The Kibitzer 
by Tim Harding

KIBITZER TURNS THE CLOCK BACK

At the turn of the New Year it is customary to take a look in the
archives, so this month the Kibitzer turns back the clock to see
what was happening in the chess world in 1896-7.

In Russia, poor Wilhelm Steinitz was about to make a retreat from
Moscow as abject as that of Napoleon Bonaparte. After the
Nuremberg tournament of July-August 1896, in which he took 6th
place with 11/18 (+10 =2 -6) to Emanuel Lasker's +12 =3 -3, the
writing was on the wall. For the older man to recapture of the
world championship (which he had lost in 1894) was improbable
before Nuremberg; to bounce back from this event, in which he
had moreover lost his individual game with Lasker, was quite
impossible, especially with an interval of only three months.
Nuremberg was one of the crowning tournament successes of
Lasker's career; for Steinitz, his sixth prize (quite an achievement
for a man of 60) had been a disappointment.

Steinitz lost the very first Moscow game, played on 7th November
7, 1896 although he had the white pieces. Four days later, Lasker
won the second game, generally reckoned his best of the match. 

Lasker- Steinitz (2) Moscow-Wch, 1896:

1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 Bc5 4 c3 Nge7 5 0-0 Ng6 6 d4 exd4 7
cxd4 Bb6 8 Nc3 0-0 9 a4 a6 10 Bc4 h6 Here 10...d6 is reckoned to
be better; 11 Ng5 h6 12 Qh5 doesn't work because of 12 Nh8! 11
h3 d6 12 Be3 Nce7 13 Re1 c6 14 Qb3 Bc7 15 Nd2 Rb8 16 Rac1
b5 17 axb5 axb5 18 Bd3 Kh8 19 Ne2 f5 20 exf5 Bxf5 21 Bxf5
Rxf5 22 Ng3 Rf8 23 Qe6 Qc8 24 Qxc8 Rfxc8 25 Nb3 Kg8 26 Ne4
Kf7 27 g3 Ke8 28 Re2 Kd7 29 Rce1 Bb6? Steinitz fails at the
critical moment. If 29...Re8 30 Bd2 or 29 ..Nd5 30 Bxh6! gxh6 31
Nec5+! but 29...Nf5! could have given a successful defence. 30
Bf4 Bc7 Now if 30 ..Nf5 31 Bxd6! or 30...Nxf4? 31 Nf6+! Kd8 32
Rxe7. 31 h4 h5 32 Bg5 Bd8 (See Diagram) There's no defence to
the threat of g4. 33 g4!! hxg4 34 h5 Nf8 35 Nec5+! dxc5 36 Nxc5+
Kd6 37 Bf4+ Many databases end the game here, perhaps Lasker
announced mate? But most books on Lasker (e.g. Hannak, Zak and
the normally authoritative Weltgeschichte des Schachs series by
Wildhagen) give the remaining moves as played: 37...Kd5 38 Re5+
Kc4 39 Rc1+ Kxd4 40 Re4+ Kd5 41 Rd1+ Kxc5 42 Be3 mate.

The third, fourth and sixth games also went to the champion; as a
contest, the match was already as dead as some title matches of
recent times, e.g. Kasparov-Short. However, the challenge was for
the first to win ten games so they soldiered on through December.
Games 10 & 11 went to Lasker too but Steinitz won a game at last,
the 12th, played on December 23.

The win and Christmas refreshed the old champion and he won
again in Game 13 (December 27) but that was the end of his joy in
the match. Lasker consolidated with a 73-move win two days later,
followed by two draws to complete the schedule for 1896.

On January 2, Lasker won Game 16 to move within one game of
victory and Steinitz's health was cracking. It was January 14 before
they could play game 17 and Lasker won it to end the match. After
that he played no serious chess until the middle of 1899.

