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. 