Isidor Gunsberg (1854-1930) was born in Hungary but later became a British citizen. His chess career began as remote operator to the chess machine ‘Mephisto’. Confirming himself as one of the chess elite at the time, Gunsberg would challenge World Chess Champion, Wilhelm Steinitz for his title.
Wilhelm Steinitz (1836-1900), needs very little introduction. Born in Austria, but later of American nationality, he was the first undisputed World Chess Champion, from 1886 to 1894 (losing to Emanuel Lasker).
Steinitz vs Gunsberg began on December 9th 1890 at the Manhattan Chess Club. The winner would be the first to win ten games, or with the most wins after twenty games — draws would not be counted. In the case of 9 wins each the match would be considered drawn. Each game would be played in two sessions, 13:30-17:00 and 19:00-22:30.
The match had its trials and tribulations, one of which was Steinitz developing a bad cold. Back in the day, this was no trivial matter (if indeed it is these days) and caused the match to be paused after the fourth game while he recovered. Openings played their part also, with Steinitz vowing to keep playing the Queen’s Gambit until he won with it (which he did in game 7, after 2 draws and a loss) and him challenging Gunsberg to a theoretical debate in the Evans Gambit. This was accepted, with the opening cropping up four times in the latter stages, Gunsberg scoring 2.5 with it to Steinitz’s 1.5.
This would not change the outcome of the match, however, with Steinitz retaining his title 6-4.
The game we’re going to take a look at, is the 16th game, in which Gunsberg (as White) scores a rather quick point against the defending champion. Notable of the game, in addition to Steinitz losing in 21 moves, is that he appears to insinuate that his opponent bluffed him …
“Gunsberg touched the square at h4 with his knight, and then retracted the move, and after taking some time to consider and shaking his head as if he had made a mistake, finally adopted the move. Thereupon I took the pawn, and on seeing my opponent’s reply, 21.Ne4, resigned. Then I taxed my opponent on the manner in which he had made his twentieth move, which was calculated to mislead, and I reminded him that in his match with Chigorin he had in a similar case brought a charge against the Russian master. Gunsberg apologized, and gave his word of honor that he had not done it wilfully.” — Wilhelm Steinitz (on his opponent’s 20.Nh4).
In the event that Gunsberg had deliberately bluffed his way to the win with body-language, it is a matter of opinion as to whether Steinitz had any right to object at him or not. What is clear is that Steinitz’s understanding of the position was not what it should have been, especially when taking his Queen in to the lion’s den.
Enjoy !
[Site “Manhattan Chess Club, New York”]
[Date “1891.01.15”]
[Round “16”]
[White “Isidor Gunsberg”]
[Black “Wilhelm Steinitz”]
[Result “1-0”]
[ECO “C52”]
{ Annotations by John Lee Shaw for www.hotoffthechess.com. } 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 { The Evans Gambit — the very opening that Steinitz had challenged Gunsberg to a theoretical debate on. } 4…Bxb4 { This is by far the most popular response, …Bb6 being the alternative. } ( 4…Bb6 { one possible continuation after this move is as follows: } 5.a4 a6 6.Nc3 Nf6 7.Nd5 Nxd5 8.exd5 Nd4 { with equal chances. } ) 5.c3 Ba5 6.O-O Qf6 { Questionable to say the least, …Nf6 would have been more appropriate. } 7.d4 { Exactly what White is looking for with the Evans Gambit, this thrust. } 7…h6 8.Qa4 { White follows Black’s lead with this early Queen activity, but either improving his development with Be3 or impeding Blacks with d5 would have been more to the point here. } 8…Bb6 9.Bb5 { A little useless this move, White should be concentrating on bringing new pieces in to the game, Nbd2 was for more constructive. } 9…Nge7 { In one way this is an illustration of how ineffective Gunsberg’s previous move