Winner's POV: London 1883 Part 1
In Winner's POV, we take a look at tournaments from the 19th century and see the games that allowed the top player to prevail. Some tournaments will be known and famous, others will be more obscure - in a time period where competition is scarce, I believe there is some value in digging for hidden gems in the form of smaller, less known events.
London 1883: A New Approach
Amidst its coverage of the Vienna 1882 tournament, the fourth volume of Chess Monthly discusses at great length the various tournament formats used over the years, and if there's a need for a new one. Let's take a look at what they discussed:
The first international tournament, London 1851, used a knockout system. Especially without a formal seeding system, this format is incredibly flawed, as was demonstrated by the immediate knocking-out of powerhouses Lionel Kieseritsky and Johann Löwenthal. The lack of balance was incredibly obvious when comparing winner Adolf Anderssen's path to the runner-up Marmaduke Wyvill; the former fought Kieseritsky, Joszef Szén (who went 8.5/9 in the loser's bracket) and Howard Staunton, while the latter faced three British players of much lower strength.
London 1862 adopted the round robin system, though the chief criticism here was that a single game isn't enough to properly compare the abilities of two players. Another criticism lodged against it these days is that there's an imbalance of white and black games (assuming an even number of players). They don't mention the clause that all drawn games had to be replayed, for reasons we'll see shortly.
Paris 1867 was a double round robin event, but with the twist that draws were scored as 0. This is certainly one way to disincentivize draws, though it was never repeated again for good reason.
Baden Baden 1870 was the tournament at which we finally reached a format that we still use today: a double round robin where draws give each player a half point. However, there was a new grievance issued with this, in that the weaker players were favoured as they were now given reason to play for a draw against stronger players. Yes, even in the mid 1800s they were concerned with too many drawn games.
Thus far, the only tournament which tried to remedy the draw "problem" was Vienna 1873, with three-game mini-matches replacing normal rounds. This didn't really help, as was explained with the following example: Suppose in a tournament of 12 players, Player A wins all 11 rounds with one win and two draws, while Player B wins 10 rounds by scoring two wins (and loses the 11th round to Player A with one loss and two draws). Player A wins the event with 11 wins, while Player B comes second with 20 wins. This is a very extreme example, but it illustrates the point well enough.
No tournament that we've covered since then has discussed this issue, as we've been covering the usual single and double round robins for the past decade. And yet, for reasons that Chess Monthly goes into great detail describing (three different times in the volume), we're going to shake things up yet again.
If anyone would like a proper deep dive into the reasons and the arguments, let me know and I'll delve even further down this rabbit hole.
Format and Prizes
This tournament used a double round robin system, with the caveat that drawn games had to be replayed until three games had been drawn. That is, the first and second draws would be replayed, and only the third consecutive draw would count for the usual half point. The time control was the standard 15 moves per hour.
The prizes aren't displayed in the tournament book as a table for some reason, but hopefully it's clear enough:
£300 in 1883 is equivalent to about £45000 today. Now that's a proper prize fund, wouldn't you say?
Players
Using the 1883 Edo list, the top of the field is Wilhelm Steinitz (1st), Johannes Zukertort (2nd), Joseph Blackburne (3rd), James Mason (4th), Szymon Winawer (5th), Berthold Englisch (6th), George Mackenzie (7th), Samuel Rosenthal (8th), and Mikhail Chigorin (10th). Format nonsense aside, this is objectively the strongest tournament we've seen thus far. That makes the result I'll be showing you that much more mind-boggling.
The Winner: Johannes Zukertort
Zukertort's been doing quite well since we last featured him at Paris 1878, with a clear 2nd finish at Berlin 1881 and shared 4th-5th at Vienna 1882. But the manner in which he won this tournament is incredible, which you'll see for yourself as we explore the London 1883 tournament from the Winner's POV.
Round 1: vs. Mikhail Chigorin
Chigorin won his first game over Zukertort at Vienna, with the players trading a win apiece in two Evans Gambit games (both wins were for the black pieces, unfortunately). For their first meeting at Berlin 1881, the players played a Ruy Lopez, which perhaps was what motivated Chigorin to adopt the opening in this game.
This particular opening was not a good one for Chigorin, starting with his decision to exchange on c6 on move 7. Zukertort was practically gifted an open position with more space, and he rapidly expanded on that space by throwing forward his e- and f-pawns. The f-pawn was especially powerful, first touching down on f3 with immunity, before eventually opening up the g-file for Chigorin's King to go on a stroll to the Queenside.
