chess contest very rarely draws out the best form of both players, and this was the case with the game that has just been finished.

Nevertheless, some of the plays, especially on the part of my opponent, are entitled to rank among the finest exhibitions. My belief is that I had the best of the game up to my twenty-ninth move, namely, R-K4. The time limit might have expired at the thirtieth move, and as it often occurs before the players work themselves into condition, one or the other will get rattled under the apprehension of getting short of time, even if he is not actually in that danger. This is what happened to me in this instance, for I had several minutes to spare. I made a hasty move with the view of saving some more time, and I overlooked a grand coup of Lasker's, his thirtieth move, P-KKt3, whereby he consolidated and compromised the king's side.

Under the influence of disappointment I made a bad move on my thirty-fourth turn, isolating the queen's pawn instead of retaking with the rook, which would have made a clear draw.

Mr. Lasker then broke into my game in the most skillful manner. He won a pawn, blocking my pieces, and he had things almost all his own way. He, however, gave me another chance of a counter attack by dislodging his rook, but after the adjournment he recovered ground, and the first move he made in answer to mine was one which completely disorganized my game.”

Lasker naturally feels elated over his victory, but prefers not to speak much about it. To THE SUN reporter he said:

“I am willing to give you my notes, but please pardon me for not saying anything further about the game.”

New York Sun, 1894.03.17

Saturday, March 17, 1894.

NEW YORK, March 17, 1894. The chess game which was to have been played today between Messrs. Steinitz and Lasker will be played Monday at 3 P. M.

Under the conditions, each of the players may have the play postponed on three days during the match if so disposed. Steinitz caught a slight cold Friday night and, therefore, claimed one of his three days of grace.

Boston Herald, 1894.03.18

Game 2: Monday, March 19, 1894.

(Special Dispatch to the Boston Herald.)
NEW YORK, March 18 [sic], 1894. The second game in the chess match for the world's championship between Steinitz and Lasker was won by Steinitz in brilliant style after 42 moves.

Steinitz had the first move, and it was an open question among the experts whether he would play the Ruy Lopez or 1 P-Q4, as these are his favorite methods of starting play. He chose the former, and in reply Lasker selected the well known Berlin defence, 3 Kt-KB3.

Showy or brilliant moves marked Steinitz's opening play, but he prepared for an early attack upon the adverse king, which had sought shelter upon the king's side by castling. Lasker relied upon a counter attack, through the queen's file, but Steinitz, disdaining this, promptly advanced his entire force of pawns on the king's side, having at this 12th move placed a Kt in a commanding position at his fifth square.

On the 15th move Lasker endeavored to dislodge this troublesome piece, but Steinitz boldly offered battle, leaving it enprise for several moves. Had Lasker take it his game was lost in a few moves.

At last Steinitz retired with this Kt, only to offer up his other Kt on the 21st move, in a position where Lasker was practically forced to accepted the sacrifice. Lasker, two moves later, was compelled to return the piece to avoid immediate loss.

At the adjournment at 6 o'clock Lasker sealed his 25th move. Although he was a pawn ahead, his position was very bad. On his 26th move he made a blunder which practically settled the game, although he struggled on until obliged to reply to Steintiz' [sic] 42d move, when he tipped his king in token of defeat.

Even had Lasker not made this error he would probably have lost as Steinitz had a very commanding position.

The closing moves were played by Steinitz with his accustomed accuracy after he once gets a grip on his opponent.

The third game will be commenced Wednesday at 3 P.M.
H. N. Pillsbury.

Boston Herald, 1894.03.20, p10

Date: 1894.03.19
Site: USA New York, NY (Union Square Hotel)
Event: 1894 World Championship Match (Game 2)
White: Steinitz,W
Black: Lasker,Em
Opening: [C65] Spanish
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nf6
Pillsbury: The "Berlin" defence to the Ruy Lopez.
4.d3 d6 5.c3 Bd7
Lasker: 5...g6 is here the more common continuation.
Steinitz: To prevent the exchange of bishops by 6...Na5.
6...g6 7.Nbd2 Bg7 8.Nc4
Steinitz: Usually I play 8.Nf1 at this juncture. The text move is just as good; it prevents 8...d5 at once.
Pillsbury: 8...0-0 at this point was probably premature.
9.Ne3 Ne7
Pillsbury: 9...Qe7 seems safer followed by 10...Nd8.
10.Bb3 c6 11.h4
Pillsbury: The position very much resembles that of a Ruy Lopez game between Steinitz and Chigorin, played in Havana a few years ago. Steinitz playing h4 at about this point, and winning brilliantly in 28 moves.
Steinitz: The usual course of attack against the king's fianchetto is here initiated.
11...Qc7 12.Ng5 d5 13.f3 Rad8 14.g4
Pillsbury: Steinitz's conduct of the attack is in thorough keeping with his ideas that the king is perfectly safe in similar positions, and he presses forward with his entire right wing.
Lasker: 14...h6 at once would have been better as White then would not have a chance to place his queen on f3, as was actually done on the sixteenth move.
Steinitz: As matters turned out, White obtains a much stronger position in consequence of the open file than he would have had by 14...h6 instead of this exchange.
15.fxe4 h6 [0:45-0:42] 16.Qf3
Lasker: A beautiful move, which turns the tables at once.
Pillsbury: If 16...hxg5 17.hxg5 Nh7 18.Nf1 followed by 19.Qh3 wins. White threatened 17.Nxf7 Rxf7 18.Bxf7+ Kxf7 19.g5 regaining the piece with the exchange ahead.
Steinitz: This is evidently best, as White threatens 17.Nxf7 followed ultimately by pawn to g5. If, however, 16...hxg5 17.hxg5 Nh7 18.Nf5 followed soon by Qh3!.
17.Bc2 Nd7
Steinitz: Again if 17...hxg5 18.hxg5 Nh7 19.Nf5 gxf5 20.gxf5 f6 21.Bb3+ followed by 22.Qh5 or 22.g6 accordingly.
18.Nh3 Nc5 19.Nf2 b5
Lasker: Premature. First 19...f6 would finally have led to a block on the queenside, and White had then hardly any chance of an attack left.
Pope: I believe Lasker means a block on the kingside, but all three sources of Lasker annotations state queenside.
Pillsbury: 19...Ne6, seems far better to ward off the coming attack.
20.g5 h5 21.Nf5
Lasker: Very fine and good play. Black is now almost forced to accept the Grecian gift, as otherwise 22.Nxg7 would follow, creating an ugly hole at f6.
Pillsbury: And again, knight is offered up, and in this position he has no choice but to take, as the loss of his dark-square bishop would be fatal.
21...gxf5 22.exf5 f6
Lasker: Forced; for if 22...Nd5, 23.Qxh5 Bh8 24.Ng4 follows, threatening 25.Nh6+ and 26.Nf7.
Steinitz: If 22...Nd5 then 23.f6 Bh8 24.Qxh5 threatening 25.Ng4 or 25.d4 accordingly.
23.g6 Nxg6
Lasker: This move is also forced, as 23...Bd7 leads to a straight loss on account of 24.Qxh5 Re8 25.Qh7+ Kf8 26.h5, threatening 27.h6.
Pillsbury: Obviously forced, as White threatens a forced mate by 24.Qxh5.
24.fxg6 Bxg6 25.Rg1 (Adjourned) 25...e4 (Sealed)
Lasker: A bad move in the nature of a blunder. With 25...Kh7 White seems hardly to have anything better than to continue with 26.Rxg6, followed by 27.d4+; although White wins thereby a piece, the two passed pawns and the exchange should tell in the endgame.
Pillsbury: This was the move sealed by Lasker at the 6 o'clock adjournment, and was the beginning of the end. Although White is a pawn minus his position is almost overwhelming. If 25...Qf7 26.Qg3 Kh7 27.Qxg6+ Qxg6 28.Rxg6 Kxg6 29.d4+ and should win.
Steinitz: This is absolutely a failure as a defensive measure. He had a much better resource, namely: 25...Bxd3 26.Bxd3 Rxd3 27.Nxd3 e4! with a counter-attack against which it would have been difficult for White to make good his superiority of material.
26.dxe4 Kh7
Lasker: A great blunder, which leaves no hope for Black. After this White finishes the game in a remarkably energetic style.
Pillsbury: Obviously an error, after which his game is lost; but his game was very bad at this point anyway.
Steinitz: His game was difficult to defend: 26...Qf7, however, was undoubtedly better.
27.Rxg6 Kxg6 28.Qf5+ Kf7 29.Qxh5+ Kg8 30.Qxc5 Qe5 [1:42-1:35]
Steinitz: Necessary to parry 31.Bb3+, followed by 32.Qh5+.
31.Be3 a6 32.a4
Pillsbury: The finishing moves are played by Mr. Steinitz with as much care as the opening ones, and his opponent never gets away from him.
32...Rfe8 33.axb5 axb5 34.Qxe5 Rxe5 35.Ra6 Rc8
Steinitz: If 35...c5, 36.Ng4 winning the f-pawn.
36.Ng4 Re7 37.Bc5 Ree8 38.Ne3 Bf8 39.Bd4 Kf7 40.h5 Be7 41.Bb3+ Kf8
42.Nf5 [2:10-2:05] 1-0
Pillsbury: White threatens to mate by 43.Be3 and 44.Bh6+, and if 42...Bd8 43.Bc5+ and wins.
Steinitz: White threatens 43.Be3 and afterward Ra7.
Boston Herald, 1894.03.20
New York Sun, 1894.03.20
New-York Daily Tribune, 1894.03.20
The Brooklyn Daily Eagle, 1894.03.20
New York Recorder, 1894.03.20 & 25

Game 3: Wednesday, March 21, 1894.

(Special Dispatch to the Boston Herald.)
NEW YORK, March 21, 1894. The third game in the great chess match between Steinitz and Lasker was adjourned at 11 o'clock on the 45th move.

It was Lasker's first move today, and the experts were not surprised to see the same form of Ruy Lopez attack and defence as was adopted in the first game. With a slight alteration in the sixth and seventh moves, the game up to Steinitz's 10th move was precisely as in the first game. Steinitz here adopted a different course, and instead of P-QB3 played B-K3. Lasker promptly advanced P-KB4 and assumed the aggressive.

Steinitz on his 17th move left a "hole" at K6 by advancing his KBP to its third square, and Lasker planted a Kt on that square four moves later which would not be dislodged. Steinitz had castled upon the queen side, and through the open QR file Lasker succeeded in winning a clear pawn, and, two moves later, a clear piece.

The position, however, was such that Steinitz obtained a strong counter attack upon Lasker's king, which had not had time to castle. Steinitz's 26th move, offering up a rook, which, if taken, would have allowed a draw by perpetual check, was very fine, and Lasker was obliged to play with extreme caution in order not to lose, albeit he was a piece ahead.

Steinitz played the latter part of the game most ingeniously, and with an opponent of less strength would have easily won. The game was so critical that at the 45th move both players had less than five minutes to spare.

Lasker sealed his 46th move, and the game will be completed tomorrow at 3 o'clock. Lasker will probably win, and the fourth game will then be begun on Saturday. [...]
H. N. Pillsbury.

Boston Herald, 1894.03.22, p7

(Special Dispatch to the Boston Herald.)
NEW YORK, March 22, 1894. The third game in the Steinitz-Lasker chess match was, as predicted in this morning's HERALD, a victory for Lasker.

Steinitz fought the ending as long as any hope remained, although he might have prolonged the fight with good drawing chances but for his 51st move, in which he overlooked a move of Lasker's knight.
The fourth game will be commenced Saturday, at 3 P.M.
H. N. Pillsbury.
Boston Herald, 1894.03.23, p6

Date: 1894.03.21 & 1894.03.22
Site: USA New York, NY (Union Square Hotel)
Event: 1894 World Championship Match (Game 3)
White: Lasker,Em
Black: Steinitz,W
Opening: [C62] Spanish
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 d6 4.d4 Bd7 5.Nc3 Nge7 6.Bc4 exd4
Pillsbury: In the first game the continuation was 6...Nxd4 7.Nxd4 exd4 8.Qxd4, resulting in the same position as at the eighth move of the present game.
Pillsbury: 7.Ng5 would be more enterprising with 7...Ne5 8.Qxd4 N7c6 9.Qd5 (threatening mate in three moves by 10.Qxf7+ Nxf7 11.Bxf7+ Ke7 12.Nd5#) 9...Nb4, and wins.
7...Nxd4 8.Qxd4 Nc6 9.Qe3 Ne5 10.Bb3 Be6
Lasker: In the first game Steinitz played here 10...c6, as that move is made later on it amounts to a reversal of moves.
Pillsbury: To this point the players have followed the play of the first game; here Steinitz introduces a variation which looks better.
11.f4 Nc4
Steinitz: A sad waste of time. Four moves later this knight returns to d7, where it should have gone at once.
12.Qg3 Nb6 13.Be3 c6 14.f5 Bxb3 15.axb3 Nd7 [0:28-0:45] 16.Bf4
Steinitz: Of course he could not take the pawn with either rook or bishop, or the latter would have been ultimately blocked out by pawn to b6.
Steinitz: If 16...Nf6 17.e5 Nh5 18.Qe3 Nxf4 19.exd6+ Be7 (or 19...Kd7 20.Qxf4 Bxd6 21.0-0-0 Kc7 22.Qc4 threatening 23.Nb5+ or 23.Qxf7+) 20.dxe7 Qxe7 21.Qxe7+ Kxe7 22.0-0 with the superior game.
17.b4 f6
Lasker: Very risky on account of the hole which is created thereby on e6 and which the white knight at once tries to occupy. On the other hand, it is necessay for the purpose of relieving the queen.
Pillsbury: This move is bad on principle and Steinitz rarely forms such an ugly "hole" in his game this early.
Steinitz: Sooner or later this move had to come in, but now it was so ill-timed as to compromise the game seriously. 17...Ne5 was undoubtedly superior.
18.Ne2 Ne5 19.Nd4 Qb6 20.c3 0-0-0 21.Ne6
Pillsbury: This and the next move force the win of a pawn and badly bind up the adverse position.
21...Rd7 22.Be3 Qb5
Lasker: A grand conception, for if 22...c5 23.0-0 a6 24.bxc5 dxc5 25.b4, and White wins a pawn with a perfectly safe and strong position.
Steinitz: Probably the best resource. If 22...c5, 23.Nf4 followed soon by 0-0 with a powerful attack.
23.Rxa7 b6
Steinitz: Desperate as this appears, Black had hardly anything better. If 23...Kb8, 24.Ra5 followed by 25.Ba7+, or if 23...Rc7 24.Ra8+ Kd7 25.Rd8+ Ke7 26.Bd4 with a winning game. As it is White obtains a strong attack for the material sacrificed.
24.Ra8+ Kb7 25.Rxf8 Rxf8 26.Nxf8 Qd3
Pillsbury: A ver fine move; for if 27.Nxd7 Black draws by checking at b1, c2 and d3 alternately.
Lasker: Of course 27.Nxd7 only leads to a draw by perpetual check.
27...Qc2 28.Bd2 Re7
Steinitz: After careful analysis, I think that Black should at least draw, and had many winning chances had he played 28...Nc4. If then 29.Qf4 Rd8 20.Ne6 Ra8 31.Ke2 Ra2 with a powerful attack. Other variations are still more favorable for the second player.
29.Ne6 Qxe4+ 30.Qe3
Lasker: The proper reply. 30.Kd1 would be bad on account of 30...Qb1+ 31.Bc1 Nd3 32.Qxd6 Nxb2+ 33.Ke2 Qe4+ 34.Be3 Qxe3+.
30...Qxg2 [1:56-1:51] 31.b3
Lasker: If 31.Qe2 at once, 31...Qd5 follows with a very strong attack.
Pillsbury: Black counter attacks with great ingenuity and a slip on Lasker's part would have been fatal.
Steinitz: 31...Qxh2 seems to give White much time for development by 32.b5, followed by 33.Kd1.
32.Qe2 Qh3
Lasker: Of course not 32...Qd5, as 33.c4 forces the exchange of queens.
33.Kd1 Ra8 34.Rf2
Steinitz: Compulsory, to avoid a draw at least, and simple as it looks it is beautiful play, which came quite unexpectedly.
34...Ra2 35.b5 c5 36.Nxg7 d5 37.Kc1
Steinitz: Another fine and quiet move in Lasker's happy style. It practically forces the exchange of queens.
Lasker: A last attempt, and as such an ingenious resource. White's material advantage, however, must tell in the end.
38.Qxd3 Nxd3+ 39.Kb1 Rb2+ 40.Ka1 Rxb3 41.Rf3 c4 42.Ne8 Nb4
Pillsbury: Threatening a draw by perpetual check 43...Nc2+ and 44...Nb4+.
43.Rg3 Ra3+ 44.Kb1 Rb3+ 45.Kc1 Nd3+ (Adjourned) [2:50-2:57]
Pillsbury: In the position 46.Rxd3 appears to win easily.
46.Rxd3 (Sealed)
Pillsbury: This was the move sealed by Lasker when the game was adjourned Wednesday night. While 46.Kd1 will probably win, the text move is even better.
Steinitz: 46.Kc2 would have won quicker, for if 46...Rb2+ 47.Kd1 Nf2+ 48.Kc1 and wins.
46...cxd3 47.Nxf6 Rxb5 48.Ne8
Steinitz: By no means as expeditious as 48.Nxh7.
48...Kc6 49.f6 d4 50.Ng7 dxc3 51.Bxc3 Rg5
Pillsbury: This moves loses immediately. In his forecast of the position Steinitz doubtless overlooked that if 52...Rg1+ 53.Kd2 Rf1 54.Ne6 and wins the rook. 51...Kd7 gave much prospect of a craw, although with the best play Lasker should win.
Steinitz: An awful blunder. There was still some chance of a draw by 51...Kd7. After the text move the game is lost, for if 52...Rg1+ 53.K-moves Rf1 54.Ne6 wins.
52.f7 [3:09-3:25] 1-0.
Lasker: For if 52...Rg1+ 33.Kd2 Rf1 34.Ne6, winning the rook.
Boston Herald, 1894.03.22 & 23
New York Sun, 1894.03.22 & 23
New-York Daily Tribune, 1894.03.22 & 23
The Brooklyn Daily Eagle, 1894.03.22 & 23
New York Recorder, 1894.03.22, 23 & 04.01

Game 4: Saturday, March 24, 1894.

Date: 1894.03.24
Site: USA New York, NY (Union Square Hotel)
Event: 1894 World Championship Match (Game 4)
White: Steinitz,W
Black: Lasker,Em
Opening: [C54] Italian
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.c3 Nf6 5.d4 exd4 6.e5 d5 7.Bb5 Ne4 8.cxd4 Be7
Steinitz: A good deal of surprise prevailed when I, as my debut in this game, selected a Giuoco Piano. Not only because I heretofore have never been known to adopt this opening, but moreover, because I chose a most universal form, which practically has been given up by the masters. The new idea which I had in view did not come to the surface, as Lasker was the first to make an alteration from the usual line of play by 8...Be7.
9.Nc3 0-0 10.Bd3 f5 11.exf6
Steinitz: My eleventh move proved a surprise, as I exchanged an apparently strong passed pawn, and furthermore, deliberately isolated my d-pawn in order to keep up an attack against the kingside.
11...Nxf6 12.Be3 Nb4 13.Bb1 Ng4
Steinitz: On the thirteenth move Black initiated an ingenious counter attack and a regular fireworks game of sacrifices.
14.a3 Nxe3 15.fxe3 Bh4+ [0:40-0:53] 16.g3
Steinitz: After Black checked with his bishop, White perhaps, would have done better to play 16.Kd2, which would have yielded him a clear pawn, as Black was bound to retreat his knight, whereupon 17.Nxd5 would have been followed, which Black evidently could not retake on account of 18.Ba2 winning the queen.
Lasker: Black sprung an attack upon his adversary early in the game, leaving two pieces “en prise,” which, however could not have been taken, because Black would have doubled his rooks on the f-file, and thereby forced a win. White thereupon extricated himself skillfully and eventually he espied a variation by means of which he secured a pawn.
17.0-0 Qe8 18.axb4 Qh5 19.Nxd5
Steinitz: My nineteenth move was faulty; a subsequent examination showed that I should have taken the bishop instead of the knight. It would have much sooner extricated me from all difficulties.
Lasker: Many players thought that with 19...Bxg3 I could have forced a win. White, however, would have replied 20.hxg3 and if then 20...Rxf3 21.Qe1, and if 20...Bxf3 21.Rxf3 Rxf3 22.Kg2, and has the best of it.
Lasker: Now an end game of highly interesting, in which White seemed to have the pull.
Steinitz: With my twentieth move I forced a series of exchanges which left me with a simple end game and a pawn ahead. A long struggle followed.
20...Rxf4 21.Qb3+ Rf7 22.Rxf7 Qxf7 23.Ba2 Qxb3 24.Bxb3+ Kf8 25.gxh4 Ke7 26.Bd5
Steinitz: White missed several chances of finishing off the game in a more easy manner. Notably, in the twenty-sixth move, where he should have played 26.b5, instead of 26.Bd5.
26...c6 27.Be4 a6 28.Ra5 h6 29.b5 cxb5 30.Bxb7 Ra7 [1:21-1:14] 31.Bc6 Bd7 32.Bxd7 Kxd7 33.Kf2 Kc6 34.Ke2 Kb6 35.Ra1 a5 36.Kd3 a4 37.e4 Rf7 38.e5 Rf3+ 39.Ke4 Rf2 40.Rb1 Kc6 41.d5+
Lasker: Black defended himself all right to a certain point, but lost in the end by an obvious blunder, when the game ought to have been a draw.
Steinitz: Lasker defended himself most ingeniously, and owing to some weak play on the other side, it is by no means certain that White would have won, after having neglected the forcible 42.Rg1.
41...Kd7 42.Kd4 Rd2+ 43.Kc5 Rc2+ 44.Kxb5 Re2 45.e6+ Kd6 [1:42-1:55] 46.Rd1 Rxb2+ 47.Kxa4 Rxh2 48.Re1 Ra2+ 49.Kb3 Ra8 50.Kc4 g5 51.hxg5 hxg5 52.Kd4 Ra4+ 53.Kd3 Ra3+
Steinitz: However, Lasker completely compromised his game on his fifty-second and fifty-third moves by useless checks, which only helped White to bring his king to the support of his pawns, which now marched on victoriously.
54.Ke4 g4 55.Kf5 Ra8 56.e7 Re8 57.Kf6 g3 58.Kf7 Kd7 59.d6 g2 60.Rg1 [2:17-2:05] 1-0
New York Sun, 1894.03.25
New York Recorder, 1894.03.26
New-York Daily Tribune, 1894.03.26
The Brooklyn Daily Eagle, 1894.03.26

Game 5: Tuesday, March 27, 1894.

