The Kibitzer
by Tim Harding 

100 Years Ago: The Return of Lasker

AS WITH my two previous January columns, I turn the clock back
a century to find the main event in the chess world of 1899. There
is no doubt that it was the return of Emanuel Lasker to competitive
play after two years of mathematical study at Heidelberg's famous
university.

Lasker had taken this break soon after his successful title defence
against Steinitz in Moscow; the dissertation which he was working
on was evidently far enough advanced by the end of 1898 for him
to think about playing chess again. (He finally got his doctorate in
1900.)

January and February 1899 were spent by Lasker in Moscow. This
holiday no doubt served two purposes for Lasker: to raise funds
and to get his chess brain functioning again. Whether he intended
already to play a tournaments that year is not clear, but he was
persuaded to play in the London double-round master event that
summer, where, as we shall see, he made a triumphant return.

V. Zak's Russian book on Lasker records (page 57) that on this
Moscow trip Lasker played numerous simultaneous displays,
including one blindfold in which he defeated all six opponents,
plus several consultation games. His record overall in Moscow
was: played 133, won 102, lost 9, drew 19 and 3 games with no
results.

It seems strange in the context of the chess world today, but Lasker
had up to this point taken first prize in only one grandmaster
tournament with a large field (Nuremberg 1896) although he had
won two world title matches and the St Petersburg match-
tournament (1895/6). On that occasion he had taken first prize
thanks to his wins over Steinitz and Chigorin, though he was a
narrow loser in his mini-match to Pillsbury. Steinitz had beaten
Pillsbury 5-1 and it was that result which really padded out Lasker
his two-point victory margin.

Lasker had a lot of match experience but his early tournaments
were not GM events and at Hastings 1895 he came "only" third.
This was actually a good result in such a grueling event,
considering that he was convalescing after serious illness (typhus). 

London 1899 was Lasker's first tournament for three years but his
path was eased by the absence of Dr Tarrasch who had been the
ultimate victor in Vienna twelve months earlier (as described in
Kibitzer 20). Tarrasch, who liked to emphasise that he was a chess
amateur, had also declined to play in that St Petersburg match-
tournament. This was probably the wrong time of the year for him
to take off six weeks for chess but perhaps if the event had been
played in Germany his answer would have been different.

Without Tarrasch, the "world top" of chess in 1899 was looking a
bit thin. Charousek was soon to die and the generation of Marshall,
Rubinstein and Capablanca were still a few years too young. 

Therefore it seemed that the challenge to Lasker (who was not yet
31) must come from the "old guard" of Steinitz (63), Blackburne
(58) and Chigorin (49), and above all perhaps from Harry Nelson
Pillsbury. After all, Pillsbury had won in England four years
earlier, troubled Lasker in St Petersburg and then in 1898 had all
but won Vienna in 1898 until a crucial failure near the end
condemned him to a tie-break match with Tarrasch.

However, things did not turn out quite as expected. Like Vienna
1898, London 1899 was a double-round event and so would be a
grueling event if several weeks duration - ideal, of course, for
Lasker to play himself into form if he made a rusty start. With only
15 participants there were not quite so many games scheduled as at
Vienna and the odd number of starters created a bye in each round.
There were to be 30 rounds in all.

The field was weakened, and a second bye created, when
Teichmann withdrew after four rounds due to eye trouble. He had
scored a win, a loss and two draws and these results stood, those
players who had not met him (including Lasker) being awarded a
point; Teichmann's second cycle games were annulled. 

Of course, under the rules applying now, all Teichmann's games
would have been canceled since he had not played half the
opponents. As you can see from the crosstable, if that rule had been
applied in 1899 Pillsbury would have placed second outright in the
field, confirming (in the absence of Tarrasch) his true status in the
chess world at the turn of the last century, because instead of 18/27
he would have had 17.5/26 whereas Janowski and Maroczy would
have been on 17/26. Nevertheless, although Pillsbury wasn't
playing badly in this tournament, nor did he achieve anything
special. Tarrasch had shown in the Vienna 1898 play-off that real
grandmasters could sometimes expose the American's weaknesses;
in London he lost games to Janowski and Chigorin and suffered a
2-0 wipeout by Blackburne.

Nobody else was seriously affected by the decision to count
Teichmann's games. Blackburne had drawn with Teichmann but
remained 6th despite dropping the half-point while Chigorin (who
had actually beaten him) was 7th whether or not the game was
counted. Teichmann had beaten the English player Tinsley; if this
game were left out, Tinsley would have tied for 13th with Bird
instead of being bottom on his own.

