Winner's POV: Bradford 1888
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.
Bradford 1888: Gunsberg Can't Be Stopped
Today we'll be looking at the "other" tournament from 1888 - technically this event was more important at the time than Nuremberg (see here), so perhaps that should be the "other" tournament.
As I've mentioned before, the British Chess Association was a well-oiled machine in terms of event organizing, so there's very little to talk about in terms of the context surrounding the event. Instead, I'll use this space to talk about the closest thing to drama this tournament experienced, which was at the hands of the infamous troublemaker Arthur Skipworth.
Skipworth was at the head of the Counties' Chess Association (CCA), whose goal was to provide regular competition for chess amateurs (those who couldn't/wouldn't compete in master tournaments). He was also one of the top competitors at the Association's forming in the late 60s and early 70s, and used this reputation to get his own invites to master tournaments. However, he had a terrible reputation for withdrawing: aside from his rarely-mentioned withdrawal from the London 1868/69 tournament (see here), he had famously withdrawn from London 1883 at the halfway point (see here and here), then again at Nottingham 1886 after the first round (see here), and most recently at London 1887 before the first round when his schedule couldn't be accommodated (he's not mentioned in my posts but you should still read here and here anyway).
After playing the first six rounds (losing every game except for a draw with John Owen), Skipworth again requested to withdraw, citing ill health as he had in 1883. The response from the organizing committee is too funny not to share:
Skipworth protested their refusal to return his deposit money, but this protest was ignored; the money was spent on champagne, and a toast to Skipworth's health and better form was "duly honoured!" I imagine this is the last time I'll talk about Skipworth, who would never again take part in a master tournament, and whose name has come up quite frequently despite only one of his games being covered (it's in the London 1883 Part 1 chapter, if anyone is curious).
Format and Prizes
Single all-play-all with a 20 moves-per-hour time control remained in effect, though with the large number of competitors (18 at the start), three games every two days had to be played.
The prizes were very similar to those in 1886:
The top prize remained unchanged, though fourth and fifth increased somewhat, with a sixth prize being added. There doesn't appear to have been a brilliancy prize on offer this time around, however.
Players
Per Edo's 1888 list, the top of the field was Isidor Gunsberg (2nd in the world), Max Weiss (7th), Joseph Blackburne (8th), George Mackenzie (10th), Curt von Bardeleben (11th), and Amos Burn (15th).
The Winner: Isidor Gunsberg
Gunsberg may not be the most consistent player on the board, but with his three BCA titles in four events, he's certainly the most consistent player among its ranks. Let's follow Gunsberg's first successful title defence as we go through the Bradford 1888 tournament from the Winner's POV.
Round 1: vs. Edmund Thorold
Thorold is one of the oldest and strongest members of the CCA, winning their inaugural tournament in 1870 (scoring 8/9, compared to Skipworth's 3/9). Although not quite at master strength, he scored some respectable victories over Weiss and Jean Taubenhaus.
While I wouldn't exactly call Gunsberg an opening expert or much of a theoretician, he's never been especially bad in the opening. This game, however, saw him play a poor move as early as move five. Moves six and nine, involving the same Knight, were both costly mistakes, and Gunsberg saw himself lose a pawn and be subjected to a horrible attack before the first time control was even halfway concluded. His defensive Queen sacrifice is left for the reader to analyze themselves.
Round 2: vs. William Pollock
One thing the Germans do better than the Brits is compile all of the games into a single book with complete annotations. My very brief search only found four of this tournament's games with notes (notwithstanding those published in the Field for which I don't feel like purchasing a subscription), all of which were written by Pollock. His notes will be appearing in some games later in this chapter.
The press commented that this game was mostly an even one that was lost by Pollock's refusal to play for the draw, but this isn't exactly true. His 11th move allowed Gunsberg to trade off his Knights for Pollock's Bishops, and it was very quickly evident that the Knights didn't have good squares. Gunsberg threw his Kingside pawns forward before castling Queenside, and it was very clear who was calling the shots.
