The Kibitzer by Tim Harding

One Hundred Years Ago
Chess in the year 1900

AS READERS of my previous annual look-backs will recall, 100 years ago there were very few
major master tournaments in which the world's top players could compete. Typically, there was
one large event somewhere in the European summer and it could often involve a major
endurance test for the participants. At least this time the top event of the year was not a double-
rounder.

In the year 1900, Paris was the host for the year's great chess event, as part of the great Paris
Exhibition. Most of the world top assembled in the French capital for a splendid month of chess
during which the world champion Emanuel Lasker reaffirmed his pre-eminent position at the
board. Dr Tarrasch was absent again, and Blackburne had to miss the tournament with eye
trouble.

He finished two points clear of his great rival Pillsbury and lost only one game, to Frank
Marshall, whereas everybody else lost at least three games. Lasker had White against Pillsbury,
met the Dutch Defence with the Staunton Gambit (1 d4 f5 2 e4 fxe4 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 Bg5) and won
in 85 moves.

Not only were there 17 players, twelve of whom were of the first rank, but drawn games were
replayed once (with reversed colours) as in some previous events such as London 1883 and New
York 1889. This should have provided some motivation to players to make their games with
White really count, and to continue play even with minimal advantages, but of course the
disadvantage of this system is that the schedule of an event is harder to control. Perhaps
surprisingly, some players who drew with Black then went on to lose the replayed game with
White.

However, this system did not mean an endless series: if the second game was also drawn, then
the point was split. This happened only seven times in the tournament, while 21 of the replayed
games ended in a decisive result. So out of 136 individual contests, 108 were decisive in the first
place (a much higher percentage than one would expect nowadays) and only seven games were
finally scored as draws on the crosstable.

The crosstable shows the results of every game - where there was a replay, the original draw is
given first. The table also shows a drawback of this system - relatively few draws means a lot of
ties for the prizes. My table is arranged in Sonneborn-Berger order, as calculated by ChessBase
(taking no account of replayed draws) and the order of players differs in several respects from
crosstables published elsewhere, e.g. in Hannak's biography of Lasker. This system of course
meant that the more peaceable players (or more successful defenders of bad positions!) were
punished by having to work harder. In view of his reputation as a drawing master, it is interesting
that Carl Schlechter appears midway in this "league table". Five of his original games were
drawn - two of these he converted to victory on the replay, one he lost and two were drawn on
replay. Schlechter's best and most solid years were still ahead of him. Several other players also
had four or five draws first time round. The hardest worker was Irish-American master James
Mason who drew seven of his games. On the replay, he lost four and won two mini-matches,
with only one drawn game finally counting.

The most economical of effort were those players who had only two draws in the original games
- Janowski had only one, which he converted to victory! Lasker, Pillsbury, Marco, each had two
draws and so did the three tail-enders (Mortimer, Didier and Sterling) who presumably drew very
few games because they were easy meat for the real masters. The President of the French
Republic donated four SŠvres vases in addition to the main prizes for the top finishers. Pillsbury
confirmed his status as world number two in the absence of Tarrasch, while Maroczy confirmed
his high standing. 

The fourth vase-winner, however, was the real new arrival at the summit, Frank Marshall, whose
score of +3 -1 against the other top four players revealed his class. (He defeated Pillsbury and
Burn as well as the world champion, but Maroczy, Janowski and Showalter beat him). Marshall
had risen from the ranks in 1899 when he won the Brooklyn Chess Club championship followed
by the second section of London 1899 (ahead of Mieses and Marco).

The great Chigorin (born in 1850) was in decline by this time, but still played some good games.
His 50% score against the top five, including no fewer than seven drawn games (two against
Lasker), shows his class. Burn, with wins against two players above him in the table, could also
be pleased with a result that showed his first prize at Cologne 1898 was no flash-in-the-pan.