was, instead of making hay while the sun shines with his development, White has encouraged Black to improve his own. Steinitz is actually starting to make in-roads here. } 10.Ba3 { again, the bishop does very little along this diagonal, and this concentration of pieces on the Queenside looks anything but productive. It is quite puzzling as to why White declined to play d5 here, not only displacing the c6-knight, but also depriving Black of the chance to exchange on d4. } 10…exd4 $1 { It is a good move, this, nicely making a change of central structure while White’s attention seem to be elsewhere. A big advantage to Black, here. } 11.e5 $2 { Not exactly sure what Gunsberg was thinking here, it just gives up a pawn to …Nxe5, though Stenitz doesn’t play it. I can only speculate that Steinitz considered the pawn a positional gambit, to open the e-file, which it very well could have been, and therefore didn’t wish to cooperate. } ( 11.Nbd2 { This is a constructive move in a difficult situation, developing. } 11…dxc3 12.e5 Qe6 13.Ne4 { Black has the initiative here, but White is not facing disaster just yet. The e-pawn seems safe, by the way, based on positional considerations — the open e-file, on which the Black Queen and King are both situated would be ok compensation for the pawn should White stick a rook along it. } ) 11…Qg6 ( 11…Nxe5 12.Nxe5 Qxe5 13.Nd2 c6 { With an edge to Black. } ) 12.cxd4 { White would be rather content with this situation I guess, but with …Nd5 coming, Black will be the happier of the two. } 12…Nd5 13.Re1 { King in the centre, semi-open file, this kind of move should be automatic. } 13…Nf4 14.g3 Qg4 $2 { Steinitz gets it wrong. Just as I commented earlier that Gunsberg had not made hay while the sun shines, but had encouraged his opponent to improve his development, the favour is returned here. Much more to the point would have been …Nh3+ or …h5. } 15.Nbd2 Nh3+ 16.Kg2 Ng5 { This is too slow and potentially hands the initiative back to White. The knight probably had to return to f4, when the game could well have headed for repetition. } ( 16…Nf4+ 17.Kh1 Nh3 { after this, Kg2 leads to repetition. If White wishes to play on, then there is a need to take a risk, but in my opinion this is all the fun of the game. } 18.Re2 { There are other options, but this is the one I would go with. } 18…a6 ( 18…Nxd4 { leads to a very sharp situation, that seems good for White after } 19.e6 $1 { Ironically, a factor of this being so potent is that horrid Ba3 of White’s. } 19…fxe6 { not …Nxe2?? which would be mate in two after Bxd2+ } 20.Ne5 { Putting the knight on a super square, with tempo on the black Queen. } 20…Qf5 21.Bxd7+ { A very crisp, decisive attack. } 21…Kd8 22.Bxc8 c6 { and with Rd1 as a possible continuation, (if …Nxe2, then Ne4+ and Nd6+ ideas), even g4, Black is in severe trouble. } ) 19.Bc4 Nxd4 20.Qb4 d6 21.Nxd4 { and here there is need for great care. } 21…O-O { An essential move, any material grabbing works only for White. } 22.N4f3 Nxf2+ 23.Rxf2 Bxf2 24.exd6 cxd6 25.Qxd6 { The engines favour Black slightly, here, but I am not so sure, things look pretty even to me. } ) 17.Bb2 { Blimey, just when the Ba3 was actually looking like a super piece along this diagonal, White goes and moves it. Worthy of mention, is that Black’s light-squared bishop has not yet played any part in the game. } ( 17.d5 Nd4 { and White is the one with the big edge. } 18.Qb4 Qh3+ 19.Kh1 Nf5 20.Bf1 { with a huge position. } ) 17…Ne7 ( 17…Nxf3 { is good for Black: } 18.Nxf3 O-O 19.h3 Qe6 { with a slight but evident edge. White has some re-organising to do. } ) 18.Be2 Ne6 19.Kh1 Qf5 20.Nh4 { Preparing a trap — in more ways that one by all accounts. } 20…Qxf2 $4 { Steinitz takes the bait, but this is a serious error. His opponent’s reply results in his immediate resignation. } 21.Ne4 { This move is a no brainer really, and on account of the heavy material loss to come, Steinitz resigned. 1-0. } 1-0
[/pgn]
Additional Sources:
