The Kibitzer by Tim Harding One Hundred Years Ago: Head-to-Head in Vienna In the January 1997 Kibitzer, I wrote about the chess events of 1896-7 so now it is time to "look forward" to the events of 1898. In many respects this was a non-vintage year, in that the world champion Emanuel Lasker was still in "temporary retirement" but there was more top-level chess than in the previous year. In particular, it included one of the very biggest and strongest tournaments of the 19th century. This column recalls that event. There was no grandmaster title in those days but in Lasker's absence, the "world top" one hundred years ago consisted, roughly speaking of the following players: Mikhail Chigorin (Russia), Siegbert Tarrasch (Germany), Wilhelm Steinitz (now USA), Rudolf Charousek and Geza Maroczy (Hungary), Harry Nelson Pillsbury (USA), the seemingly ageless Joseph Blackburne (England) and maybe one or two others. On the fringes of the elite were such players as Amos Burn (England), Jackson Showalter (USA), the upcoming Carl Schlechter, and David Janowski (France). Players such as Alapin, Caro (co-inventor of the Caro-Kann Defence), Schiffers and Walbrodt were lesser masters who sometimes figured in top events along with local masters and experts. Travel was much more arduous and slow a century ago, although good trains and steamships (for the American contingent) meant it was feasible in the 1890s to gather the strongest players together once every couple of years. Having gone to the trouble of assembling players from far afield, the tournaments were often longer than would be considered normal today if there was money to pay for it. London 1887 was probably the first such "high category" event, followed by Hastings 1895 but now in 1898 a giant double-round tournament was held in Vienna, beginning on May 27. It was the 50th anniversary of Kaiser Franz Josef's accession to the Austrian throne and also the 25th anniversary of Vienna 1873, the first great chess tournament in that city (won by Steinitz from Blackburne). First prize was the record amount, for a chess event of 6,000 crowns but to earn it there were 38 games to play! The only mercy was that, as an early withdrawal created an uneven number of players (19), everybody got a bye in the second half and some had a day off in the first half also. Eight in the field would be considered GMs on the basis of their life achievement, of whom two (Schlechter and Maroczy) were relatively young. In today's terms, they would have been IMs when this event was played, with Schlechter earning his GM title for this performance. There was the 62-year-old former world champion (Steinitz appropriately had number one in the draw), Chigorin who had twice challenged him for the title and two players (the eventual winners) who would have been worthy world title challengers. Blackburne and Janowski would also be considered GMs but not in the same class: the Englishman because of his age, Janowski because he was erratic and much better in some types of position than others. The bye arose due to the withdrawal of Adolf Schwarz, who appears to have had seven losses and one draw (against Blackburne) before his games were canceled. Both Pillsbury and Tarrasch beat him in early rounds. Schwarz had been a replacement player on the team in the Vienna-London correspondence match a quarter of a century earlier when Steinitz was the leader of the London team. Apart from Schwarz, there were only three players at Vienna 1898 who would not be considered at least the equivalent of today's International Masters and one of them made, although a minus score, what could be judged as an IM result by today's standards. The table shows how the two main contenders ran neck-and-neck nearly all the way. When Schwarz withdrew after round eight, Tarrasch and Pillsbury shared the lead on 5.5 points. Then the American hit a bad patch and after 12 rounds Tarrasch led by one and a half points; the difference between them would never be so great again through the remaining 26 rounds! Tarrasch was in dominant form with White throughout the