Winner's POV: Breslau 1889
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.
Breslau 1889: Tarrasch Starts his Streak
Ten years ago, the Deutsche Schachbund held its first ever congress (see here), and whether they knew it or not, the organization would grow to become the gold standard of international tournament organization. This particular tournament was a standout in a rather busy period for chess masters, with New York taking place earlier in the year, and future events being prepared in France and the Netherlands. The year was shaping up to arguably the best ever in terms of chess as a sport.
In modern times, the Breslau 1889 tournament is likely best-known for being the starting point of Siegbert Tarrasch's legendary four-tournament winning streak, a monumental record that nobody could come close to matching. In a handful of ways, we're entering one of the more exciting periods of chess history, and I'm looking more forward to exploring with you all with each chapter I write. But all that is for the future - for today, we're just exploring Breslau.
Format and Prizes
Eighteen masters took part in this single all-play-all, with the standard 20 move per hour time control and the equally standard three games being played every two days. Getting through a tournament of this size in only two weeks is quite the feat, even though it's quite exhausting (as we'll see toward the end).
The prizes, per the tournament book:
Further prizes were added at the bottom, which was a welcome addition in the face of an eventual four-way tie for 4th.
Players
Using the 1889 Edo lists once more, the top of this particular field is Tarrasch (2nd in the world behind Steinitz), Amos Burn (6th), Johann Bauer (7th), Isidor Gunsberg (9th), and Curt von Bardeleben (10th).
The Winner: Siegbert Tarrasch
Doing chapters on Tarrasch is weird; Dreihundert Schachpartien (I'm using the German version now) is both a blessing and a curse, since the notes are so extensive that I could arguably make an entire post just copying what he wrote. Of course, he's not always correct, and I spend almost as much time deciding which of his lines I won't include. Hopefully the notes I've written are acceptable, and they do a good job aiding us as we explore the Breslau 1889 tournament from the Winner's POV.
Round 1: vs. Curt von Bardeleben
Going into this event, there would have been a very interesting discussion about which of these players was stronger. The edge would have had to go to Bardeleben; he finished higher than Tarrasch at Frankfurt (see here), won their individual game at a national tournament played in Leipzig at the end of 1888, and had actually taken part in an international tournament outside of Germany (Bardeleben participated at Bradford, see here). With the power of hindsight, we're fully aware of who ultimately won this contest, of course.
Bardeleben's treatment of the Petrov is not to be recommended, with his Bb4 and exchange on c3 ala Winawer leaving him behind in development early. Tarrasch's pieces harmonized very quickly, applying acute pressure to the weak d-pawn Bardeleben had left himself with. As the time control approached, Tarrasch gave a forgiving-looking check, but the removal of the Knight from its strong post on f5 actually removed all of his advantage. The resulting trades left little more than equality, and the players called it a day after only 25 moves.
Round 2: vs. Johannes Metger
When we last looked at Metger's games, I called into question his master title. I have since answered my own question: he won the Hauptturnier of the Leipzig 1876 tournament, hence why his first appearance was in the Leipzig 1877 tournament (the celebrated "Anderssen Jubilee"). Anyone wishing to learn more about the event can read about it in the 1876 edition of the Deutsche Schachzeitung starting on page 241.
Metger's treatment of the Bishop's gambit was, as I learned after writing the notes to this game, the same as what Hermann von Gottschall sprung on him at the Nuremberg 1888 tournament, deviating at the 13th move only. He had a great structural advantage with Tarrasch's isolated and doubled c-pawns being easy to blockade, and the question was whether Tarrasch would be able to drum up a sufficiently challenging counterattack - not the usual King's Gambit dynamics we're used to.
Tarrasch seemed to have made progress when he forced a Rook trade on e2, getting a pawn one square away from Queening and opening up Metger's King in the process. Metger's defence was very challenging, however, and he forced Tarrasch to find the precise move 33... h5! if he wanted his attack to succeed. Tarrasch didn't find it, instead trading off the Rooks to enter an endgame down two pawns but retaining winning chances in his strong g-pawn.
The endgame was, as is often the case, incredibly complicated, with both players making moves after the time control that swung the evaluation wildly. The last mistake went to Tarrasch, who incorrectly traded down to a pure King and pawn endgame that was objectively lost. Yet, perhaps the last mistake actually went to Metger, who offered a draw in a winning position, though whether because of time trouble, lack of confidence, or some other reason I don't know. The result aside, after my questioning of him last time, this game fully absolves Metger of any suspicions I had of his masterly abilities.
Round 3: vs. Max Harmonist
Harmonist handily defeated Tarrasch at Nuremberg, but that was only after Tarrasch had done some winning of his own, playing a beautiful exchange sacrifice in Frankfurt that meant the score was even going into this game.
