More Recovered Chess Games:
Steinitz, Pillsbury, Lasker and Capablanca
by John S. Hilbert
|
|
| I have written elsewhere of my passion for
rediscovering forgotten chess games of the great masters of the past.(1)
The discoveries are there to be made, awaiting the efforts of the dedicated
searcher. Through rolls of microfilm and dusty collections of chess columns
one can perceive, on occasion, an effort of a great mind of the past, forgotten
for decades or a century or more, left waiting to be brought forth again,
hopefully someday to be reunited with that master’s canon. |
| Anyone who has actually gone to the trouble of attempting
to track down such games realizes how often hopes are disappointed.
Dozens if not hundreds of games might be examined before possibly a few,
newly found, remain to pass the gauntlet of the collections of the past.
Even then, some games that have passed such rigorous examination may fall
by the wayside once the researcher’s discoveries are shared with his or
her colleagues, and especially with the experts in the field of a particular
master, period, or place.(2) |
| As with any pursuit worth the effort, though, the
researcher’s findings must survive such scrutiny in order to be considered
true additions to a master’s canon. What follows is a small collection
of newly recovered games played by four of the greatest chess minds in
the world. The group spans a period of nearly thirty years, running
from 1883 to 1911, and though not exclusively, do for the most part come
from the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania region. |
|
Steinitz
|
| The largest collection of games played by Steinitz,
incorporating previous works, is Sid Pickard’s The Games of Wilhelm
Steinitz (Pickard & Son: 1995). Over a thousand games, specifically
1,022, are included by Pickard. The book does not suggest it is complete,
which is readily understandable. Collecting and checking all known
Steinitz games would require extensive labors in chess and popular journals,
newspapers, and other collections. And even then, of course, no claim
to “completeness” could be made. Not even Ludwig Bachmann, in his
seminal Schachmeister Steinitz (C. Brügel & Sohn, 1920-28,
4 vols.), pretended his work was complete. Nor does any other reputable
scholar, writing about the great masters of the past. |
| But the time has come when the games of our great
players of the past require such exceptional efforts as would be needed
for more exhaustive collections. Leonard M. Skinner and Robert G.
P. Verhoeven have set a new standard for compilations with their extraordinary
Alexander
Alekhine’s Chess Games, 1902-1946 (McFarland: 1998). Other writers
have also done excellent jobs in putting together materials on past great
players, including Kenneth Whyld on Emanuel Lasker and Nick Pope on Harry
Nelson Pillsbury, to name but two. But Steinitz continues to lack
a truly exhaustive, and accurate, treatment. Not only are there many
games played by Steinitz not included in the Pickard collection, but details
as to events surrounding the play, the context in which the games appeared,
is also lacking, at least in relation to Steinitz’s canon as a whole.
Games played by Steinitz during his early days in the United States are,
for example, one area where much more work needs to be done. |
| Steinitz sailed to America on board the American
Steamship Company’s Indiana, arriving in Philadelphia on November
7, 1882. He stayed in the City of Brotherly Love until December 27,
1882. After leaving Philadelphia, Steinitz traveled first to Baltimore
and then to New Orleans, where from December 28, 1882, through January
28, 1883, he played various club members at the New Orleans Chess, Checker
and Whist Club, as well as visited, briefly, Paul Morphy. Neither
Bachmann nor Pickard include the following game at odds, one of four played
between Steinitz and Labatt during the first week of his visit, early in
January 1883. Steinitz won by the score of 3-1, and thus this game
was Labatt’s only victory: |
| 1883.01 |
USA New Orleans, LA
|
|
1.f4 c5 2.e3 b6 3.Nf3 Bb7 4.b3 e6 5.Bb2 Nf6 6.Qe2 Nc6
7.0-0-0 d5 8.h3 a5 9.a4 Be7 10.g4 d4 11.e4 Nb4 12.d3 Na2+ 13.Kb1 Nc3+ 14.Bxc3
dxc3 15.Qe1 b5 16.axb5 a4 17.Qxc3 Nxe4 18.Qe1
18…Nc3+ 19.Qxc3 Bxf3 20.Be2 Bf6 21.Qxc5 axb3 22.c3 Qa5
23.Kc1 Qa2 0-1.
|
Philadelphia Times, 1883.01.07
|
|
| Steinitz did not settle in the United States right
away. Instead, he returned to Europe later in 1883, only to decide
to move his family to this country not long thereafter. By the end
of 1883 he was back in Philadelphia, where he played a number of offhand
games, including the following hitherto forgotten game against one of Philadelphia’s
most respected chess elders. |
| 1883.12 |
USA Philadelphia, PA (Philadelphia Chess
Club)
|
|
Annotations by G. Reichhelm
1.e4 e6 2.e5 d5 3.exd6 Bxd6 4.d4 Nc6 5.f4
| White plays on the principle of keeping the e-pawn and queen’s bishop
hemmed in. |
| On 10.Bh7+ Kxh7 11.Ng5+, Black moves ...Kg6. |
| A subtle trap. Against an ordinary adversary the game would probably
have continued with 12...Rc8 13.c4 Nb4 14.c5 bxc5 15.dxc5 Bxc5+ 16.Nxc5
Qd4+ and Black has won a pawn. |
19.Rad1
| Made with the idea that he could let the a-pawn go and then recoup
himself with the advantage of an open file by returning to the corner with
his rook. There is a subsequent point, however, in the proceedings, calculated
upon by Mr. Elson, that had escaped the analysis of Mr. Steinitz. |
| This is the move that Black relied on and secures the pawn that had
been taken. |
| Black is still a pawn ahead, but as it would be very difficult to win
with his advantage against the two White bishops, the game was declared
drawn. |
|
Philadelphia Times, 1883.12.16
|
|
| Of Elson, Reichhelm added that “it is a subject
worthy of note that one of the most creditable, if not the most creditable,
scores in America made against Champion Steinitz was achieved by Mr. Jacob
Elson, of this city. Mr. Elson played, in all, three games against
Steinitz during his two visits to this country, and out of these three
games he achieved two draws and lost but one game. We, of course,
do not pretend to lay any undue stress upon this performance, but as it
is a most creditable showing we deem it worth this passing notice.” |
| During the same stay in Philadelphia Steinitz played
the following game, one Reichhelm said was “one of the last played by Champion
Steinitz [during his recently finished stay in Philadelphia], though
it is not a good exhibit of the strong play usually exhibited by his young
adversary.” |
| 1883.12 |
USA Philadelphia, PA (Philadelphia Chess
Club)
|
|
Annotations by G. Reichhelm
1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nf6
| This defense is faulty, as it allows the first player to offer the
gambit with advantage. |
| We have a sort of Steinitz gambit variation now. |
| Taking a leaf out of old Anderssen’s book. A similar line of play was
adopted by that celebrated master in the so-called “immortal game” against
Kieseritzky. |
| Black’s play in this game is by no means up to his usual form. |
17.Rg1
| The position is very remarkable, indeed. Black has a check, it is true,
but his game is lost. |
| And wins, for, on ...Qd3, White plays Rd2, etc. |
|
Philadelphia Times, 1883.12.23
|
|
| Another Steinitz game not included in any known
collection of the world champion’s games is the following miniature.
Unfortunately, the game is merely introduced as showing “how Steinitz gives
the rook,” without even mentioning where or when the game was played. |
Annotations by G. Reichhelm
1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.f4 exf4 4.e5 Qe7 5.Qe2 Ng8 6.Nf3 d6
7.Nd5 Qd8 8.exd6+ Be6 9.Nxc7+ Kd7 10.Nxe6 fxe6 11.Ne5+
11…Kc8 (# in 4), 1-0.
| Mate in four moves: 12.Qc4+ Nc6 13.Nxc6 bxc6 14.Qxc6+ Kb8. |
|
Philadelphia Times, 1883.12.09
|
|
| Skipping ahead a few years, we find Steinitz again
visiting the Philadelphia area, at which time he gave a twenty-three board
simultaneous exhibition at the Workingmen’s Institute Hall in Germantown,
on Wednesday, December 7, 1887. According to Reichhelm, writing in
the
Philadelphia Times for December 11 of that year, Steinitz won
twenty games and drew three, with no losses. The three draws were
made by Shipley, Young, and Magee. Pickard includes two games from
this exhibition in his book on Steinitz, both draws: numbers 897 (Magee)
and 898 (Young). |
| Two additional games from the Germantown simultaneous
exhibition have now been found. Reichhelm also offered some general
commentary about the event: “Punctuality is the courtesy of chess kings
as well as minor potentates and Herr Steinitz was therefore promptly on
time, escorted by Mr. W. Penn Shipley. His adversaries were all on
hand and arranged around him in what is easiest described as an oblong
square. On board number one Mr. John Welsh Young, with the radiance
of a full front, boldly inaugurated a secret counterplot, which engaged
the full attention of the champion. Mr. Young kept his eyes carefully
riveted on the board, so as not to be too much moved by the plaudits of
the spectators. Mr. Young gallantly achieved a draw. Board
number two, Mr. R. T. Tatum, made a short but creditable defense, but on
the neighboring table (number three), Mr. R. O. Benson was seen with his
pale caste of thought elaborating the most polished combinations.
Mr. Benson played a tremendous game and Mr. Steinitz himself acknowledged
that at one period Mr. Benson had the better of him. Mr. Benson’s game,
however, lingered too long and finally, at 1:30 am, Her Steinitz again
scored. Messrs. J. Fischer Wright and Mordecai Morgan played very
attractive games, while Mr. W. Penn Shipley, on table number six,” secured
what Reichhelm called a “brilliant draw.” |
|
Steinitz,W — Shipley,WP
|
Simul (1:23)
|
| C52/05 |
Evans: Compromised (Anderssen)
|
|
| 1887.12.07 |
USA Germantown, PA
|
|
Annotations by G. Reichhelm
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 6.d4 exd4
7.0-0
| Reichhelm: This is the so-called “compromise defense” of the
Evans’ Gambit, but the preponderance of evidence is now in favor of its
soundness. |
11…b5
| Reichhelm: This counter sacrifice is a necessary feature of
this defense, although authorities differ as to the exact time when the
pawn should be offered. With his surplus of pawns Black can afford to give
one back to divert the champion’s attack. |
| Hilbert: Note that the New York Clipper for January 7,
1888, gives the same game score, but ends the game with 17.Be4, not 17.Bc4.(3) |
| Reichhelm: And the game was by mutual consent abandoned by both
players. |
|
Philadelphia Times, 1887.12.11
|
|
| Reichhelm then continued his description of the
Germantown simul: “Next to Mr. Shipley sat the gallant Mr. Stokes, who
had bounded into the arena early in the evening. Mr. Stokes’ moves
were complex and pleasing. Following him Mr. J. Evans and Mr. J.W.
Barker played sturdily, and further, at board number ten, sat the rising
Germantown chess phenomenon, Master August Beckman, aged 15. Herr
Steinitz opened with a Giuoco Pianisimo on the queen’s side, but the boy
defended himself so ably that not a piece or pawn was exchanged on either
side for many moves and even the old players looked on and marveled at
the boy. Finally, however, the old master secured an advantage over
the young one. Passing over the well digested games of Carroll Smyth
and H. S. Williams we come to the main body of the ‘Junior’ contingent
[i.e., players from the so-called Junior Chess Club, who in fact represented
some of the strongest players not only of the Franklin Chess Club, but
of the city itself, regardless of age—JSH] on tables thirteen to seventeen.
J. P. Morgan held out bravely until after 2:00 am, and next to him sat
President Magee, of the ‘Juniors,’ who played another of the star games
of the evening ... At this point it was after 2:00 am, and Herr Steinitz,
remarking that he was very tired, asked Mr. Magee to draw on account of
the lateness of the hour. Mr. Magee gallantly acceded. ... The next
players, Messrs. W. H. Schultz, Henry S. Jeanes and S. W. Bampton, all
had finally to ‘catch trains’...and at the last, but by no means least,
board number twenty-three, sat Herman G. Voigt ... Voigt was especially
unfortunate in losing his game by a mistaken touch and move after having
an equal game.” |
| In his January 1, 1888, chess column, Reichhelm
gave another example of Steinitz’s play from the same Germantown, December
7, 1887, simultaneous exhibition. Reichhelm considered it an excellent
game. |
|
Steinitz,W — Wright,MF
|
Simul (1:23)
|
| 1887.12.07 |
USA Germantown, PA
|
|
Annotations by G. Reichhelm
1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Bc5 3.b4 Bb6
| Had Lieutenant Wright taken the pawn Herr Steinitz would doubtless
have proceeded with 4.f4, offering McDonnell’s celebrated double gambit. |
| Arriving by a transposition of moves at one of the variations in the
Evans’ Gambit evaded. |
| It is nearly always preferable to post the knight at f6. |
| Through White’s eleventh move Black now obtains a winning position. |
20…Kd7
| Beginning a series of remarkable king moves with which to hoist Steinitz
with his own petard. |
| White cannot take the g-pawn on account of ...Rg8. |
| 34...Re3+ is answered by 35.Kf2. |
46…Rb4
| This loses him a won game. Lieutenant Wright indeed saw that ...Rg4
would win, but made a mistake in thinking the move in the text a quicker
way of doing it. |
| The further moves were not recorded, but Herr Steinitz won. |
| The modus operandi of winning in this position would be about as follows:
50.Qf8+ Ka2 51.Qf7+ Ka1 52.Qf6 Ka2 53.Qxa6+ Kb3 54.Qd3+ Ka2 55.Qc2 Ka1
56.Qa4+ Kb1 57.h5 etc. |
|
Philadelphia Times, 1888.01.01
|
|
| Another Steinitz game has surfaced from apparently
the following year, 1888. The difficulty in assigning the game a
more precise place and time in Steinitz’s canon stems from the vagueness
of Reichhelm’s introductory comment, given here in full: “Mr. Voigt of
the home club, sends us the following instructive game he had with Steinitz.”
As Reichhelm’s references to players of “the home club” generally involved
their play when not in Philadelphia, the location of this game, much less
its precise date, is not known. Perhaps it was played in New York, and
perhaps in July or August 1888, given the date of the column in which it
appears. In any event, the game involves one of Voigt’s pet openings,
the Sicilian. |
| B46/03 |
Sicilian: Barnes (Russian)
|
|
|
Annotations by G. Reichhelm
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 a6 4.d4 cxd4 5.Nxd4 e6 6.g3 g6
7.Nxc6 bxc6 8.e5 d5 9.exd6 Qxd6 10.Qf3 Bb7 11.Bd2 Bg7 12.0-0-0 Qb4 13.a3
c5
14.Qe2 Qb6 15.Rg1 Rd8 16.Na4 Qd6 17.Qc4 Qd4 18.Qxd4 Bxd4
19.Be3 Bc6
20.Nxc5
| Steinitz nods. Black now very cleverly wins the exchange. |
38…Nxf4
| By this plausible-looking capture Mr. Voigt gives away his slight chance
of winning and enables Mr. Steinitz to draw by perpetual check in a very
peculiar manner. |
| And the game is drawn. If Black attempts to alter his moves then White
gets the chance to check with his knight and win a piece. |
|
Philadelphia Times, 1888.08.19
|
|
| Few offhand games from Steinitz’s last years have
made their way into anthologies. No doubt the field is quite ripe
for numerous additional finds. Here, for instance, is an offhand
game the great master played against Max Judd, one of the strongest players
to reside in America’s Midwest. The game, however, was played in
Vienna, where Judd had at one time been United States Consul. As
with the other games in this article, this one has not yet made its way
into the Steinitz canon.(4) |
|
Judd,Max — Steinitz,W
|
Offhand
|
|
Annotations by G. Reichhelm
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 d6 4.d4 Bd7 5.Nc3 Nge7
| Now White should proceed with Bg5, etc. The move in the text,
however, which follows is recommended by Lasker. |
| This, with the consequent flippant advance on the queenside, shows
that Mr. Steinitz did not take the game very seriously. |
| Now he goes for him on the other wing. Mr. Steinitz is evidently on
the sunny side of the street. |
| The veteran must now begin to fight, but Mr. Max has a win in hand. |
| The sacrifice which follows is good, and should have won the game. |
26.Rxd6 Bxd6 27.Rxd6 Nf6 28.Nxe6 Rg8 29.Nc7+ Qxc7 30.Qe5+
Qe7 31.Re6 Qxe6 32.Qxe6+ Kf8 33.Bxf6 gxf6 34.Qxf6+ 0-1.