(Special Dispatch to the Boston Herald.)
NEW YORK, March 27, 1894. The fifth game in the chess match between Emanuel Lasker and William Steinitz was commenced today at 3 P.M. and adjourned at 11 P.M., to be finished tomorrow.

Lasker again formed the Ruy Lopez opening, and the game was the same as the third game up to Steinitz's ninth move. Steinitz here adopted B-K3 instead of 9 Kt-K4. The strength of the move became apparent after a few moves, as he was enabled to bring his king into safe quarters on the king's side, and, barring the weakness of his QP, was perfectly safe.

At his 16th move Steinitz commenced a counterattack with his QRP, and a few moves later deployed his queen on that side. His 22d move, however, was an error of judgement which should have cost a clear pawn.

Lasker at once attacked the QRP, which Steinitz was unable to defend. He therefore instituted a counter attack in the centre, which Lasker evidently overestimated, as he did not accept this pawn but took on in the centre. Lasker's 27th, 28th and 29th moves were made under pressure of time limit, and were part of a misjudged plan, which resulted in Steinitz regaining ground. Lasker was obliged to offer the exchange of queens as the only method to avoid loss.

Steinitz retained his pawn in the melee and remained with a strong position for the end game. Lasker, however, played the ending with consummate skill, and at the adjourned position a draw is clearly indicated. [...]
H. N. Pillsbury.

Boston Herald, 1894.03.28, p5

(Special Dispatch to the Boston Herald.)
NEW YORK, March 28, 1894. When Steinitz and Lasker met today at 3 o'clock, at the Union Square Hotel, it was mutually agreed to call the game drawn. The sealed move was 50 P-R7.

The sixth game will commence tomorrow at 3 P.M. The score now stands: Lasker, 2; Steinitz, 2; drawn, 1.
H. N. Pillsbury.

Boston Herald, 1894.03.29, p6

Date: 1894.03.27
Site: USA New York, NY (Union Square Hotel)
Event: 1894 World Championship Match (Game 5)
White: Lasker,Em
Black: Steinitz,W
Opening: [C62] Spanish
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 d6 4.d4 Bd7 5.Nc3 Nge7 6.Bc4 exd4 7.Nxd4 Nxd4 8.Qxd4 Nc6 9.Qe3 Be6
Lasker: This seems better than 9...Ne5, as played by Steinitz in the first and third games.
Pillsbury: A much stronger move than 9...Ne5, as played in the first and third games of the match.
Steinitz: The whole variation arising from White's sixth move is new. Black, after different experiments, came to the conclusion that the text move is Black's best reply.
10.Nd5 Be7 11.Bd2 0-0 12.0-0
Lasker: It is safer to castle on the kingside in this position.
12...Ne5 13.Bb3 Bxd5
Lasker: An unpleasent necessity. White retains two bishops against bishop and knight, which is considered an advantage.
Steinitz: Black has gained some moves by first attacking the bishop before effecting this exchange. It is pretty obvious that White will have to retake with the bishop.
14.Bxd5 c6 15.Bb3 Nd7 [0:24-0:50] 16.Rad1
Lasker: Playing against the weak d-pawn.
Lasker: An ingenious departure in order to develop inactive pieces.
Pillsbury: This counter demonstration serves to place White on the defensive on the queen's side.
Steinitz: For defensive purposes to prevent Bb4, but for attacking purpose also.
17.c3 a4 18.Bc2 Re8 19.Qh3
Pillsbury: The queen is not well placed here as Black's last move was intended to make way for the knight.
Lasker: 19...g6 would weaken the position too much.
Steinitz: White had not much prospect of an attack; for this reason, 20.Bc1, fortifying the queenside would have been finer play.
Lasker: In order to get the queen to the kingside.
Pillsbury: Threatening 21...a3.
Steinitz: Not as good as 20...Qc7.
Steinitz: Uncalled for; since in reply to 21...a3, which White seemed to fear, 22.b4 was a satisfactory answer.
Steinitz: Black's counter attack is probably premature. He should have been contented with having weakened the adverse queenside and retreated 21...Qc7, followed by 22...b5.
22.Bc1 Rad8
Lasker: This move ought to lose the game.
Pillsbury: An error which costs a pawn 22...Red8 was the proper move, with the intention of proceeding with 23...d4.
Steinitz: An oversight, which costs a pawn, 22...Ng6 instead would have given him a capital game. Still, Black has acquired some superiority of position which compensates him for the loss.
23.Rd4 d5 (Adjourned) 24.exd5 (Sealed)
Lasker: 24.Bxa4 would have been simpler and better.
Pillsbury: This was the move sealed by Lasker at the 6 o'clock adjournment. 24.Bxa4 was much stronger.
24...Bc5 25.Rf4
Lasker: Also here 25.Bxa4 and if 25...Qe2, 26.Rd2 would easily win; the text move gives all the advantage away and Black gets the best of it.
Steinitz: By far superior was 25.Bxa4, and if 25...Qa6 then 26.Rf4 Ng6 27.Bc2, and the attack would be worth the exchange which Black offers.
25...Ng6 26.c4
Steinitz: Although this blocks out Black's queen for a time, it is very injurious for the ending. The right play was 26.dxc6 bxc6 (best) 27.Re4. It should be noted, however, that if Rxa4 on this or his previous move, Black would win by Bxf2+ followed by Qe2+, or Re1+ accordingly.
Pope: The following comment goes somewhere between Black's 26th move and White's 30th move. The original source does not specify which move (or color).
Steinitz: “This and the next two moves were made under pressure of time-limit; but certainly without merit; P-QKt4 instead looks more feasible.”
27.Bxg6 fxg6
Pillsbury: Obviously, if 27...hxg6 28.Rh4!!
28.Rh4 h5 29.Bg5 Rd6 30.dxc6
Pillsbury: Lasker had at the 27th move four moves to make in six minutes. This move was faulty in the extreme, as Black remains with a complete control of the center, whereas White's queen, rook and bishop are out of play.
30...Qxc6 [1:59-1:58]
Pillsbury: The interesting 30...Bxf2+, would fail on account of 31.Kxf2 (if 31.Rxf2 Re1+ 32.Rf1 Qb6+ and wins) 31...Qb6+ 32.Kg3!! and remains a piece to the good. If, however, instead of 32.Kg3, 32.Be3, then 32...Rd2+ 33.Ke1 Qxb2 and forces an immediate mate.
Steinitz: It was thought by some experts that Black could win here 30...Bxf2+; but White effects a narrow escape by 31.Kxf2 Qb6+ 32.Kg3 Rd3+ 33.Rf3 and wins.
Pillsbury: On this move Lasker studied 33 minutes. It is probably the only move to draw.
Steinitz: He had nothing better, as Black threatened 31...Re2.
31...Qxf3 32.gxf3 Re2
Pillsbury: The move forces the regaining of the pawn.
33.Bc1 Rxf2 34.Rxf2 Rd1+ 35.Kg2 Bxf2 36.Kxf2 Rxc1 37.Kg3 b6 38.Rd4
Pillsbury: Obviously if now 38.c5 b5 and wins a pawn.
38...Rc2 39.Rd8+ Kh7 40.Rb8 Rxb2 41.Ra8
Steinitz: White is wriggling out of a difficult game with consumate skill.
41...g5 42.Rxa4 h4+ 43.Kh3 Rf2 44.Rb4 Rxf3+ 45.Kg4 Rxa3 [2:55-2:40] 46.Rxb6 Ra2 47.Kxg5 Rxh2 48.Rb3 Rh1
Steinitz: 48...Rc2 instead was the simplest way of drawing.
49.Rc3 h3 50.Kg4 (Adjourned)
Pillsbury: The position is one that frequently occurs, with slight alterations. After winning the h-pawn the white king in order to force the win of the adverse rook for the pawn must cross the board to d7, during which time the black king and pawn will advance, and in turn the white rook must be given up to prevent the pawn queening. Of course, if the king does not cross the black rook is merely posed in front of the white c-pawn.
50...h2 (Sealed) ½-½
Boston Herald, 1894.03.28 & 29
New-York Daily Tribune, 1894.03.28
The Brooklyn Daily Eagle, 1894.03.28
New York Sun, 1894.03.28 & 30
New York Recorder, 1894.03.28 & 29

Game 6: Thursday, March 29, 1894.

(Special Dispatch to the Boston Herald.)
NEW YORK, March 29, 1894. The sixth meeting between Steinitz and Lasker brought out a most instructive game, full of deep play. At 11 P.M. it was adjourned until 3 o'clock tomorrow, in a most interesting position. The players had been at the tables for six hours.

Steinitz had the move, and the players proceeded with the same line of Giuoco piano opening as was played on last Saturday in the fourth game. Lasker at the eighth move adopted a different play, retreating his attacked bishop to Kt's 3d, instead of to K2. He obtained a very strong position early in the game, and it looked bad for Steinitz.

The latter studied 35 minutes over his 21st move, and two moves later sacrificed the exchange, winning two pawns later on, and remaining with two passed pawns in the centre, to counterbalance which Lasker had one on QB5.

Steinitz was obliged to double his pawns on the queen's file a few moves later, and to adopt defensive measures to prevent the advance of the adverse pawn.

Lasker was much pressed for time during the third hour, and had 11 moves to make in 15 minutes. He succeeded in doing so, however, without error, and sealed his 46th move after some reflection. The game will be concluded tomorrow.
H. N. Pillsbury.

Boston Herald, 1894.03.30, p5

(Special Dispatch to the Boston Herald.)
NEW YORK, March 30, 1894. The sixth game between Steinitz and Lasker, which was adjourned last night, was finished this afternoon, ending in a drawn battle after a total of 71 moves had been recorded. The seventh game will be commenced tomorrow at 3 P.M.

The score now is: Lasker, 2; Steinitz, 2; drawn, 2.
H. N. Pillsbury.

Boston Herald, 1894.03.31, p6

Date: 1894.03.29 & 1894.03.30
Site: USA New York, NY (Union Square Hotel)
Event: 1894 World Championship Match (Game 6)
White: Steinitz,W
Black: Lasker,Em
Opening: [C54] Italian
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.c3 Nf6 5.d4 exd4 6.e5 d5 7.Bb5 Ne4 8.cxd4 Bb6
Lasker: In the fourth game I played here 8...Be7; as, however, the c6-knight has the intention of going to that square later on, this move seems superior.
Pillsbury: Much stronger than 8...Be7 as played in the fourth game.
Steinitz: The regular book move and superior to the experiment, 8...Be7, as Lasker played in the fourth game.
9.Nc3 0-0 10.Be3 f5
Lasker: Necessary, in order to break White's attack.
11.exf6 Nxf6 12.Rc1 Qd6
Lasker: White threatened 13.Bxc6, followed by 14.Ne5.
13.0-0 Bg4
Pillsbury: 13...Ng4 looks very strong also. If 14.h3 Rxf3 15.hxg4 Rf7!! with a strong position.
Steinitz: Black develops rapidly. This is certainly better than 13...Ng4 14.h3 Rxf3 15.hxg4 Rf7 (best) 16.f3 etc., as pointed out by Pillsbury.
14.Be2 Rae8
Pillsbury: Black now has a very commanding position.
15.h3 Bxf3 [0:45-0:57]
Lasker: 15...Bc8 would have been just as good, but this move leads subsequently to the weakening of White's queenside.
16.Bxf3 Ne7 17.Ne2 Ng6 18.g3
Lasker: Forced, as 18...Nh4 with a strong attack was threatening.
Pillsbury: Necessary to prevent 18...Nh4.
18...c6 19.Bg2 Ne4 20.Qb3 Qf6 21.a4 (Adjourned) 21...Nd6 (Sealed)
Pillsbury: This move was sealed by Lasker at the 6 o'clock adjournment. 21...Nd2 looks very strong, but after 22.Bxd2 Rxe2 23.Be3 Bxd4 24.Qxb7, it will be found that Black gains nothing.
Steinitz: Several experts afterward pointed out that 21...Nd2 was much superior. The most likely continuation was 22.Bxd2 Rxe2 23.Be3 Bxd4 24.Qxb7 Bxe3 25.fxe3 Rf2, and play as White may, Black will remain with a superiority.
Pillsbury: A very fine move, preparatory to the sacrifice of the exchange.
Steinitz: 22.a5 with a view to going on to the sixth, in case the bishop retreats, would not have worked well, on account of 22...Bxa5 23.Bxd5+ cxd5 24.Qxd5+ Kh8 25.Qxa5 Qf3 followed soon by 26...Nf5.
22...Nc4 23.Rxc4
Lasker: The turning point of the game was the sacrifice of the exchange; although daring it relieved White considerably, and it appears that in no stage of the subsequent play could Black force a win.
Steinitz: The sacrifice seems to be sound, as the sequel shows.
23...dxc4 24.a5
Pillsbury: White obtains a superiority of pawns by this and the succeeding moves, which compensates for the exchange.
24...Bd8 25.Qxb7 Bxa5 26.Qxa7
Steinitz: Perhaps a better plan was 25.Qxc4+, followed ultimately by pawn to a6.
Steinitz: Very ingenious.
27.Qc5 Bxe3 28.fxe3 Qe6 29.Rxf8+ Rxf8 30.e4
Pillsbury: 30.d5 seems very strong at this point.
30...Qf7 [1:56-1:58] 31.Kh2 Rb8 32.Qxc6 Ne7
Lasker: If, for instance, Black on his thirty-second move, had continued with 32...Rxb2, then White would have replied: 33.Qc8+ Nf8 34.Nf4 g5 35.Qg4 and it cannot be seen how Black could play for a win in this position, strong as his passed pawn may appear.
Steinitz: 32...Rxb2 at once appears to be stronger. The game was likely to proceed 33.Qc8+ Nf8 34.Nf4 g5 35.Qg4 c3 36.Qxg5+ Ng6 37.Nd3 Qa2.
33.Qc7 Rxb2 34.Nf4
Pillsbury: And at this point 34.d5 appears almost to win. A lengthy analysis would be necessary to show the lines of play. I give one line: 34.d5 Rxe2 35.d6 Rd2 (best) 36.dxe7 Qe8 37.Qxc4+, and would at least draw.
34...g5 35.Nd5 Nxd5 36.Qd8+ Kg7 37.Qxg5+ Kh8 38.exd5 Re2 39.Qd8+ Re8 40.Qg5 Qg7 41.Qd2 Qf6 42.Qc3 Rc8 43.Bf3 Rb8 44.Bg2 Rc8
Steinitz: The last moves were made under pressure of time limit.
45.h4 Qd6 [2:50-2:57]
Lasker: If there was any chance later on with a line of play suggested by Showalter, namely 45...Qf5 instead of 45...Qd6, I could not take advantage of such a line of play because I was pressed for time, and could not possibly study out all the variations at my disposal.
46.Bh3 (Adjourned)
Pillsbury: Lasker sealed his 46th move. It is impossible to forecast the result, as the ending admits of many lines of play.
46...Rc7 (Sealed)
Pillsbury: The sealed move. 46...Rg8 was stronger.
Pope: I'm under the impression Steinitz means 46...Rb8 and not 46...Rg8, but I am not certain.
Steinitz: “R-Ktsq seems to give Black more chances of attack. White's best answer would have been B-Bsq.”
47.Be6 Qf8 48.Kg2 Qf6 49.Qa5 Re7 50.Qc5
Pillsbury: 50.g4 looks tempting (for if 50...Qxh4 51.Qd8+ Kg7 52.d6 and wins), but Black answers simply 50...Kg7 and White can gain nothing.
Steinitz: To drive the king out to h6 was of no use. It was more important to get rid of the dangerous c-pawn.
50...Re8 51.Qxc4 Rf8 52.Qe2
Steinitz: No better was 52.d6 Qf2+ 53.Kh3 Rf3 54.Qc8+ Rf8 55.Qc7 Qf1+ etc.
52...Qxd4 53.d6 Rd8
Lasker: The position after the forty-fifth move was rather to White's advantage, which he increased very nicely on his fifty-third turn by the offered sacrifice of his passed pawn. Of course I could not take it, as his queen would have given a neat mate on b2. However I could sacrifice the exchange, which White had to accept, because, if 54.Qf3 Qb2+ 55.Kh3 Qe5 and it would lead to a draw.
54.d7 Rxd7 55.Bxd7 Qxd7 56.Qe5+ Kg8 57.h5 Qg7
Pillsbury: A book draw is now arrived at; the two pawns cannot win against the h-pawn.
58.Qe8+ Qf8 59.Qxf8+ Kxf8
Steinitz: After this a regular book position arises.
60.Kf3 Kf7 [3:25-3:45] 61.Kg4 Kg7 62.Kg5 Kf7
Pillsbury: The only point in the ending: 62...Kg8 63.Kh6 Kh8 64.g4 Kg8 65.g5 Kh8 66.g6 hxg6 67.hxg6 Kg8 68.g7 and wins.
Steinitz: It is noteworthy that 62...Kg8 would lose by 63.Kh6 Kh8 64.g4 Kg8 65.g5 Kh8 66.g6 hxg6 67.hxg6 Kg8 68.g7 wins.
63.Kh6 Kg8 64.Kg5
Lasker: After the exchange of queens on the fifty-ninth move the game got to a well known book position, in which White lacked a tempo to win. For instance, if 64.g4 Kh8 65.g5 Kg8 66.g6 Kh8 and draws.
Steinitz: It will be seen that by advancing the pawn only a stalemate would result.
64...Kf7 65.Kf4 Kg7 66.Kf5 Kf7 67.g4 h6 68.Ke5 Ke7 69.Kd5 Kf6 70.Ke4 Ke671.Kd4 Kf6 [3:39-3:59] ½-½
Boston Herald, 1894.03.30 & 31
New York Sun, 1894.03.30 & 31
New York Recorder, 1894.03.30 & 31
New-York Daily Tribune, 1894.03.30 & 31
Brooklyn Daily Eagle, 1894.03.30 & 31

Saturday, March 31, 1894.

NEW YORK, March 31, 1894. Lasker cancelled today's game in the championship chess match. It is scheduled to be played on Tuesday instead. Lasker did not feel well disposed.

Boston Herald, 1894.04.01

Game 7: Tuesday, April 3, 1894.

(Special Dispatch to the Boston Herald.)
NEW YORK, April 3, 1894. Another Ruy Lopez was the expectation of the chess players who thronged to the Steinitz-Lasker match today, and they were not disappointed.

Lasker, however, altered his course of attack against Steinitz's favorite 3. P-Q3, and at the sixth move chose a more developing move, B-K3, and, following with Q-Q2, castled upon the queen's side.

Steinitz soon castled upon the king's side, and Lasker began at once to advance the K Kt pawn upon his adversary. He neglected, however, to strengthen his centre by P-KB3, and Steinitz planned a deep trap, into which he drew his opponent and won two pawns.

Lasker made the best of a bad bargain, however, and succeeded in instituting a strong attack, which should have come to nought. Steinitz played to win Lasker's remaining minor piece, however, and in so doing needlessly imperilled his own king.

Lasker promptly took advantage of his opponent's error in taking the piece, and instituted an attack which Steinitz, albeit he was a piece to the good, could not parry, and he was obliged on the 43d move to lose his queen, and three moves later resigned the game.
H. N. Pillsbury.

Boston Herald, 1894.04.04, p5

Date: 1894.04.03
Site: USA New York, NY (Union Square Hotel)
Event: 1894 World Championship Match (Game 7)
White: Lasker,Em
Black: Steinitz,W
Opening: [C62] Spanish
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 d6 4.d4 Bd7 5.Nc3 Nge7 6.Be3
Lasker: The game proceeded on novel lines from the fifth move, when, in order to get more advantage out of the position, I changed my line of attack completely. The fundamental difference of the two treatments consisted in the early castling on the queenside and playing for an attack on the kingside.
Pillsbury: Evidently a better continuation than 6.Bc4 as previously played by Lasker. 6.Bg5 is also a strong continiation, the best answer, according to Steinitz, being 6...f6.
Steinitz: A novel line of play for the attack.
6...Ng6 7.Qd2 Be7 8.0-0-0
Pillsbury: Peraps a trifle premature. We would prefer 8.Nd5 or 8.Ne2, followed soon by pawn to c3, thus reserving the option of castling on either side.
8...a6 9.Be2 exd4 10.Nxd4 Nxd4 11.Qxd4
Pillsbury: If 11.Bxd4 Bg5 12.Be3 Bxe3 13.Qxe3 0-0; with a safe game it will be found that Black's dark-square bishop has very little scope in the Ruy Lopez opening, and this exchange ob bishops would be favorable for Black.
11...Bf6 12.Qd2 Bc6 13.Nd5
Pillsbury: Better was 13.f3. 13...0-0 14.g4
Lasker: It seems, however, that I overreached my attack when playing 14.g4. A quiet move like 14.f3 first would have greatly solidified my position.
Pillsbury: This attack turns out unfavorably, mainly because he fails to adopt the correct move of 14.f3 before advancing.
Pillsbury: The initiatory move of a deep trap and his oppinent goes into it head first.
Pillsbury: And Lasker should surely have seen his danger and even now play 15.f3.
Steinitz: This advance is premature, He evidently overlooked Black's coming scheme. 15.f3 was better.
15...Bxd5 [0:45-0:46] 16.Qxd5
Pillsbury: Had White continued 16.exd5, many interesting lines of play occur, leading to a slight advantage for Black. For instance 16.exd5 Rxe3 17.fxe3 Bxg5. And Black will win at least another pawn for the exchange, and the result would be favorable to him. After 16.exd5 Black would lose a piece should he attempt 16...Be5; viz.; 16.exd5 Be5 17.Bd3 Qe7 18.Rde1 followed by pawn to f4 and wins.
Steinitz: This is bad and should have lost; 16.exd5 was the correct move.
Pillsbury: The full force of this move was doubtless overlooked by Lasker.
Pillsbury: 17.Qxb7 also turns out unfavorably for White, as he opens the file for an attack on his own king.
Pillsbury: Better than 17...Rxg5, although this was also safe.
Pillsbury: There appears to be nothing better, for if now 18.f3 Bxe3 19.Qxe3 Qg5 forcing the exchange of queens with a pawn ahead.
Steinitz: This results in the loss of a second pawn, but is White's best chance of attack now.
Pope: The following note appears between White's 18th move and Black's 23rd move.
Steinitz: A kingside attack was here his only chance and White now plays a rather ingenious one.
19.fxg5 Qe7
Pillsbury: Regaining the sacrificed piece, with two pawns ahead. 20.Rdf1
Lasker: Steinitz, by a very finely laid trap, gained two pawns, and, although I could have won at least one of them back by 20.Bf3, I preferred to go on with my attack.
Pillsbury: 20.Bf3 would be no better: 20.Bf3 Rxe3 21.Bxb7 Ra7 22.Bc6 Qxg5, with his two pawns ahead and a defensible position. The course taken initiates a strong attack against the adverse king, which should have amounted to nothing.
20...Rxe3 21.Bc4 Nh8
Lasker: Apparently Black underrated the game, otherwise he would have played 21...Rf8.
Pillsbury: In the usual Steinitz style; it is a question whether 21...Rf8 were not better.
22.h4 c6 23.g6
Lasker: Perhaps my twenty-third move was unexpected to him. When I sacrificed a third pawn he did not see his way clear to accept the offer, because I would have forced an open h-file.
Pillsbury: A desperate attempt which succeeds beyond expectations.
Steinitz: A little consideration ought to have shown Black that he could safely capture, 23...hxg6, followed by pawn to g5 upon the advance of White's h-pawn to the fifth.
Pillsbury: For after 23...hxg6 24.h5 d5 25.hxg6 (threatening mate in four moves by 26.Rxh8+) 25...Nxg6 26.Qh2 (again threatening mate in three moves) 26...Qg5 and White's attack goes to pieces.
24.gxh7+ Kxh7 25.Bd3+ Kg8 26.h5 Re8 27.h6 g6 28.h7+ Kg7 29.Kb1 Qe5 30.a3 c5 [1:58-1:50] 31.Qf2 c4 32.Qh4
Steinitz: At first glance it would seem that White could win by 32.Bxg6. But this does not realize if Black simply plays 32...fxg6 33.Qh4 Nf7 34.h8Q+ Rxh8 35.Rxf7+ Kxf7 36.Qxh8 Qxh8 etc.
Lasker: On Steinitz's thirty-second turn I expected 32...Kf8, whereupon again 33.Bf5 would have left me with good chances for a draw, as the bishop could not well be taken on account of 34.Rhg1. My opponent preferred to play 32...f6 instead, which was a trifle risky. In consequence I held a very strong position, which should have been a warning for Black not to attempt to force the win. In the end Black's winning chances were almost annihilated, if indeed White had not the best of the bargain.
Pillsbury: Certainly 32...Kf8 was better, for if 33.Bxg6 Nxg6 34.h8Q+ Nxh8 35.Qxh8+ Qxh8 36.Rxh8+ Ke7, and should win.
33.Bf5 Kf7 34.Rhg1 gxf5
Pillsbury: This appears extremely hazardous, to say the least. It would require a careful analysis to prove whether or not he could have safely captured the bishop now or on the preceding move.
Steinitz: 34...g5 was probably better.
35.Qh5+ Ke7 36.Rg8 Kd6 37.Rxf5 Qe6 38.Rxe8 Qxe8 39.Rxf6+ Kc5
Steinitz: Now 39...Kc7 was much better.
40.Qh6 Re7
Pillsbury: There seems nothing better.
Pillsbury: Of course, if 41.Rf8 Rxh7 and wins.
Lasker: However, Steinitz, still playing for a win, committed a great blunder on his forty-first move, lost the queen and knight or rook, and resigned shortly afterward.
Pillsbury: If instead 41...Qd8, then 42.Qg1+ Kb5 43.a4+, and wins in all variations.
Steinitz: Disastrous. Black was, however, under pressure of time limit hereabouts. He should have played 41...Re6.
42.Qg1+ d4 43.Qg5+ Qd5 44.Rf5 Qxf5 45.Qxf5+ Kd6 [2:55-2:52] 46.Qf6+ [2:56-2:53] 1-0
Boston Herald, 1894.04.04
New York Sun, 1894.04.04
New-York Daily Tribune, 1894.04.04
The Brooklyn Daily Eagle, 1894.04.04
New York Recorder, 1894.04.05 & 22

Game 8: Tuesday, April 5, 1894.

(Special Dispatch to the Boston Herald.)
NEW YORK, April 5, 1894. Steinitz and Lasker met today at 3 o'clock and commenced the eighth and final game of the New York series.

Steinitz promptly advanced P-K4, and Lasker, after some reflection, adopted the well known "French defence"—P-K3. Lasker chose for his third and fourth moves a line of play invented and practised by several of the leading Philadelphia amateurs.

A very slow and cautious development of forces followed, and at the 33d move nothing was missing from the board except two pawns from each side, the play having been up to this point a series of marches and countermarches, without any active fighting.

From this point, however, the play became very interesting. Steinitz had obtained a slight advantage during the opening moves—viz., a majority of three pawns to two upon the queen's side—and the question now was whether he could break in. At his 35th move he failed to take advantage of his opportunity of so doing, and his 39th move was very weak, as it left his pawn position on the king's side, full of "holes."

On Lasker's 40th move he seemed bound to win one of Steinitz's pawns on the queen's side. Steinitz, however, being much pressed for time, got his remaining minor piece, a knight, into trouble, and was obliged to surrender it for two pawns.

The position was adjourned at 3 P.M. Lasker will probably score this game, and go to Philadelphia with a lead of two games.
H. N. Pillsbury.

Boston Herald, 1894.04.06, p2

(Special Dispatch to the Boston Herald.)
NEW YORK, April 6, 1894. The eighth game of the chess match between Steinitz and Lasker was completed this afternoon, and resulted, as predicted in this morning's HERALD, in a victory for Lasker, Steinitz resigning after 30 moves had been made, making a total of 76 moves.

Lasker missed a direct win on his 47th move, and Steinitz was enabled to make quite a struggle. Lasker forced the exchange of the rooks and remained with queen and bishop against bishop, Steinitz having three pawns against his two, however.

Lasker played the end game accurately, and scored on his 76th move.
H. N. Pillsbury.

Boston Herald, 1894.04.07, p7

Date: 1894.04.05 & 1894.04.06
Site: USA New York, NY (Union Square Hotel)
Event: 1894 World Championship Match (Game 8)
White: Steinitz,W
Black: Lasker,Em
Opening: [C10] French
1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4
Lasker: Perhaps not as strong as the usual continuation 3...Nf6. It has the advantage of creating a free game in the center.
Pillsbury: The line of play initiated on Black's third and fourth moves is the invention of Mr. Robinson, a prominent Philadelphia player.
Steinitz: First brought into public notice by the late J. H. Bauer in a local tournament in Vienna.
4.Nxe4 Nd7 5.Nf3 Ngf6 6.Ng3
Pillsbury: Evidently playing for complications. I should prefer 6.Nxf6+ Nxf6 7.Bd3 followed by castles and pawn to c3 with the intention of resting the game upon the confined position of Black's light-square bishop and his inability to advance pawn to e5.
6...c5 7.Be2
Lasker: The bishop cannot well be played to d3 as it would constantly be harassed on that square by the black knights.
7...cxd4 8.Nxd4 Bc5 9.Nb3 Be7 10.0-0 0-0 11.Bd2 Qc7 12.c4
Lasker: Partly to keep the black pieces from d5, partly a preparation for a queenside attack. The text move gives White a little pull.
Pillsbury: Beginning to force the play with his majority of pawns on the queen's side.
12...Ne5 13.Qc2
Steinitz: 13.Rc1 was superior.
Steinitz: Hardly as good as 13...Nc6.
Stenitz: More consistent with the queenside attack which he had in view was 14.Rfc1.
14...Bd7 15.Rac1 Rfc8 [0:52-0:45]
Pillsbury: Probably intending to keep the other rook at its own square for defensive purposes; as will be seen, he afterwards alters his plan.
Steinitz: Black also loses time.
Pillsbury: The "Steinitz" method of intrenching his king.
16...Ba4 17.Bc3 Ng4
Lasker: Laying a trap. If White advances 17...Ng4 18.h3 Bxb3 19.axb3 Bc5 20.hxg4 Qxg3 21.b4 Nf4 22.bxc5 Nh3+ 23.Kh1 Nxf2+ 24.Kg1 Nxg4 and should win.
Pillsbury: Apparently time is lost here.
Steinitz: This move is wasted, as will be seen.
18.Qe2 Nf6 19.Nd4 Bd7 20.b4 Rd8 21.Qb2 Rac8 22.Nb3 Qf4
Pillsbury: The fencing for position is not of a lively sort, and the game so far offers little scope for brilliancy.
23.Bd2 Qb8
Pope: I suspect that that in the following note 25.Kt-B5 is 25.Ndf5 but I have no proof.
Steinitz: “Black sees in time that nothing could be gained by 23...Q-R5 24.Kt-Q4 B-B3 25.Kt-B5, winning a very strong pawn.”
Lasker: This move gets White into difficulties. 24.Bc3 would have been preferable. White's object ought to have been to maintain a pressure on the adversary's kingside, while the c-pawn ought to have been pushed first.
Pillsbury: This advance seems very premature; better was 24.a3 followed as soon as possible by Be3 and pawn to c5.
Steinitz: This advance was probably premature. The two pawns abreast are much stronger than in the present situation.
24...b6 25.Bc3 Ne8 26.Nh5
Pillsbury: And here 26.Ne4 is far superior; for if 26.Ne4 f6 White answers at once 27.c5, and establishes his superiority on the queen's wing.
Pope: In the following note I believe Steinitz means 28.a3 instead of 28.a4. See next note by Steinitz
Steinitz: 26.Ne4 was obviously much stronger and in fact there seems to be no satisfactory answer. If then 26...f6 27.c5 bxc5 28.Ba5 Nc7 29.Nbxc5 with a winning advantage. Or 26...f5 27.Ned2 followed by 28.a4 and 29.Bb4.
26...f6 27.a4
Steinitz: Again wrong. He should either not advance it at all or only one square.
27...e5 28.a5 Bg4 29.Ng3 Be6 30.Nd2
Lasker: Hardly a move to my liking, inasmuch as it crowds White's pieces too much. Why not 30.Bd2?
30...Nf4 [1:55-1:55] 31.Qb1
Pillsbury: A very backward position of the queens.
31...Bf7 32.Nf5 Bf8 33.Bb4 Nd6 34.Nxd6 Bxd6 35.Ne4
Pillsbury: Much stronger was 35.Bxd6 Rxd6 36.axb6 axb6 37.Ne4 Rd4 38.c5 had the white queen remained at b1 the 38th move of Black would be impossible.
Steinitz: Time pressure becomes evident from this point up to the forty-fifth move. White could have obtained an excellent attack by 35.Bxd6 Rxd6 36.Ne4 Bg6 37.axb6 axb6 38.Nxd6 Bxb1 39.Nxc8 Bg6 40.Nxb6 Qxb6 41.c5 and it will be found by close examination that White wins.
35...Bxb4 36.Qxb4 Rd4 37.axb6
Lasker: Here 37.Rcd1 was preferable, because the black rooks threaten to become rather dangerous on that file, and it would have been advantageous for White to exchange a least one of the rooks and to continue his attack with Qe7.
37...axb6 38.g3
Lasker: An error in judgment; it weakens the kingside and allows Black to exchange his knight for bishop, a piece which added much toward solidifying White's game. Now White loses a pawn by force.
Pillsbury: This move is weak now, and his game goes rapidly to the bad from this point.
Pillsbury: This powerful move, forcing the exchange of the adverse bishop, leaves Black with a winning advantage in position.
39.Bxd3 Rxd3 40.c5
Pillsbury: There seems nothing better, as the pawn is indefensible.
Lasker: 40...Rb3 would probably lead to a draw, namely: 41.Qa4 bxc5 42.Nxc5 Rxb5 (if 42...Qxb5 instead, White continues 43.Nxb3) 43.Nd7 Rxc1 44.Rxc1 Qb7 45.Nc5, and so on.
Pillsbury: 40...Rb3 also seems to win a pawn.
41.Qb1 bxc5 42.Nxc5 Rc4 43.Nd7
Lasker: Giving up the piece for two pawns would have been the best course to adopt, but for the consequences of White's thirty-eigth move. Any other continuation loses the b-pawn by force.
Pillsbury: This loses the knight in a few moves; Steinitz was much pressed for time between the 41st and 45th moves.
Steinitz: Hazardous in the extreme. 43.Na6 Rxc1 44.Rxc1 Rxc1+ 45.Qxc1 Qxb5 46.Qc8+, and though Black is a pawn ahead White ought to draw.
43...Qb7 44.Rcd1 Be6 45.Nxe5 fxe5 [3:00-2:54]
Steinitz: This desperate resource was the only one.
46.Rxe5 (Adjourned)
Pillsbury: The sealed move is probably 46...Bh3, and the game can hardly be saved.
46...Bh3 (Sealed)
Pillsbury: This was the move sealed by Lasker at the adjournment last night, and should have won in a very few moves.
47.Red5 Rc1
Pillsbury: And now 47...R4c5 win immediately, for if 48.Qb3 Rxd5 49.Rxd5 Rc1+ 50.Rd1+ Kh8 51.f3 Qb6+ 52.Kh1 Qf2 and forces mate.
48.Qd3 h6
Lasker: If 48...Rxd1+ 49.Qxd1 Rc1 50.Rd8+ Kf7 51.Rd7+ Qxd7 52.Qxc1, and matters for Black would have been made more difficult. Although White makes a gallant fight, he could not possibly prevent the ultimate loss.
Steinitz: White is completely tied up, and this is the only way to give him temporary relief. If 49.f3 Qb6+ 50.Kh1 (or 50.Rd4 Rxd1+ followed by 51...Rc4) 50...Rxd1+ 51.Qxd1 Qf2 52.Rd8+ Rxd8 53.Qxd8+ Kh7 54.Qd3+ g6 and wins.
49...Bxg4 50.f3 Rxd1+ 51.Qxd1 Be6 52.Rd6 Qe7 53.b6 Rc1
Pillsbury: Lasker takes no chances.
54.Qxc1 Qxd6 55.Qe3 Bd5 56.Kg2 Qg6+ 57.Kf2 Qc2+ 58.Kg3 Qg6+ 59.Kf2 Qc2+ 60.Kg3 Qg6+ [3:15-3:50] 61.Kf2 Bb7 62.Qb3+ Qf7 63.Qd3 Qd5 64.Qe3 Qd6 65.Kg2 Kf7 66.h4
Pillsbury: It seems better to keep this either at the third or second square; however, the end is only a question of time.
Steinitz: The ending is beautifuly played by Lasker.
67.Qf4+ Kg6 68.Qg3+ Kh7 69.Qf2 Qg4+
Pillsbury: And this settles it, as the win of another pawn or the exchange of queens is forced.
70.Kh2 Qxf3 71.Qc2+ Qe4 72.Qf2 Qf3 73.Qc2+ Be4 74.Qd2 Qf6 75.Qe3 Qxh4+ [3:40-4:20] 76.Kg1 Qg5+ [3:40-4:20] 0-1
Boston Herald, 1894.04.06 & 07
New York Sun, 1894.04.06 & 07
New York Recorder, 1894.04.06, 07 & 29
The Brooklyn Daily Eagle, 1894.04.06 & 07

Game 9: Saturday, April 14, 1894.

[Special Dispatch to the Boston Herald.]
PHILADELPHIA, Pa., April 14, 1894. Lasker kept up his winning streak today by winning the first game of the Philadelphia series, after 49 moves.

The Ruy Lopez was again the opening, Lasker having the move. He changed his tactics on his fourth move, but did not appear to gain ground by it. In the contrary, Steinitz, after forcing the exchange of queens and two minor pieces, appeared to have at least an equal game. His attack, initiated by 12 Kt-K4, was, however, faulty, and led him into difficulties.

Lasker utilized the advantage obtained by himself to the utmost, and, by very fine play, succeeded in winning a pawn, in exchange for one of the remaining rooks.

Steinitz played most ingeniously, and the issue was doubtful for a long time, but Lasker, by fine movements of his king, won a second pawn, and, although Steinitz formed a strong passed pawn on his KR file, Lasker succeeded in stopping it, after the remaining rooks had been exchanged, and advancing his own pawn toward queening. As it could not be stopped, Steinitz resigned on his 49th move.
H. N. Pillsbury.