Emanuel Lasker - Geza Maroczy [D27] Paris (5), 1900
1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 Nf3 dxc4 5 e3 c5 6 Bxc4 a6 7 a4 Nc6 8 0-0 cxd4 9 exd4 Be7 

The position is now classified as a Queen's Gambit Accepted but can arise from many move
orders.

10 Be3 0-0 11 Qe2 (See Diagram)

This is one of the earliest games to reach the diagram position which is still considered to give
White some advantage. Very modern thinking by Lasker! 

11...Qa5?! 

Maroczy isn't equal to the task of solving a new position at the board against the world
champion. 11...b6 is considered best but may not equalise. 

11...Nb4 is often played, but may be insufficient, e.g. 12 Ne5 b6 13 f4 Nfd5 14 Rad1 Bf6 15 Ne4
Bb7 16 f5 exf5 17 Rxf5 Nxe3 18 Nxf6+ gxf6 19 Qxe3 fxe5 20 Qxe5 h6 21 Rf6 Kh7 22 Rdf1
Bd5 23 Qf5+ Kg8 24 Qg4+ Kh7 25 Rxh6+ 1-0 Spassky-Nikolaevsky, Kharkov 1963. The whole
line has become more fashionable since then!

12 Rfd1 Rd8 13 Rac1 Nb4 14 Ne5 Nfd5 15 Bb3 Rf8 16 Ne4! Qd8 17 f4 b6 18 Bd2 Bb7 19
Ng3 Rc8?! 

Maroczy has defended badly in this game. He does nothing to stop the next move which launches
a direct attack. 

20 f5 Rxc1 21 Rxc1 exf5 22 Nxf5 Bf6 

The tournament book recommended 22...Bc8 overlooking the combination given in Fred
Reinfeld's book on Lasker: 23 Nxf7! Rxf7 (23...Kxf7 24 Rxc8! Qxc8 25 Qxe7+) 24 Rxc8 Qxc8
25 Nxe7+ Rxe7 26 Qxe7.

23 Bxb4 Nxb4 (See Diagram)

24 Nxf7! Rxf7 25 Qe6 Kh8 

It is hopeless. If 25...Nd5 26 Nd6 Qd7 27 Qxf7+ Qxf7 28 Nxf7 Kxf7 29 Rc7+, or 25...Bd5 26
Bxd5 Qxd5 27 Rc8+ Bd8 28 Ne7+ wins the queen.

26 Qxf7 Bxd4+ 27 Kh1 Nd3 28 Rf1 Bxg2+ 29 Kxg2 Qg5+ 30 Kh3 1-0.

The next game, played in round six, was Frank Marshall's calling card. The world champion had
won his first five rounds and looked like having a runaway victory until the young American's
win.

Frank Marshall - Emanuel Lasker [D50] Paris 1900
1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 Bg5 c6 

Instead of the usual 4...Be7 or 4...Nbd7. Lasker probably expected transposition to the Exchange
Variation after 5 cxd5 exd5. 

5 e4!?

Analogous to Marshall's Gambit in the Semi-Slav: 1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 Nc3 c6 4 e4 dxe4 5 Nxe4
Bb4+ 6 Bd2 Qxd4 7 Bxb4 Qxe4+ 8 Be2 (or 8 Ne2).

5...dxe4 6 Nxe4 Bb4+ 7 Nc3 c5 

Very aggressive. 7...h6 is calmer.

8 a3 Bxc3+ 9 bxc3 Qa5 10 Bd2 Ne4 11 Nf3 (See Diagram)

11...Nxc3?! 

An unwise liquidation. Much later, in his book 'My Fifty Years of Chess', Marshall wrote that
"Although careful analysis proves this move to be playable, the results it achieves are hardly
worth the risk involved". 

12 dxc5! 

Not 12 Qb3? cxd4! 13 Nxd4 Qe5+.