Looking at the field as a whole, we can see that there were no weak
players from overseas but the British contingent was not at full
strength, including two players who would not have been in master
tournaments abroad. This wasn't the organisers' intention. Amos
Burn (who had done so well in 1898) had withdrawn at the last
moment; presumably Tinsley took his place. Frank J. Lee, a
professional chess master and teacher, substituted for Caro, but he
was probably a stronger player than Tinsley. In fact he had finished
ahead of Pillsbury in the 1893 New York tournament, but the
statement in Golombek's Encyclopaedia (1977) that he beat Lasker
there is incorrect; Lasker won all those games,

The field assembled for the official opening ceremony on May 30.
There were five survivors of the great 1883 tournament which
Zukertort had won - Steinitz, Chigorin, Blackburne, James Mason
(the Irish master who mostly lived in America) and Henry Bird. At
69, Bird was the oldest man in the field - he had even played in
London 1851, losing to Horwitz in the first round! The previous
year he had been stricken with a paralytic illness so his appearance
in the tournament was itself a surprise.

Lasker began cautiously. In the first round he had White against
Steinitz who played his own defence to the Ruy Lopez (1 e4 e5 2
Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 d6). After 4 d4 Bd7 5 Nc3 Steinitz developed his
knight at f6 instead of e7 where he had played it in some earlier
games with Lasker. The world champion appeared disinclined to
take any risk and offered a draw after 25 moves.

Next day, Lasker had White against Schlechter. He played the
Exchange Variation of the Ruy Lopez and, with an opposite
coloured bishop ending about to arise, a draw was agreed after 30
moves. So he had two of the most dangerous opponents (for a rusty
master) out of the way, but two Whites "wasted". 

By the way, I am going by the round and date information given in
the Lasker volume in the Weltgeschichte des Schachs series, edited
by Dr Eduard Wildhagen; the colour sequences seem strange and
don't accord with the round information given in some databases
today. Can anybody clarify this? It seems that the standard pairing
tables used nowadays by tournament organisers didn't exist then
and each tournament made its own rules. Perhaps the players drew
lots for colours when they first met and played the reversed colours
in the second half?

According to Dr Wildhagen there was no game on June 1 and in
round 3 on June 2 Lasker got a third White, this time against Lee.
Apart from the New York 1893 game, Lasker had beaten him in a
mini-match in London in 1891. This was the ideal opportunity to
get some momentum going and entertain the spectators. (See
Diagram)

This is the position after Black's 20th move in Lasker-Lee. 

White: Kc1, Qa4, Rd1, Rf1, Nc3, Nf3, Bd2; pawns - a2, b4, c4, d4,
f2, g3, h4 
Black: Kb8, Qc8, Rd8, Rh8, Nf6, Ng4, Bd6; pawns - a7, b7, c6, e5,
f7, g7, h6

From a Caro-Kann, Lee has just played the premature "freeing
move" 20...e6-e5 presumably expecting a double exchange on e5.
However, after 21 dxe5 Nxe5 Lasker played 22 Be3! which
threatens Rxd6 if Black saves his a-pawn while if 22...Nxf3 23
Bxa7+ Kc7 24 Bb6+! Kd7 25 c5 the curtain is rapidly coming
down. Instead of this, Lee played 22...Nxc4 23 Bxa7+ Kc7 24 Rd4
b5 whereupon Lasker sacrificed a piece by 25 Nxb5+! cxb5 26
Qxb5 Na3 27 Qa5+ Kb7 28 Bc5 (he must block the c-file)
28...Bxc5 29 bxc5 Rxd4 30 Nxd4 when, despite the simplification,
Black's king is too exposed and he has no good move. Probably
Lee intended 30...Qa8 but after 31 c6+! Kb8 32 Qb6+ Kc8 33 Nf5
the black king gets mated.

So Lee tried 30...Qd8 31 c6+ Kc8 32 Qa7+ Kd6 33 Qa7+ Kd6 and
after 34 Qxa3+ Lasker has regained his piece, driving the black
king over to a mating net on the kingside.

Next day, however, British honour was restored and although
White (again!) Lasker was back on 50%. 