Boston Herald, 1894.04.15, p6

Date: 1894.04.14
Site: USA Philadelphia, PA (Franklin Chess Club)
Event: 1894 World Championship Match (Game 9)
White: Lasker,Em
Black: Steinitz,W
Opening: [C62] Spanish
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 d6 4.Nc3
Lasker: The fourth move of White inaugurated not a mere transposition of the succession of moves, as were played in former games, but it left White with the additional advantage of playing Bc4 either before or after pawn to d4.
Steinitz: Played by Chigorin vs. Steinitz in match at Havana in '91, with the continuation: 4...Bd7 5.d4 Nge7 6.Bg5 f6 7.Be3.
4...a6 5.Bc4
Steinitz: White could hardly exchange and 5.Ba4 would have cut him off from the kingside. Black has therefore evidently gained a move in the development as compared with similar positions.
Steinitz: Either this or 5...Be7 was now indispensable.
Lasker: The opening, after Black's fifth move, into well-known lines of the Philidor defense. It is doubtful whether the exchanging of bishops, or the retiring to b3, is preferable.
6...fxe6 7.d4 exd4 8.Nxd4 Nxd4
Steinitz: Too much simplification was the result of this exchange and 8...Qd7 was probably the best way to avoid this.
9.Qxd4 Ne7 10.Bg5 Nc6
Lasker: Black's tenth move was practically forced, as White threatened 11.Bxe7 with a very strong position.
11.Bxd8 Nxd4 12.0-0-0 Nb5
Lasker: Black evidently overrated his attack when he offered the exchange of knights on the twelfth move.
Steinitz: As second player, Black should have been content with the slight advantage arising from doubling the pawns by 12...Nb3+, followed by 13...Rxd8. In trying to do more he seriously compromises his position. Although he recovers the sacrificed pawn, his doubled b-pawns become the source of trouble.
13.Nxb5 axb5 14.Bxc7 Rxa2
Steinitz: The better plan was anyhow 14...Ra6 15.e5 d5 16.a3 Kd7 17.Bd6 Bxd6 18.exd6 Rf8 etc.
Steinitz: Obviously he could not take the pawn on account of the check, and Black threatens ...Ra6.
Steinitz: Feeble as compared with 15...b4, which would have rendered White's game very difficult.
16.c3 Kf7
Lasker: Probably 16...Ra4 and if 17.Rhe1 b4 was Steinitz's strongest line of play, as this was really his only chance to dissolve his doubled pawn during the whole game. After this omission White got a slight pull.
Steinitz: A grave error of judgment to which the loss of the game may fairly be ascribed. 16...Kd7, followed soon by Kc6, would have brought the necessary support to the weak pawns on the queenside. If then, 17.Bd4 Rf8, or 17.Bc5 Kc6 18.Ba3 Ra1+ 19.Kc2 Rxd1, with at least an even game.
17.Kc2 Rha8 18.Kb3 R2a4 19.f3 R8a6
Steinitz: Only driving the bishop to a better square. Much superior was 19...g5 either on this or the next move.
20.Bd4 g6 21.Rd3 Ke8 22.Rhd1 e5
Lasker: On account of the weakness of his d-pawn Black seemed compelled to push his e-pawn on his twenty-second turn.
Steinitz: Black overlooked the force of White's twenty-fourth move. 22...g5 was, under any circumstances, much better.
23.Be3 Kd7 24.Bc5
Steinitz: A beautiful key move to splendid ending play in a series of fine moves carried through by White in a style that can hardly be improved upon.
24...Ra1 25.R1d2 Ke6 26.Ba3
Lasker: Now on my twenty-sixth move I might have avoided many complications by advancing 26.h3, although 26...h5 would have been a very strong rejoinder on the part of Black.
26...g5 27.Rd5 Rb6 28.Kb4 g4 29.Ka5
Steinitz: All in grand style. Black will gain nothing now by 29...Bd8, as White seems to answer 30.Rxb5.
29...Ra6+ 30.Kxb5
Lasker: In actual play I had to make a very tedious maneuver in order to win the b-pawn. While I was thus engaged in my scheme Black initiated a strong attack upon my king's flank in a truly marvellous manner and I had to give my entire attention to it, although I had a decisive superiority of pawns.
Lasker: On Steinitz's thirtieth move he might have continued 30...Rh1 31.fxg4 Re1 32.h3 Rxe4 33.c4; but he evidently thought that in this variation White's kingside pawns would prove to be too dangerous.
Steinitz: Lasker himself was of the opinion that 30...Rh1 gave Black drawing chances. After the text move there appears to be no hope and Lasker plays the ending with his accustomed accuracy.
31.Rd1 Rxd1 32.Rxd1 gxf3 33.gxf3 Ra8 34.Kb6 Rg8 35.Kxb7
Lasker: Had I, at my thirty-fifth move, continued with 35.Rd2, then my opponent would have replied with 35...Rg7, thus saving his b-pawn, and he would have threatened to push his h-pawn, which, in some variations, would have given him even a chance to win.
35...Rg2 36.h4 Rh2 37.Kc6 Bxh4 38.Rxd6+ Kf7 39.Kd5
Lasker: My thirty-ninth move was probably forced, as Black's h-pawn could advance, for if 39.Rh6 Bg5 40.Rh8 Kg7 41.Re8 Bf4 42.Bd6 Kf7 43.Rh8 Kg7 44.Re8 Kf7 45.Re7+ Kf6 46.Rh7 Kg6 and it is very doubtful, indeed, whether White could win.
Lasker: Black could have won my bishop by 39...Rd2+ 40.Kxe5 Rxd6 41.Bxd6 Bg3+ 42.f4 h4 43.Bc5 h3 44.Bg1 h2, but my pawns would have won.
40.Rd7+ Kg6 41.Ke6 h4 42.Rd1 h3 43.Rg1+ Rg2 44.Rxg2+ hxg2 45.Bc5 Bd8 46.b4 Kg5 47.Kd7 Bf6 48.b5 Kf4 49.b6 1-0
Boston Herald, 1894.04.15, p6
New York Sun, 1894.04.15 & 16
New-York Daily Tribune, 1894.04.16
New York Recorder, 1894.04.17

Tuesday, April 17, 1894.

There will be no game in the chess match at Philadelphia today. Steinitz has a cold, and the postponement is at his request. The next game will be on Thursday.

Boston Herald, 1894.04.17

Game 10: Thursday, April 19, 1894.

[Special Dispatch to the Boston Herald.]
PHILADELPHIA, Pa., April 19, 1894. The 10th game of the Lasker-Steinitz match was played today. Steinitz had the move, and opened with 1 P-Q4, and the game soon assumed the phase of the queen's gambit declined.

Steinitz, on his fourth move, introduced a line of play which he first played against Gunsburg in the match in 1890, viz., 4 P-KB3. The line of play is highly questionable, as black always appears to get the better development of pieces. It was so today, and after queens were exchanged Steinitz remained with an isolated QBP on its third square—always a source of weakness.

Lasker developed his attack on this pawn admirably, and succeeded in winning it on his 23d move, forming thereby a most dangerous passed pawn. Steinitz had previously castled on this side, intending to guard it with his king, but as a consequence his king became greatly exposed.

Lasker played in masterly style and Steinitz was compelled to resign on the 35th move, his position being utterly untenable.

Lasker has now won four consecutive games, the score being Lasker, 6; Steinitz, 2; drawn, 2. The next game will be played Saturday at the Union League Club.
H. N. Pillsbury.

Boston Herald, 1894.04.20, p6

Date: 1894.04.19
Site: USA Philadelphia, PA (Franklin Chess Club)
Event: 1894 World Championship Match (Game 10)
White: Steinitz,W
Black: Lasker,Em
Opening: [D35] Queen's Gambit Declined
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.f3
Lasker: As far as I know Steinitz first introduced his fourth move, 4.f3, in his match against Gunsberg, in similar positions. The object of the move is to establish a strong center by means of afterward playing pawn to e4. Of course Black's rejoinder, 4...c5, seems therefore practically forced.
Showalter: Steinitz first tested this experiment in his match against Gunsberg, if our memory is not at fault, and with better results than in the present instance. But, critically considered, this move seems by no means favorable to White giving him an awkward form of development and practically throwing away at once the advantage of the move.
Showalter: No doubt the correct and best reply, and one that to our way of thinking speedily exposes the weakness of White's fourth move. White is practically forced to exchange the pawns now as 5.e3 is an unfavorable alternative and results in the isolation of the d-pawn with a weakened pawn position on the kingside; or, if 6.Qxd4 in reply to 5...cxd4, the gaining of important developing time by 6...Nc6 attacking the queen; either contingency being unfavorable to White.
5.dxc5 Bxc5 6.cxd5 Nxd5 7.e4
Lasker: Some of the spectators expected that Steinitz would take the knight on his seventh turn, but like myself he probably thought that the pawn, although isolated, was not at all weak; to the contrary, it might have been very troublesome to White.
Showalter: 7.Nxd5 Qxd5 8.Qxd5 exd5 isolates a pawn on the d-file for Black, but at the same time leaves White with the inferior game as his e-pawn is weak and he is behind in development. It will be seen that in this case White must play 9.e3 (if 9.e4, 9...dxe4 etc.) at once, as Black threatens by pawn to d4, to permanently block the white pawn's advance. Black then proceeds by 9...0-0 and ...Re8, or ...Nc6, with decidely the better game. However, even the text move (7.e4) is not free from disadvantages, in that it seriously weakens White's queenside pawns, but it is obviously the best under the circumstances.
7...Nxc3 8.Qxd8+ Kxd8 9.bxc3 Nc6
Showalter: Black has two pieces in the field and an intact pawn position on either side, while the white pieces are unmoved as yet. This, in addition to the disadvantages mentioned in preceding note. The outcome of the opening thus far is in itself sufficient commentary on 4.f3.
10.Nh3 Kc7 11.Nf4 Rd8 12.Nd3 Bd6 13.f4
Lasker: Nothing need be said about the following five moves, but White's thirteenth move, 13.f4 was hardly to be recommended. His object ought to have been to bring about a quick development of his pieces, as for instance, 13.Be2 and 0-0, rather than go in for a useless attack, which seriously compromised his e-pawn.
13...b6 14.Nf2 Bc5 15.Be2 Bb7 [0:45-0:32] 16.Nd3 Bf8 17.f5
Lasker: The champion's seventeenth move was a well laid trap, for had I played 17...exf5, I would have removed White's weakness from e4, and would have given him a free game for attacking purposes. I therefore selected 17...e5 as my reply, which kept my pawns well joined and in a good position.
Showalter: If 17.e5 Ne7 18.0-0 Ba6 19.Rd1 Rd7 20.Ba3 (20.Bb2 Rad8 21.Nc1 Bxe2 22.Rxd7+ Rxd7 23.Nxe2 Rd2 and wins) 20...Nd5 21.Bxf8 Rxf8 22.g3 Ne3 23.Rd2 Rfd8 24.Kf2 Ng4+ 25.Bxg4 (best) 25...Rxd3 26.Rxd3 Rxd3 and should win.
17...e5 18.Bg5
Showalter: Why this strengthening of the e-pawn instead of 18.Be3 at once is not clear, except upon presumption of pressure of time limit. Perhaps, however, White had visions of posting a bishop at e6. The knight could not readily reach that square.
18...f6 19.Be3 Rac8
Lasker: My nineteenth move, 19...Rac8, was preparing ...Na5, to be followed by ...Nc4; if then the knight would have been taken, I should have retaken with my rook and would certainly have received my adversary's e-pawn. That this line of play could not have been prevented will best be seen on White's twenty-first move.
Showalter: Bad indeed. The weakened queenside menaced by hostile rooks on open files affords very uncertain security for the white king. He had much better have castled kingside, afterward playing 21.Rfc1 and advancing the c-pawn and a-pawn with some prospect of attack.
20...Kb8 21.Nf2
Lasker: If, for instance: 21.Kb2 Na5 22.Nf2 either 22...Rxd1 followed by 23...Ba3+ etc., as pointed out by Steinitz after the game, or simply 22...Bd6 followed by 23...Nc4+, would have decided the game in favor of Black.
Showalter: If 21.Kb2, the following was a likely continuation: 21...Na5 22.Nf2 Ba3+ 23.Kc2 Bc6 etc., but, though Black has a fine attack, he does not necessarily win the pawn.
Lasker: My twenty-first move, 21...Nd4, was the simplest way of forcing the win, as obviously White was bound to lose at least one pawn, while Black still kept his superiority in position.
22.Bxd4 exd4 23.Bd3 dxc3 24.g4 Ba3+ 25.Kc2
Showalter: Forced; as, if 25.Kb1 Rxd3 and wins.
25...Bc6 26.Kb3 Bc5 27.Nh3
Showalter: This unfortunate knight, which has been rolling porpoise like to and fro between h3 and d3 (via f2 and f4) at intervals all through the game, has this time sufficient grounds for a return to the old love at h3. If 27.Rhf1 Bxf2 28.Rxf2 Bxe4 winning easily.
27...Be3 28.Bc2 Bd2 29.Nf2
Showalter: Floundering back to d3! But there is now nothing else. The game is hopeless.
29...Rd4 30.Ka3 Be8
Showalter: Black pushes his attack with consummate skill. Every move tells. He now forces White to give up the e-pawn by the threat of ...b5 and ...b4, followed by ...Bf7+ etc.
31.Nd3 Rxe4 32.Nb4 Rd4
Showalter: A beautiful finish!
33.Bb3 a5 34.Nc2 b5 0-1
Boston Herald, 1894.04.20, p6
New York Sun, 1894.04.20
New-York Daily Tribune, 1894.04.20 & 21
New York Recorder, 1894.07.08

Game 11: Saturday, April 21, 1894.

[Special Dispatch to the Boston Herald.]
PHILADELPHIA, Pa., April 21, 1894. Lasker scored another victory in the chess match tonight. The score now stands: Lasker, won, 7; Steinitz, won, 2; drawn, 2.
H. N. Pillsbury.

Boston Herald, 1894.04.22, p5

Date: 1894.04.21
Site: USA Philadelphia, PA (Union League Club)
Event: 1894 World Championship Match (Game 11)
White: Lasker,Em
Black: Steinitz,W
Opening: [D40] Queen's Gambit Declined
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Nf3 Be7 5.e3 0-0 6.Bd3
Pillsbury: In the telegraphic match Vienna-Paris (1884-86), this position was arrived at by a transposition of moves, the first moves being Vienna (white) 1.c4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 Be7 5.e3 0-0. The Viennese players here continued 6.Be2, and Paris answered 6...b6.
6...c5 7.dxc5
Pillsbury: This exchange of pawns is premature. 7.0-0 appears better.
7...dxc4 8.Bxc4 Qxd1+ 9.Kxd1
Pillsbury: Rather than lose a move with the knight which would be obliged to regurn to c3 later. Beside, he foresees that his king will be well placed at e2.
Showalter: The sacrifice of the castling privilege is of little moment in this opening, generally speaking, while in the present instance the position of the king in the center even proves of great advantage to White in the later stages of the game. The newly crowned king of chess evidently approves of the Steinitzian maxim that “the king is also a fighting piece.” It is significant that the overthrow of the apostle of the “modern school” was accomplished by that disciple who has shown in his play the keenest appreciation of “modern school” principles and who has adhered to those principles with more tenacious consistency than any other master who has yet appeared, not even excepting the great founder of that “school” himself.
Pillsbury: Better than to retake the pawn, as it cannot be maintained by white if now 10.Na4 Ne4, with the better game.
10.a3 Bxc5
Lasker: With the one exception of White leaving his king in the center, the opening is played up to the tenth move on conservative and well-known lines, resulting in an even position.
11.b4 Bb6
Showalter: Probably reserving the square at e7 for the retreat of the knight.
12.Ke2 Bd7 13.Bb3
Pillsbury: Black threatens 13...Rac8.
Pillsbury: White having guarded against this move, 13...Rfd8 at once followed by 14...Be8 seems better.
14.Bb2 a5
Pillsbury: Premature. The better move was still 14...Rfd8.
Showalter: Creating subsequent difficulties. 14...Rfd8 looks much better and more consistent.
15.b5 Ne7 [0:32-0:45]
Lasker: On his fifteenth move Black, as the sequel shows, made a premature move, and got into a rather difficult game; for instance, if he had played 15...Kh8, White would have answered 16.Na4 Bc7 17.Nc5, with a decided advantage.
Pillsbury: White appears to gain ground here. Black cannot afford to allow the exchange of his bishop for the adverse knight and is now compelled to block his rook.
Showalter: For now this bishop, which Black is loath to give up for the opposing knight, temporarily blocks the development of the f-rook.
Showalter: Black threatens now to win the pawn by ...Ned5, etc.
17...Bc7 18.Nc4 Bd7
Pillsbury: White threatened 19.Ba3.
Lasker: Of course, when I had to consider my nineteenth move, I did not proceed with 19.b6 Bd8 20.Nxa5 Bxb6 21.Nxb7 on account of 21...Rb8 22.Nd6 Bxe3 recovering his material.
Pillsbury: If 19.b6 Bd8 20.Nxa5 Bxb6 21.Nxb7 Rb8 22.Nd6 Bxe3, with a fine game.
Showalter: If 19.b6 Bd8 20.Nd6 Rc6, winning the pawn at least; or 20.Nxa5 Bxb6, and Black presently gets an advantage.
Showalter: Which turns out badly, ...Rfd8 is now out of the question, however, on account of pawn to b6, etc. We believe that the proper course was 19...b6.
20.Nxd5 Nxd5 21.Ne5 Bxe5
Pillsbury: This exchange is practically forced, and gives white a slight advantage.
Showalter: The only alternative was 21...Nf6, and that seems to give Black a bad game by 22.Nxd7 Nxd7 23.Rhd1 or 23.Rc2. 21...Be8 loses at once by 22.Bxd5 exd5 23.Ba3 etc., or by 22.Ba3 Nb4 23.b6; while 21...Rfd8 is bad on account of 22.Nxd7 Rxd7 23.Bxd5 Rxd5 or 23...exd5 24.b6.
22.Bxe5 f6
Pillsbury: If 22...Nb4 23.Bd6 Rxc1 24.Rxc1 Rc8 25.Rxc8+ Bxc8 26.Bxb4 axb4 27.Kd3, and should win.
Pillsbury: A fine answer.
Lasker: Black's twenty-third move was forced; if, for instance, 23...Ne7 24.Bc7 Ra8 25.Bd6, followed by 26.Rc7. On his next turn Black played the best possible variation, for, if 24...Rxc1 25.Rxc1 Re8 26.dxe6 Bxe6 27.Rc8 and wins the exchange.
Pillsbury: Forced, for instance, if 23...Ne7 24.Bc7 Ra8 25.Bd6 Rfe8 26.Rc7, and wins.
Showalter: This is certainly bad, but Black's game is already somewhat compromised. His best chance, however, was certainly 23...Ne7. If, then, 24.Bd6, Black seems to come off with an even game by either 24...Kf7 or 24...Rxc1 25.Rxc1 Rc8 etc.; and if 24.Bc3 Ra8 (not 24...b6 25.Rhd1 to which there is no defense, as the bishop cannot be supported by either rook without the loss of a piece) 25.Rhd1 Bc8, and though Black has the inferior position he may yet hope to draw. Of course all other moves with the knight are weak and lose at least a pawn.
24.exd5 Kf7
Pillsbury: Again best. The following variation would have lost very prettily: 24...Rxc1 25.Rxc1 Re8 26.dxe6 Bxe6 27.Rc8, and wins the exchange.
25.Rhd1 Ke7
Lasker: Many people thought that Steinitz could have proceeded on his twenty-fifth turn with 25...Rxc1 then the following variation would have been the result: 26.Rxc1 Rc8 27.dxe6+ Ke7 28.Rxc8 Bxc8 29.Ke3 Bxe6 30.Bxe6 Kxe6 31.Ke4 and White would have probably won. For instance, let us continue 31...b6 32.h4 g6 33.h5 Kd6 34.hxg6 hxg6 35.g4 Ke6 36.f3 Kd6 37.f4 exf4 38.Kxf4 Ke6 39.Kg5 Kf7 40.Kh6 Kf6 41.Kh7 Kg5 42.Kg7 Kxg4 43.Kxg6 Kf4 44.Kf6 Ke4 45.Ke6 Kd4 46.Kd6 Kc4 47.Kc6 Kb4 48.Kxb6 Kxa4 49.Kc5 and wins.
Pillsbury: The following variation would have been very interesting, 25...Rxc1 26.Rxc1 Rc8 27.dxe6+ Ke7 28.Rxc8 Bxc8 29.Ke3 Bxe6 30.Bxe6 Kxe6 31.Ke4, and it appears tha White should win, as he has more moves to exhaust Black, however, it is by no means certain, and it would take a thorough analysis to ascertain.
Showalter: He should now have played 25...Rxc1 by all means. The next move increases his difficulties most seriously.
26.d6+ Kf6 27.Ke3 Rxc1
Showalter: Again bad. The position is peculiar and simplification aids White materially. Black's only hope to draw was in keeping the rooks on the board, or at least one of them.
28.Rxc1 Rc8 29.Rxc8 Bxc8 30.Bc2 (Adjourned)
Showalter: A beautiful move, against which Black has no defense.
30...Kf7 (Sealed) [1:09-1:05]
Lasker: My opinion is that at his thirtieth move Steinitz's best play was 30...e4, but should lose after 31.Bxe4 e5 32.d7, etc.
Pillsbury: This was the move sealed by Black at 6pm adjournment, instead 30...e4 gives a very hard fight and the win is by no means certain. After this, however, there is no chance. Steinitz sealed his 30th move under pressure of time limit, his clock registering 1:57.
Showalter: If 30...h6 31.Be4 Kf7 (31...g5 32.g4 or 31...h5 32.h4) 32.Bf3 Kf6 33.Kd3 Kf7 (33...Kf5 34.Bxb7 and wins, or if 33...b6 34.Bc6 and wins.) 34.h4 Kf6 35.Kc4 Kf7 36.Kc5 Ke8 37.Kb6 Kd7 38.Bxb7 and wins.
31.Bxh7 b6
Lasker: If 31...g6 32.Ke4 Kg7 33.Kxe5 Kxh7 34.Kf6 e5 35.Ke7 and wins.
Showalter: 31...g6 32.Ke4, and Black dare not win the bishop, as the white king meanwhile marches to d8 and wins the other bishop and the game.
Showalter: Here White, who has played with consummate skill throughout, misses his shortest course to victory, viz., 32.Be4 Ke8 (forced) 33.Bc6+ Kd8 or 33...Bd7 34.Ke4, etc.
Lasker: About Black's thirty-second move little can be said. The remaining moves are not of special interest, as White's superior forces must win.
33.g4 g5 34.Kf3 Kf7 35.Be4 Ke8 36.h4 Kd7 37.h5 Ke8 38.Ke3 1-0
Boston Herald, 1894.04.22, p5
New York Sun, 1894.04.22
New-York Daily Tribune, 1894.04.22
New York Recorder, 1894.04.23 & 07.15

Monday, April 23, 1894.

Stenitz [sic] is now in New York, awaiting the resumption of his match with Lasker at Montreal. He said to a reporter Monday:

"I am not at all discouraged, and if I can get into trim before resuming play at Montreal, I don't see any reason why I should not be able to beat Lasker in the end.

"True, I have played very badly so far, but I have been suffering greatly with insomnia; but I am still hopeful. My backers have not lost their confidence either, for just before leaving Philadelphia I received several dispatches from Montreal and elsewhere, in which I am asked not to trouble on their account. 'Win or lose,' wire my Montreal backers, 'we are looking forward for the series of games to be played in our city with the keenest possible interest.'"

According to present arrangements play is to be resume next Saturday, but there is a likelihood of postponing the beginning of play at Montreal until Tuesday, May 1.

Boston Herald, 1894.04.25

Tuesday, May 1, 1894.

Montreal, Que., May 1, 1894. The 12th game of the chess match for the championship of the world and $2000 a side, between Steinitz and Lasker, which ought to have been played at the local chess club today, was not played, as Steinitz sent word that he claimed a day off.

So far the champion has cancelled play three times, and Lasker once. According to the articles, the champion cannot postpone play any more, but must meet his opponent on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays until the match is finished.