With Lasker inactive, the year 1897 threatened to be a year of
anti-climax in chess. However, there was one major tournament in
Europe, which was remarkable for the triumph of a young star and
the swansong of another. The 11th Congress of the German Chess
Association, held in Berlin in September, was by no means as
strong as the 1896 Nuremberg event (which had been arranged by
independent organisers, causing a rift in German chess circles).
There was no Lasker or Tarrasch, no Steinitz or Pillsbury, but it
was nevertheless a strong field for those days and its 19 round
duration certainly meant a major commitment. The health of some
of the players was not up to it and von Bardeleben played only one
round, Englisch retired after the 11th (going home to die) while
Teichmann defaulted one round and Albin three.

That the many defaults did not ruin the tournament was chiefly due
to the 23-year-old Hungarian Rudolf Charousek who had burst
onto the top level chess scene the previous year, when he had
performed very creditably at Nuremberg after coming in as a
reserve. He began the Berlin tournament poorly, with two losses
(to Walbrodt and Burn), two draws (Marco and Schlechter) add a
walkover against von Bardeleben, but thereafter he was unbeaten.
(This was the only free point he received, whereas some players
had several.)

In round six Charousek drew with the English veteran Joseph
Blackburne (then in his 56th year) and then scored his first two
wins (Teichmann and Suchting) to move above 50 per cent. Draws
with Englisch and Metger followed but at this stage he was two
whole points adrift of Janowski and Marco.

What followed was astonishing: the young Hungarian won nine
straight games. In rounds 11-14 he defeated Janowski, Albin, Cohn
and Schiffers but his poor start meant he was still half a point adrift
of Blackburne and Janowski. Next he beat Alapin and Winawer but
the doughty Blackburne kept pace with him. In round 17,
Charousek beat Caro while Blackburne could only draw and their
totals were level. Round 18 brought him Black against the weakest
player in the field, Zinkl, who played a symmetrical opening.
Seeking complications to avoid drawish lines brought Charousek
into difficulties but he won eventually to take the sole lead at last.
However, there was one more round.

Last of all he had to face the mighty grandmaster Mikhail Chigorin
of Russia, no longer at the height of his powers but still a
formidable foe, to whom Charousek had lost a play-off match at
the Budapest tournament in 1896. Worse, although Blackburne had
faltered (but still took a very well-deserved third prize, his last
great success), Walbrodt had been scoring well and was only half a
point behind with a last-round walkover, so Charousek had to win.
Here is how he did it. 