Round 2: vs. James Mortimer
Mortimer is our token local player of the event. He was born in America but lived in Paris for some time, where he contested a few matches with Rosenthal and Gustav Neumann, though his results weren't all that great. He had been living in England since 1870, where he founded The London Figaro, a newspaper that included a chess column written by Löwenthal (until his death in 1876) and Steinitz. His personal life is much more interesting to read about than his chess, truth be told.
Mortimer used the Scotch for this game, though much like Chigorin, he went wrong very early. His 10th move specifically is quite the head scratcher, as castling rights were lost with no compensation. Zukertort was again given the Bishop pair in a wide open position, though this time his plan was to play primarily on the Queenside. That's the only reason why this game is longer than the previous: rather than going on an immediate King hunt, Zukertort picked up some pawns and won the Rook endgame.
Round 3: vs. James Mason
Zukertort's record against Mason up to this point was +2=3 across their three shared tournaments. At Vienna specifically, Mason lost a drawn endgame in their first game, then drew a better game in the second, potentially costing him a full point that would have seen him tie for first place. I wonder how many nightmares that tournament gave Mason.
As is often the case in these irregular openings, the players arrived at a Queen's Gambit Declined through a different move order. While Mason's opening play was certainly better than the two previous games, Zukertort still managed to get an early initiative, and he pushed his Queenside pawns up the board once he had a majority. Mason smartly began creating action on the Kingside, as he was easily overwhelmed on the other side of the board and needed some kind of counter.
The game really started in earnest after Zukertort incorrectly captured a pawn on move 25, and Mason's counterattack was given life. The resulting sequence was incredibly messy as the players raced to the time control, and after Zukertort's "over-finessing" 31st move, suddenly it was Mason who had the edge as his central pawns were just as strong as Zukertort's Queenside pawn. He ultimately traded off these pawns in exchange for an initiative that would stop Zukertort from Queening his pawn, securing an equal endgame.
What followed was a long string of maneuvers as Mason tried to take advantage of either Zukertort's relatively weak King or his isolated pawn on c2. This campaign was ultimately unsuccessful, and when Zukertort's Knight landed on f5, that should have been enough to compel the players to have peace. Mason instead chose to defend his attacked pawn with 57. g3, but time trouble again caused him to miss the consequences of the move until it was already played. Zukertort snapped up the pawn, and with the White Kingside damaged, he went on an attack that Mason had no chance of defending.
Round 4: vs. George Mackenzie
Despite us looking at some rather crazy Mackenzie games in the past, his record against Zukertort has been rather tame, with three draws in their four games (we covered one draw and Mackenzie's sole win at Paris). Perhaps his play has matured; Minchin calls his play in this tournament "quiet and correct," which sounds nothing like the violent affairs we've previously covered.
This opening was one piece of evidence for Minchin's claim, as Mackenzie didn't play his usual d2-d4 in the Spanish, opting instead for a Four Knights. Zukertort was once again the beneficiary of an early mistake, as Mackenzie's 10th move ended up costing him the exchange. He did get a pawn in return, and his Bishop pair did provide him with some resources, so all hope was not lost. As the game will show, proving the compensation was a tall ask, and Mackenzie was ultimately not up to the task.
Round 5: vs. Arthur Skipworth
Skipworth was the secretary of the British Counties' Chess Association and played in many of their tournaments, making him a respectable player at the national level. The only tournament we would have seen him at was the 1868/69 BCA Challenge Cup tourney, won by Blackburne, where he withdrew after only playing four games.
While the game itself is quite interesting - Zukertort was very nearly in trouble a few times, but Skipworth failed to find the most accurate moves - what I'd like to focus on is the situation happening at move 20. Sources like the tournament book and the two databases I've been using have a very strange move order where Skipworth misses a crushing one-move knockout. There's no mention of this move in the tournament book, and apparently when a correspondent pointed it out in a letter to Zukertort, he claimed that such an opportunity was never present and the moves must not be correct. Mutual blindness is certainly a frequent occurrence in chess, but I hope you'll agree that things seem a little off in this game.
Round 6: vs. Joseph Blackburne
This continues to be my favourite rivalry of this era. Blackburne has been doing well to avenge his disappointing 2-7 score from their 1881 match, winning their game at Berlin and scoring 1.5/2 at Vienna (though he ultimately finished a point behind). Interestingly, Blackburne drew four of his first five games, only finishing his match against Skipworth in their first game.
The players continued their years-long discussion of the Giuoco Pianissimo, with Zukertort's novelty on move 11 deviating from their game at Vienna. Despite the players castling in opposite directions, there were no pawn storms, although Zukertort did have the chance to initiate one early (and given how his games have gone so far, I'm especially surprised that he didn't). The initiative swung back and forth, and just as Zukertort's pieces infiltrated and set up a lethal blow, Blackburne sacrificed his Knight to deliver a perpetual check.