| The remaining moves are not recorded, but Mr. Judd in some way managed
to lose the game. |
|
Philadelphia Times, 1897.06.13
|
|
| In the spring of 1898, Steinitz once more came to
Philadelphia, where on April 23, 1898, he gave a twenty-one board simultaneous
exhibition at the Franklin Chess Club. As Emil Kemeny described it
two days later in his Philadelphia Public Ledger column, “W. Steinitz,
who for twenty-eight years held the championship of the world, Saturday
evening gave a brilliant exhibition of simultaneous play. He met
a strong team of twenty-one local players, but D. Stuart [Robinson]
was the only one who succeeded in defeating him. Play commenced at
7:30 pm. Shortly before midnight play was stopped, and the unfinished
games were adjudicated. The final score was: Steinitz won ten, lost
one, and drew ten.” Kemeny also noted that “perhaps the best game
of the series was the one won by D. Stuart [Robinson]. It
was a Sicilian Defense. The local player, in the middle game, obtained
a powerful kingside attack, enabling him to win brilliantly.” |
|
Steinitz,W — Robinson,DS
|
Simul (1:21)
|
| B20/01 |
Sicilian: Philidor
|
|
| 1898.04.23 |
USA Philadelphia, PA (Franklin Chess Club)
|
|
Annotations by E. Kemeny
1.e4 c5 2.Bc4
| 2.Nf3 followed by 3.d4 is considered stronger. |
| To avoid the threatening ...b5 and ...c4, winning the bishop. White
might have played 6.d3 instead of 6.a4. |
15…Bg5
| A powerful move. White intended to move f4, in order to break up Black’s
strong center. The text move prevents this play, or at least necessitates
the g3 preparatory move, which weakens White’s kingside. |
| He could not well move 19.f5, for ...Bxd2 and ...Nge5 would have given
Black the preferable game. The text play enables Black to move ...Bh3,
...Bxg2, and ...f5, with a very satisfactory position since White’s king
is somewhat exposed. |
| He could not well guard the pawn. The text play seems very promising,
since White will win the c-pawn. The play, however, has serious disadvantages.
White gets his queen out of play, while Black, with ...Qh4, will be enabled
to establish a powerful kingside attack. |
| A powerful move, which leaves White without a satisfactory defense.
...Ng3+ is threatening, as well as ...Rxf2. |
| There was no better play. Black threatened ...Rbf8 and mate in a few
moves. |
30…Nc3+ 0-1.
| Brilliant and decisive. White is obliged to capture the knight, for
otherwise ...Qe2 mates. After 31.bxc3, Black forces the win with 31...Qe2+
32.Kd5 Rd8+ 33.Qd6 Rdxd6+ 34.exd6 Rg5 mate. |
|
Philadelphia Public Ledger, 1898.04.25
|
|
| Steinitz, in losing to D. Stuart Robinson, had lost
to one of the Franklin Chess Club’s strongest members. He had, however,
drawn with John Welsh Young, another strong club man, as well as with Herman
G. Voigt, who soon would be recognized as one of the nation’s strongest.
Voigt competed in no less than nine of the Anglo-American Cable Match contests,
starting in 1899, and would in years to come draw his individual games
with the likes of Atkins and Blackburne. The complete list of all
twenty-one of Steinitz’s simultaneous exhibition opponents appeared in
the April 25, 1898, Philadelphia Public Ledger. |
| Kemeny annotated another Steinitz game from the
master’s simultaneous exhibition for his chess column in the Ledger.
The column’s introductory remarks reported that “the game between Messrs.
Steinitz and Stark in Saturday night’s simultaneous exhibition at the Franklin
Chess Club was won by the former most brilliantly, and it may be said that
it is a rare exception when the simultaneous player is enabled to display
such skill as did the veteran ex-champion on this occasion. Stark
declined to accept a King’s Gambit, but, failing to make the strongest
moves, his opponent was enabled to establish a powerful King’s side attack.
Stark’s game soon became hopeless, and Steinitz followed up his advantage
with skill. The play from the twenty-third move to the end was a
chain of brilliant moves, and Stark was obliged to surrender on the thirty-second
turn, as his game then was a hopeless one.” |
|
Steinitz,W — Stark,E
|
Simul (1:21)
|
| C30/02 |
King’s Gambit Declined: Classical
|
|
| 1898.04.23 |
USA Philadelphia, PA (Franklin Chess Club)
|
|
Annotations by E. Kemeny
1.e4 e5 2.f4 Bc5 3.Nf3 d6 4.Bc4 Nc6 5.c3 Bb6
| Loss of time. 5...Bg4 or 5...Nf6 should have been played. |
| 6...Bg4 or 6...Nf6 was still in order. The text move is too conservative. |
| Which gives White a decided advantage. Black’s queen bishop is shut
out, and White, by the subsequent g4 and h4 play, will obtain a powerful
kingside attack. |
| A powerful move. The object in view is to prevent Black from castling
queenside. This is accomplished whether Black answers ...0-0 or ...Nd8.