Pollock's 23rd move initiated a sequence that could somewhat justify the press's claim, as his attempt to activate his Knight resulted in him just losing it. Such an active player as Pollock was bound to self-destruct in such a passive position, in my opinion, so this result makes sense.
Round 3: vs. Henry Bird
Bird started this event with 2/2, scoring an expected win over John Hall and a less-expected win over Weiss. Interestingly, Bird appears to have been one of Weiss's bracket demons, as the Englishman scored 3-1 in their decisive games (I'll expand on this point in a future chapter).
The theory-evading Bird only deviated from known games with his 10th move, showing his usual aggressive intentions by getting both Bishops on the long diagonal before sacrificing a pawn. The sacrifice had some merit, and Bird had some decent chances for an attack, but Gunsberg was incredibly crafty. His quiet King move on his 26th allowed him to pick up a second pawn, and while there was one path Bird could take to keep things interesting, he went for the direct approach that was easily defendable. I present to you yet another goose egg for Mr. Bird.
After this round, Curt von Bardeleben was the only player on 3/3 (though two of his games were still adjourned, which I'm continuing to pretend never happened). Mackenzie and Taubenhaus were a half point behind, coincidentally both conceding a draw against James Mason.
Round 4: vs. Max Weiss
This game was a Scandinavian, and apparently about as uneventful a draw as they come. It not being published makes sense.
Round 5: vs. John Hall
Hall was one of Bradford's top local players, and in tournament play won the CCA's "Class II" tournament in 1887. As for this tournament, he started with 0/4, and Gunsberg didn't help that matter.
One subscription I have purchased is for the British Newspaper Archive, so I can snag the following excerpt from the Yorkshire Post (hereafter just "Post"): "In the game Hall v. Gunsberg, the former played his own variation in the centre gambit, which consists in playing the Queen to c4, instead of to e3 when attacked by the Knight at c6. Gunsberg treated the defence in a different manner to Bird and Mortimer [whom he played in rounds one and six - Steak]. Hall came into the middle game with some advantage. Here, however, he was quite outplayed, and being, soon after the 30th move, two pawns minus, and with a difficult position also he made a mistake, lost a piece, and had to resign."
Round 6: vs. Joseph Blackburne
Blackburne and Gunsberg shared first at the British Chess Club handicap tournament earlier in the year, the last tournament Johannes Zukertort played before he suddenly passed. The Black Death started this tournament with his characteristic first-round loss, and suffered a second in the previous round to Weiss. This was still better than his start at the previous BCA tournament (see here) so there wasn't yet anything to panic over.
Gunsberg's opening system changed after Thorold showed he clearly didn't understand the Vienna, and he instead switched to the Giuoco Pianissimo where he tried to castle Queenside. This was dubious at best, and he was on the receiving end of a pawn storm through the first time control. He "won" a pawn shortly after, and Blackburne had the chance to really put him to the sword with a well-timed exchange sacrifice. One of Blackburne's weaknesses seems to be missing such exchange sacrifices (not the worst weakness to have, really), and his alternative allowed Gunsberg to not only defend but immediately counterattack.
As is often the case in these wild opposite-side castling games, the moves could be subjected to much more scrutiny than my notes gave. The move worth focusing on is Blackburne's 40th, right at the time control, where he had a choice of where his Queen should go. He chose incorrectly, dropping the exchange in the tactical melee that followed and having no chance to defend the resulting endgame.
This was the round where Skipworth resigned, so scores are a little nebulous moving forward with byes and such. For future scoring updates, I'll pretend whoever got the bye actually scored a win against him (which would be likely given his supposed bad health). Up to this point, von Bardeleben remained perfect with 6/6, a point and a half clear of the chasing pack including Gunsberg, Mackenzie, and Weiss.
