Winner's POV: London 1887
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 1887: Golden Jubilee Celebration?
The third congress of the British Chess Association took place in the final weeks of 1887. One thing to keep in mind moving forward is that this Association alternated the scope of its master tournament each congress - 1886 had an international tournament, this installment was British-only, next year's would be international, and so on.
1887 was a rather eventful year for England, as Queen Victoria celebrated her golden jubilee (50th year of her reign) in June. In previous years, such grand events - notably World Fairs - were used as a backdrop to help with the organization and hosting of international chess tournaments. However, World Fairs were much more accessible to the masses than this jubilee, which was more exclusive to royalty and nobility. There were efforts championed by my chosen nemesis Henry Bird to organize a congress around this event - he called himself "the sole survivor of the 1851 Master Competition" in a letter to the press, no doubt trying to use that congress as inspiration and to seem like an authority on the subject - but they fell flat, and no such congress took place. I have more details on the subject for a future blog post, if anyone is interested, but for the time being we should begin our journey through the event that actually did happen.
Format and Prizes
Ten of the country's strongest players took part in this single all-play-all, with the time control remaining at 20 moves per hour. There were many more side events for lower-level players, preventing the list from being quite as bloated as it was in 1885 (see my previous post on Gunsberg here), and preventing the congress from needing to adopt the German "three games every two days" system.
The prizes were nice and straightforward:
Additionally, each player paid an entrance fee of £1, the sum of which was divided among the non-prize winners in some fashion to (at least partially) compensate everyone. Very cool.
Players
Most of the usual names were present, plus a couple of new faces:
The only master missing from this collection was George Mackenzie, who was in America and Cuba for the year. Him aside, the top of the field was Joseph Blackburne (6th in the world), Isidor Gunsberg (8th), and Amos Burn (16th). Although lower on Edo's list than in previous years, former subjects James Mason and Johannes Zukertort were no less formidable.
The Winner*: Isidor Gunsberg
Despite his very poor performance at Frankfurt earlier in the year (8.5/20), Gunsberg really seems to shine when playing in the BCA - champion in 1885, only half a point shy in 1886, and now he's back as a subject for the third edition. He has reasonable credibility to call himself the strongest player in England, so let's use his games as evidence as we explore the London 1887 tournament from the Winner's POV.
Round 1: vs. James Mason
Our last Gunsberg chapter also saw him play James Mason in the first round, where our subject got the first round loss that was standard for German Chess Federation tournaments. The two have played twice since then, with Gunsberg drawing both games with the black pieces. Today he would have to try for number three.
The tone was set early in this game, as when what was on paper a Four-Knights-Italian-esque opening quickly went in a weird direction, so too did the logic of the following moves. The decisions followed from rather solid fundamentals - Gunsberg closed the center so Mason traded one of his Bishops for a Knight, Mason's Knights went to the Kingside so Gunsberg castled Queenside, etc - but no cohesive plans seemed to come together to benefit from these sound principles. It was Gunsberg who took the initiative following the time control, as even after the trade of Queens, Mason's Knights were stuck in the corner and allowed the Black pieces to roam rather freely.
The long-term advantage was always going to belong to Gunsberg and his Bishop pair, leaving the onus on Mason to find the required activity to hold. His critical moment was on move 35, where he had the option to temporarily give up a pawn to (if accepted) activate both Knights and stabilize. His defence was passive, however, and nowhere near robust enough to survive. Gunsberg's own Knight got to e3, and played a strong leading role in blasting open the position to let the Bishop pair do critical damage against Mason's King.
Round 2: vs. Amos Burn
This has also not been Burn's year, with his performance at Frankfurt being about as disappointing (9.5/20). Gunsberg won their individual encounter, giving him a 2-1 lead in their current head-to-head.
Once more the players decided against much of a theoretical battle, with Gunsberg leaving the book at move seven, then stomping on the book at move eight. This was immediately rewarded with Burn's ninth move opening up his own King to keep his center bolstered. Our subject wasted no time castling Queenside and starting an attack, and despite both players missing some crucial moves, Gunsberg held a commanding advantage through most of the second time control.
Contemporary reports of the event seem to say that Gunsberg's play was a little more "trappy," while Burn's had more of the caution and correctness of the modern (Steinitz-ian) school. This game is the exception, with Burn sacrificing his Queen on move 30 to create a very tricky position - not a trap in the usual sense, but there were ample opportunities for disaster. The critical moment came on move 36, where Gunsberg had to decide whether or not he was allowed to queen his pawn. He chose incorrectly, and the fallout was disastrous.
Round 3: vs. Joseph Blackburne
When I covered this pair's previous encounter, I mentioned that it was perhaps not yet time to call these two rivals, given Blackburne's score against Gunsberg was rather dominant. These two played a match earlier in the year which potentially changes this assessment, as Gunsberg won quite handily (+5-2=6). The next few years will make for an interesting battle at the top of the British chess world.
This game gives us our only look into one of the most popular openings of the Romantic era: the Muzio gambit. The understatement of the century went to The British Chess Magazine, who described this opening choice as risky ("risky I mean in this sense, that if it fails the failure is absolute."). There was some belief that Blackburne was inspired by recent developments from the Russian school - thanks Chigorin - but he deviated from those pretty quickly as well. What did he actually get out of this opening? I'll be honest, I have no idea.
Round 4: vs. William Pollock
These two have played five tournament games since Pollock came onto the Master scene, and Gunsberg has won four of them - he might have won the fifth, but Pollock was able to hold a Rook endgame down two pawns at last year's BCA tournament. No such endgame will be played today, however.