Boston Herald, 1894.05.02

Game 12: Saturday, May 3, 1894.

(Special Dispatch to the Boston Herald.)
MONTREAL, Que., May 3, 1894. Lasker and Steinitz began the final series of the chess match at the Cosmopolitan Club today. Steinitz was in far better condition than at any time previously during the match.

It was ladies' day at the Cosmopolitan Club today, and one-half of the spacious parlor in which play took place was reserved for the fair guests. The honors of the occasion were done in a handsome manner by the president of the Cosmopolitan, Mr. M. Cochenthaler, assisted by Messrs. Fyfe, Bobson [sic; Babson] and other prominent members. A large corps of newspaper men and many of the prominent members of the Montreal Chess Club were present. Mr. George W. Stevens acted as umpire for Steinitz, and George W. Liddell acted in a similar capacity for Lasker.

It was Steinitz's move today, and the veteran again chose the queen's gambit declined, but on his fourth move, instead of the faulty 4 P-KB3, he chose the powerful continuation 4 B-Kt5.

It was a most interesting game, the advantage being first on one side, then on the other, and it finally terminated in a draw by repetition of moves, 2 times, and as it was time for the 11 o'clock adjournment, Lasker offered a draw, whereupon Steinitz asked for five minutes to consider the proposition, and, after due deliberation, accepted it.
H. N. Pillsbury.

Boston Herald, 1894.05.03, p2

Date: 1894.05.03
Site: CAN Montreal, PQ (Cosmopolitan Club)
Event: 1894 World Championship Match (Game 12)
White: Steinitz,W
Black: Lasker,Em
Opening: [D60] Queen's Gambit Declined
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5
Pillsbury: A very strong continuation, and far superior to 4.f3, as played by Steinitz in the 10th game of the match.
Pillsbury: In the Steinitz-Zukertort match, 1886, Steinitz (black) played here the faulty 4...c5, but afterwards played 4...Be7.
5.Nf3 0-0 6.e3 Nbd7
Pillsbury: More frequently has the following continuation been adopted, and it contains one of Blackburne's "traps": 6...b6 7.Rc1 Bb7 8.Bxf6 Bxf6 9.cxd5 exd5 10.Bd3 c5 11.0-0 c4 12.Bb1, and if now 12...Nbd7 13.Nd2 Re8 14.Qf3 Nf8 15.Nxc4 winning a pawn. Blackburne caught Mackenzie in this in the Vienna tournament, and after winning the pawn, lost the game.
Steinitz: In a similar position against Chigorin the same blocking move was adopted, the difference being that White's dark-square bishop had not been developed on the kingside but stood at its original square. Further experiment must show whether this line of play is applicable under these altered conditions.
7...c6 8.Bd3
Pillsbury: It would seem more consistent with his last move to pres at once his attack on the queen's wing, beginning with 8.b4, followed soon by pawn to a4.
Steinitz: More consistent with the plan initiated on the previous move was 8.b4. Still Black could then effect exchanges on the queen's wing by ...b6 and ...a5 before attempting to open the center.
Pillsbury: A questionable line of play, as it makes a mark for his opponent's pawn attack at h6. He could not continue 8...e5 at once, however, as a thorough examination of the position will show, one of the variaitons against it being 9.Nxe5 Nxe5 10.dxe5 Ne4 11.Bxe7 Nxc3 12.Bxh7+ Kh8 13.Qh5 and wins. But a far better plan would seen to be 8...Re8 followed soon by ...Bf8 and ...e5.
Steinitz: Necessary in pursuance of Black's plan. If 8...e5 9.dxe5 Ne4 10.Bxe4 Bxg5 11.Bb1 Nxc5 12.h4 Be7 13.Ng5 h6 (if 13...g6 14.f4 with a strong position) 14.Qc2 g6 15.Nxf7 winning three pawns for the knight and remaining with four united passed pawns on the kingside.
9.Bh4 e5
Steinitz: If this should prove sound after repeated practical and analytical investigation, it becomes a remarkable novelty of great igenuity and depth at this early stage of the opening.
Steinitz: The block on the queenside cannot well be maintained. If, for instance, 10.Be2 Ne4 etc.
Pillsbury: 10...Ng4 would not recover the pawn on account of 11.Bg3.
Pillsbury: If 11.Bxe7 Nxc3 12.Bxd8 Nxd1 13.Rxd1 Rxd8 14.b4 Re8, recovering the pawn with an excellent game. However, 11.Nxe4 Bxh4 12.Nd6 Nxc5 13.Nxc8 Qxc8 14.0-0, appears to give White some advantage in position.
11...Bxh4 12.Bc2
Steinitz: 12.Bb1 leads to most complicated variations in which White gains material but subjects himself to a powerful attack: 12.Bb1 Nxc5 13.Qc2 g6 14.Nxh4 Qxh4 15.Nxd5 cxd5 16.Qxc5 Qg5 17.Qxd5 Rd8 18.Qe4 (18.h4 Qxe3+, with a superior position, or if 18.Qf3 Bg4 and wins) 18...Bf5 19.Qxb7 Rab8 20.Qc6 Rb6! and should win.
12...Nxc5 13.Qd4 Be7 14.0-0-0 a5
Pillsbury: Both players having castled on opposite sides, initiate an attack with their pawns against the adverse monarch and the battle becomes very interesting.
Steinitz: Having castled on opposite sides each player throws forward his pawns against the adverse king and weaknesses for the ending are thus created in both camps. White might have done better here as a preparatory move by 15.Qf4 threatening pawn to e4.
15...b5 16.Ne2 b4 17.g4
Pillsbury: 17.Rdg1 appears stronger.
Pillsbury: This powerful move puts white temporarily on the defensive, black being sure to recover the pawn. The players castled on opposite sides and each instituted a vigorous pawn attack, each serving as a foil to the other's attack.
Steinitz: Probably the only method to continue the attack. 17...a4 would be met by 18.Bf5.
18.axb3 Rb8 19.Qc3
Steinitz: If White attempted to preserve the pawn on the kingside the game might have proceeded 19.g5 Nxb3+ 20.Bxb3 Rxb3 21.gxh6 g6 followed in most cases by 22...Rb4.
19...Bxg4 20.Nfd4 Qb6 21.f3 Bd7 22.Nf4
Steinitz: White adopted this move in preference to 22.Rdg1, apprehending 22...f6 as the answer to that move. But on subsequent examination I find that in such case I could proceed with 23.f4, keeping up a strong pressure against the kingside.
22...Qb4 23.Rdg1 Qxc3 24.bxc3 Rfc8 25.Nh5
Steinitz: The immediate attack on the kingside is perhaps not effective enough, and White might have done better by 25.Kd2, opening an option of operations with the rooks on the queen's wing.
25...g6 26.Nf4 Bf8 27.Nfe2 Bg7 28.h5 g5 29.f4 Ne4 30.Rg2 c5 31.Nf3 c4 32.bxc4 Rxc4 33.Nd2 Nxd2 34.Kxd2 f6 35.exf6 Bxf6 36.fxg5 Bxg5 37.Rb1 Rxb1 38.Bxb1 Kf8 39.Nd4 Ke7 40.Ba2 Rc5 41.Kd3 Kd6 42.Rb2 Bg4 43.Rb6+ Kc7 44.Ra6 Kb7 45.Rd6 Kc7 46.Ra6 Kb7 47.Rd6 Kc7 48.Ra6 Kb7 49.Rd6 Kc7 50.Ra6 Kb7 ½-½
Boston Herald, 1894.05.03, p2
New York Sun, 1894.05.04
New-York Daily Tribune, 1894.05.04
New York Recorder, 1894.05.04 & 13

Game 13: Monday, May 5, 1894.

[Special Dispatch to the Boston Herald.]
MONTREAL, Que., May 5, 1894. Steinitz won an excellent game today. Lasker, as first player, adopted the Ruy Lopez, and Steinitz altered his defence, playing, instead of 3 P-Q3, 3 P-QR3. Lasker took Kt with bishop, something unusual and not considered as good as 4 B-QR4.

Queens were early exchanged, and Steinitz remained with a powerful combination of two bishops and four pawns against three on the queen's wing. He utilized this advantage to the utmost, and obtained a power attack by the sacrifice of a pawn. He kept the upper hand throughout, and played the ending with great skill, completely outplaying Lasker.

If Steinitz keeps on in this way he may yet pull out the match. The score to date is: Lasker, 7; Steinitz, 3; drawn, 3.
H. N. Pillsbury.

Boston Herald, 1894.05.06, p6

Date: 1894.05.05
Site: CAN Montreal, PQ (Cosmopolitan Club)
Event: 1894 World Championship Match (Game 13)
White: Lasker,Em
Black: Steinitz,W
Opening: [C68] Spanish
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6
Pillsbury: Steinitz at last alters his defence. His score on the 3...d6 defence having been Lasker, 4; Steinitz, 0; drawn, 1.
Steinitz: Probably fully as good as 3...d6, and also adopted on the presumption that White was probably not so well prepared for it.
Pillsbury: This line of play was successfully adopted against Mackenzie and Englisch and also by the Brooklyn expert F. M. Teed against Steinitz (see Gossip's Manual, Lipschutz's Appendix) in an exhibition game. It is, however, considered by most experts that the conmbination of two bishops retained by black more than compensates for the doubled pawn.
Steinitz: A favorite combination of Winawer; but most masters prefer 4.Ba4.
4...dxc6 5.d4
Pillsbury: Winawer continued 5.0-0 Bg4 6.h3 Bxf3 7.Qxf3.
Steinitz: Winawer castled at this point, and other masters prefer the slow development by 5.d3 and 6.Be3.
5...exd4 6.Qxd4
Pillsbury: He could hardly allow black to gain important time by 6.Nxd4 c5 7.Ne2 Qxd1+ 8.Kxd1 Bg4 9.f3 0-0-0+, etc., and his king would not be well placed in the center.
6...Qxd4 7.Nxd4 c5
Steinitz: This is new and probably of greater value than the usual 7...Bd6, which places this bishop too much in the way of the hostile pawns. But still better would be the simple 7...Bd7.
8.Ne2 Bd7 9.Nbc3 0-0-0 10.Bf4
Steinitz: A premature attack which subsequently costs time; the bishop should at once have been posted at e3.
10...Bc6 11.0-0 Nf6 12.f3 Be7 13.Ng3 g6 14.Rfe1
Pillsbury: Black having the advantage of four pawns to three on the queen's wing remote from the adverse king as well as two bishops is desirous of exchanging the rooks, and white of course prudently does not dispute possession of the open d-file.
Steinitz: 14.Bg5 and if 14...h6 15.Be3; or else 14.Rfd1, both afterward suggested by Lasker were undoubtedly superior to the text.
Pillsbury: A very fine move. White threatened 15.e5 Nd7 16.e6, establishing his majority of pawns on the king's side and opening the e-file.
Pillsbury: 15.e5 would be met now with 15...Nf8, and ...Ne6, with the advantage on black's side, and 15.Nd5 loses a pawn, e.g., 15.Nd5 Bxd5 16.exd5 Bf6 17.c3 Nb6, etc.
Steinitz: Mere demonstrative tactics were evidently out of order, and White retreats his pieces with a view to concentration for operations in the center.
Pillsbury: 15...Nf8 seems equally good, if not better, the knight at e6 would occupy a very important post.
16.Nf1 Rd7 17.Be3 Rhd8 18.b3 c4
Pillsbury: His sacrifice of a pawn gives black a very strong attack, and white is obliged to play with teh utmost care to avoid immediate loss.
Steinitz: Black could not allow the opponent to advance pawn to c4, as sooner or later it would have enabled White to plant one of his knights at d5 with great effect. Moreover, Black obtains a strong attack for the pawn sacrificed.
19.Bxb6 cxb6 20.bxc4
Steinitz: It was White's best policy probably not to accept the proffered pawn, but to continue 20.Nde3 instead.
20...Bb4 21.c3 Bc5+ 22.Kh1
Pillsbury: Obviously he could not interpose 22.Nfe3 on account of 22...Rxd1 23.Raxd1 (or 23.Rexd1) 23...Bxe3+ and wins, and if 22.Nde3 f5 with a fine attack.
Steinitz: Obviously if 22.Nfe3 Rxd1 and wins, and if 22.Nde3 Rd3 23.Rac1 f5! with a strong attack.
22...Rd3 23.Rc1 a5
Pillsbury: Some very interesting variations arise had Black continued 23...Ba3. And it seems to me give him the advantage, e.g., 23...Ba3 24.Nf2 Rd2 25.Nxd2 Rxd2 26.Nh3 Bxc1 27.Rxc1 h6, and will win two of White's queen's wing pawns at least, and if 24.Rb1 Kc7 equally gives fine variations for Black.
Steinitz: 23...f5 would be premature, and this more quiet advance does important service on the queen's wing in the ending. White is in the mean time much hampered.
Pillsbury: Possibly Lasker feared the sacrifice of the exchange if he continued 24.Nb2. E.g., 24...Rd2 25.Nxd2 Rxd2 26.Nd1 Rxa2, and although the exchange ahead, it will be very difficult to stop the passed a-pawn, and the two bishops are very powerful.
24...f5 (Adjourned)
Pillsbury: A very powerful move and the key move to some beautiful variations.
Steinitz: Now correctly timed and extremely difficult to meet.
25.exf5 (Sealed)
Steinitz: 25.Nd5 might have prolonged resistance, but would hardly equalize the game: e.g. 25.Nd5 fxe4 26.fxe4 Rf8 27.Rc2 h5, with a strong attack.
25...gxf5 26.h3
Pillsbury: 26.Nxf5 Rxf3 27.Ne7+ Bxe7 28.gxf3 Bxf3+ 29.Kg1 Bc5+ 30.Ne3 Rd2, and Black will recover more than an equivalent in pawns for the exchange. White's pieces appear almost helpless.
Steinitz: If 26.Nxf5 Rxf3 27.Ne7+ Bxe7 28.gxf3 Bxf3+ 29.Kg1 Bc5+ 30.Ne3 Rd2 31.a4 Rg2+ 32.Kf1 Rxh2 and if 33.Rc2 Rh1+ 34.Kf2 Rxe1 and wins.
26...Rg8 27.Nd5
Pillsbury: To show all the variations would be impossible in the limited time and space at command, but had White now continued 27.Nxf5, the following is very pretty, 27...Rxf3 28.gxf3 Bxf3+ 29.Kh2 Rg2+ 30.Kh1 Re2#. Of course he must not take the rook on move 28, but anything seems to lose.
Steinitz: 27.Nxf5 would be again disastrous on account of the same rejoinder, 27...Rxf3.
Pillsbury: The winning move, and Steinitz plays chess now and never lets up on his adversary.
28.cxd5 Rxd5 29.Rcd1 Rxd1 30.Rxd1 f4
Steinitz: This and the following series of moves give Black a winning superiority in position. The white knight is a prisoner, and the end can be only a question of time.
31.Kh2 Re8 32.a4 Kc7 33.h4 Kc6 34.c4 Bb4 35.Kh3 Re1 36.Rxe1 Bxe1 37.Kg4 Kc5 38.Kxf4 Kxc4 39.Ke4 Bxh4 40.g3 Bd8 41.Ne3+ Kb4 42.Kd3 Kxa4 43.Kc2 Kb4 44.f4 Kc5 45.f5 Kd6 46.g4 b5 47.Nd1 Ke5 48.Nc3 b4 49.Na4 Kd4 50.Nb2 b5 51.Kb3 Be7 52.g5 a4+ 53.Nxa4 bxa4+ 54.Kxa4 Ke5 55.Kb5 Kxf5 0-1
Boston Herald, 1894.05.06, p6
New York Sun, 1894.05.06
New-York Daily Tribune, 1894.05.06
New York Recorder, 1894.05.20

Game 14: Tuesday, May 8, 1894.

[Special Dispatch to the Boston Herald.]
MONTREAL, Que., May 8, 1894. Steinitz opened the 14th game of the chess match with 1 P-Q4, as in the 12th game, which resulted in a draw. Today he was more successful, Lasker adopting a line of play, viz.: 3 P-QB3—of doubtful merit, and resigning after Steinitz's 46th move.

Lasker got by far the worst of the opening, and in an attempt to force an attack seriously compromised his centre and, later on, his king's wing. His 19th move was either and error or a grave miscalculation, as it allowed Steinitz, by a combination of moves, to sacrifice the exchange for an overwhelming superiority in pawns.

After this, although Lasker made a game struggle, he was never in it, and Steinitz boldly crossed with his king into the centre. After the exchange of queens had taken place and the passed pawns which had resulted from the sacrifice of the exchange were forced up to the seventh row, Lasker not being able to prevent their queening, resigned. The score now is: Lasker, 7; Steinitz, 4; drawn, 3.
H. N. Pillsbury.

Boston Herald, 1894.05.09, p3

Date: 1894.05.08
Site: CAN Montreal, PQ (Cosmopolitan Club)
Event: 1894 World Championship Match (Game 14)
White: Steinitz,W
Black: Lasker,Em
Opening: [D46] Semi-Slav
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 c6
Pillsbury: Far inferior to the continuation 3...Nf6, for if he has any idea of advancing ...f5, forming a species of "stonewall" opening, he could easily see that it is impractical unless White has already developed the knight at f3. The line of play here adopted is a favorite idea of Gunsberg's the idea being to eventually, after castling, advance ...e5, but it is not possible, as the queen's side piece, especially the bishops, become badly blocked and as the sequel shows White is enabled to make the first advance of the e-pawn. Lasker, however, had adopted a similar line of play against Blackburne in the match which he won 6-2; 2 drawn, but it was successful, more owing to weak play on Blackburne's part than otherwise.
Steinitz: An old idea revived by Chigorin and Gunsberg, and also adopted by Lasker against Blackburne in a similar position. It practically prevents the development of White's dark-square bishop on the kingside, but it has its drawbacks, notably that it exposes Black to an attack in the center, as in the game.
4.e3 Nf6 5.Nf3 Bd6 6.Bd3 Nbd7 7.0-0 0-0
Steinitz: If Black here advanced 7...e5 White would have exchanged both pawns, creating an isolated pawn in the adverse center.
Pillsbury: This powerful advance gives White a fine open game, and Black remains with an inferior position.
8...dxe4 9.Nxe4 Nxe4 10.Bxe4 h6
Pillsbury: He would have lost a pawn, but remained with a sure draw ending, if in answer to 10...e5 11.dxe5 Nxe5 12.Nxe5 (12.Bxh7+ Kxh7 13.Ng5+ Kg6 and Black should win) 12...Bxe5 13.Bxh7+ (13.Qh5 f5, etc.) 13...Kxh7 14.Qh5+ Kg8 15.Qxe5, and at any rate if he intended continuing 15...f5, it seems better not to further weaken his position by advancing the h-pawn. But to at once advance the f-pawn followed by 11...e5.
Steinitz: He could not now advance the e-pawn without losing a pawn, as White would have exchanged twice, followed by Bxh7+, etc.
11.Bc2 f5
Lasker: Although this advance weakens the e-pawn, it paves the way for a strong attack on the king's wing.
Pillsbury: His game was already somewhat compromised and now this makes matters worse, as it leaves two weaknesses in his position: A weak pawn at e6, and a "hole" at e5.
Steinitz: If now 11...e5 12.Qd3 f5 13.Qb3 Kh8 14.dxe5 Nxe5 15.Rd1, with a strong attack. The text move, however, weakens his center at once.
12.Re1 Nf6 13.Bd2 Bd7 14.Bc3 Qc7 15.Ne5 Be8
Pillsbury: He could not well afford to exchange either of his bishops for the knight, nor could he continue 15...c5; e.g. 16.dxc5 Bxc5 17.Nxd7, and wins the e-pawn. The move adopted seems therefore the only feasible continuation.
16.Qd3 g5
Pillsbury: A desperate attempt to get up an attack, but his position was bound to lose, unless he could force the attack.
Steinitz: Black, no doubt, on his eleventh move speculated upon this attack. However, it will be seen that it does not compensate for the weakness of his e-pawn.
Pillsbury: 17.Rad1 seems equally good.
17...Qg7 18.Rad1
Lasker: “White has skillfully prepared a strong attack in the centre of the board if an opportunity arrives. He threatens now P-Q5, and if then 19...PxP 20.PxP KtxP and 21.RxKt PxR followed by a discovered attack on the queen.”
Lasker: Playing White's game, it merely drives the queen from a harmless post to a most threatening position. Black was under the impression that he could continue with 19...Qg5, but saw too late that White could then gain a clear pawn by 20.Nxg4. Black should have played 18...Bh5 and if 19.f3 g4 or if 19.Rd2 Rae8 and his position would have been excellent.
19.Qe3 Bh5
Pillsbury: A grave error. 19...Rd8 was the only correct move here. White might then have sacrificed a piece for three pawns by: 20.Nxc6 bxc6 21.Qxe6+ Bf7 22.Qxf5, but it would be a questionable procedure.
Pillsbury: Precise and correct, he wins at least two pawns for the exchange at once and eventually a third.
Steinitz: The soundness of the sacrifice here involved is shown by the sequel.
Pillsbury: Of course if: 20...bxc6 21.Qxe6+ and 22.Qxd6 wins two pawns clear.
21.Kxh2 g3+ 22.Qxg3
Lasker: “The combination selected in the text is by far superior to the alternative 22.K-Q, because there might follow PxP.”
22...Qxg3+ 23.fxg3 Bxd1 24.Bxd1
Steinitz: Better than 24.Ne7+ Kf7 25.Bxd1 Rfe8 26.Bb4 Rxe7 27.Bxe7 Kxe7 28.d5 Ne4 etc.
24...bxc6 25.Rxe6
Pillsbury: The point of the combination where the win of still another pawn is almost forced.
Lasker: This seems to be the only move to prevent White from playing 26.d5.
Pillsbury: If 25....Rac8, White might well answer 26.d5. Moreover, it seemed Black's last chance to exchange the knight for one of the powerful adverse bishops.
Steinitz: If 25...Rac8, White intended to continue 26.Bf3 Ne4 27.Rxh6 (or 27.Bxe4). It should be remembered that 26.d5 would not work well on account of the continuation 26...Ne4 and if 27.Rg6+ Kh7 28.Rg7+ Kh8 29.Bd4 c5 30.Be5 Rfe8 etc.
26.Rxc6 Nxc3 27.bxc3 Kg7
Pope: The following note is not a direct quote from a single source. My first source gives ‘superior' in place of ‘inferior', and then gives ‘mating' where the second source has ‘waiting'. So for the sake of clarity I have merged the two sources to provide a single ambiguous rook-quote.
Lasker: “By far inferior to R-K. White could hardly then have taken the KRP on account of the close confinement of his king, and if Black can force the entrance of his rooks into the enemy's camp it would be at least very difficult to avoid a mating position.”
28.Ra6 Rf7 29.c5 Rd8 (Sealed)
Lasker: Far superior would have been 29...Re7. Although White would have had a chance to extricate himself on account of the three moves that Black had lost, by means of pawn to g4, followed eventually by Ra4, yet the maneuver would have made the win more difficult for White.
Steinitz: The only danger to White's game now was that the opponent should double rooks on the eighth file, and the move adopted tends to prevent the formation of any possible mating position of this nature, but creates other difficulties which might have been obviated at once by 30.Re6 followed by 31.Bf3, after which the advance of the pawns could not be hindered.
30...Re7 31.Kf2 Rb8 32.Bb3 Rbe8 33.Bc4 Rb8 34.Bd3 h5 35.Kf3 Rb2 36.Bxf5 Rf7 37.Ke4
Lasker: The crossing of the king into the support of his pawns practically ends the battle.
Pillsbury: This crossing with the king practically ends the struggle, as the pawns cannot be stopped.
37...Re2+ 38.Kd3 Rxg2 39.Rg6+ Kf8 40.Be4 Rg1 41.d5 Rg7 42.Rxg7 Kxg7 43.c6 Kf6 44.c7 Rxg3+ 45.Kd4 Rg8 46.d6 1-0
Boston Herald, 1894.05.09, p3
New York Sun, 1894.05.09
New-York Daily Tribune, 1894.05.09
New York Recorder, 1894.05.09 & 27

Friday, May 11, 1894.