tournament, conceding just five draws. Many of his wins came from direct kingside attacks. Tarrasch - Steinitz (round 9) (See Diagram) White: Kg1,Qd1,Nc3,Bd3,Bf2,Rb1,Re1; pawns - a2,b2,c2,e4,f4,g2; Black: Kg8,Qd8,Nf6,Bd7,Be7,Rb8,Re8; pawns - a5,c6,c7,d6,f7,g4 20 e5! Now if 20...Nd5 21 e6! Bxe6 22 Rxe6 fxe6 23 Qxg4+ Kh8 24 Qh5+ and wins. So Steinitz tried 20...dxe5 21 fxe5 Nh5 22 e6! Bxe6 23 Rxe6! fxe6 24 Qxg4+ Ng7 25 Qg6 Rb4 26 Rf1 Rf4 27 Qh7+ Kf8 28 Bg6 1 0. Here is another example from later in the event. Tarrasch - Marco (round 29) (See Diagram) White: Kh1,Qc2,Nf3,Nf4,Bd3,Bg3,Re1,Rf1; pawns - a2,b3,c4,d5,f5,g4,h4; Black: Kg8,Qd8,Ne8,Nh7,Bd7,Bf6,Ra8,Rf8; pawns - a4,b4,c5,d6,f7,g7,h6 26 Ne6! axb3 27 axb3 Qb6 [27...fxe6 28 fxe6 with a double threat against d7 and h7.] 28 Nxf8 Kxf8 29 g5! hxg5 30 hxg5 Nxg5 31 Qh2 Kg8 32 Nxg5 Bxg5 33 f6 g6 34 Bxg6 1 0. Pillsbury's win with White against Tarrasch put them level after 14 rounds but Tarrasch re-took the lead immediately. At the halfway stage they were level again but Pillsbury had the bye earlier in the second half. Round 25 was Pillsbury's opportunity to take over the lead while the German sat it out; a 32-move victory over Steinitz did the business. Pillsbury - Steinitz (round 25) (See Diagram) White: Kh1,Qg3,Nf4,Nh5,Bb2,Rd1,Re1; pawns - a3,b4,c2,e4,f3,g2,h2; Black: Kh8,Qb5,Ng6,Bd7,Bf8,Rd8,Re8; pawns - a5,b7,c6,d6,f7,g7,h7 24 Nxg6+ hxg6 25 Nf6 gxf6 26 Qh4+ Kg8 27 Bxf6 Bg7 28 Bxd8 axb4 29 Rxd6 Be6 30 axb4 Qxb4 31 Red1 Qc3 32 Be7 1 0. In round 27 the American could not beat Schlechter and Tarrasch caught up, but then as usual Pillsbury downed his transatlantic colleague Showalter with Black while Steinitz held Tarrasch to a draw. Round 30 saw Pillsbury to take a full point lead for the only time as he beat Chigorin, while Schlechter predictably took the half point off Tarrasch. Disaster struck next round when Pillsbury lost to Janowski but a win against Schiffers put him ahead again when Tarrasch could only draw with Blackburne. Although Tarrasch beat Pillsbury in round 33 to overtake him, the American immediately went back in the lead as Tarrasch in his turn was beaten by Janowski. Both rivals then won round 35 leaving Pillsbury half a point ahead with seemingly the easier run-in: White against Amos Burn, the 49-year-old British master from Hull, followed by the no-hopers Trenchard and Baird. Burn played the French Defence variation that now bears his name: 1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 Bg5 dxe4. This is a good line for counter-punchers, and after twenty moves the diagram position arose. (See Diagram) White: Kg1,Qh3,Ne5,Bd3,Rd1,Re3; pawns - a2,b2,c4,f2,g2,h2; Black: Kg8,Qe7,Nd7,Be8,Rc8,Rd8; pawns - a7,b7,e6,f7,g6,h7 Pillsbury appeared to have early pressure but Burn is exchanging pieces and looks like he would be happy with a draw. Pillsbury played 21 Ng4?, eyeing holes in Black's kingside, but was rocked by 21...h5 which won a pawn: 22 Ne5 Nxe5 23 Rxe5 Rxc4. By move 34 they reached a queen ending with Black a pawn ahead and Pillsbury's dream was in ruins; at move 90 with Burn about to make a second queen, he had to resign. His only consolation was that Tarrasch had only drawn with Chigorin. They were level with two rounds to go. Since the American was virtually certain to defeat his opponents, the German had to beat both Alapin and Walbrodt to force a play-off but this he did. This was Tarrasch's greatest result as a competitive player. The German pedagogue tied with Pillsbury, America's champion and the winner of Hastings 1895, on 27.5 points (+21 -2 =13), a score of 76.3 per cent. His real percentage (and Pillsbury's of course) was actually higher since both also won against Schwarz. Janowski was third on 25.5 and Steinitz took fourth prize with 23.5 points. Fifth was Schlechter with 21.5 and Chigorin, with 20 points, was equal 6th-7th together with Burn; the great Russian's results were beginning to deteriorate. It must have been hard for those out of contention to maintain interest and form through such a long event, though it did give ample opportunity for recovery to those