Lasker-Blackburne 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 d6 4 d4 Bd7 5 d5 

Lasker appears unwilling to try the line Steinitz had used against
him in the first round (they'd probably had some interesting post-
mortem discussions about 5...Nf6) so played 5 d5 instead of 5 Nc3.
Blackburne's own explanation is that Lasker wanted to avoid
exchanges as in their Hastings 1895 game. This move surely
cannot be strong, from b8 the N gets redeveloped via a6.

5...Nb8 6 Bd3 Be7 7 Nc3 Nf6 8 Ne2 c6 9 c4 Na6 10 Ng3 Nc5 11
Bc2 b5 

In his book Mr Blackburne's Games At Chess (ed. Graham)
published shortly after this tournament, the winner observes,
"White's pieces are well placed for an attack on the king if Black
castles; therefore he tries to break through on the queen's flank."

12 b4 Nb7 13 dxc6 Bxc6 14 cxb5 Bxb5 15 a4 Bd7

"I might have prevented castling for a few moves but did not like
his N on f5".

16 0-0 g6 17 h3 h5 18 Be3 a5 19 b5 Rc8 20 Rc1 Nc5

So after 20 moves they got a position that looks more like a
Kalashnikov or Sveshnikov Sicilian. Blackburne, with his use of
the d6/e5 pawn phalanx to support a kingside attack, was ahead of
his time here! Surely he was the strongest British player of the 19th
century, whatever claims may be advanced on behalf of Staunton.
(See Diagram)

21 Nd2 

To protect the e-pawn.

21...h4 22 Ne2 g5! 

Blackburne sacrifices a pawn to get open lines for attack.

23 Bxg5 Rg8 24 Bxh4

"24 Bxf6 was safer," observes Blackburne.

24...Bxh3 25 Bg3 Be6 

Rather impressive - White's pieces are bunched passively and his
extra pawn is going nowhere.

26 Re1 Ng4 27 Nf1 Bg5 28 Rb1 Rh8 29 Nc3

Blackburne here observes, "White is now in a very dangerous
position, and he was perhaps also short of time. 29 f4? is no use
as...Bxf4 would win; 29 f3 is his best.

29...Bf4 30 Nd5 Qg5 31 f3 Rh1+!

"An unexpected move, but it wins in every case" - Blackburne.

32 Kxh1 Bxg3 33 Nxg3 

The only move for if 33 Re2 Nf2+ 34 Rxf2 Qh4+ and mate next.
Blackburne now mopped up

33...Nf2+ 34 Kg1 Nxd1 35 Nf5 Bxf5 36 exf5 Qd2 37 Rexd1
Qxc2 38 Rbc1 Qxf5 39 Nb6 Rd8 40 Nc4 Nb7 41 Ne3 Qf4 42 Kf2
Qxa4 43 Rc7 Nc5 44 Rh1 Rd7 45 Rc8+ Ke7 46 Rhh8 Qd4 0-1

This game evidently had the right effect on Lasker - it awoke his
spirit of struggle. He was undefeated for the remainder of the
tournament. In the next four rounds, he disposed of Mason,
followed by a bye and further wins against Cohn and Showalter
with Black. However, in round nine he arrived at a crucial phase of
the tournament where he had to meet in succession the three
younger masters who eventually shared second place. First Lasker
had to face Pillsbury with Black. A balanced struggle ended in
perpetual check after Lasker avoided falling into nasty trap.

Then he beat Janowski before being held to a dour draw by
Maroczy who didn't give an inch in a Symmetrical Tarrasch
variation of the Queen's Gambit. Then he polished off Tinsley
before his second bye.

In round 14 he had an important win where he despatched his old
adversary Chigorin who went wrong in a complicated Ruy Lopez
middlegame. Lasker finished the first half of the tournament by
winning the exchange against the veteran Bird to collect the full
point. Half-way score: Wins 8, Wins by Default 1, Draws 4, Losses
1. Total11 point.

The strange organisation of the event meant that in the second half
opponents were met in a different order from the first half. Lasker
began by getting his revenge against Blackburne and then he had
Black against Chigorin, never an easy number. In reply to 1 e4
Lasker avoided 1...e5 which would undoubtedly have led to a deep
prepared variation by Chigorin in one of his favourite openings,
perhaps the Evans Gambit. The world champion preferred to meet
Chigorin's pet line against the French, 1 e4 e6 2 Qe2. After 2...Nc6
3 Nc3 Lasker played 3...e5!? The concept of sacrificing a tempo
was probably planned in advance of the game. After 4 g3 Nf6 5
Bg2 Bc5 6 d3 d6 the game is like a 3 g3 Vienna Opening in which
White's extra move (Qe2) is arguably of no benefit. Lasker
eventually won the game.