Chess Match Postponed.

Montreal, May 10.—Play in the championship chess has been postponed until Saturday, inasmuch as Lasker claimed a day off on account of a slight indisposition. Steinitz, who feels pretty good, seemed also pleased at the postponement, as each off day gives him additional rest.

Saturday, May 12, 1894.

Montreal, May 12.—Lasker claimed his third and last off day to-day, and there will be no play in the championship chess match until Tuesday. As they have both exhausted their rights of claiming off days, the match will now have to proceed on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays of each week until one has scored ten wins. Present score: Lasker, 7; Steinitz, 4; drawn, 3.

Monday, May 14, 1894.

Lasker Hopeful of Winning.

St. John's, Quebec, May 14.—Lasker, the chess champion, was interviewed this afternoon in regard to the report of his having been drugged. He said he knew nothing of it; it certainly never originated with him. He could not account for his sudden indisposition in Montreal, but could only say it never happened to him before. He added that his stay here had done him a vast amount of good, and concluded by saying: "I shall return to Montreal to-night very much recuperated and very hopeful of the result."

Game 15: Tuesday, May 15, 1894.

A special telegram from Montreal states that Lasker has requested that he be allowed a separate table in future games of the contest. He claims that Steinitz annoyed him and made him nervous by continued sipping of lemonade and orange water through a straw. The management decided that the match should go on as heretofore, and Lasker's request was therefore not granted.

New York Recorder, 1894.05.16

MONTREAL, May 15.—Steinitz is 58 years old to-day. A few of his personal friends in this in this city, in commemoration of the event, presented him with a silver-mounted walking stick at the Cosmopolitan Club this afternoon. The crook of the stick is beautifully decorated with miniature kings, rooks, and other chess symbols of appropriate inscription.

New York Sun, 1894.05.16

(Special Dispatch to the Boston Herald.)
MONTREAL, Que., May 15, 1894. A throng of enthusiastic admirers of Steinitz and Lasker today filled the commodious quarters of the Cosmopolitan Club almost to overflowing to witness the continuance of the great match for the world's championship.

The long period of rest had done much good to both contestants.

It was Lasker's move, and the Teuton for the second time chose the queen's gambit declined, and at the sixth move the position stood exactly as in one of the Philadelphia series. Lasker, however, varied from his previous play at the seventh move and early obtained a very powerful attack, to compensate for which Steinitz had isolated his queen's pawn. He played with great vigor, and at the 6 o'clock adjournment the game seemed favorable for White.

Lasker succeeded in winning a pawn at his 37th move, and still kept such a pressure on his opponent that he chose to adopt desperate measures in order to complicate the position. Lasker, however, played with entire correctness, and scored on the 44th move.

The score now stands: Lasker, 8; Steinitz, 4; drawn, 3.
H. N. Pillsbury.

Boston Herald, 1894.05.16, p7

Date: 1894.05.15
Site: CAN Montreal, PQ (Cosmopolitan Club)
Event: 1894 World Championship Match (Game 15)
White: Lasker,Em
Black: Steinitz,W
Opening: [D60] Queen's Gambit Declined
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Nf3 Be7 5.e3 0-0 6.Bd3 c5 7.0-0
Pillsbury: The opening moves to this game are precisely the same as in the closing game of the Philadelphia series, the 11th game of the match. At this point the continuation was 7.dxc5 dxc4 8.Bxc4 Qxd1+ 9.Kxd1 Nc6; although Lasker won that game, yet it was through no advantage in the opening, but through superior tactics throughout the mid-game and ending.
Steinitz: In the eleventh game of the present match Lasker proceeded with 7.dxc5 dxc4 8.Bxc4 Qxd1+ 9.Kxd1 etc.
Pillsbury: Although Black isolates the adverse d-pawn by these exchanges, yet White remains with a very free attacking position.
8.exd4 dxc4 9.Bxc4 Nbd7
Steinitz: In the early stages of the match Steinitz-Zukertort (1886) I adopted this line of play in similar positions, but afterward played 9...Nc6, which is undoubtedly stronger.
10.Bb3 Nb6 11.Bg5 Bd7 12.Qd3 Rc8
Steinitz: 12...Bc6 with a view of fixing that bishop at d5 as soon as possible seems superior.
Pillsbury: A powerful advance of the knight who forces the exchange of the adverse bishop. Lasker studied over 30 minutes and discarded the continuations 13.Bc2 and 13.Rfd1 in favor of the text.
Pillsbury: Obviously he cannot retain the bishop. 13...Be8 loses the exchange outright, e.g.: 13...Be8 14.Bc2 g6 15.Bh6, etc.
14.Nxc6 Rxc6 15.Rfd1 Nfd5
Steinitz: It would have been better to advance 15...h6 first, making room for the king.
16.Bxe7 Nxe7 17.Bc2 Ng6
Pillsbury: I should have preferred 17...g6 to the text; it would have kept a strong hold upon the adverse isolated d-pawn and, since the white queen's bishop is off the board, there is comparatively little chance for attack.
Steinitz: Not as good as 17...g6, keeping a better hold on the isolated pawn.
18.Qf3 Nd5 19.Be4
Pillsbury: 19.Nxd5 seems inferior for then follows 19...Rxc2 20.Qb3 Rc6 21.Ne3 Rb6 followed soon by ...Nf4 or ...Ne7.
Pillsbury: Black desired to prevent the isolation of a pawn on his own d-file, otherwise 19...Rd6 was good. Notably if in asnwer, 20.Nb5 Rd7 and 21.Nxa7 loses a piece by 21...Qb6, etc.
20.bxc3 Rb6 21.c4
Pillsbury: 21.Bxb7 loses a piece, of course, by 21...Nh4 and 22...f5.
21...f5 22.Bc2 Qf6 23.c5
Pillsbury: Lasker's position seems superior; 23.d5 also appears very strong.
Steinitz: Black's original intention was to continue 23...Rb4 24.Qc3 a5 25.a3 Nf4 26.Kf1 Qh6 27.h3 (best) 27...Nd5. However, as White could now force the exchange of queens by 28.Qd2 followed soon by Rb1, Black abandoned the idea.
24.Rab1 Nh4 25.Qe3
Steinitz: 25.Qb3 appears still stronger.
25...Rc7 26.f4
Pillsbury: The result of these moves is that the adverse pieces are badly hampered, and the e-pawn seems almost indefensible. From this point Black's game goes steadily to the bad.
26...Ng6 27.Bb3 Re7 28.a4 Rd8 29.a5 a6 30.Ba4 Qh4
Pillsbury: An attempt to attack which turns out most disastrously; he should have confined himself to defensive measures and played for the draw.
Steinitz: The work of the time limit and not well considered. 30...Nf8 was more likely to be of good service.
31.g3 Qg4
Steinitz: Faulty in the extreme and really the cause of the almost immediate loss of the game. The queen should have retreated to f6, followed at once by 32...Rc8 and thence to c7.
32.Rd2 Nf8 33.Bd1 Qg6 34.d5
Pillsbury: This powerful move appears to win by force.
Steinitz: After this Black's struggles are hopeless. The latter part of the game has been conducted by Lasker with the utmost ingenuity and is a grand example of chess.
34...Rf7 35.d6 Qf6 36.Rdb2 g5
Pillsbury: A desperate attempt to break through on the king's side, but futile against correct play.
37.Rxb7 gxf4 38.Rxf7 Qxf7 39.gxf4 Qg7+ 40.Kh1 Ng6
Pillsbury: His pieces are hopelessly tied and this is mere desperation.
41.Qxe6+ Kh8 42.Qe3 Rg8 43.Bf3 Nh4 44.Bd5 1-0
Pillsbury: The powerful passed pawns of course win easily.
Boston Herald, 1894.05.16, p7
New York Sun, 1894.05.16
New-York Daily Tribune, 1894.05.16
New York Recorder, 1894.05.16 & 06.10

Game 16: Thursday, May 17, 1894.

In the event of Steinitz losing the match, his backers in this city say that they are again prepared to pit him against Lasker for $2,000.

New York Sun, 1894.05.18

[Special Dispatch to the Boston Herald.]
MONTREAL, Que., May 17, 1894. Lasker won today's game on the 55th move, catching Steinitz in a trap, when Steinitz had, a move earlier, a winning game.

The opening was the same as that of the 12th game, Lasker varying at the 7th move.

The play in the mid game was most exciting. Lasker getting up a fine attack, which, however, Steinitz defended with great accuracy, and the latter finally appeared to have an advantage for the end game.

At this 36th move, however, Steinitz seemed to fail to grasp the position, and his following move was an error which lost him all his advantage and left him a pawn minus. Lasker was left with three pawns to two, and had also Kt against bishop.

Steinitz could have forced the exchange of one pawn and won the passed QRP, while Lasker formed a passed pawn on the king's side, which, however, could not queen, as the white bishop could be sacrificed for it. But Steinitz seemed rattled, and missed this chance, Lasker ultimately scoring.
H. N. Pillsbury.

Boston Herald, 1894.05.18, p2

Date: 1894.05.17
Site: CAN Montreal, PQ (Cosmopolitan Club)
Event: 1894 World Championship Match (Game 16)
White: Steinitz,W
Black: Lasker,Em
Opening: [D60] Queen's Gambit Declined
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 Be7 5.Nf3 Nbd7 6.e3 0-0 7.c5
Pillsbury: I consider this line of play somewhat questionable and should prefer the development 7.Rc1 and 8.Bd3. Black could hardly attempt ...c5 at any stage here without loss.
Pillsbury: Varying from the continuation of the 12th game of the match, viz., 7...c6 8.Bd3 h6 9.Bh4 e5, etc.
Steinitz: A new and highly ingenious method of dealing with the blocking idea, which seems a perfect answer to it.
8.Nxe4 dxe4 9.Bxe7 Qxe7 10.Nd2 Nf6
Pillsbury: 10...e5 is met by 11.Nxe4 f5 12.c6 bxc6 13.Nc3 exd4 14.Qxd4 with the better game. 10...f5, however, seems equally as good as to the text move.
Steinitz: An excellent part of Black's line of development.
Pillsbury: 11.Qc2 is, of course, met by 11...e5.
Steinitz: If 11.Qc2 e5 12.Nxe4 exd4 13.Nxf6+ Qxf6 with the better game.
11...b6 12.b4 Nd5 13.Qb1 f5 14.Ne5 a5 15.Nc6 Qg5 16.h4
Pillsbury: If 16.b5 Black might continue 16...bxc5 17.dxc5 Nxe3 winning at least three pawns for the piece.
16...Qf6 17.cxb6 f4!
Pillsbury: Initiating a very fine attack of great depth and ingenuity.
18.Qxe4 fxe3 19.f3 Bb7
Steinitz: A very ingenious trap.
Pillsbury: If 20.Nxa5 Rxa5 21.bxa5 Nb4 22.Qxb7 (22.Qb1 Qxd4 threatening 23...Qxa1, and wins) 22...Qxd4 23.Rd1 Qc3+ 24.Ke2 Qc2+ 25.Kxe3 Qxd1 and should win. Also Black might continue 23...Nc2+ 24.Ke2 Qc4+ 25.Rd3 Rd8 26.Kd1 Rxd3+ 27.Bxd3 Qxd3+ and should win.
Steinitz: If 20.Ne5 Nxb4 21.Qxb7 Qf4! 22.Qe4 (best) 22...Qxe4 23.fxe4 Nc2+, with a winning game. And if 20.Nxa5 Rxa5 21.bxa5 Nb4 22.Qxb7 Qxd4 23.Rd1 Nc2+ 24.Ke2 Qc4+ 25.Rd3 Rd8 26.Qe4 Rd4 or 24.Ke2 Qc2+ 25.Kxe3 Qxd1 with a powerful attack.
20...Bxc6 21.bxc6 cxb6 22.Bd3 Qh6 23.g3 Rac8 24.Rc1 Rc7 25.0-0
Pillsbury: 25.Ke2 seems superior for the ending.
Steinitz: There were objections in some variations to 25.Ke2, for White could not then advance pawn to f4 without allowing the queen to check at h5; and at a latter stage the rook could not occupy the b-file on account of the knight checking at c3.
25...Rd8 26.f4
Steinitz: The kingside is much weakened by this advance, and 26.Rfe1 was much better; 26.Rc4, however, is met by 26...e2.
Pillsbury: Apparently best, as otherwise his queen would be badly out of play.
27.Qxg6 hxg6 28.Bxg6? Ne7 29.Be4 Rxd4 30.Bf3 Nf5 31.Rfe1 Kf7 32.Rb1
Pillsbury: This appears a fine plan, that ought to have succeeded better.
32...Nxg3 33.Rxb6
Pillsbury: But he should not have attempted to rush matters. 33.Rxe3 seems safer.
Steinitz: It was probably White's best plan to get rid of the adverse e-pawn, in which case Black would have no doubt answered 33...Nf5, followed by 34...Ke7.
33...Nf5 34.Rb7 Rxb7 35.cxb7 Rb4 36.Rc1
Pillsbury: Here 36.Rd1 wins easily.
Pillsbury: A fine move, and probably the only move to save the game. It makes also a fine trap.
Pillsbury: A White blunders into it. 37.Rc7+ Kf6 38.Bg4 e2 39.Kf2 Rb1 40.Bxe2 Rb2 41.b8Q Rxb8 42.Bc4 draws easily.
37...Rb2+ 38.Kg3 Rxb7 39.Bxb7 Ne2+ 40.Kf3 Nxc1 41.Kxe3 Nxa2 42.Kd4
Pillsbury: And here 42.f5 draws easily. After he misses this there is no hope.
Steinitz: White here misses his final chance. 42.f5 leads to a clear draw! Obviously the pawn cannot be taken (on account of 43.Bd5+ winning the knight), and after White exchanges pawns his king crosses to the queenside and draws with ease.
42...Kf6 43.Kc5 Nc3 44.Kc4 Ne2 45.Kb5 Nxf4 46.Kxa5 Ng6 47.h5 Nf4 48.Bf3 Kf5 49.Kb4 e5 50.Kc3 e4 51.Bd1 e3 52.Bf3 Kg5 53.Kc2 Kh4 54.Kd1 Kg3 0-1
Boston Herald, 1894.05.18, p2
New York Sun, 1894.05.18
New-York Daily Tribune, 1894.05.18
New York Recorder, 1894.05.18 & 06.17

Game 17: Thursday, May 19, 1894.

Six local chess enthusiasts have deposited $600 toward a second match between Lasker and Steinitz, the first part to be played at Montreal, and the final portion at New York. Chess players here are confident that they will be able to raise another $1,500 or $2,000 for Steinitz.

New York Sun, 1894.05.20

[Special Dispatch to the Boston Herald.]
MONTREAL, Que., May 19, 1894. The 17th game of the great chess contest was commenced promptly at 3 o'clock today.

It was witnessed by many ladies and gentlemen, most of whom expected it to be the final game of the match, but Steinitz fought like a tiger, and at the adjourned position has far the best of it.

It was Lasker's opening, and very quickly the first three moves of the well known Giuoco Piano were played. Some of the spectators expected four P-QKt4, forming the "Evans," but Lasker, evidently even the lead that he had, did not care to risk it.

Safe lines of play were the rule in the opening. Steinitz double his opponent's king's pawn, by the exchange of bishops, and for a long time rested his play on this point. He then advanced his queen's wing pawns, forming a strong attack, at the same time preventing any break in on the king side, where both had castled.

At the 31st move queens were exchanged, Steinitz still retaining a very strong attack on the queen wing. He pressed maters with great judgment, and at the adjourned position wins a clear pawn. Lasker has a Kt against bishop, and each has two rooks, with 7 pawns each.

The game will be concluded Monday at 3 P.M.
H. N. Pillsbury.

Boston Herald, 1894.05.20, p6

[Special Dispatch to the Boston Herald.]
MONTREAL, Que., May 21, 1894. Steinitz scored today's game by merely making his sealed move, as Lasker, realizing that his position was untenable, resigned at once. This make the score: Lasker, 9; Steinitz, 5, drawn, 3.
H. N. Pillsbury.