12...Nxd1 13 Bxa5 Nb2 14 a4 Bd7 

It looks as if White will just be left with weaknesses after 15 Ne5 Nc6!, but Lasker had
overlooked something. 

15 c6! 

Now if 15...Nxc6 or 15...bxc6 the advanced knight is immediately trapped by Bc3 so Black has
no choice. 

15...Bxc6 16 Ne5 (See Diagram)

16...Be4? 

The 1998 Varnusz book on Lasker gives this move an exclamation mark but in fact it was a
blunder. Not 16...b6 17 Bd2 threatening Bc1. However 16...Nd7! 17 Nxc6 bxc6 18 Bc3 Rb8 19
Bxg7 (19 Be2 0-0) 19...Rg8 20 Bc3 Nc5 21 a5 f6 was necessary, as Marshall indicates. White
has two bishops versus two knights and at least should not lose.

17 f3! 

ECO correctly gives +- here, while the Varnusz book doesn't even get the move order right,
giving the continuation as 17 Bc3 f6 18 f3. 

17...f6 

Or if 17...Nc6 18 Bc3 (not 18 Nxc6 Bxc6 19 Bc3 Nxa4 20 Bxg7 Rg8) 18...Nxe5 then 19 Bxb2
Nd3+ 20 Kd2 Nxb2? 21 fxe4 continues the theme of the wandering knight that cannot find its
way home. Also White emerges with two bishops for a rook after 20...Rd8 21 fxe4 Nf2+ 22 Ke3
Nxh1 23 Be2, or 20...Nf2 21 fxe4 Nxh1 22 Be2.

18 Bc3!? 

This is unnecessarily complicated. 18 fxe4 fxe5 19 Bc3 wins easily said Marshall later. The
move he played is good enough in the end.

18...Bc2

18...Bf5 19 g4 Bc2 20 Kd2 comes to the same.

19 Kd2 Nxa4 

If 19...Nd1 20 Kxc2 and the knight remains trapped: 20...Ne3+ (20...Nxc3 21 Ng4!) 21 Kd3
Nxf1 22 Ng4.

20 Kxc2 

Black has lost a piece and the rest is relatively easy for Marshall as the black pawns are not a
serious threat. 

20...Nxc3 21 Nd3 Nd5 22 cxd5 exd5 23 Nc5! 

To attack the queenside pawns while Black is still undeveloped. 

23...b6 24 Bb5+ Kf7 25 Na4 Nc6 26 Nc3 Rhc8 27 Rhd1 Ne7 28 Kb2 Rc5 29 Bd3 

The rest of the game is of less interest. White's bishop is much better than the three pawns and
Marshall gradually grinds to victory

29...a5 30 Na4 Rc6 31 Rdc1 Rb8 32 Rxc6 Nxc6 33 Rc1 Ne5 34 Rc7+ Ke6 35 Bb5 g5 36 Ra7
d4 37 Ra6 Kd5 38 Kc2 Rb7 39 Ra8 Nc6 40 Kd2 Nb4 41 Rd8+ Ke5 42 Nb2 Rc7 43 Nc4+ Kf5
44 Rxd4 Rc5 45 Be8 Rd5 46 Ne3+ Ke5 47 Nxd5 Kxd4 48 Nxb4 axb4 49 Bf7 f5 50 Bg8 h5 51
Bf7 h4 52 h3 b5 53 Be8 Kc4 54 Bd7 b3 55 Bxf5 Kb4 56 Bd3 b2 57 Kc2 Ka3 58 Kb1 1-0. This
was a pyrrhic victory because Marshall never again beat Lasker, to whom he lost a world title
match in 1907. 