Then he extended his winning streak to six games by defeating
Maroczy with Black in the same opening they had contested with
the colours reversed. After 1 d4 d5 2 Nf3 Nf6 3 c4 e6 4 e3 c5 5
Nc3 Nc6 6 a3 dxc4 7 Bxc4 a6 8 0-0 b5 9 Be2 Maroczy had played
the cautious 9...Bb7 but Lasker played more ambitiously by
9...cxd4 10 exd4 Bb7 to play against the isolated d-pawn. This
must have made the Hungarian uncomfortable for in a few moves
he overlooked a neat sequence that won Lasker the exchange.

Round 19 saw him held to a draw by Cohn; then he despatched
Tinsley and Bird before another draw with Mason.

In round 20 he won a long technical game against Pillsbury in
which he headed for a rook and bishop endgame right from the
opening. Lasker exploited small pawn weaknesses to win material
and eventually the game. Comfortable wins against Showalter and
Lee were then followed by his final game against Steinitz which
won him the first brilliancy prize.

Steinitz- Lasker 1 e4 e5 2 Nc3 Nf6 3 f4 d5 4 d3 

A Steinitz special; 4 fxe5 Nxe4 is of course the main line. 

4...Nc6

4...exf4 is playable but 4...dxe4 5 fxe5 Ng4 6 Nxe4 Nxe5 7 d4 Ng6
8 Nf3 had given White some advantage in Steinitz-Neumann,
Baden-Baden 1870.

5 fxe5 Nxe5 6 d4 Ng6 

In view of the variation 7 e5 Ne4 8 Nxe4 dxe4 9 Bc4 (9 c3) 9...c5!
10 c3 cxd4 11 cxd4 Bb4+ 12 Bd2 Bxd2+ 13 Qxd2 0-0 14 Ne2
Be6! Black has solved his opening problem.

7 exd5 Nxd5 8 Nxd5? 

This helps Black's development; 8 Nf3 is correct.

8...Qxd5 9 Nf3 Bg4 10 Be2 0-0-0 11 c3 Bd6 12 0-0 Rhe8 13 h3
Bd7 14 Ng5? 

The idea of this is not to fork two pawns but to kick the queen off
the long diagonal (e.g. 14...f6 15 Bf3 Qg8 16 Ne4) but the reply
shows that this aim cannot be achieved, so 14 Ng5 is actually a
waste of time which White (already behind on development)
cannot afford.

14...Nh4! 15 Nf3

If instead 15 Bf3 Nxf3+ 16 Qxf3 (16 Nxf3 Bb5 17 Re1 Bg3)
16...Qxf3 17 Nxf3 Re2 (See Diagram)

15...Nxg2! 16 Kxg2 Bxh3 17 Kf2

White's king protection is utterly destroyed as his queenside pieces
remain spectators. If 17 Kxh3 Qf5+ 18 Kg2 Qg4+ 19 Kh1 (19
Kf2? Qg3#) 19...Qh3+ 20 Kg1 Qg3+ 21 Kh1 Re4 22 Bg5 Rg4 or
22...f6.

17...f6! 18 Rg1 g5 

This threatens  g5-g4 so Steinitz tried returning material.

19 Bxg5 fxg5 20 Rxg5 Qe6 21 Qd3 Bf4 22 Rh1

Black also wins after 22 Rh5 Qg4 23 Nh4 Rxe2+ or 22 Rg7 Be3+
23 Ke1 Bf5 intending...Qh6 or 22 Ra5 Be3+ 23 Ke1 Qg4-+.

22...Bxg5 23 Nxg5 Qf6+ 24 Bf3 Bf5 25 Nxh7 Qg6 26 Qb5 c6 27
Qa5 Re7 28 Rh5 Bg4 29 Rg5 Qc2+ 30 Kg3 Bxf3 0-1

This event was the end of Steinitz who was unable to achieve a
plus score against any of the nine players who finished with a
higher score than him. Even Lee won their mini-match.

Lasker had won the tournament by now irrespective of his final
results, but he concluded his event in glory on July 8, after drawing
with Janowski, by beating Schlechter with Black in 22 moves.
Lasker thus finished four and a half points clear of the field and
made a plus score against everyone except Blackburne. 

Marco concluded in the Wiener Schachzeitung, "Lasker was there,
Lasker the First, Lasker the Unique!"