Black might have moved ...Rf8, which in all probability was superior. |
| Inferior play which opens the d-file for the adverse rook. |
| A brilliant move. Should Black capture the bishop, White would answer
24.Kb2, threatening to play gxf6, winning the queen or mate on the move. |
| If Black now plays 24...Nxb3+ and 25...Nxd2, then 25.Kc2 and 26.Qxd2,
followed by Qxd7, with a winning attack. It would have been superior, however,
to the continuation adopted. |
26.Bxh6
| A decisive move. Black cannot capture the bishop, for g7+ would win
speedily. Black has no satisfactory answer; the ...Bc8 move is made in
order to continue with ...Nd7 and eventually ...Nf8. |
| Another brilliant play. If ...Qxf6, then Bg5, h5, and h6 wins; if,
however, ...gxf6, then White proceeds with Rxd6. |
| He could not capture the rook, for g7+ and queen mates would follow. |
| Necessary, since White threatened Bf8+, Rh8+, Qh3+, and Qh7 mate. |
| Causing Black to surrender. He cannot capture the rook, for f7+ and
Bf8 mate is threatening. |
|
Philadelphia Public Ledger, 1898.04.27
|
|
|
|
Pillsbury
|
| Although never world champion, Harry Nelson Pillsbury
was clearly the strongest native born chess player in the United States
during the latter half of the 1890s, in addition to being one of the half
dozen strongest masters in the world. By the time Pillsbury came
to Philadelphia in 1899 for one of his many trips through that city, he
had been United States chess champion for over a year, and had long held
the reputation as being one of the world’s finest blindfold and simultaneous
exhibition players. |
| Pillsbury’s chess career, and in particular his
tournament and match play, has been the subject of Jacques N. Pope’s Harry
Nelson Pillsbury, American Chess Champion (Pawn Island Press: 1996),
the largest collection of Pillsbury games published to date. Pope’s
work is a welcome resource for the person searching for forgotten games
played by Pillsbury. Pope, however, made no attempt to be as inclusive
as possible concerning Pillsbury’s informal games, including those played
blindfold, in consultation, or during simultaneous exhibitions. And
not unexpectedly, some newly discovered games have come to light. |
| Pillsbury logically enough began his late 1899 chess
tour in the United States with a stay in Philadelphia, by then his home.
On Saturday night, October 7, 1899, Pillsbury opened the season for the
Franklin Chess Club with a simultaneous exhibition of eighteen boards,
winning fifteen, losing two, and drawing one. Walter Penn Shipley
earned his draw at board nine, while the exhibitioner lost to D. Stuart
Robinson on board ten and George H. Stout on board two. |
| Stout was by far the most successful of Pillsbury’s
opponents during his first tour stop. He not only won at the Franklin
Chess Club simultaneous exhibition on October 7, 1899, but on the next
Saturday, October 14, 1899, Stout was able to draw with Pillsbury when
he played a twenty-three board exhibition at the Mercantile Library, winning
seventeen, losing two, and drawing four (of which two, at boards seventeen
and eighteen, were checkers games instead of chess). |
| Gustavus Reichhelm, Philadelphia’s chess chronicler
for nearly fifty years, published Stout’s win at the Franklin exhibition
in the pages of the Philadelphia Times. The game does not
appear in Pope’s collection. |
|
Pillsbury,HN — Stout,GH
|
Simul (1:18)
|
| C30/01 |
King’s Gambit Declined
|
|
| 1899.10.07 |
USA Philadelphia, PA (Franklin Chess Club)
|
|
Annotations by G. Reichhelm
1.e4 e5 2.f4 Nc6 3.Nf3 Qf6
| Not a recognized book defense. Black subjects himself to a loss of
time or a crowded development. |
| On 4...Nge7 White would move 5.Nb5. |
| Now White should have castled. |
| After which the champion should retire Ba4. The plain English of it
is that he underrated Black’s resources. |
16…c5
| Mr. Stout recognizes the true strategic move of the present position.
He makes the coup juste. |
| From which the champion attempts to extricate himself by an adroit
maneuver, but the game is lost. |
| If 22...Rxe5 White plays 23.Rxe5. |
| And won in a few moves. |
|
Philadelphia Times, 1899.11.05
|
|
| The following year almost to the day found Pillsbury
once more in Philadelphia, and once more conducting a simultaneous exhibition
to open the season at the Franklin Chess Club. As Reichhelm described
it, “the opening of the chess season was well celebrated by a simultaneous
séance of twenty-one boards by Champion Harry Nelson Pillsbury,
at the rooms of the Franklin Chess Club last evening. The single performer
was introduced by Dr. Persifer Frazer, president of the Franklin and ...
then the business of playing single hand against more than a score of strong
players was undertaken by the American Champion.” |
| Pillsbury had already played that week a series
of games of checkers with G. H. Kearns, then a well-known Philadelphia
checker player. The chess champion showed his mettle at checkers,
too, annihilating his opponent by a score of nine wins to none, with eleven
draws. But it was Pillsbury’s simultaneous chess exhibition that
saw him facing some of the strongest opposition in the country, outside
of New York City, with the likes of Voigt, Shipley, D. Stuart Robinson,
John Welsh Young and others sitting at boards around the room. Despite
the relative strength of his opponents, Pillsbury won sixteen games and
drew the remaining five, finishing the exhibition without a loss.