Thus we have our first drawn game to replay. While I'm not the biggest fan of this format, I'll give it a pass for this particular case. The replayed game is arguably the greatest of the tournament, is in the thumbnail for the chapter, and can only be correctly described as
Zukertort's Immortal
As with all of these attacking brilliancies, it required a little help from the opponent, but arguably more impressive than the attack itself was Zukertort's foresight. With 21. Re3, he had figured out how to counter Blackburne's idea, lead him into playing it, and then hit the Englishman with an absolutely dynamite Queen sacrifice. This game certainly deserves the "Immortal" title, and I'm very glad I get to share it with you all.
Round 7: vs. Josef Noa
Noa had a reasonable showing at Vienna, notching wins against Blackburne and Mason on his way to a 9/17 score at the end of the first half (he dropped out before the second). His game against Zukertort was not so good, as he lost on time before he could make his 15th move. He's definitely the one with something to prove in this encounter.
The players began by following a Zukertort - Potter game from 1875, with Noa's deviation at move 8 helping him find equality. However, 12... Bb4 was an especially puzzling move, as it gave Zukertort free tempi to thrust his Queenside pawns forward, which he of course did. Noa was at least prepared to go all-out on the Kingside, and he generated a strong attack against the White King while Zukertort got his pawn to c6 and blocked in Noa's Bishop.
Zukertort made a slip shortly before the time control that cost him a pawn, and Noa shortly followed up with a Bishop sacrifice that netted him two pawns and the open c-file. The game was incredibly complex, and unfortunately for Noa, time trouble got to him once again. Although he didn't lose on time, he played a handful of subpar moves leading up to the third time control that allowed Zukertort to consolidate, and he even got checkmated on move 55.
Round 8: vs. Wilhelm Steinitz
Steinitz has not had the best start to this tournament, losing two games against Chigorin and Englisch in his favourite Steinitz Gambit (which might actually be the topic of my next blog post). These losses caused Steinitz to drop the opening altogether from his serious repertoire (although there exist some casual games after this tournament where he employed it).
Zukertort often avoided 1. e4 in this tournament, and according to Minchin's account, this is because he found the Black side of most 1... e5 openings to be better. One glaring exception to this is Steinitz's variation in the Three Knights, which Zukertort correctly predicted would be the battleground for this game. He attacked it fiercely, aggressively developing his pieces so he could justify a few Queen moves to get it situated on h4. Steinitz was basically defending for the entire game, which he's certainly good at, but it can't have been comfortable.
Zukertort ultimately succeeded in getting Steinitz to give up the exchange, though the Austrian master gained a pawn and sidelined the White Queen in the process. Although Zukertort would have had a very pleasant advantage going into the endgame, he made a fatal blunder right at the move 30 time control, incorrectly trading Rooks. After 31... b6, it was the White King who was ultimately getting hunted, and Zukertort was handed his first loss in a particularly unfortunate fashion.
Round 9: vs. Henry Bird
Bird was one of the players who provided analyses for the tournament book, and I find it amusing what Minchin writes about his notes: "The opinions of Mr. Bird on some points of theory are well known to be heterodox, and the reader may be amused at finding such opposite views propounded within one volume as will meet him in this collection." Bird certainly has some unique ideas in the opening, that's for sure.
From a Vienna, Zukertort managed to saddle Bird with doubled and isolated pawns as early as move 7, which would certainly give someone the impression that he's played the better opening. However, Zukertort attacked them far too quickly, and the analysis shows that Black actually had a near-winning advantage as early as move 13. Bird played the wrong move, and Zukertort went on to win both pawns and the game. The position leading up to move 13 is quite interesting and definitely worth looking at in a little detail, if nothing else.
Round 10: vs. Alexander Sellman
We were introduced to Sellman at the New York 1880 tournament, where he drew Mackenzie twice en route to a 12.5/18 finish, a point behind the leaders. He would actually draw Mackenzie another four times at this tournament, losing only one game in their seven total played - not too shabby.
Zukertort "attacked" this French Defence with the Exchange Variation, and it wasn't until move 10 that he uncorked a novelty that allowed him some more Queenside pawn play. Especially after Sellman's 14... b5, Zukertort had total domination over the Queenside, and it was clear that his play should be focused there. This was doubly apparent after his first Kingside foray went wrong, as 18. Ngf5 allowed Sellman to trade off some pieces and alleviate a lot of the pressure.