Boston Herald, 1894.05.22, p12

Date: 1894.05.19 & 1894.05.21
Site: CAN Montreal, PQ (Cosmopolitan Club)
Event: 1894 World Championship Match (Game 17)
White: Lasker,Em
Black: Steinitz,W
Opening: [C50] Italian
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.d3
Lasker: A solid, well-known variation of this opening.
Pillsbury: A well known variation of the old time Giuoco Piano opening.
4...Nf6 5.Nc3
Pillsbury: Many players prefer 5.Be3 Bb6 6.Nbd2, at this point.
Steinitz: A slow form of a slow opening, transposing the position into a well-known variation of the Four Knights game.
5...d6 6.Be3 Bb6
Steinitz: As matters turn out, this only loses time. In this and similar positions I consider 6...Bxe3 at once superior.
7.Qd2 Na5 8.Bb5+
Lasker: In view of the probable intention of the second player to force the attack on the queenside. This, however, seems somewhat inferior to 8.Bb3 at once.
Pillsbury: Exceedingly questionable; it enables Black to gain time for the eventual attack on the queen's wing; 8.Bb3 is far superior.
Steinitz: Tactics of a similar sort have been heretofore adopted in like positions by great masters with a view to weakening the adverse queenside; but since Black's best subsequent plan seems to be to attack on this wing, and inasmuch as he also creates a doubled pawn on this side for the opponent, it is doubtful whether the text move can be relied on as the best attacking measure.
8...c6 9.Ba4 Bxe3 10.fxe3
Lasker: The doubled pawn causes trouble afterward and White seems unable to obtain a compensating file. 10.Qxe3 seems perhaps safer.
Steinitz: In entire accordance with theoretical and practical precedence in similar positions, but the progress of the present game will probably tend to indicate that the open f-file does not outweigh the disadvantage of the doubled pawn in the center.
10...b5 11.Bb3 Qb6 12.0-0 Ng4 13.Rae1 f6 14.h3 Nh6 15.Ne2 Nxb3 16.axb3 0-0 17.Ng3 a5
Lasker: Black forces matters on the queenside without loss of time, while White in the mean time is unable to obtain any advantage either in the center or on the king's wing.
Pillsbury: In thorough keeping with his plans; Black holds his centre and king's wing intact, and proceeds with the attack against the adverse queen's wing.
18.d4 Nf7 19.Qf2 Ra7
Lasker: If 19...a4 at once, White might well answer with 20.Ra1, thereby breaking the force of the attack.
Pillsbury: But wisely tempers his attack with an excellent defensive measure; the opponent will now gain no advantage by an attack on the king's side, and, moreover, if he at once advance 19...a4, White answers with advantage 20.Ra1.
20.Rd1 a4 21.b4 Qc7
Pillsbury: Necessary before advancing pawn to c5, which now loses by 22.bxc5 dxc5 23.dxe5 fxe5 24.Nxe5 winning a clear pawn.
Steinitz: Black could not at once advance the c-pawn on account of the continuation; 22.bxc5 dxc5 23.dxe5 fxe5 24.Nxe5 etc.
22.Ne1 c5
Pillsbury: A powerful advance, Black allows his game to rest upon his opponent's doubled e-pawn, and pursue his operations on the extreme queen's wing.
Lasker: The only move at his disposal. 23.Nd3 c4 24.Ne1 c3 was still more unsatisfactory.
Pillsbury: 23.bxc5 dxc5 24.d5, would give Black the advantage, as the three pawns to two on the extreme queen's wing would be far stronger than the passed pawn on the d-file, which is easily blocked.
23...Be6 24.d5 Bd7 25.Ra1 cxb4
Steinitz: 25...Rc8 in many ways was preferable.
26.Qxb4 Rc8 27.Qd2 Qc4 28.Rf2 Ng5
Lasker: The time lost here with the knight is finely compensated for by the increased weakness on White's king's wing after driving the knight away.
Steinitz: A sort of non-committal move of a character sometimes adopted in order to add a move to the average allowed under the time limit. However, it serves a good turn, as this knight cannot be dislodged without the weakening of White's kingside. But probably 28...Rac7 was still stronger.
29.Qd3 Rac7 30.h4 Nf7 31.Qxc4
Pillsbury: Apparently forced. Black threatens 31...Qxd3 32.cxd3 Rc1 with a strong position.
31...Rxc4 32.Rd2 g6 33.Kf2 Nd8 34.b3 R4c7 35.Rdd1 Nb7 36.Rdb1 Kf7
Steinitz: In order to neutralize any attack on the d-pawn by 37.bxa4 bxa4 38.Rb6, which would render the knight temporarily inactive.
37.Ke2 Ra8 38.Kd2 Na5
Lasker: Threatening 39...axb3 40.cxb3 Nxb3+, winning the exchange.
39.Kd3 h5 40.Ra2 Raa7
Lasker: Again threatening the combination 41...axb3 42.cxb3 Nxb3 43.Rxa7 Nc5+ with a winning game. The reply in the last seems, therefore, forced.
Pillsbury: These maneuvres, forcing the advance of the adverse b-pawn, are very well timed. On the 38th move Black threatened 39...axb3 40.cxb3 Nxb3+ winning the exchange.
Steinitz: Threatening 41...axb3 42.cxb3 Nxb3 43.Rxa7 Nc5+ etc.
41.b4 Nc4 42.Nf3 Ra8 43.Nd2 Nb6 44.Rf1 Rac8 45.Nb1 Ke7 46.c3 Nc4 47.Raf2
Lasker: At least, a grave miscalculation. If, however, 47.Na3 Nb2+ 48.Kc2 Rxc3+ 49.Kxb2 Rb3+ 50.Ka1 Rxe3 51.Rf3 Rxf3 52.gxf3 Rc3 winning a third pawn for the piece, and owing to the indefensible nature of White's remaining pawns, his game would be untenable.
Steinitz: Anyhow weak, but 47.Na3 would allow the continuation 47...Nb2+ 48.Kc2 Rxc3+ 49.Kxb2 Rb3+ 50.Ka1 Rxe3 51.Rf3 Rxf3 52.gxf3 Rc3 with a winning ending as White's remaining pawns seem indefensible.
Lasker: This appears to win by force. If 48.Rxf6 Nxb1 49.Rf7+ Kd8 50.Rf8+ Be8 51.Rxb1 Rxc3+ and should win.
Pillsbury: A most interesting position is now arrived at.
Steinitz: This appears to win by force.
Pillsbury: If 48.Rxf6 Nxb1 49.Rf7+ Kd8 50.Rf8+ Be8 51.Rxb1 Rxc3+ and wins, obviously the move played is the best.
Steinitz: If 48.Rxf6 Nxb1 49.Rf7+ Kd8 50.Rf8+ Be8 and wins.
48...Nxb1 49.Rxb1 Bg4
Pillsbury: 49...Rc4 at once appears very strong, threatening 50...f5.
50.Rc1 Rc4
Steinitz: Threatening of course Bxe2+, followed by Rxb4.
51.Rc2 (Adjourned) 51...f5 (Sealed) 0-1
Lasker: After White's fifty-second move the win of two pawns, as pointed out by Mr. Steinitz, is forced, for if 51...f5 52.Ng3 fxe4+ 53.Kd2 Bd7 54.Rc1 Be8 55.Ne2 Bf7 56.Rcf1 Bxd5 57.Rf6 Rg8 and eventually wins.
Pillsbury: Apparently 51...f5 win a pawn for if 52.Ng3 fxe4+ 53.Nxe4 Bf5 and wins.
Steinitz: At this stage the game was adjourned for the day, Black sealing the text move. When the game was resumed Lasker resigned without continuing, the game being beyond remedy. If, for instance, 52.Ng3 fxe4+ 53.Kd2 (best) 53...Bd7 54.Ne2 Be8 55.Rc1 Bf7 56.Rcf1 Bxd5 57.Rf6 Rg8 followed by pawn to a3 soon, and must win.
Boston Herald, 1894.05.20, p6
New York Sun, 1894.05.20 & 23
New-York Daily Tribune, 1894.05.20 & 22
New York Recorder, 1894.05.24 & 06.24

Game 18: Tuesday, May 22, 1894.

[Special Dispatch to the Boston Herald.]
MONTREAL, Que., May 22, 1894. The 18th game of the chess match was opened on similar lines of the queen's gambit declined as the 16th game, but at the seventh move Steinitz adopted a far stronger continuation than in the previous game, and played R-B followed by B-Q3.

Lasker exchanged his queen's pawn for the white QBP, and then filled in the square at Q4 with his Kt.

Steinitz, at the 11th move, advanced his KP somewhat prematurely, and made dangerous "holes" on his king's side by advancing 12 P-KKt3. As a consequence, Lasker obtained, by advancing 19 P-QB4, a very commanding position.

Steinitz defended with the utmost accuracy his weakened position, and when Lasker at move 25 made a risky advance of his KB, obtained some counter attack.

The battle was entirely in the centre and queen's wing, and was nobly fought on both sides. Gradually pieces were exchanged and the adjourned position looks like a sure draw.

Play will be resumed on this game tomorrow, Wednesday, at 3 P.M.
H. N. Pillsbury.

Boston Herald, 1894.05.23, p5

[Special Dispatch to the Boston Herald.]
MONTREAL, Que., May 23, 1894. The 18th game of the Steinitz-Lasker match adjourned from yesterday, was completed today after an hour's play, resulting, as predicted in The Herald, in a drawn battle.

At Lasker's 40th move he missed a clear win of a pawn by 40. BxKBP, as if KtxB; 41. Kt-Kt5(ch) wins the queen; and at the 42nd move could have forced the game in the same manner by Kt-K4.

Both players were very close on the time limit during the latter part of last evening. At 10:20 neither player had made his 34th move, and each had about 20 minutes in which to make 12 moves. Otherwise the error would seem unaccountable.

Owing to Thursday being a holiday throughout the British empire—the Queen's birthday—the next game will be played Saturday.
H. N. Pillsbury.

Boston Herald, 1894.05.24, p9

Date: 1894.05.22 & 1894.05.23
Site: CAN Montreal, PQ (Cosmopolitan Club)
Event: 1894 World Championship Match (Game 18)
White: Steinitz,W
Black: Lasker,Em
Opening: [D67] Queen's Gambit Declined
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 Be7 5.Nf3 0-0 6.e3 Nbd7 7.Rc1
Pillsbury: Vastly preferable to the blocking line of play adopted by Steinitz in previous games, commencing with 7.c5.
7...c6 8.Bd3 dxc4 9.Bxc4 Nd5 10.Bxe7 Qxe7 11.e4
Pillsbury: But this seems premature. 11.Qd2, preparing for this advance seems better.
11..Nf4 12.g3
Pillsbury: And this is against best principles of play; it creates an unnecessary weakness on this wing which causes much trouble. Doubtless Mr. Steinitz speculated on attacking at once by 12.h4, but it seems more than fully met by the eventual counter attack in the centre, commencing with 12...e5, etc., but such tactics are very hazardous and the continuation, 12.0-0 followed by 13.Qd2 forcing the retirement of the knight, would have left White with a decided advantage in position.
Showalter: 12.0-0 followed by 13.Ne2 looks like a satisfactory continuation.
12...Ng6 13.0-0
Showalter: Here we prefer 13.h4 with flattering prospects of a kingside attack later.
13...Rd8 14.Qe2 b5 15.Bb3 Bb7 16.Qe3 a6 17.Ne2 Rac8 18.Rfd1 Re8
Showalter: For the obvious purpose of advancing and exchanging the rather weak c-pawn thus opening the diagonal for the bishop at the same time.
19.Ne1 c5
Pillsbury: This advance ifves Black a very strong position, and the play in the centre now becomes most interesting.
20.dxc5 Nxc5 21.Bc2 Rc7 22.f3 Rec8 23.Bb1
Showalter: 23.Nd3 permits of many exchanges and soon reduces to a probable draw. Black has thus early overcome the slight disadvantage of the move against him and the struggle for “points” for the ending has already begun.
23...Ne5 24.b3
Showalter: Necessary to prevent the threatened loss of a pawn by 24...Nc4, and at the same time keeping a hostile knight from a point of vantage at a4.
24...f6 25.Rc2
Pillsbury: The ultimate result of this attack seems to be only to weaken his king's quarters, and it therefore seems a very questionable method of attack.
25...f5 26.exf5 exf5 27.Qf2
Showalter: Black threatens to win a pawn by 27...Nxf3+ etc.
27...g6 28.Nf4
Pillsbury: 28.Rcd2 seems a much better continuation, the position then appears slightly in his favor.
28...Ncd7 29.Nd5 Qd6 30.Rcd2 Rc1 31.Ne3 Rxd1
Pillsbury: The exchange of rooms involving the offered exchange or two rooks for queen, which White dare not accept, gives Black again a slight advantage.
32.Nxd1 Qe6
Pillsbury: 32...Qc6 is, of course, met by 33.Rc2.
33.Kf1 Rc5 34.Qe3
Showalter: Threatening Rxd7 as well as pawn to f4.
34...Rd5 35.Rxd5 Qxd5 36.Nc3 Qc6 37.Kf2 Kg7 38.Ne2 Qd6 39.Nd4
Showalter: Again White was threatened with the loss of the f-pawn.
Showalter: But now if 39...Bxf3 (neither knight can retake on account of 40...Ng4+) 40.Bxf5 with the better game.
40.Ng2 Nc6
Showalter: Why not 40...Bxf3 now is not clear. Both players seem to overlook points hereabouts, perhaps under pressure of time limit.
41.Ne6+ Kg8 42.Bc2 Qe5
Pillsbury: Both appear to play for the draw, and, after the exchange of queens, the white bishop soon comes into play, insuring the draw.
43.Ngf4 Qxe3+ 44.Kxe3
Showalter: After this a draw is the rational and almost necessary outcome of the position.
44...Nb4 45.Bb1 Ne5 46.Nd4 Kf7 47.a3 Nd5+ 48.Nxd5 Bxd5 49.Bd3 Ke7 50.Be2 Kd6 51.f4 Nd7 52.g4 fxg4 53.Bxg4 (Adjourned) 53...Nb6 (Sealed)
Showalter: Forcing another exchange of pieces with a drawing certainty.
54.h4 Bb7 55.Be6 Nd5+ 56.Bxd5 Kxd5 57.Nf3 Bc8 58.Ng5 h5 59.Ne4 Bf5 60.Nc3+ Kc5 61.Ne4+ Kd5 ½-½
Boston Herald, 1894.05.23, p5
Boston Herald, 1894.05.24, p9
New York Sun, 1894.05.23 & 24
New-York Daily Tribune, 1894.05.23 & 24
New York Recorder, 1894.05.24 & 07.29

Game 19: Saturday, May 26, 1894.

[Special Dispatch to the Boston Herald.]
MONTREAL, Que., May 26, 1894. Emanuel Lasker won the chess championship of the world and the stakes of $2000 a side, today, by defeating William Steinitz in a queen's gambit declined after 52 moves.

The Teuton had the opening move, and the game proceeded on the same lines to the 12th move as the 11th game of the match. At this point Steinitz varied from the preceding game, but afterward was entirely outclassed on the ending, and lost the exchange on the 29th move. He struggled on, and but for accurate play on the part of Lasker would have drawn, but the odds of the exchange was too much, and he gracefully resigned at the 52d move, proposing three cheers for the new champion of the world.
H. N. Pillsbury.

Boston Herald, 1894.05.27, p6

Date: 1894.05.26
Site: CAN Montreal, PQ (Cosmopolitan Club)
Event: 1894 World Championship Match (Game 19)
White: Lasker,Em
Black: Steinitz,W
Opening: [D40] Queen's Gambit Declined
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Nf3 Be7 5.e3 0-0 6.Bd3 c5 7.dxc5 dxc4 8.Bxc4 Qxd1+ 9.Kxd1 Nc6 10.a3 Bxc5 11.b4 Rd8+
Pillsbury: The opening to this point is precisely the same as in the closing game of the Philadelphia series, the 11th of the match. Steinitz here continued 11...Bb6, and eventually prematurely advanced pawn to a5, getting into difficulties and losing after 38 moves. The course here adopted seems far superior.
Steinitz: Materially different from the eleventh game of the present match, where Black here continued 11...Bb6.
12.Ke2 Bf8
Steinitz: Quite a new plan; with the object of bringing the knight into more attacking play via e7, but possibly a waiting, defensive policy like 12...Be7 is fully as good, especially as it leaves the king untrammeled.
13.Bb2 Bd7 14.Rhd1 Rac8 15.Bb3
Pillsbury: Black threatened 15...Nxb4.
15...Ne7 16.Nd4 Ng6 17.Rd2 e5
Pillsbury: 17...Ne5 18.Rad1 Nc4 19.Bxc4 Rxc4 seems the better plan, as White would avail nothing by 20.Nb3 Rc7 21.Nc5 b6 and the knight must retire, as 22.Na6 loses by 22...Rxc3 23.Bxc3 Bb5+ 24.Ke1 Rxd2 25.Rxd2 Bxa6 and should win. Otherwise Black would remove 22...Rdc8, remaining with a powerful combination of two bishops similar to that obtained by his opponent.
Steinitz: Hardly a commendable plan, as it weakens the center. Far superior was 17...Ne5 18.Rad1 Be7 (not 18...Nc4 19.Bxc4 Rxc4 20.Nf3 followed by Ne5 and pawn to g4 with a winning attack) 19.Ndb5 Ne4 with an excellent game.
18.Nf3 Bg4 19.Rxd8 Rxd8 20.h3 Bxf3+
Pillsbury: A questionable exchange, as he seems unable to operate on the weak pawns on the white king's side. I should prefer 20...Bf5 21.Rd1 Rxd1 22.Nxd1 (best; if 22.Kxd1 Ne4 23.Nxe4 Bxe4 24.Ne1, best, 14...Bd6, with a certain draw at least) 22...Bd6 23.Nc3 (if at any time 23.Ng5 Nh8, followed by 24...h6) 23...Kf8 24.Nb5 Bb8 25.Ng5 Nh8 with a defensible game. Also 20...Bc8 seems good.
Steinitz: After this capture troubles increase for Black, mainly due to the strength of the adverse combined bishops. 20...Bd7 21.Rd1 Be7 preserved equality with greater ease.
21.gxf3 Be7
Pillsbury: He could not at once continue 21...Bd6, as 22.Rd1 would give White an advantage in position.
22.Rc1 Kf8 23.Na4 b6 24.Nc3 Bd6 25.Rd1 Ne8 26.Nb5 Rd7
Pillsbury: An extraordinary error; 26...a6 27.Nc3 (27.Nxd6 Rxd6 28.Rxd6 Nxd6 leaves White with a slightly better ending, but hardly enough to win) 27...f6 28.Nd5 Rb8 was now his only course.
Steinitz: A fatal error, which utterly ruins his game. 26...a6 was now the only correct move for Black to preserve material equality, and by careful play on both sides the balance of position could have been well defended and White's broken pawns on the king's wing would have deterred him from adopting attacking measures.
Pillsbury: A very fine move which wins by force.
Pillsbury: If now 27...a6 28.Bf5 Rd8 29.Bxg6 hxg6 30.Nxd6 Rxd6 31.Bxe5 Rc6 32.Rh1 and should win.
28.Bf5 a6
Pillsbury: Obviously if 28...Rb7 29.Be4 Rd7 30.Bc6 winning the pawn. Mr. Steinitz doubtless considered the sacrifice of the exchange a better course.
29.Bxd7 Kxd7 30.Nc3 f5
Steinitz: Also very bad. If anything were yet to be done 30...Ne7 followed by 31...f6 furnishes undoubtedly a much better defense. The weakness of the e-pawn leaves a mark for the breaking in by White's combined forces, which soon renders resistance hopless.
31.b5 axb5 32.Nxb5 Ke6 33.Bc3 Ne7 34.Nxd6 Nxd6 35.Bb4 Nd5 36.Rc1 Nf7 37.Bd2 Nd6 38.Kd3 Kd7 39.e4 Nf6 40.Be3 fxe4+ 41.fxe4 b5 42.f3 Nc4 43.Rc3 Ne8 44.Bc1 Ncd6 45.Rc5
Pillsbury: This wins a pawn and the rest is easy now.
45...Nc7 46.Rxe5 Ne6 47.Rh5 h6 48.Re5 g5 49.h4 gxh4 50.Rh5 Kc6 51.Rxh6 Nc5+ 52.Kc2 1-0
Boston Herald, 1894.05.27, p6
New York Sun, 1894.05.27
New-York Daily Tribune, 1894.05.27
New York Recorder, 1894.05.28 & 06.03

Friday, June 1, 1894.

Montreal, June 1.—William Steinitz, ex-chess champion of the world, has challenged Emanuel Lasker, the present champion, for another match, and frames the document as follows:

To Emanuel Lasker, Chess Champion of the World:

Having received satisfactory assurances of the support for the purpose, I have the honor of challenging you for a return match on the same conditions in the main as those which regulated our recent encounter, with the proviso that the new contest shall commence no later than the early part of December next.

Arrangements of the details would no doubt be an easy matter, and I trust to receive an early and favorable answer, which please direct to my private address at Upper Montclair, N. J.
Wm. Steinitz

Saturday, June 2, 1894.

A Talk With Lasker.
The Chess Champion Challenged by Steinitz, and He will Accept.

Chess Champion Lasker returned from Montreal yesterday. The Sun reporter saw him at the Manhattan Chess Club, and among other things Lasker said:

"I have received a challenge from Steinitz to play him another match, the conditions, in the main, to be the same as those governing our recent contest. Steinitz proposes that the match shall begin next December. Of course I shall accept the challenge, because I think that Steinitz is certainly entitled to the first claim. However, I shall seriously consider the matter. I have to settle some business in this city, and as soon as I get through I shall leave for Europe. I will probably visit Berlin, also England and France.

"I shall have no difficulty in getting backers for a new match with Steinitz. It was my proposition that if I had to play Steinitz again the first part of the contest should take place at Montreal, for I think the New York chess players are fairly entitled to see the finish of the match."

Lasker looks very well considering the mental exertion which he has been subjected to for the last ten weeks. He seems much delighted at the courtesy which is being extended to him at the hands of the members of the Manhattan Chess Club.

Monday, June 18, 1894.

The Newark (N. J.) "Advertiser" publishes the following interesting interview:

The chess editor of the "Daily Advertiser" had quite a talk with the veteran on Monday. The ex-champion was looking the picture of health, and took the editor quite by surprise, as he had discarded his crutches and was supported only by a cane, the gift of his Montreal friends.

Mr. Steinitz was in a very cheerful mood, and spoke very freely of his late encounter with Lasker, and the causes which led to his poor showing.

"My defeat," said he, "I attribute to my poor condition. An infirmity with which I have suffered for years left me without the use of my legs. My health necessarily suffered through the want of proper exercise. Insomnia, rush of blood to the head, and general depression were the results of this inaction, and tended to weaken my playing strength. In Philadelphia I suffered most, having also had the misfortune to be nearly stifled with gas one evening at the hotel, from the effects of which I have not as yet fully recovered. This series, as you know, ended very disastrously to me."

Mr. Steinitz says he never felt so well in years as he does now, and owes his vast improvement to a vigorous cold water treatment while in Montreal.

"As you see," he added, "I have almost regained the use of my limbs. I sleep well at nights, and no indulge in morning walks before breakfast, which are proving very beneficial to me. I still continue my Montreal treatment, and hope to be fully restored when Lasker and I meet again."

When asked as to the outcome, should he and Lasker meet, Steinitz said: "I am not more than confident that I can beat Lasker."

Brooklyn Daily Standard-Union, New York, 1894.06.23

Emanuel Lasker sailed this morning for Europe aboard the Rugia. The new champion intends to make a trip around the world and visit all the principal chess clubs in Europe, the East Indies, and Australia. He will return to this city by way of San Francisco, and expects to be back about March, when he will play Steinitz a return match.
New York Evening Post, 1894.06.23

Mr. Steinitz favors us with the following correspondence bearing upon the projected “return” match for the championship of the world:

W. Steinitz, Esq.

Dear Sir: In reply to your late favor, I beg to state that Mr. W. M. de Visser has kindly consented to act as my second.