Reichhelm added that “the surest game of the evening was with veteran Doerr,
who made all his moves while you waited, and is always satisfied with the
best moves.” |
|
Pillsbury,HN — Doerr,FW
|
Simul (1:21)
|
| C26/01 |
Vienna: Falkbeer (Mieses)
|
|
| 1900.10.06 |
USA Philadelphia, PA (Franklin Chess Club)
|
|
Annotations by G. Reichhelm
1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.g3
| The fianchetto form of the Vienna opening, but Mr. Doerr pays but little
attention to the subtleties as he plays the Irishman’s gambit of hitting
a head whenever he sees it. |
| Moving into easy street and preparing for brand new exchanges. |
| The proper caper, White must exchange to prevent Black taking a double-up
on the e-file. |
22…Nf5
| Good again. Insuring a pawn win. |
| Excellent judgment. It puts a quietus on the queenside pawn’s operation. |
|
Philadelphia Times, 1900.10.07
|
|
| New faces were also appearing at the Franklin Chess
Club, and Pillsbury would find himself, soon enough, across the board from
them. The following year, in 1901, Pillsbury played another simultaneous
exhibition at the Franklin, where one of his opponents was a twenty-year-old
by the name of Stasch Mlotkowski. Mlotkowski would grow up as a player
in the Philadelphia area before moving to the west coast, where among other
things he would tie for first place with Norman Whitaker for the Western
Chess Association title at stake at San Francisco 1923. In 1901 in
Philadelphia, however, even though he was twenty, he was still referred
to as the “boy wonder” when he sat down at board fifteen to play against
the United States Champion. |
| As Reichhelm wrote of the encounter, “in these days
of pawn grubbing and French and Sicilian defenses gambits are a rarity,
but on the occasion of Champion Pillsbury’s recent simultaneous séance
in the Franklin Chess Club a real live Kieseritzky gambit, trimmings and
all, was in evidence. It was on board fifteen, where the champion
met the boy wonder, Mlotkowski.” |
|
Pillsbury,HN — Mlotkowski,S
|
Simul (1:?)
|
| C39/02 |
KGA: Kieseritzky (Paulsen)
|
|
| 1901.10 |
USA Philadelphia, PA (Franklin Chess Club)
|
|
Annotations by G. Reichhelm
1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 g5 4.h4 g4
| Here is a fork in the trunk from which two gambits spring. Were White
now to move 5.Ng5 it would be the Allgaier gambit. But with 5.Ne5, actually
made, it is the Kieseritzky. |
| This defense introduced by Paulsen and considered the best but for
offhand chess, the counter attack of ...d6, followed by ...Be7, gives the
most interesting positions. |
| Menacing ...Nd4, ...Nxe2, etc. |
21…Re6
| Must return to protect his h-pawn. Had Pillsbury, however, taken the
h-pawn on move 21 Black would simply have traded bishops and then queens
through ...Qe3+. |
| As a net result of all the maneuvering White has won his gambit pawn
back and nothing more. |
| And both players recognized the fact that only a draw was possible.
A good, clean game. |
|
Philadelphia Times, 1901.11.10
|
|
| As time passed, of course, Pillsbury’s ultimately
fatal disease sapped his playing strength. By 1904, at the time the
following game was played, his ability to sustain the rigorous concentration
needed for top flight chess had been severely impaired. Yet Pillsbury
continued to play, and not all his games from this period are marred by
the blight that would in two years end his life. |
| Pillsbury’s doings remained significant chess news,
regardless of his waning strength. Reichhelm, writing in the pages
of the North American for January 10, 1904, would note that “for the last
week Champion Harry N. Pillsbury, who had been starring in the West, took
a holiday rest in this city. Being a constant visitor to the Franklin
Chess Club, he took occasion to indulge his favorite pastime. With
Mr. Herman G. Voigt he played at one session two notable games. In
the first, opened by Voigt, the champion made a beautiful combination,
which forced the win, although, in fact, he fluked it afterwards.”
Pope gives the game in his book on the champion as number 525. But
until now the second “notable game” of Pillsbury’s playing session with
Voigt, one of Philadelphia’s strongest players and a veteran of numerous
Anglo-American Cable Match contests, had not appeared. |
| Reichhelm wrote of this game that “in their second
partie, a Queen’s Pawner, by Pillsbury, play ran along smoothly, when the
champion was a little too quick in his kingside attack. Voigt was
keen to observe the precipitation, and was quietly sawing wood on the queenside.
At the critical juncture after his attack had all but succeeded, Pillsbury
was obliged to defend with his Queen, and Voigt won out with a series of
deft pawn-winning checks.” |
| D60/04 |
QGD: Orthodox (Lipschütz)
|
|
| 1904.01 |
USA Philadelphia, PA (Franklin Chess Club)
|
|
Annotations by G. Reichhelm
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 Be7 5.e3 0-0 6.Nf3 Nbd7
7.Bd3 c5 8.cxd5 Nxd5 9.Bxe7 Qxe7 10.Nxd5 exd5 11.0-0 c4
| A declaration for a queenside attack, which White regards lightly. |
| A move well taken. If Pillsbury wins the pawn he must expect ...f6. |
19.a4
| Made to weaken the Black pawn chain. At the same time it makes White’s
game more difficult. |
| A bid for direct attack. 24. Qxc2 was the conservative move. |
| Of course he cannot play 24...Qxb2 on account of 25.Rg2. |
| Burning his bridges behind him. |
| Intending h4, and on ...Qxh4, Rxg6+ etc. |
32…c3
| Fine play, as it makes White’s queen inoperative. |
| Again remarkable. Black must take one or the other pawn with a check. |
|
The North American, 1904.01.10
|
|
|
|
Lasker
|
| In considering Emanuel Lasker, the long-time world
champion, those searching for forgotten games have the advantage of consulting
Kenneth Whyld’s The Collected Games of Emanuel Lasker (The Chess
Player: 1998), without question the most comprehensive compilation of Lasker’s
games, both formal and informal, ever produced. In addition to the
1,390 games appearing in the book, Whyld has provided an equally valuable
treasure for the researcher in his detailed listing of all known simultaneous
displays Lasker gave, listing when available date, location, number of
games played, and how Lasker faired in terms of wins, losses, and draws.