After Paris, Lasker played no other serious chess in 1900, and indeed Cambridge Springs 1904
was his next major event. According to Hannak's notoriously unreliable biography, Lasker
returned to university to resume studying for his doctorate in mathematics which he received two
years later at the University of Erlangen. Some sources claim that he was orally examined on his
thesis on January 31, 1900 which would have given plenty of time to prepare for the Paris
tournament. (For example, Ken Whyld's chapter on Lasker in World Chess Champions, ed. E.G.
Winter, Pergamon Press, Oxford 1982). On the other hand, there was barely six months between
the end of London 1899 and the date given by Whyld, whereas Hannak's date would allow
Lasker about 18 months to complete his mathematical treatise, so 1902 does seem more
plausible. 

It would be interesting to have a clear statement of the facts in this matter, from someone in a
position to refer to authoritative sources. 

Jacques Mieses won the brilliancy prize at Paris for the following game.

Jacques Mieses - Dawid Janowski [C26] Paris (1900
1 e4 e5 2 Nc3 Nf6 3 Bc4 Bc5 

Pillsbury played 3...Bb4 against Mieses and won. 

4 d3 d6 5 f4 Nc6 (See Diagram)

This was one of Mieses's pet variations at this time. Mieses-Sterling went instead 5...Ng4?! 6 f5!
Nf2 7 Qh5 Nc6 8 Nd5 Bd7 9 Bd2 Ne7 10 Ng5 Nxd5 11 Bxd5 Rf8 12 h3 Nf6 and here Mieses
complicated with 13 Bxf7+ Rxf7 14 Nxf7 Kxf7 15 g4 Nxe4 16 g5 Bf2+ 17 Ke2 Ng3+ 18 Kxf2
Nxh1+ 19 Qxh1 After that bloodbath, White went on to win but this was not a very convincing
effort.)

So from the Vienna we have reached the King's Gambit Declined. In fact this is a line I analysed
in my very first chess book! 

6 f5 

This move is now considered inferior to 6 Nf3 because it releases the tension without clear
advantage, but Mieses preferred it as Black cannot answer ...Bg4. There are a lot of possibilities
but Black's game is not easy. 

6...Na5 

Of course castling would just walk into an automatic attack. Mieses-Mason continued instead
6...h6? 7 g4 Na5 8 Qf3 (Nimzowitsch later won a well-known game from this position against
Hilse, Coburg 1904.) 8...Nxc4 9 dxc4 c6 10 h4 h5 11 gxh5 Nxh5 12 Nge2 Bd7 13 Ng3 Nxg3 14
Qxg3 Rh7 15 Bg5 Qa5 16 h5 Bd4 17 h6 gxh6 18 Bf6! and White went on to win.

6...Ne7 was later played in Mieses-Vidmar, Prague 1908. 6...Nd4! is recommended by
Nimzowitsch in My System and is the move responsible for 6 f5 going out of favour. 

7 Qf3 c6 

If 7...Nxc4 8 dxc4 White's lock on d5 usually yields some advantage in this opening, e.g. 8...Bd7
9 Nge2 Bc6 10 a3 a5 11 g4 was given as a favourable to White by Griffith and Golombek. 

8 g4 

This is direct and consistent whereas piece play is ineffective: 8 Nge2 b5 9 Bb3 Nxb3 10 axb3 a6
11 Bg5 b4 12 Na4 Ba7 13 Ng3 Qc7 with a messy position, Black eventually winning in
Enevoldsen-O'Kelly, Berlin 1962.

8...h6 

In an earlier round, Mieses-Chigorin went instead 8...Nd7 (Hoping for ...Qh4+) 9 g5 Nxc4 10
dxc4 Nb6 11 b3 Bb4 (11...Bd4 12 Nge2) 12 a3 Bxc3+ 13 Qxc3 Qe7 14 a4 f6 15 Nf3 and here
Black's attempt to break out of his passive position by 15...g6 backfired drastically.

9 h4 b5 10 Bb3 Nxb3 11 axb3

In the 1960s, Bent Larsen frequently showed that after this exchange, the open a-file and control
of c4 is more important than the doubled pawn. White suffers in the process. 

