Winner's POV: London 1887 Part 2

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: Burn is Back

This is the second part of our look into this British championship-esque event. See part one here.

As the crosstable at the end of either chapter will show, Amos Burn would have won this event if any of the conventional tiebreaks were used. They weren't, and he had to contest a playoff match with Isidor Gunsberg, but we'll get to that. For now, we have another perspective of the main event to go through.

The Winner*: Amos Burn

You know the drill, let's look at (more of) the London 1887 tournament from the Winner's POV.

Round 1: vs. Francis Lee

As far as I know, this game wasn't preserved, which is partially why Gunsberg was the subject of the previous post: all of his games are available, while some of Burn's are missing. I'll instead borrow the words of the January 1888 edition of The British Chess Magazine (hereafter "BCM"): "In his game against Lee, [Burn] had a more difficult task than might have been expected, considering this was Lee's first game in a Master Tournament. Lee defended with a French of a very close form, evidently looking for a draw; but at length the younger master had to haul down his flag." (vol. 8, p. 30)

Round 2: vs. Isidor Gunsberg

We already looked at this game in the previous chapter. Here it is again:

Round 3: vs. Johannes Zukertort

In the previous chapter, I mentioned that Zukertort's bad game against Gunsberg was partially what inspired this chapter. Another part was that this game in itself is actually really good and needs to be shown.

This Queen's Gambit Declined was very professionally played, with Burn managing to inflict hanging pawns upon his opponent, but not having a very good square for his Queen. Things were equal through the first time control, when Burn suddenly got ambitious and threw forward his g-pawn. All this accomplished was the removal of his Queen from defending the d4 square, and Zukertort seized a powerful initiative starting with 23... d4!

As I also mentioned in the previous post, Zukertort would pass away before the next BCA tournament - he suffered a hemorrhagic stroke in June, while the tournament was slated for August - and thus this is the final game of his we'll be looking at in this series. I'm satisfied with this entry; I hope you all are, and I hope he would be.

Round 4: vs. Henry Bird

Unfortunately, Bird's game against Burn was preserved, so we have to look at it. Or at least, I have to post it, you can skip it if you want. I won't tell anybody.

Round 5: vs. James Mortimer

Mortimer was criticized for throwing away many a drawn game due to impatience, which I would say doesn't quite describe what happened here. What happened starting with Mortimer's 17th move feels like a lack of proper calculation, possibly caused by impatience but also possibly caused by a want of time. Whatever the reason, giving Burn such a passed pawn can never lead to anything good, and it sure didn't.

Round 6: vs. James Mason

BCM: "The game between Mason and Burn was a very beautiful specimen of both masters' play. Mason opened 1. c4 and the game took in a Fianchetto development on both sides. With dogged tenacity Mason held his own, whilst Burn tried his best, by several strategical moves to break through, directing his main attention to Mason's d-pawn which was somewhat weak. Slight as the advantage was, Burn succeeded in gradually breaking down Mason's defence, and won a fine game." (vol. 8, p. 31) If the game was so fine, maybe you should have published it...

Round 7: vs. Antony Guest

Another reason why making a dedicated chapter to Burn's games is somewhat awkward is that a few of the games are really anticlimactic. This is probably the most egregious example, with Guest getting a plausible advantage by saddling Burn with an IQP, followed by sacrificing a Bishop for... something, I hope. Trust me, the tiebreak match makes this all worthwhile.

Round 8: vs. Joseph Blackburne

This was doubtlessly the most exciting round of the event, both due to the Bird-Gunsberg game (see the previous chapter) and also this game - Blackburne was only a half point back (conceding a loss to Gunsberg and a draw to Bird), and thus had every reason to play for a win.

In this period, we still go about playing must-win games with unrelenting aggression. For Blackburne, this meant setting up a fishing pole trap that Burn wisely avoided. It was always going to be difficult for Blackburne, who gave up castling rights while Burn had very real means of breaking open the center. Thus Blackburne had to sacrifice a pawn, opening the g-file and going for broke.

There was one move, after Burn's 29. Qf3, where Blackburne could have turned things around. Had his Knight gone to h7 (and then g5) instead of h5, this chapter might not exist. Unfortunately for Mr. Black Death, his decision was the wrong one, and even two more pawn sacrifices couldn't get him any closer to a real attack.

Round 9: vs. William Pollock

BCM: "Burn again adopted a French, and a somewhat slow game ensued, when Pollock gave up a Pawn, which he followed up by sacrificing a second. The attack he got, however, was not sound, and he soon after lost the exchange and Burn won." (vol. 8, p. 32) I suppose it's fine that this game wasn't published.