Rather than play a third French opening as a tiebreaker, the players gave us our first ever look at the legendary Berlin endgame. Max Weiss was able to win it against Schallopp in Frankfurt, but the tournament book noted that recent analysis had shown the opening to quite possibly be better for Black.
This tournament is often regarded as being dominated by Tarrasch's "correct" school of play, and while we'll be looking at many games that fly in the face of every reasonable definition of "correct," this game undeniably deserves that credit. Harmonist clearly had no idea how to make any progress, while Tarrasch gradually built up space and restricted his opponent, ultimately getting a decisive passed pawn on the Queenside.
After three rounds, we were left with only one perfect score: Jacques Mieses won over Mason, Gossip, and Paulsen to take an early lead.
Round 4: vs. George Gossip
This event is strong enough that Gossip is the one earning my "why is this guy a master?" question. His best result appears to have been a 3rd place finish at the Australian Jubilee in 1887, though I can't speak to the strength of the competition. As we'll see in future entries, Gossip was very familiar with the bottom of the crosstable.
Continuing one of the points I made in the Harmonist discussion, this game is my prime example of decidedly not-"correct" play from Tarrasch, who lost two tempi in the opening to double Gossip's pawns. It did ultimately work out, with Gossip essentially playing nothing but bad moves for the rest of the game, including at least one intentional piece sacrifice (whether the second was intentional is up for interpretation) that accomplished little outside of losing said piece.
Mieses was finally brought down by the equally ambitious Schallopp, opening up the door to a huge shared lead on 3/4, including Tarrasch.
Round 5: vs. Johann Berger
The defending Viennese Drawing Master is back to defend his title, and with Tarrasch specifically, he has a good shot at doing so - their previous two encounters were both draws, though with the colours being reversed for this game, anything could happen.
Tarrasch introduced a theoretical novelty on move eight that, as he writes himself, completely refuted Black's particular defence in this Spanish game. The game earned the attention of both Steinitz at the time and Nimzowitsch years after the fact, both of whom criticized Tarrasch's play, particularly his 13th move. Whether or not his technique was squeaky clean, it's the kind of position Tarrasch would later be famous for playing, so consider this another early look into what kind of player he'd later become.
The turning point of the game came at move 32, where Berger probably miscalculated precisely how Tarrasch would trade off the major pieces. The in-between check 34. Ne7+ left Tarrasch with a winning King and pawn endgame, and the Austrian endgame composer was forced to show off his practical defensive skills. He initially did incredibly well - Tarrasch mistimed his b4-b5 break, and for a brief moment, a draw was within Berger's grasp. But as always, the last mistake is the one that determines the result, and Berger's King going the wrong way on move 51 sealed the deal in favour of our subject.
Round 6: vs. Emmanuel Schiffers
The Russian representatives still had a long way to go if they wanted to live up to the example set by Chigorin, with Schiffers's only win coming against his compatriot, Alapin - whose only win was against Metger so far.
Tarrasch played the c6 exchange in this Double Spanish, an exchange that rarely gives the first player much of anything. That pattern continued in this game, as it was Schiffers who was given the first chance to get a concrete objective, and he did so with the win of a pawn. When Tarrasch decided to trade both pairs of Rooks, this came at the cost of a second pawn. Being barely into the second time control and already lacking two pawns is not the sign of a "correct" game.
Tarrasch's saving grace is that neither of Schiffers's extra pawns were too impressive; his Queenside pawns were doubled, and his f-pawn wasn't able to be pushed without exposing his King to checks. And indeed, when Schiffers pushed his f-pawn, Tarrasch's Queen and Bishop worked together to keep the Black King at bay. I'm not going to pretend to know whether there was actually a win, but neither Tarrasch nor Schiffers could find it, and our subject saved yet another lost game.
Round 7: vs. Johann Bauer
The winner of last edition's Hauptturnier got off to a respectable 3.5/6 start, though his last win was back in the second round. He would need to pick up a few more if he wanted his maiden campaign to continue going well.
This game is our first look (of multiple, worry not) at Tarrasch's Defence to the Queen's Gambit, 3... c5, shamelessly given a ! multiple times in Tarrasch's writing. The pioneering game was not a good one, with Tarrasch's 5... c4 novelty doing very little to stop him from getting the dreaded IQP. After that, things improved for him, as Bauer's straightforward attempts to win the pawn didn't succeed, and Tarrasch's pieces became sufficiently active - pay special attention to that gorgeous Knight on c4.
There's very little to actually discuss in this game. Although Tarrasch had full compensation for the weak pawn, Bauer's position was so structurally sound that there wasn't really a weakness for him to exploit. The wood was thus chopped, and while Tarrasch did force Bauer to find a specific Queen sequence just before move 40, it wasn't enough to move the needle.