11...h5 

Black tries to clarify the situation although it concedes open lines. As in the Mason and Chigorin
games, Mieses obtains a kingside initiative for which Black lacks adequate counterplay on the
other wing. 

12 gxh5 

Of course the pawn storm would be easier to defend if White closed lines by g4-g5. 

12...Nxh5 

Escaping the pin (12...Rxh5 13 Bg5).

13 Nge2 Qb6 14 Ng3 Nf6 15 Bg5 Bb7 16 h5 

The same plan as in the Mason game; h5-h6 is threatened. 

16...Nh7 17 Bd2 0-0-0 

The king runs away but Mieses proves his kingside pawn advance still has meaning. 

18 h6 g6 

Conceding a passed pawn; with hindsight Black should presumably have tried 18...gxh6 19 Rxh6
Rdg8.

19 0-0-0 Rhg8 20 fxg6 fxg6 21 Rdf1 Kb8 22 Qf7 Rh8 23 Qxg6 

Apparently losing a piece but Mieses has seen deeper.

23...Rdg8 (See Diagram)

24 Qg7! 

Putting the queen en prise, where she remains at hazard for six consecutive moves until move 30. 

24...Bc8 

If 24...Rxg7 Tartakower and Du Mont, in their 500 Master Games
of Chess give the justification of the queen offer as 25 hxg7 Rg8 26
Rxh7 d5 (to cover f8) 27 Rh8 Qd8 28 Rfh1 Kc7 29 Nf5 Bc8 30
Rxg8 Qxg8 31 Rh8.

25 Nf5 Bxf5 26 Rxf5 Bb4 

Or 26...Rxg7 27 hxg7 Rg8 28 Rxh7 d5 29 Rh8 Qd8 30 Rfh5 Kc7
31 Bg5 Qe8 32 Bf6 followed by Rxg8 and Rh8.

27 Kb1 Bxc3 28 bxc3 Nf8 29 Rhf1 Ng6 30 Qd7 Rd8 31 Qe6 Nf4 

If 31...Nf8 32 Rxf8!.

32 Bxf4 exf4 33 R5xf4 

White is now ahead on material and finishes neatly.

33...Qc5 34 Rf7 

Threatening Qe7.

34...Qg5 (See Diagram)

35 Rf8! 

Another little flourish - if 35...Rhxf8 36 Rxf8 Rxf8 37 Qxd6+.

35...Qc5 36 Qe7 1-0 as the h-pawn decides.

Heinrich Fraenkel ("Assiac") liked to tell the story of how
somebody came up to the winner of this game at a tournament in
later years and asked him if he was "Mister My-zes". The answer
from the long-lived grandmaster came back "Nein! Ich bin Meister
Mee-zes!" 

Pillsbury stayed in Europe for the summer and tied first with
Maroczy and Schlechter in a significant, if somewhat less
important, event held in Munich in August. Also in the field were
Marco, Burn, Janowsky and Showalter but the bottom half of the
event was weaker and of course there was no Lasker and Marshall
(and still no Tarrasch).

Other chess activities in the year 1900 seem to have been on a
much smaller scale. A 16-player tournament in London was won
by Teichmann, who did not play in Paris. Mason was the only Paris
participant in that event, but Blackburne was involved, as was
Gunsberg, who had been a world title challenger many years
earlier. The other players were amateurs.

Finally, it should be noted that the year was the end of an era in
more senses than one. On August 12, 1900 the first world
champion Wilhelm Steinitz died a pauper in New York. His long
career had brought him from Prague to Vienna, where he was first
known as a daring attacking player. He then lived in London for
several decades and finally went to America. He crossed swords
with Anderssen, learned from the study of Morphy's games,
defeated Zukertort to inaugurate the world championship, and
taught the world to play according to positional principles. A
hundred years later, he is still one of the most interesting and
important figures in chess culture and history.

Draws in blue are the games which were replayed and these don't
count for the player's total.