This listing occupies four and a half pages of very small, double columned
print at the front of the book, and can quickly give the researcher information
not so readily available anywhere else. Attempting to search for
additional Lasker games without Whyld’s book would be foolish. |
| By providing such an extensive list of Lasker’s
simultaneous exhibitions, Whyld has also allowed researchers to begin to
fill in gaps in the record. For example, according to Whyld, Lasker
was known to have played a simultaneous exhibition at the Mercantile Library
Association in Philadelphia in the spring of 1905. Although a date
of May 23, 1905, was suggested by Whyld, this date appears questionable.
Reichhelm, in a column written for The North American and dated,
by hand, in a scrapbook in the White Collection at the Cleveland Public
Library as May 7, 1905, informs us that at the Mercantile exhibition, “Champion
Lasker won fifteen, drew three (with H.J. Chilton, George H. Stout and
Lewis Hopper) and lost one to Sydney T. Sharp.” As there is no suggestion
Lasker played two such simultaneous exhibitions at the Mercantile Library
Association in the spring of 1905, it appears an earlier date for the exhibition
is in order, one either near the end of April or the beginning of May of
that year. |
| Reichhelm added that “the losses of men like Morphy
or Lasker are always entertaining,” and then gave Sharp’s victory over
the champion, a game not yet among Whyld’s 1,390 contests played by Lasker.
The condensed language Reichhelm used for his notes in this game was one
of his less fortunate trademarks, but understandable, at least when space
was limited for his column. |
|
Lasker,Em — Sharp,ST
|
Simul (1:19)
|
| C39/06 |
KGA: Kieseritzky (Berlin)
|
|
| 1905.0[4] |
USA Philadelphia, PA (Mercantile Library)
|
|
Annotations by G. Reichhelm
1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 g5 4.h4 g4 5.Ne5 Nf6 6.Bc4 d5
7.exd5 Bd6 8.d4
| Here Lasker could have played the Rice Gambit by 8.0-0 and sacrificing
the piece. |
| 9.Nc3 is better, but even then Black has game for choice. |
| Relatively best. White relies on an after-attack. |
| Misses a chance. Should have traded queens. |
19…Bc5
| If 19...Re8, then 20.Qe6+. Move in text gives piece back for new lease
in position. |
| A move toward Easy street. |
37.Ba4
| Needs explanation. Lasker had touched bishop, with idea of going to
c4, but saw ...Nd6 in reply. He then played move in text, because on ...Nxa4
it left b7 open for rook check. |
| All up, anyway, now. If 43.Kb1 then ...Nac5 and White’s attack, 44.Nc7+
Ka5 45.Rb5+ Ka4, amounts to nothing. |
|
The North American, 1905.05.07
|
|
| As with the exhibition by Lasker above, for which
Whyld had not yet been able to give some of the specifics, another exhibition
Lasker gave in Philadelphia six years later can now be elaborated on.
Lasker appeared in Philadelphia on November 11, 1911, Armistice Day, and
gave a twenty-one board séance, as a number of annotators of the
day liked to call such simultaneous displays. So much had been known
before. Now, however, thanks to another chess column, this one appearing
in a Philadelphia paper, possibly, though unlikely, the Philadelphia
Inquirer, for November 26, 1911,(5)
we learn that in fact Lasker’s November 11, 1911 Philadelphia simul was
played at the Franklin Chess Club and that Lasker won seventeen games,
drew two, and lost two. |
| Shipley’s loss to Lasker from this exhibition was
published on December 3, 1911, in what appears to be the same newspaper.
Interestingly enough, this game was played twenty-four years after Shipley’s
simultaneous exhibition draw against Steinitz, included earlier as game
number five, thus suggesting something of Shipley’s longevity in Philadelphia
chess circles. |
| The author of the chess column wrote that “below
will be found the game won by Dr. Lasker from the president of the Franklin
Chess Club. Black adopted his favorite defense in the Queen’s Gambit
and one, so far as we are aware, that was first played by Dr. Lasker on
his first visit to this country, against A. B. Hodges. The opening
of the game will be found of interest to the student, as Dr. Lasker adopted
the strongest attack against the defense, one first analyzed, we believe,
by the late H. N. Pillsbury, who considered that it yielded White the advantage.” |
|
Lasker,Em — Shipley,WP
|
Simul (1:21)
|
| D52/07 |
QGD: Cambridge Springs
|
|
| 1911.11.11 |
USA Philadelphia, PA (Franklin Chess Club)
|
|
Annotations from unattributed newspaper clipping.