Round 7: vs. Alfred Rumboll
I have no picture of this gentleman, no game to show, and not even much of a report from the Post: "The former [Rumboll] was no match for his younger antagonist [Gunsberg], who quickly placed a win to his credit."
Round 8: vs. John Owen
It's been a while since we've seen Mr. Owen, but he'd been active enough in the CCA over the years. His last master tournament appearance was a 1.5/10 last-place finish at the Hereford 1885 tournament (referenced in my last Blackburne post), so his 2.5/7 score up to this point was actually an improvement.
Owen played this weird French system three times in this tournament, and he lost all three times. While there's sometimes utility in playing weird openings in the sense that your opponent is in unclear waters, the most benefit Owen derived from this was that Gunsberg didn't find the most crushing wins. He didn't actually encounter any real obstacles and won the quickest game of the round.
The biggest shock of the round was doubtlessly Bardeleben's loss as White to serial cellar-dweller James Mortimer, which allowed Gunsberg and Mackenzie to join him in the lead. Weiss could have joined with a win, but he lost to Burn who himself trailed the leaders by a half point. Speaking of...
Round 9: vs. Amos Burn
These two had an even record after their tiebreak match, each winning three tournament games and drawing three more. Let's see game #10.
The players repeated their first tiebreak game, with Gunsberg being the one to deviate at move seven. His attack in that tiebreak game was premature, but in response to Burn's Queenside activity here, it was practically mandated. When the first time control passed, it was clear that Gunsberg was for choice, and this prompted Burn to break in the center with e4. This was the correct move, but it was met with Gunsberg sacrificing his Bishop on g3. It couldn't be accepted, and when it was sacrificed again three moves later, it couldn't be accepted there either. Unfortunately for Burn, Gunsberg was just on a roll.
Round 10: vs. Jean Taubenhaus
At the 1886 tournament, Gunsberg apparently could have drawn his game against Taubenhaus, but declined a Queen trade and lost in the complications. That half point separated Gunsberg from the winners, so there was doubtlessly a score to settle.
Shown here is the second entry into Gunsberg's collection of Queenside castling Italian games, which is just as inadvisable here as it was the first time. Taubenhaus had the option of castling Kingside and having the faster attacked, but he joined Gunsberg on the wrong side of the board and allowed our subject to do the pressing. Trades in the center opened the door for chaos, and with Gunsberg having the safer King, he welcomed this development.
While I don't have access to the players' time usage, I think I can safely assert that Taubenhaus had less time approaching move 40. My first piece of evidence is his pawn sacrifice on move 30, which allowed him free tempi on Gunsberg's Queen that had to be carefully met in order to not lose her. My second piece is that Taubenhaus blundered a Knight on move 39, then ran out of time before he could make move 40.
Round 11: vs. Charles Locock
Locock was an Oxford graduate, and got regular practice in both inter-university matches as well as the CCA. He won the Amateur Championship of the 1887 BCA congress, played in a similar format as the German Hauptturniers (a "qualifying" group followed by a final group), and it was to this tournament that the young (26ish) master was invited to play.
This is, unfortunately, not the game one would want for their debut. Locock was known as one of the university's most brilliant tacticians, and here he had cooked up a very impressive sacrificial attack over the first 18 moves. Then he placed his Queen on h6, clearly missing that Gunsberg could defend against all checkmating attacks with 20... f6. Oops.
This game was doubly fortunate for Gunsberg, as Mackenzie would only manage a draw against Weiss, giving our subject a half point buffer going into the next, all-important round.
Round 12: vs. George Mackenzie
After winning the gargantuan Frankfurt 1887 tournament (see here), Mackenzie would also win the Scottish Championship played just a couple weeks before this tournament. He was in good form and with good practice, making him among the more dangerous players left for Gunsberg to face.