For this tournament, Pollock had an unusual curiosity with the Latvian Gambit, at this time known as the Greco Counter-Gambit (the Latvian distinction wouldn't appear until the early 20th century). Gunsberg accepted what is essentially a reversed King's Gambit, and the players were on their own as early as move three. Just like in the Blackburne game directly above, Pollock had to sacrifice a piece to get his attack rolling; just like in the Blackburne game directly above, Pollock never really got anywhere after this sacrifice. These are some really weird games we have to look at back-to-back, I admit.
Zukertort and Antony Guest both started with 3/3, but they met their matches in this round (Blackburne and Francis Lee respectively), leaving us with five players sharing first with 3/4.
Round 5: vs. Francis Lee
Lee is our newcomer for this event, and I'll be honest, I'm not entirely sure why this is his tournament debut. His most recent event (from what I could find) was a handicap tournament from ~2 years prior, where Lee was in class D - he received Knight odds from the top players. With no activity in between (again, that I could find), and with another player that I'll talk about next causing another issue, Lee has proved to be quite the challenge for me.
This opening was an anti-Berlin in the truest sense of the term, as the game very quickly turned Italian-like in a way that Lee wasn't prepared for. His ninth-move decision to trade on d5 was the start of the troubles, giving Gunsberg clear control of the light squares and the long diagonal. The f-pawn went up the board, weakening Lee's Kingside and getting his Queen a little stuck in the mud. Gunsberg had yet again won the opening battle with relative ease.
Right after the time control, Gunsberg, in his stubborn decision to not trade Queens, sidelined his own and gave Lee the chance to generate counterplay with his own Kingside pawn. After (correctly) placing his King on h2, Lee (incorrectly) moved his Knight, the same one keeping his King safe from checks. This shift in momentum is the one thing Gunsberg needed to reignite his attack, which he executed on the h-file, trapping Lee's King and forcing the game handily.
The only leaders to win their game in this round were Gunsberg and Burn, giving them the share of the lead crossing into the back half of the event.
Round 6: vs. Antony Guest
We've featured Guest in this series before, and he even played in the 1885 edition. However, for this congress, he was initially scheduled to play in the amateur championship, and was only promoted to the master section after serial withdraw-er Arthur Skipworth - wait for it... - withdrew. This once more begs the question, why was Lee set to play in the master section, when even Guest initially wasn't? I don't get it.
For the first time in a while, nothing crazy happened in this Italian-flavoured opening, with both players clearly just wanting to get "a game." Gunsberg's 13th move is the thumbnail for this chapter, not necessarily because of the trap it set (which was pretty easy for Guest to parry), but because the initiative he obtained from the move was surprisingly annoying. His decision to move his King to e7 right at the time control was a sensible one, but it sent quite the message that Guest would have to defend the wings with his life.
This game is too long and too un-concrete to properly summarize, and especially given that Gunsberg was never the most positionally brilliant player, the squeeze he exerted was far from optimal. He still had the easier job of the two players, and did what he could to exert pressure on both sides of the board. It took until just after the second time control for Guest to seriously go astray, but once Gunsberg fully took control of the c-file, he took over in full. To Guest's credit, his defensive play was admirable, and contributed to this game being one of my favourites of the entire tournament.
Round 7: vs. Johannes Zukertort
While this isn't the last tournament Zukertort would compete in - his career (and life) would be ended with a couple of handicap tournaments played in 1888 - this is the last tournament we'll look at featuring him. This game actually made me include an otherwise unplanned chapter in my series (coming next) that features this great player, because if this was the last game I ever showed of Zukertort, I don't think I could forgive myself.
Round 8: vs. Henry Bird
Not only did Bird miss a checkmate in two, but if the reporting is correct, he spent basically zero time thinking before playing the wrong move. Get this guy off my screen...
Round 9: vs. James Mortimer
How exactly Mortimer's "Master" status was acquired is a little nebulous - the British system appears to be more on general reputation, as opposed to the German's more structured, results-oriented system - and it's especially questionable given that he had lost every single game up to this point. Should Gunsberg add his name to the list of winners, he would guarantee at least shared first, so there was everything to play for.
This game is a textbook example of Stigler's law of eponymy, which states that no scientific discovery is named after the person who originally discovered it; 4. Qc4 marks the Hall Variation, despite Gunsberg playing it earlier than, and more successfully than, Mr. John Edmund Hall (we'll see one of Hall's games in this opening in an upcoming chapter). Regardless of the name, this opening was played in typical Gunsberg fashion, who quickly developed his Queenside pieces before castling long and throwing out his f-pawn, clearly indicating his desire to go on an attack.
This series has a tendency to end on rather anticlimactic notes, and this game is really no exception. Mortimer ended up pushing the pawns in front of his own King, perhaps trying to block up the structure somewhat, but he failed miserably. The tactics all went very cleanly for Gunsberg, who picked up a Rook en route to a very clearly winning endgame. Mortimer's 0/9 is also an achievement too, I guess.
Conclusion?
Imagine scoring 8/9 and not outright winning the tournament. Well, neither Burn nor Gunsberg had to imagine, and thus a playoff had to be played off in order to determine the overall winner. However, in light of my last post being way too long, and due to a couple things I mentioned in the post, I'll be saving that for later.
The next post will feature Burn's games from the event, followed by the tiebreaker, and then this event will be properly concluded. Will Gunsberg win his second BCA championship? Will Burn finally survive a tiebreak match? All will be revealed... eventually (I have no idea when I'll find the time to write the stupid thing, but I will, eventually, I hope...).