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 c6 5.e3 Nbd7 6.Nf3 Qa5
| The foregoing moves constitute the line of defense referred to in our
introduction. Unless White conducts the attack with considerable skill,
Black will speedily obtain a powerful counter attack. |
| This move was suggested by Pillsbury and likely is the strongest method
of meeting Black’s line of play. |
| It is a question whether Black should now capture with the knight or
with the pawn. In the game above referred to played by Lasker against Hodges,
Lasker captured the bishop with the pawn, thus opening the g-file for attack,
should White castle on the kingside. |
19.f5 Bd6 20.Nxd7 Nxd7 21.Raf1 exf5 22.gxf5 g5 23.f6 Qh6
24.Ng3 Bxg3 25.Rxg3 Nxf6 26.Qxc5 Nd5 27.Rf5 Rac8 28.Rgxg5+ Kh8 29.Rxd5
Re8 30.Qd6 f6 31.Rg1 Rxe3 32.Rh5 1-0.
|
Microfilm of Philadelphia chess columns,
John G. White Collection, reel for 789.4 P531, column dated 1911.12.03
|
|
|
|
Capablanca
|
| One game by later world champion José Raúl
Capablanca has also been recently recovered. Unlike most of the earlier
games presented here, in which local Philadelphia papers supplied more
detailed information, and games, of masters against Philadelphia chess
players than available elsewhere, the game that follows was played in Buenos
Aires, though reported in the pages of the Philadelphia Inquirer. |
| The finding of a hitherto forgotten game played
by Capablanca in Buenos Aires in the pages of a local Philadelphia chess
column appears less surprising when one remembers that Walter Penn Shipley
was editor of that column, published in the pages of the Philadelphia
Inquirer. Shipley and Capablanca had long been friends.
Indeed, Capablanca, on March 3, 1911, several months before the game below
was played, had very happily provided Shipley, then about to take a trip
to Cuba, with a letter of introduction to Sr. Dón Paredes, the President
of the Havana Chess Club.(6)
That Capablanca in another letter might have himself supplied Shipley with
the following game, for publication in Shipley’s
Inquirer column,
is certainly the most logical hypothesis for a hitherto forgotten simultaneous
game from Buenos Aires appearing in a Philadelphia paper. |
| Shipley wrote that “the following game was played
recently by Capablanca at Buenos Ayres, South America, in his great simultaneous
exhibition in that city. Capablanca played against thirty opponents,
winning twenty-five, drawing four, losing one.” A glance at Hooper
and Brandreth’s excellent work, The Unknown Capablanca (Dover, Second
Revised Edition: 1993), shows this exhibition was played on May 7, 1911.
The brief notes that follow are Shipley’s. |
|
Capablanca,JR — Nollman
|
Simul (1:30)
|
| C14/02 |
French: Classical (Alapin)
|
|
| 1911.05.07 |
ARG Buenos Aires
|
|
Annotations by W. P. Shipley
1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 Be7
| The McCutcheon Defense of 4....Bb4 yields Black a more aggressive defense. |
7.Nb5
| Hardly as good as f4, Qd2, Nd1, etc. |
| We prefer ...Nb6 or ...Qd8. |
34.Rg8+ Kh7 ½-½.
| Drawn at the suggestion of Capablanca. He cannot avoid the threat of
...Rc1 except by the perpetual check. |
|
Philadelphia Inquirer, 1911.07.09
|
|
|
| The seventeen recently recovered games presented
here by four of the world’s finest chessplayers from the turn of the last
century form merely a small contribution to the ever-expanding canons of
these players. Much work is left to be done. Many more such
games are waiting to be discovered by those who are willing to take the
time required to seek them. |
|
| (1) See, for example,
“Recovering the Past: Capablanca, Pillsbury, and Lasker,” The Chess Journalist,
June 1999, pp. 3-6; “Stalking the Blue-Eyed Chess Score,” at The Campbell
Report, an On the Square article, released April 28, 1998, http://correspondencechess.com/campbell/index.htm;
and “Examining the Past: Essential Tools for Exploring Chess History,”
Lasker & His Contemporaries No. 5, 1997, pp. 52-58. |
| (2) The author is grateful
for the help of a number of chess historians, most notably that of Jacques
N. Pope, in the preparation of this article. |
| (3) Jacques N. Pope
has also recovered this game, in his case from the New York Clipper for
January 7, 1888, but as noted above, the final move varies between
the Clipper and the Times. |
| (4) Although the game
appears here as published in the Philadelphia Times, Jacques N.
Pope informs me he also recovered this game from The Field for May
29, 1897. It is included here because for most readers it remains
unknown, the game having appeared neither in Bachmann nor Pickard. |
| (5) The column alluded
to above was found on a microfilm reel at the John G. White Collection.
The reel, under call number 789.4 P531, is entitled “Chess columns
of the Philadelphia Papers,” but a note indicates that the clippings come
from “various Philadelphia paper, principally the Philadelphia Inquirer.”
The same November 26, 1911, column, however, speaks in quite glowing terms
of a group of local chessplayers, including, by name, Walter Penn Shipley.
Knowing of Shipley’s Quaker modesty and reserve, I find it unlikely this
particular column was taken from the Philadelphia Inquirer, as Shipley
was himself that column’s editor. |
| (6) I am indebted to
Nancy Shipley Rhoads, granddaughter of Walter Penn Shipley, for use of
the family records to obtain this information. Shipley’s extensive
association with chess is the subject of a full length work in progress
by this author, tentatively entitled Walter Penn Shipley: Philadelphia’s
Friend of Chess. |
|
|
© 2000 John S. Hilbert. All rights
Reserved.
|