The deadlock at the top was finally broken this round, with Burn taking clear first on the back of a win over Bardeleben. His 5.5/7 gave him a half point lead over Gunsberg, Mieses, and Tarrasch going into the afternoon round.
Round 8: vs. James Mason
Mason had a history of starting tournaments quite well, then relaxing in the later half and giving up ground. This tournament saw the opposite, with Mason suffering two defeats right at the start before clawing his way back to 4/7. Would he finally be forced to exert himself if he wanted to end in the money?
Tarrasch didn't seem to play the main lines against anybody's Petrov, choosing to instead transpose into the Exchange French in this game. That's about the extent of the interesting points in this game; Mason's 13th and 14th moves introduced weaknesses in his position, and Tarrasch wasted no time collecting a pawn while maintaining an attack on another. It was a strategically trivial game that returned Tarrasch to the leaders' group after Burn could only manage a draw against Metger.
Round 9: vs. Jacques Mieses
This game was of immense importance for the tournament standings, with Mieses being the third member of the leading group at this stage. It was also important for Tarrasch personally, as Mieses beat him twice during the 1888 tournaments - a record that simply cannot stand.
Mieses would spend most of his career trying to collect brilliancy prizes - simaginfan has written about them here - and it was very clear that 16. Bh4 was an attempt to do just that. Tarrasch obviously didn't take the bait, and that poor Bishop sat on the sideline for the entire middlegame. There were no flashy moves from our subject, who invaded the center and worked his magic to slowly build up to a winning endgame.
The Bishop was never going to be freed without Mieses parting with a pawn, and he did so just in time to thrust forward with 35. d5. Tarrasch took the bait, and suddenly all of the central pawns disappeared just as Mieses freed his Bishop. There was enough activity to hold, but being down a pawn with the worse structure meant that Mieses tried to find purely active ways to hold. This approach didn't work out for him, and he returned to a losing position, though he fought on to the very end in the hopes of getting another swindle.
Burn was held to another draw, this time by James Mason, so Tarrasch had the sole lead for the first time going into the second half.
Round 10: vs. Johannes Minckwitz
These two also played in round 10 at Hamburg, where Tarrasch received some horrible opening advice from Zukertort - in a particular line of the Scotch, Zukertort recommended 11. Qd2, when Wilfried Paulsen had previously played 11. Qd3 and scored a draw. Tarrasch took the advice, played Qd2, and resigned the game on move 21. Add this to the list of scores that need to be settled.
This game doesn't really feel like one that comes from a player with a score to settle. Tarrasch obtained a pleasant opening, but his theoretical novelty on move 11 (a particularly cursed move) didn't accomplish anything. He commented in his book that he was feeling generally off this day, which might explain why he allowed Minckwitz such a free initiative. Fortunately for our subject, Minckwitz didn't press the attack as hard as he could have, instead shuffling his Queen around for a few moves before trading it off.
Round 11: vs. Emil Schallopp
I'm pleasantly surprised that Schallopp was right in the hunt at this point, being only a point behind Tarrasch. A win here would put him in contention for the win, which would be quite cathartic after his long career.
Unfortunately, not only would Schallopp not win this game, he actually lost it quite badly. The first 20 or so moves were actually quite interesting, and give us a good look at Schallopp's traditionally Romantic play. But unfortunately, he simply made a terrible blunder on move 23, trading off an irrelevant Black Bishop for a very crucial defender in the White Bishop. This isn't the most anticlimactic game we'll see, but it's up there.
Round 12: vs. Alexander Fritz
Prior to this game, the shortest game we've ever looked at in this series is (I believe) Kolisch - Geake, 1860 (see here). Tarrasch broke that record in this game, incorrectly capturing a pawn and being forced to accept a repetition that produced a result one move quicker.
Round 13: vs. Louis Paulsen
This is, unfortunately, our last time covering Herr Paulsen in this series. He would pass away in the Summer of 1891, unable to fulfil his desire to return to England (he hadn't been since his successes in the early 60s). In their obituary, The Chess-Monthly somberly noted following his death, along with the losses of Anderssen and Zukertort: "The period of romanticism has gone, and the new school will admit even prosaic mediocrity."
In our final look at Mr. Paulsen, he played his favourite Sicilian, innovating as usual and introducing the Boleslavsky variation. Paulsen initially got a very nice position, though his choice to collect the Bishop pair in exchange for a permanently weak d-pawn was perhaps not the way to challenge Tarrasch. It was another one of those maneuvering battles where Tarrasch has plenty of space, but he has to break down the greatest defender of this generation. It wasn't an easy task in Nuremberg, and it's no easier here.
Tarrasch seemed to be making progress up through move 30, where Paulsen moved his Queen one square too far and allowed Tarrasch free reign on the Queenside. Energetic as always, Paulsen came crashing through in the center, and suddenly things weren't so clear cut. Whether influenced by the tournament situation or not, Tarrasch switched to playing defensively, and while he succeeded in not succumbing to the attack, he did not succeed in obtaining more than a draw. A fantastic final game from Paulsen, who I will doubtlessly be making a post about in the future.