Rudolf Charousek - Mikhail Chigorin, Berlin 1897 1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6
3 Nc3 b6!? This unusual defence had been prepared for the
tournament by the Russian players, Albin and Chigorin, and it is
understandable that Charousek makes no attempt at a direct
refutation (e.g. by playing an early e4 or developing his
dark-squared bishop at f4) that could have led him into his
opponents' prepared variations. Wisely, he relies on his good form
to carry him to success in an even middle game. This variation
with 3...b6 has been investigated recently by Dutch IM Gerard
Welling who has written an interesting article about it in the
German magazine "Kaissiber" (May 1996 issue), edited by Stefan
Bcker. 4 e3 Nf6 Black only plays this in the Alapin Defence when
Bg5 is impossible 5 Nf3 Bb7 Alapin also tried the more subtle
5...Nd7 here, against Zinkl at Berlin and against Schlechter in
Vienna the following year. 6 cxd5 Nxd5 Alapin had played
6...exd5 against Charousek five days previously, the game
continuing 6 cxd5 exd5 7 Bb5+ c6 8 Bd3 Be7(Alapin later
indicated 8...Bd6!) 9 0-0 0-0 (better 9...Nbd7!?) 10 Ne5 Nbd7 11
f4! c5 12 Qf3 with an attacking position. After 6...Nxd5, Welling
observes, White has a kind of Queen's Indian in which he has not
had to play the move a2-a3; the position offers him good dynamic
chances. 7 Bb5+ c6 8 Bd3 Nd7 9 0-0 Bd6 10 e4 Nb4 In Alapin's
opinion, Black should have continued 10...Nxc3 11 bxc3 e5. Philip
W. Sergeant, in his book on Charousek (G. Bell & Sons, London
1919), recommended 10...Ne7, an ugly move to the modern eye,
which leaves Black cramped with few active possibilities. 11 Bc4
a5 12 Bg5 Be7 13 Bf4 A neat switchback giving the bishop a good
diagonal. This is the start of Chigorin's problems on the dark
squares. 13...0-0 14 a3 Na6 15 Qe2 b5 16 Bd3 b4 He tries to get
some active play. Again Sergeant's passive suggestion 16...Nc7
would not appeal to many players. 17 axb4 Nxb4 18 Rfd1 Nb6
(See Diagram) 18 ...Nxd3 19 Qxd3 Nf6 is one of Sergeant's better
suggestions but Chigorin probably desired to accumulate tension.
Now White does not really have time to retreat the bishop. 19 Ne5!
If 19 Bb1 Ba6 followed by ...Nc4 and Black is at last starting to get
some play. 19 ...Bd6 19 ...Qxd4 was recommended by some
contemporary commentators, but undoubtedly Chigorin, the master
of attack in open positions, could see the dangers. 20 Bb1 Qc5 21
Nxf7 is probably what Chigorin feared e.g. 21 ..Rxf7 (21 ...Ba6 22
Qg4) 22 Be3 and White regains his material since the b6-knight
will hang. 20 Bb1 Qe7 21 Qh5 Bxe5 21 ...f6 is best according to
Sergeant. In any case, White has a growing initiative and it is
becoming harder to find good moves for Black. 22 Bxe5 g6 This
looks a horrible concession, in conjunction with the previous
move. 23 Qh6 f6 24 Bg3 Rfd8? Seeking complications. 24 ...Nc4
25 b3 Nd6 (Sergeant) is a bit safer.; 24 ...c5 is another Sergeant
suggestion, but a blunder: 25 dxc5 Nc4 26 Bd6 Nxd6 27 cxd6. 25
e5! fxe5 26 Bxe5!? Chigorin probably hoped for 26 Bh4 Qd7 27
Bxd8 Rxd8 with some compensation for the exchange. 26 ...Nc4
27 Be4 Nd5? 27 ...Nxe5 28 dxe5 is better for White but not as
good as the game. 28 Bxd5 cxd5 29 Bg3 Rf8 30 b3 Nb6 30 ...Nd6
is better according to Sergeant. 31 Nb5 Qd7 32 Nd6 Sergeant
observes: "The Knight has no means of getting away again, so that
Charousek showed great confidence in making this move." 32
...Bc6 33 h4! Commencing the final attack. This is a good model of
how to assail a fianchettoed king position that has lost its
fianchettoed bishop (except, of course, in this game Chigorin never
had a bishop on g7!). 33 ...a4?! 33 ...Nc8 34 Nxc8 would retain
good attacking chances for White; Chigorin prefers to test his
opponent's nerve and have a pawn for his trouble. 34 h5! This stage
of the game would have been fascinating for the Berlin kibitzers of
1897! 34 ...axb3 35 Rxa8 Nxa8 36 hxg6 hxg6 37 Qxg6+ Qg7 38
Qxe6+ Kh7 39 Re1! The right solution, after which Black is totally
lost. 39 ...Qd7 If 39...Qb2? 40 Qh3+ Kg8 41 Be5. 40 Qe3 Rf6 41
Qg5 Re6 42 Qh4+ Charousek gains time on the clock while he
works out the finale. 42 ...Rh6 43 Qg5 Re6 44 Rxe6 Qxe6 45 Be5
Qg6 46 Qh4+ Qh6 47 Qe7+ 1 0 It's mate very soon.

Sadly, Charousek (whom I should probably have included in my
"lost heroes" Kibitzer column a few months ago) died in the year
1900, of tuberculosis.