Romantic Rumble Final: Joseph Blackburne vs. Johannes Zukertort Part 2

After a way-too-long hiatus, it's time to continue this matchup. Check out part 1 here, discussing the 1881 match between these two. We'll be talking about the 1887 match today, and then concluding with the usual tournament roundup in part 3.

We've been away for enough time, so let's get right into the action.

London 1887 Match

This match was, understandably, played under much different conditions than the first. While the 1881 match unofficially cemented Zukertort as the world's strongest (active) player, that was out of the question here. This match was probably played to see just how much Zukertort's health had decayed, as was evidenced by the stakes; £15 to the winner, £10 to the loser, all donated by the barrister Frederic Lewis (who also donated £5 to the Hamburg 1885 tournament to be awarded with the brilliancy prize).

The conditions were that the winner was the first to five wins, draws counting zero, with a time control of 20 moves per hour. All games were played at the British Chess Club, eliminating any "home field advantage" from the first match. Also different was the situation of Steinitz's publication; in the 1881 match, his articles in The Field were published first and so Zukertort could criticize them, but now his International Chess Magazine could be the one responding to Zukertort's personal analysis in The Chess-Monthly. The notes that follow don't discuss this dynamic too much, but the relevant ICM is readily available online if anyone wants to look.

The start of this match was a mirror image of the first, with a quick draw in the first game followed by two wins for Blackburne. The first looked to be a textbook Zukertort game, with early pressure on the Queenside and subtle maneuvers that forced an advantage. However, Blackburne had wholly internalized the importance of fighting back on the opposite wing, and even though his play was objectively incorrect, it ultimately worked. Zukertort faltered on move 50, and resigned on move 54 after dropping too much material. Game three saw the first of the "mental aberrations" which marred the end of Zukertort's London 1883 campaign, where an equal-ish endgame was suddenly thrown away by an ill-considered capture.

Smelling blood in the water, Blackburne castled Queenside in game four and kept up his trademark aggression. Zukertort reacted poorly, dropping a central pawn and forcing himself on the defensive. The rest of the time control was very entertaining, with Blackburne returning the pawn and Zukertort squirming his way into a defensible position, culminating in Blackburne allowing a Queen trade that deflated his attack. The endgame was still better for him, but Zukertort defended well (except for a blip at move 53), securing a very well-earned draw.

The fifth game is what saved Zukertort's match. In a very sharp Vienna, he sacrificed a piece to get Blackburne's King in the open (ala Steinitz Gambit), following a game from Blackburne's 1876 match with Steinitz for 14 moves. The resulting endgame was balanced, but stylistically favoured Zukertort, whose maneuvering was generally superior. Blackburne's inability to properly shuffle was quickly exploited by Zukertort, who planted a Rook on f2 and collected a crucial pawn on move 30, effectively ending the game that didn't actually finish until move 66.

Trying to keep up the momentum, Zukertort again went for one of his textbook Queenside pawn storms, and Blackburne tried to replicate the dynamics of game two. While Blackburne didn't quite get the same magnitude of attack, he did manage to effect a Rook endgame that he thought was a draw. Again, objectively speaking, it should have been better for Zukertort, who did try to make something happen for the next 15 moves, but his 46th move effectively conceded the draw. Endgames are hard, but Zukertort left more than one win on the table by depriving himself of pawn breaks as he does here.

This game marked the end of Zukertort's winning chances for a while, as the next few games were somewhat one-sided. In game seven, he fell for a Legall-esque trap, allowing Blackburne to infiltrate the Queenside and pressure him endlessly. He was the beneficiary of an incorrect pawn sacrifice right before the second time control, but his Bishop landed on the wrong square at move 47, and it ended up powerless to stop the passed d-pawn from advancing. After two short draws, Zukertort opened game 10 with a mistake on move 10. He quickly found himself down the exchange with his King on d2, and he resigned on move 22. Blackburne thus moved up to four of the required five wins, and looked poised to take this match with little resistance.

After a short draw, the next three games proved to be the most interesting of the entire match. Game 12 saw Zukertort try a very dubious exchange sacrifice which ultimately gave him little to no compensation. He was again defending the entire game, and even went down a full Bishop after squeaking out a Queen trade, but ultimately managed to salvage the game with a perpetual check. Game 13 was the opposite, with Blackburne sacrificing a Knight on f7 before blowing the center up. It was he who went wrong in the complications, and Zukertort's counterattack forced the British #1 to sacrifice a further exchange to hold things together. Zukertort missed what he and Steinitz called an "easy win" on move 25, and he instead traded into a material-plus endgame that was drawn by virtue of the Queens. As far as draws are concerned, these two are among the more entertaining examples.

The 14th and final game played out in a similar mode as the second. Zukertort's opening play was sublime, with strong control of d5 and excellent piece centralization netting him a very pleasant endgame. He was better for most of it, but again deprived himself of a pawn break by prematurely cementing a pawn on a safe square. His optimism proved to be his downfall, as he incorrectly sacrificed a pawn to get his King into the attack, thinking his Bishop could outfox Blackburne's Knight. He was incorrect, and ultimately placed his King on the wrong square following a Knight check, allowing Blackburne to sacrifice that Knight and push his two pawns to victory. It's an unfortunate way to end the match, but a thematically consistent one.

Conclusion

Blackburne won the match five to one (with eight draws), righting his wrongs from six years prior. At this point, it's clear that Zukertort was no longer the player (or the man) he used to be; he was playing incredibly fast to save his stamina, was failing to bring the precision for which he was once known, and was making blunders that would never be expected from someone of his caliber. In the context of our contest, I would say that Blackburne was doubtlessly the better player by this point.

Voting will take place after the next chapter, where we'll cover the tournament history of these two. We're almost done! Thanks for your patience.

Once more, a blank copy of this match's games. Do with them what you will.

Cheers