Round 14: vs. Semion Alapin
Prior to this game, the shortest game we've ever looked at in this series is Tarrasch - Fritz 1889 (scroll up literally two games). Alapin broke that record in this game, blundering a piece on move five.
Thanks to this win, plus Burn and Mieses suffering defeats to Alapin (in round 13) and Blackburne respectively, Tarrasch had a 1.5-point lead at this stage. He still had to get through the "Big 3" of English chess - Blackburne, Burn, Gunsberg - so there was still room for drama.
Round 15: vs. Joseph Blackburne
This is one of those rivalries that would have been so much better had these players been closer together in age. Fun fact, Blackburne actually had a positive record against Tarrasch in the 1800s (four wins to three, if I've counted correctly), but wins by Tarrasch at Ostend 1905 and St. Petersburg 1914 pushed him over the edge. Alas, time is cruel and unforgiving.
This is the game that really made me question just how much I should be looking at Dreihundert Schachpartien, because holy guacamole the notes are dense. It makes sense why: Blackburne chose a setup with plenty of latent aggression, and rather than try to diffuse it directly, Tarrasch banked on surviving the attack for just long enough before he could counterattack in the center. He ultimately succeeded, though there were many resources for both players that didn't exactly materialize in the game.
I'll be honest with you, this game is too complex for me to properly annotate. Those wishing to properly digest this monster should procure a blank version (see here) and go through it themselves. Maybe go through it with Tarrasch's book as well, if you're feeling extra brave.
Round 16: vs. Isidor Gunsberg
This rivalry, on the other hand, has less to do with age gaps and more that Tarrasch is just the better player. Gunsberg won their encounter in Hamburg, but Tarrasch evened the score in Frankfurt, and would overall score the majority of wins in their rivalry (we'll crunch the numbers in a later post).
Gunsberg tried Steinitz's defence in the three Knights, a befuddling decision for a handful of reasons: he was =4th in the standings with no need to take risks, and Steinitz had already declared that he believed the opening to be busted. Indeed, Gunsberg got a horrible position out of the opening, having his center compromised and allowing Tarrasch to delay castling until move 18. As expected, this was immediately followed up with Gunsberg pushing his g-pawn, providing ample opportunities for swindling.
As Tarrasch advanced his Queenside pawns, it became clear that Gunsberg didn't have nearly enough gas for the attack, so he switched plans. He sacrificed a pawn, but did so in a way that he was able to pressure Tarrasch's passed b-pawn. But this time it was Tarrasch's turn to be crafty, opening up the f-file and forcing Gunsberg to worry about his King. In time trouble, Gunsberg failed to properly coordinate, and although he won the b-pawn, Tarrasch crashed through on the f-file, winning Gunsberg's Queen (and the tournament) in brutal fashion.
Round 17: vs. Amos Burn
This game was more or less a formality, with Burn himself having a full point buffer over his closest followers. The game could have been a quick draw, and I imagine that's what Burn was going for with his fifth move, but clearly exhaustion was playing a big role in both players' decision making. A draw was eventually reached, but if the tournament situation mandated Burn playing for the win, it was well within his grasp.
Conclusion
It's been a while since we've seen domination of this magnitude. To go through a tournament of this size and caliber undefeated, as Tarrasch did, is absolutely incredible. At these tournaments especially, there's a surprisingly high proportion of first round games lost by the tournament winner, but Tarrasch comfortably broke that trend. This is truly magnificent work.
Amos Burn continued to prove that he was a tournament force, coming in clear second and only losing one game to Alapin (who was something of a bracket demon for Burn, beating him at Frankfurt as well). Mieses also had a standout result, coming in clear third in his first international master tournament, no small feat for a player with as unpredictable a style as he. The last prizes went to the group on 10/17, noteworthy among them Johann Bauer - this year's recipient of the Viennese Drawing Master title, beating Berger with 10 draws to 9 - and the 56-year old Paulsen, who finally won a prize in his final ever DSB appearance.
The biggest disappointments have to be Blackburne and Mason, two consistent prize-winners in almost every previous event. Blackburne's case is especially interesting; he ended up forfeiting his final game against Bardeleben, as the German had multiple adjourned games that needed playing off, and Blackburne had to return to England. Had that result been different (Bardeleben had an extra pawn in a Rook endgame, but was by no means completely winning) we may have had a rather different prize distribution.
This marks the last big tournament of the decade; the last events I have planned will be relatively small affairs (though sufficiently full of intrigue still), and then we're gonna do something a little different to close out the decade. It'll be a lot of fun, so I hope to see you there.