I am not certain of the date of my return, as I intend to make a trip around the world; but I shall be at your disposal whenever I shall be back from my journey. Yours very truly, wishing you a cordial good-bye,

E. Lasker.
New York Recorder, 1894.07.12

It is not generally understood that there exist at present some difficulties between Champion of the World Emmanuel Lasker and ex-Champion Steinitz in regard to their proposed return match and that the chances of the amicable arrangements for the meeting going through are none of the brightest. It is well known that immediately after the conclusion of the great match at Montreal Steinitz in turn challenged his conqueror to a match for the championship, to take place near the end of the year. Lasker readily accepted, though no date was mentioned at the time, and began to make preparations of his trip to Europe. Before his departure he selected Mr. W. M. De Visser, the prominent Brooklyn expert, as his second to represent him during his absence and to arrange all details in connection with the affair.

Shortly after his arrival on the other side Lasker determined upon making a tour around the world prior to his return to this country, and of this fact he at once notified his representative, at the same time remarking that this might necessitate the postponement of the match for a short time.

Mr. Steinitz now takes the stand that a specified time had been agreed upon between himself and Lasker, and claims that he has a letter from the latter in his possession in which he positively fixed the beginning of the match. Any postponement, therefore, should only be made subject to his consent. He had gone so far as to give his rival until the middle of March, 1895, to come to time, after which, so Steinitz intimated to Mr. De Visser, he would claim the championship.

As matters stand now, unless Steinitz withdraws his determination or it happens that Lasker puts in an appearance earlier than expected, there will be two champions of the world by next spring.

Through the courtesy of Mr. De Visser we publish to-day two very interesting letters from which our readers can learn the full particulars for themselves:

Steinitz's Letter To De Visser.

New York, July 2, 1894.

My Dear Mr. De Visser—Mr. Lasker has notified me that you have accepted the office of his second, and I beg to express, in the first place, my warmest approval of his selection and my fullest confidence that you will conduct negotiations on his behalf in the most honorable manner.

From Mr. Lasker's last letter to me, of which I enclose a copy, as well as from my previous correspondence with him on the subject. I can only conclude that he has given you plenary powers to make binding preparations for the contemplated match with one exception, namely, in regard to the time for the commencement of the contest, which he now desires to be extended until his return from an intended “trip round the world.” As you may be aware Mr. Lasker had already, in a previous letter to me, dated June 15, positively fixed the beginning of the match for the end of the current year, and I must strongly enter my objection against his making such a serious modification of our agreement without my consent.

However, in order to meet Mr. Lasker's wishes as much as possible, I am willing to postpone the beginning of the match until the middle of March, of 1895, at the latest.

You will no doubt understand that I cannot bind myself and my backers for an indefinite period, and that I cannot make any further concession on the point, as otherwise the match is not likely to be finished before the hot Summer season, which is utterly unsuitable for such a contest. Very truly yours,

(Signed)              W. Steinitz.

Mr. De Visser's Reply.

Brooklyn, N. Y., August 6, 1894.

My dear Mr. Steinitz—Begging leave to reply to your letter to me of July 2 and your subsequent remarks regarding the return chess match between yourself and Mr. Lasker, I have to state that I transmitted to Mr. Lasker the substance of your communication and conversation, including the remark that unless Mr. Lasker agreed to begin play in the match on or before March 15, 1895, you would consider that he had withdrawn his acceptance of your challenge and that you would probably claim for yourself the title of champion of the world.

I have just received a letter from Mr. Lasker, from Berlin, and in it he expressed the greatest surprise that you should claim that he has ever named a definite time when he would be ready to begin play.

In his letter to you of June 15, written unfortunately in German, Mr. Lasker stated (as nearly as I have been able to have his language interpreted) that upon his return from Europe, which was projected for the end of this year, he would be ready with pleasure to accept your invitation to a second match.

Subsequently, owing to his determination to make a tour of the world, Mr. Lasker found, that in all probability, he would not return to this country before March or April of 1895, and you will see that it is therefore impossible for me now to bind Mr. Lasker to commence play by the date you mention.

I certainly cannot construe the words of Mr. Lasker's letter to you of June 15 as having "positively fixed the beginning of the match for the end of the current year," as you claim in your letter to me, especially after receiving Mr. Lasker's assurance that such was not his intention, and can only assure you that should any change in Mr. Lasker's plans bring him to New York earlier than he he at present anticipates, he will be ready to put himself at your disposal, subject only to sufficiently reasonable time to prepare himself for play and collect his subscriptions, and further that Mr. Lasker will play no one for the championship before giving you the opportunity of regaining your lost laurels.

As to your suggested intention to claim the championship, I of course cannot prevent your doing so, if you insist upon such a course, but I trust, upon reconsideration, you will conclude that the best interests of chess can be served by accepting the delay with the best possible grace, instead of seeking to secure through a plea of default on the part of Mr. Lasker what under the circumstances would be indeed but an empty honor, and which, as far as I can see, would add nothing to your reputation or the highest respect still held for your ability by the chess world, and which might possibly be the means of disturbing the friendly relations now existing between you. Thanking you for your expressions of regard and confidence, I remain, very truly yours,
W. M. De Visser.
Mr. Wm. Steinitz, Upper Montclair, N. J.
Brooklyn Daily Eagle, 1894.08.08, p2

The Ex-Chess Champion Objects to Lasker's Delay.
Steinitz States That If Lasker Declines To Commence The Second Match For The World's Championship By March, 1895, The Title Will Be Forfeited.

W. M. de Visser has received the following letter from William Steinitz regarding the points of difference in the arrangements of the dates for playing the second match for the chess championship of the world.

One of Mr. Steinitz peculiarities is his extreme cautiousness, the trail which has made him so successful in the intricate game; in preparing for a match any little hitch seems to call forth all of his combativeness and he is not chary in dealing with those connected with the arrangements. It is stated that when the Prussian champion, M. I. Tschigorin was on his way to Havana in 1892, to play his last match with Steinitz, he remarked to a Brooklyn player:

"After I agreed to everything that Mr. Steinitz asked, I received all of these letters!" and he showed a large handful.

Following is the letter:

23 Park Row, New York, Aug. 10, 1894.

Mr. Dear Mr. De Visser,—Your letter of the 6th instant has caused me the greatest surprise and disappointment. Not to waste any time, however, I shall proceed at once to reply categorically.

It would have been more in accordance with the established customs of transacting such negotiations if you had forwarded to Mr. Lasker a full copy of my short letter of July 2, instead of merely "transmitting its substance." In regard to my "conversation" with you about the course which I might "probably" take in the matter eventually, it was not intended on my part that it should be communicated to Mr. Lasker, unless privately. Anyhow, neither you nor Mr. Lasker had any right to drag the subject before the public until I had positively formed my decision and given you official notice of it. More of that anon, when I come to review your reflections upon my probably course of action.

Referring to Mr. Lasker's denial "that he has ever named a definite time when he would be ready to play," I can only charitably assume either that he has never troubled himself to keep a copy of his own letter of June 15, to which he alludes, or else that he had forgotten the terms of the challenge to which he then answered. For in that challenge, dated May 31, I had offered in general to play on the same terms as those of the last match, only "with the proviso that the new contest shall commence no later than the early part of December next."

The words which you quote in translation (not exactly, by the way), could therefore bear no other meaning than, that Mr. Lasker desired an extension of about a fortnight's time beyond the six month's notice for the beginning of play. Moreover, in that same letter of June 15, Mr. Lasker announces "that he will name his second for the arrangements, and he entertains not the slightest doubt with the mutual agreements will be fixed to the satisfaction of both parties, as in the first match." The quoted passages bear no other interpretation than that he would give full instructions to his second, whom he would also invest with plenary powers, for the transaction of all business in his behalf in settling the preliminaries of the match, which, anyhow, would come off at the "end of the year," as stipulated, perhaps four or five weeks after his return from Europe, which might take place late in November. He could not, surely, have intended to appoint a second then, for the arrangement of a match which, according to his last contention, could not be organized to begin earlier than about October or November of 1895! There was, therefore, positively a time fixed in Mr. Lasker's letter of June 15, approximately, but definitely enough for the beginning of play; but, nevertheless, I have already granted an extension of three months and a half beyond the date stipulated in my original challenge.

Strange to say, Mr. Lasker's mental reservation, or afterthought, or "determination of a tour around the world," as you call it, was made known to me first in his letter of June 21, in which he nominates you as his second. Permit me to say, that in my opinion your only excuse for accepting such a post under the conditions which you now submit for Mr. Asker, is the possibility that he may yet alter his mind and begin play on or before March 15, 1895. Otherwise your office will be no more than that of his substitute in a literary sham fight. Though I fully adhere to my expressions of regard and confidence, to which you allude, I shall seriously question your good judgment if you allow your highly-respected name to be used for such purposes.

Regarding your criticism of my suggested intention to claim the championship, I have already indicated that it is out of place, and not in proper season, and I may now add that it was quite unfair for your side to start before the public with such a discussion, before I had finally decided on the steps which I might take, and before I had an opportunity to state my own reasons for my intended action. However, my case is strong enough to yield Mr. Lasker the advantage he has taken, for I feel confident that a little illustration of his latest proposition will turn the tables completely. Apart from Mr. Lasker's formal pledge to begin play at the end of the year, as shown above, his refusal or evasion of commencing the match three and a half months later than stipulated in my original challenge is based on his "determination to a tour round the world." There can be no mistake about the meaning of that. Instead of fulfilling an engagement of honor, Mr. Lasker intends to traverse the globe as champion, open to exhibition and other professional engagements, where-ever offered, holding, meanwhile, at his own pleasure, title by possession to the greater portion by far of the championship and leaving me to claim the remaining portion, until he shall be taken with a "determination" to return to this country. Now, meantime, chess masters, like Gunsberg, Tarrasch, Tschigorin and Walbrodt, who are notoriously in the field as rivals for the championship, are ruled our of the race, and may accept with the best possible grace the position of second class players. If Mr. Lasker considers such a proposition fair, or even honest, I do not, if only on the ground that those masters might justly claim that they could have beaten me at least as easily as Mr. Lasker did, if I could not play any better than in the last match.

But this matter also has another aspect. The champion can claim no other privilege than that of being entitled to a challenge on fair terms, if any one wants to play with him. Once this is done, the rivals stand on a perfectly even footing in their rights and in reputation until one is beaten. Mr. Lasker does not deny that my terms are fair, including the notice for beginning the match. However, he has formed his "determination of a tour round the world," but I can claim the same rights of circumnavigation on his return, and thus we might tour round the world forever. Mr. Lasker, with his lion's share of the championship, and I with the remainder, leaving other masters to form an admiration society of the combination, which, by mutual agreement, would thus hold the championship title in sections.

Furthermore, there is a money question in the matter which will at once bring home to ordinary understanding the point of honor involved. Mr. Lasker and his friends have won $2,000 from my backers, who, however, have at once chivalrously staked a like amount for another match. In common honor, not to say honesty, they are entitled to their revouche, and Mr. Lasker has no right to defer it to suit his own convenience, but is bound to play upon reasonable notice. My challenge is complete vindication of my defeat, and I require no excuse for myself. But, on behalf of my generous supporters, especially those of Montreal, who have backed me for the first time and lost their money, I may now plead the well-known fact that, in consequence of a series of private misfortunes, I was broken in health and spirits when I was challenged by Mr. Lasker. Moreover, as is also well known, I was much behind time with Part II of my "Modern Chess Instructor," the issue of which would have been more remunerative to me than winning the match. Nevertheless, I promptly accepted Mr. Lasker's challenge, and strained every nerve under the greatest difficulties to organize the contest. There are no such obstacles now, and all prearrangements can be easily made, and he has no excuse whatever for entering on his tour, instead of keeping a positive engagement for a match under fair conditions. It would be a bad precedent to establish that a player, having snatched a victory, can choose his own time for playing a return match.

To sum up, Mr. Lasker did distinctly accept my challenge, in his letter of June 15, and promised to begin play by the end of the year, without giving the slightest hint in that letter of any possible delay. Within six days after that he coolly withdraws his promise, and practically adjourns the match sine die. Strictly speaking, he forfeited his champion title June 22, the day when I received his "determination" of a tour round the world, I could lawfully claim the title now. Pecuniarily, this would be no great penalty, for he could amply recoup himself by an exhibition tour round the world as champion de facto. But such a fiasco forfeiture would subject him to lasting ridicule by contrast with the previous record. For I held the championship for twenty-seven years and three-quarters, while Mr. Lasker's title almost survives only as many days—from May 26 to June 22.

However, I intend to seize this favorable opportunity to give Mr. Lasker and the chess world an example of how a real chess master ought to behave on such an occasion, and I therefore offer to Mr. Lasker two months time from this date to alter his mind in respect to his projected tour round the world, or to order it so as not to interfere with his playing a return match by March 17, 1895, at the latest. In proposing this I am again making a great sacrifice, for the uncertainty in which I am now placed prevents me from entering into contracts with printers and publishers in reference to the publication of my book, and this causes me serious loss of time.

If Mr. Lasker accepts my offer well and good. If not he will be welcome to his 365th part of a champions record. Very truly yours,
William Steinitz.

Mr. De Visser stated to the Standard Union representative that he would write to Mr. Steinitz acknowledging the receipt of the letter and forward it to Mr. Lasker, leaving the matter in his hands.

Brooklyn Daily Standard-Union, 1894.08.13

Ex-Champion Steinitz's last letter, a very long one and the gist of which was published in the Eagle of August 14, has been forwarded to Mr. Lasker by the latter's second, Mr. W. M. de Visser of this city. In the above communication Steinitz saw fit to take the other side, Lasker and his second, to task for making public his intentions in regard to claiming the championship and went so far as to charge them with taking an unfair advantage of him by so doing. He also questioned Mr. de Visser's good judgment in accepting the office of second when Lasker had no intention to play at the time Steinitz claims had been agreed upon. Mr. de Visser in reply, which is given below, refutes the charges of unfairness and forcibly expresses some views of his own in the matter. The letter follows:

New York, August 26, 1894.

My dear Mr. Steinitz—Your letter of the 10th inst. was duly received and in reply I beg to say that I have forwarded a fully copy of the same to Mr. Lasker for his consideration of your ultimatum. Whether Mr. Lasker will act as I presume you think a real chess master should and consent to shorten or abandon his trip in order to begin play with you by the date you specify I cannot say, and it must remain with him to decide whether or not he will be content to pursue his journey with only the one-three hundred and sixty-fifth part of a champion's record as a souvenir of his late encounter with you. You will pardon me, I trust, if I do not care to reply to your reelections upon my judgment, which can have but very little connection with the not very agreeable task I have undertaken to oblige Mr. Lasker, but I must protest most decidedly against your charge of unfairness in my announcing your probable intention of claiming the championship etc., and I am sorry that your eagerness to commence another match has apparently dulled your memory to the extent of calling forth such a remark.

At the time you made your probable intention known to me I requested you to embody it in a letter to me. This you declined to do as you said you thought it unnecessary, but, upon my stating to you that I should nevertheless regard it as official, you entered no objection whatever and I considered, and do still consider that I had a prefect right to communicate it to Mr. Lasker and to refer to it in my reply to you in the manner I did.

Upon the above facts my recollection is quite clear and I can only repeat that your charge of unfairness seems entirely gratuitous and uncalled for. Very truly yours,
W. M. De Visser.
Mr. William Steinitz, Upper Montclair.

Montreal, Oct. 5.—William Steinitz, the ex-champion chess player of the world, has issued a challenge to Emanuel Lasker for another series of games for the championship. The challenge will remain open until Oct. 15. The place of meeting is to be Montreal. If Lasker declines Steinitz will challenge Tarrasch, the Russian [sic] champion, for a series of games here.

New York Sun, 1894.10.06

Chess Player Steinitz has received the following letters regarding the proposed return chess match for the championship:

London, Sept. 26, 1894.

W. Steinitz, Esq.

Dear Sir: In reply to your letter of Aug. 10 I beg to repeat what I said in June, viz., that I shall be very pleased to play a return match with you. I did not mention any date in my letter, but I will do so now, and fix Oct. 1, 1895, for the beginning of the match. Chess and other engagements that I have entered into do not allow me to play sooner. If this does not suit you I am very sorry.

I do not reply to your other, in my opinion, irrelevant remarks: besides, I do not claim to be a match for you in a newspaper fight, but I am, until beaten on the checkered board, the chess champion of the world.

Kindly send communications to Mr. de Visser as heretofore, as he will always know my address. Yours very truly,
Emanuel Lasker.

New York, Oct. 8, 1894.

My Dear Mr. Steinitz: I have to-day received a letter from Mr. Lasker from London, enclosing a personal reply to you of your letter to me of Aug. 10, which I herewith beg to hand you.

Inasmuch as you have announced your intention of claiming the championship unless Mr. Lasker agreed to begin play in the return match by March 17, 1895, and as this Mr. Lasker plainly declines to do, I presume there can be at present no further need of my services to the latter as his second: and as much as I regret to forego the pleasure of further correspondence with you. I must request that should you have any communications to make to Mr. Lasker you will address him personally and directly.

I have no doubt Mr. Lasker will keep me posted as to his whereabouts, and I shall be happy at any time to give you his address if you require it.

Regretting exceedingly that the chess world has for the present at least lost the expected opportunity of witnessing another contest between two such masters of the royal game, I remain, with kind regards, very truly yours.
W. M. de Visser.

New York Sun, 1894.10.10

W. Steinitz, who was seen by a reporter of the Tribune yesterday, had little to add respecting his controversy with Emanual Lasker to the following letter, which he mailed through the agency of M. de Visser, Lasker's late second:

New York, Oct. 10, 1894.

Dear Sir: Your letter dated the 26th ult. reached me yesterday, having been transmitted to me by your second, Mr. De Visser, who also announced to me his resignation of the post of honor which you had assigned to him. Considering that this gentleman under your instructions opened "the literary sham fight," as I called it, his retirement is significant enough and forms a sufficient answer to your final fling about "the newspaper fight" wherewith you endeavor to cover your own retreat from an untenable position. It is quite obvious that Mr. De Visser never intended to accept the post of an intermediator for the arrangement of a match which was to commence fifteen months after his acceptance of the office.

Nor did I intend for my part to enter negotiations for such a contest at such a remote date, and it is a mere pretentious quibble to try to fix the date absolutely for the beginning of the match twelve months or even six months ahead before all other conditions are settled. Though you may again call the matter "irrelevant," I beg to repeat that in reply to my challenge for a match to being "in the early part of December at the latest," you fixed the date nearly, but clearly enough, for "the end of the year," 1894 (not 1895).

No doubt you could retain the champion title and prevent your ever being "beaten on the checkered board" if the precedent were to be established that the champion would, quite alone, choose his own time for playing again, and could, moreover, break a positive agreement for a match, first, on the plea of "a tour round the world" and, next, of "chess and other engagements," which it was his pleasure to enter into subsequently instead of making preparations to fulfill his previous promise. But the general public will probably allow that I, as well as my backers, may hold a different opinion on the subject, and I shall therefore take the fullest responsibility of reclaiming the champion title, which you have forfeited by your letter of June 22, after the expiration of the time of grace which I gave you for reconsideration.

In regard to new negotiations for another match, the precedent has already been established that such contests can be arranged by challenges addressed to both parties from a renowned club. My matches with Mr. Tschigorin were thus organized by the Havana Chess Club, and likewise my match with Mr. Gunsberg was in the same way arranged by the Manhattan Chess Club, of New-York. A similar course will, no doubt, be taken at reasonable notice by some distinguished chess club whenever a clear prospect presents itself of organizing a meeting between us, and I, for my part shall offer no objections to such an initiation of new negotiations, though I have the honor to subscribe myself in the mean while, your very truly,
W. Steinitz.
Chess Champion of the World.

New York Daily Tribune, 1894.10.11

William Steinitz has reclaimed the title of chess champion of the world in a letter to Emanuel Lasker, on the ground that the latter, after having accepted the former's challenge to a return match, fixed its date first for the end of the present year, then put off until he returned from a trip around the world, about the spring of 1895, and finally definitely for October 1, 1895. Lasker's attitude may be ungenerous and very aggravating for Steinitz, yet there are few people who will grant Steinitz's claim. Wm. M. De Vissa [sic], who heretofore has acted as Lasker's second in the matter, has resigned from that position.

New York Evening Post, 1894.10.13

We have thus the curious condition in the chess world of two champions; one declining to play till he is ready, the other referring the whole subject of another match to any chess club that will arrange it. While we cannot agree with Mr. Steinitz in his assumption of the championship, we are satisfied that he has good cause for complaint. Mr. Lasker's letter says nothing about his proposed trip around the world; but this is probably due to a determination to give as little satisfaction as possible. The New Orleans "Times-Democrat" published a clipping from an Australian paper, to the effect that Lasker has made engagements to visit that part of the world, and the probabilities are that we shall see Mr. Lasker visiting us again next year, via San Francisco.

Brooklyn Daily Standard-Union, 1894.10.13

Lasker has written to a friend that he is much improved in health, but that he will remain at the St. Thomas Home, Lambeth, London, for some time. He has given up all ideas of playing another match with Steinitz, but will visit this country again in case there should be an international tournament.

New York Daily Tribune, 1894.12.02

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