Gunsberg varied his fifth move in this Italian, and the players were completely on their own a couple moves later. This game is novel for a reason, and that reason is Mackenzie's play was very poor. His King wasn't allowed to leave the center, while Gunsberg long castled again (correctly this time) before breaking open the center with d4. His pieces all found good squares - except the Rook on h1, which didn't need to play the game - and he won a piece shortly after the time control. A disappointing game, but an important result for our subject.
Round 13: vs. James Mason
Why was this game published?
Round 14: vs. James Mortimer
Mortimer was presently on 4.5/12 (ignoring his bye against Skipworth), which is a solid improvement over his 0/9 last year.
Gunsberg continued his weird Italian experiments, pushing b4 on move 6 à la Bird's Attack. The first few moves were very chaotic, but if Mortimer had committed to play on the d-file, he might have made something happen. He instead chose the f-file, and when he incorrectly played 15... Bf5, he gave Gunsberg a free tempo to go on a Kingside attack. Despite not castling Queenside, our subject still progressed quickly, picking up an exchange right at the time control and converting by the second.
Round 15: bye
Of Gunsberg's closest competitors, von Bardeleben (at the expense of Weiss), Burn, and Mackenzie all won their games, keeping all four of their hopes alive going into the final two rounds.
Round 16: vs. Curt von Bardeleben
Per the Post: "Gunsberg v. Bardeleben was a carefully played game. Too much depended on the result for either player to run the slightest risk, and the end was, as might be expected under these circumstances, a draw." Given that the game against James Mason made its way into the press, I see no reason why this one couldn't have.
Due to a few games still being unfinished, there was still some deal of uncertainty at the top; however, under my "adjournment doesn't exist" system, Gunsberg had a full point lead over Mackenzie going into this final round, meaning that the tournament was his as long as he didn't lose.
Round 17: vs. Francis Lee
My search for why this guy was a master is still going (I feel like I have another one of these every chapter). I made a comparison between him and Antony Guest in the last BCA chapter, and at this congress, Guest played in and won the amateur championship. Lee beat Guest in 1887 and finished a half point ahead of him at the end, so maybe it makes sense that he's here. Maybe.
Needing only a draw, Gunsberg nonetheless played very actively on the Black side of this Ruy Lopez, aided by Lee's decisions to trade on c6 and push his pawn to f4. Gunsberg's Queen's Rook raced over to g6 to accompany the g-pawn going down the board, but things weren't so easy for him. Lee had the initiative first, and if he had placed his Bishop on the solid d6 square, Gunsberg's life may have been difficult. With 29. Ncd2, he clearly forgot that his e-pawn was pinned, and Gunsberg fired off f7-f5 with great impact.
Lee was in the bottom half of the crosstable at this point, so I can't imagine he had that much energy going into this game to begin with. Having to defend against one of the world's most successful attackers would be difficult on a good day, but this was far from that. Lee failed to properly meet Gunsberg's g-file onslaught, dropped an exchange, and crowned this year's champion.
Conclusion
For the first time in literally 30 years, someone had successfully defended their BCA title (Johann Löwenthal won consecutive tournaments in 1857/58). Gunsberg's consistency within these BCA tournaments is very remarkable given his playing style, and these successes no doubt fueled him to try for a match with Wilhelm Steinitz in the following years - we'll discuss this more shortly.
Mackenzie's good form continued as well, his placement more than avenging his 6/12 score in his last appearance. Curt von Bardeleben's result here is arguably the best of his career, though he would win a smaller tournament in Leipzig in December (which I will not cover as only 1-2 of his games survived). James Mason's return to the top of a crosstable was a welcome sight, as apparently poor health had impeded his usual genius. The results of Burn, Blackburne, and maybe Weiss could be seen as somewhat disappointing, but winning a prize in a tournament of this size and caliber is an achievement in itself.
And with that, another BCA congress comes to a close. The next one of these - a national master only tournament - will be much smaller, but the next chapter certainly won't. When you see me next, we'll be exploring possibly the dumbest tournament of the century. I look forward to seeing you there (but I don't look forward to writing it).