with a "second wind." Maroczy was equal 8th with Lipke on 19.5 and then on the 50 per cent mark came Russian analyst Semyon Alapin with 18. Blackburne, now 57, won a special prize for the best score against the prizewinners; remarkably his chess career continued until St. Petersburg 1914 although he had played in the London tournament of 1862! So to the four-game play-off match. To understand what happened now, consider the result statistics from the main tournament. Pillsbury reached the same total as Tarrasch with +24 -5 =7. Where Tarrasch had six more draws, Pillsbury had three more wins with Black and three more losses with White! Tarrasch lost only to Pillsbury and the third-placed player. So Pillsbury had a higher strike rate against the weaker players but what really cost him first prize was the loss to Burn. Once in the playoff, his style with Black was not solid enough to cope with Tarrasch; he lost all three games against the winner at Vienna with that colour. Tarrasch had White in the odd-numbered games. The first three began in the Ruy Lopez, 3...Nf6 line and White won them all. Siegbert Tarrasch - Harry Nelson Pillsbury Four Knights Game (C49) 3rd game of play-off match, Vienna 1898 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 Nf6 4 Nc3 Bb4 5 0 0 0 0 6 d3 d6 7 Bg5 Bxc3 8 bxc3 Ne7 9 Bc4 Be6 10 Bxf6 gxf6 11 Bxe6 fxe6 12 Nh4 Ng6 13 Nxg6 hxg6 This position has no minor pieces but White's king position is safer. His doubled pawn represents an opportunity (half-open b-file) whereas Black's is a liability. Nevertheless White appears underdeveloped and playing for a win requires precision, particularly about the handling of the kingside pawns. 14 f4! Kg7 Pillsbury intends to use the h-file. If 14...f5 15 fxe5 dxe5 16 Qb1 (16 g4 f4) 16...b6 17 Qb3 Qd6 18 exf5 gxf5 19 Rae1 and White's rooks begin to look menacing. 15 f5 exf5 16 exf5 Rh8 17 fxg6 Rh6 17...Kxg6 18 Qg4+ Kf7 19 Rf3 Qe7 20 Raf1 Rh6 21 Rg3 Rah8 22 Rxf6+! Qxf6 (22...Rxf6 23 Qg7+) 23 Rf3 threatening 24 Qd7+, and if 23...Rxh2? 24 Qd7+ Kg6 25 Rg3+ Qg5 26 Qe6+ winning. 18 Rb1 b6 19 Rb4 Qd7 At first sight all appears in order for Black; after...Rxg6 he will have a solid position. However a nasty surprise is in store: (See Diagram) 20 Rxf6! Kxf6 21 Qf3+ Kg7 22 Qxa8 Now even after Black regains the g-pawn, White retains a decisive material advantage. His 2-0 pawn majority is more significant than Black's 5-4 on the other wing. 22...c5 23 Rb1 Rxg6 24 Rf1 Qe7 25 c4 e4 Desperation. Tarrasch's technique is easily up to the task of winning the rook endgame. Pillsbury just cannot create a threatening passed pawn in time. 26 Qxe4 Qxe4 27 dxe4 Rg4 28 Re1 Kf6 29 g3 Ke5 30 c3 Rg7 31 Kg2 Rb7 32 a4 a6 33 h4 b5 34 axb5 axb5 35 cxb5 Rxb5 36 Kh3 c4 37 Kg4 Rb2 38 h5 Rc2 39 Rh1 Ra2 He has no time to capture the c3-pawn because the white h-pawn is too fast. 40 h6 Ra8 41 h7 Rh8 42 Kg5 Kxe4 43 Kg6 Kd3 44 Kg7 Rxh7+ 45 Kxh7 Kxc3 46 Rd1 1 0. Black resigns as White's rook exchanges itself for the two black pawns, after which the g-pawn decides. In the last game Tarrasch's nerve held. Pillsbury, needing a win, switched to 1 d4 but could only draw, the only one of their six games at Vienna that was not a win for White. Game One: Tarrasch Wins Game Two: Pillsbury Wins Game Three: Tarrasch Wins Game Four: Draw Tarrasch thus won the play-off +2 =1 -1. Although overshadowed by Vienna, Cologne also hosted a strong 15-round event later in 1898, as strong as any held in the previous year. This was the annual tournament of the German Chess Federation, but without the two stars of Vienna and with Maroczy also missing, there was not quite the same strength at the top. Burn, no doubt on a high after doing so well in Vienna, was the surprise winner. This was also the swansong for Rudolf Charousek, who had missed Vienna because of hospitalisation for the tuberculosis that killed him two years later. Chigorin and V. Cohn shared second place with him while Steinitz, Janowski and Showalter were among those trailing. * Thanks to Edward Winter, Hanon Russell and others who helped with my research into the Vienna tournament.