Once Zukertort opened up the a-file, it was clear that Sellman's defensive task was not going to be an easy one. His 27th and 28th moves were not good, and Zukertort's Queen infiltrated the position, dashed to the Kingside, and proceeded to win two pawns. Sellman made a valiant attempt to manifest a perpetual check, but it was not to be. A very interesting game in what is usually a boring opening (and probably would still be boring with correct play from Black).
Round 11: vs. Samuel Rosenthal
Following Zukertort's win at Paris, Rosenthal challenged him to a match which ultimately took place in 1880. Despite Rosenthal apparently calling Zukertort's win a fluke (according to a third party, not the Frenchman himself), the champion easily won their match +7-1=11. Combine this with Zukertort's 2-0 win at that Paris tournament, and you have one of the most lopsided records between players that we've seen.
This game was not a particularly good one from Rosenthal either. A few questionable opening choices left him with the worse pawn structure and worse development, and an incorrect pawn grab cost him an exchange for practically nothing in return. There was one possible moment for something to go well for him with his 26th move, but otherwise this game was just a complete blowout from start to finish.
Round 12: vs. Szymon Winawer
Winawer and Rosenthal were two of the competitors who ended up playing over 40 games in this 26-round event (along with Mackenzie and our final antagonist), which in Winawer's case was due to his adopted style. He apparently frequently looked for simplification and endgame wins, which led to the tournament book concluding that "the general result is a dull game and the inevitable draw."
Zukertort returned to their discussion in the Winawer Attack of the Spanish in this game, but with reversed colours. He was much more successful in getting a promising position, especially after Winawer's 13... f6 incorrectly opened up the center. Zukertort had the chance to win a pawn with a line he pointed out starting at move 20, but he instead chose trades that left him with a very active Rook. It wasn't able to win anything, however, and the players ended up repeating moves to end the first bout.
For their second game, Winawer demonstrated a motif that the tournament book loathed: an early Bishop for Knight trade. These positions often demand that the Black side play actively to make up for the pawn structure, but it was Winawer who went pushing pawns and going for the attack. He miscalculated his lines starting at around move 11, and once Zukertort castled Queenside, it was apparent that he had kept his extra pawn for basically no cost.
Once again, the opposite-sided castling didn't lead to any serious attacks, as the players traded down into a minor piece endgame. The draw was never going to be easy for Winawer, and he failed to play the most objectively correct moves. He did try to set one of his crafty traps near the end, but Zukertort was never going to fall for it, and he converted the advantage diligently.
Round 13: vs. Berthold Englisch
The unquestionable drawing master of his generation, Englisch would ultimately play 45 games at this event, compared to Zukertort's 33. This tournament was practically an antithesis to his entire playing style, but it apparently affected him less than Rosenthal or Winawer. This guy has a pretty strong constitution, I suppose.
The first two games in this match very effectively demonstrate why Englisch was considered both hard to beat and hard to lose to. The Austrian master definitely had the better game in both, but failed to win either; the first was most certainly a lack of ambition, while the second was more understandable as Zukertort played very well under pressure.
This third game on the other hand is actually something quite special. Zukertort was the winner of the opening after Englisch attempted to gang up on the c-pawn, only to be met with 16. c5. This allowed Zukertort to gain a comfortable Queenside pawn majority, as well as an outpost on c5 that he used for his Bishop, Knight and Rook. However, his tempting 36. Nd6 fork was ultimately incorrect, as Englisch unleashed a sequence of moves that deleted the Rooks and simplified the position greatly.
The resulting Queen and Knight endgame was incredibly complicated, as evidenced by Zukertort's analysis being largely incorrect. He did ultimately find a very pretty sequence starting with 47. Qb5 that won a Knight for a pawn, but the resulting endgame was again far from trivial. Thankfully for Zukertort, Englisch immediately placed his King on the wrong square, and our subject had no trouble boxing it out and using his Knight to vacuum up the remaining pawns. While far from the most instructive endgame ever, this game does help cement Englisch's reputations as one of the hardest masters in the world to beat.
"Conclusion"
Obviously Zukertort's performance here is incredible; 12/13 is an outstanding score, even if the system "gifted" him an additional 1.5 points. What's almost more amazing is how often he got very good positions out of the opening and was allowed to dictate the action, primarily through advantageous Queenside pawn pushes. This is in stark contrast to the others masters' lack of consistency, especially Steinitz, who lost two rather bad games against Blackburne and Rosenthal. The battle for second place is almost more interesting to talk about, as if Zukertort's form remains this good for the rest of his games... well, you'll see next time.