"Conclusion"

Just for fun, I decided to add a tiebreak column to informally break the tie (sum of scores of defeated opponents plus half the sum of scores of drawn opponents). Reflecting on the 1886 tournament - Blackburne's decision to draw a won game was rather frowned upon - the tiebreak match required one player to win two games to claim the title. Let's see how that went down.

Tiebreak: vs. Isidor Gunsberg

A common theme between these two is that Gunsberg tends to be the one to leave theory first, and that happened here as well; Burn adopted a rather typical Zukertort setup (with a Bishop on e2 instead of d3) and Gunsberg responded by throwing his h-pawn up the board. An attack was clearly on his mind, as each piece went closer to Burn's King with each move. But a decisive breakthrough never presented itself, and Gunsberg had to castle before his own King came under any fire. 

The second time control gave rise to some very peculiar play, with both players missing some things, but Gunsberg having the worse position following his unforced 29... g5. Both players had access to some rather pleasing exchange sacrifices, and Burn even had a forced win on move 39 that was pointed out by none other than Henry Bird. While he wasn't able to find it, he was able to execute a new exchange sacrifice that tore Gunsberg's meagre defenses to shreds. Advantage - Burn.

The second game featured a much different Gunsberg, who played the Exchange French in a manner that more often than not resulted in a friendly draw. Although the players kept a lot of material on the board through the first time control, the position was never really one where Gunsberg could be ambitious, and Burn was certainly not going to risk anything. On move 23, Gunsberg initiated a series of trades that saw the majority of the pieces leave the board, and despite the resulting endgame being played for another 20 or so moves, the result was never really in doubt.

The most peculiar game of the tiebreak was definitely the third, as can be inferred from seeing the first dozen of Burn's moves. His Knights shuffled around uselessly, and it was his turn to push his h-pawn prematurely. Gunsberg played a very strong sequence starting with 13... e5! which also saw all of the minor pieces traded away, but unlike with the previous game, this was not meant to effect a draw. With Gunsberg's 21st move, he forced Burn's King to f1, locking a Rook out of the endgame. 

I honestly wish there was more to talk about, but as the game will show, Burn never really had a chance. Even if his passed d-pawn gave him some hope in some endgames, he just got checkmated. It's all tied up.

Game four apparently brought the largest number of spectators thus far, and they were treated to arguably the best game of the match. In a symmetrical d4 opening, no pieces were traded for the first 15 moves, and Gunsberg slowly maneuvered pieces through the cramped battlefield over to the Kingside. His 15th move was a mistake that cost him the exchange, but left him with Bishops that were locked onto Burn's Kingside and gave him very real compensation. The complications were endless, and I hope the notes do them justice.

While the game was filled with critical moments, the most critical came shortly after the second time control. Burn had an extra pawn, but Gunsberg's pieces were right in the Black King's face, and had the potential to hold the game with proper play. His play was improper on move 47, and suddenly there was a win in Burn's hands. Fatigue had apparently set in, however, and Burn instead traded down into a Knight vs. Bishop endgame where he counted on his extra pawn to bring it home. It couldn't, and a second draw was the result.

I feel like I really need to share the BCM's input again, as they detail what happened after Burn's 49th move: "When Mr. Burn missed his chance, Mr. Blackburne's face was a study. He passed through the opening in the curtain which covered the doorway, and as he got into the porch, he raised his hands, screwed his face round into such an expression of helpless agony as only J. L. Toole could hope to imitate. "They can't play an endgame," he growled out, sotto voce; "they can't play an endgame."" (vol. 8, p. 38)

The fifth and final game of the match echoed the second rather closely, with a slow development scheme that offered very little in the way of action, all the way through the first time control. Burn once again got a slight advantage as he was able to force an IQP upon Gunsberg, though whether or not it was enough to win was far from decided. While the entire endgame could be critiqued, the only move I really focus on is Burn's 30. e4, which very transparently signaled that he wanted a draw. Gunsberg obliged, trading the Queens and shaking hands 10 moves later. Yet another anticlimactic final game to add to our list, but we're used to that by now, aren't we?

At this point, the only way to continue the match would be to extend the congress into the following week, which was undesirable. Thus, the players were allowed to split the win and the prize money (£40), and we have joint winners for the third time this decade, a very deserved result after this match.

Although the tiebreak games are all fairly interesting and/or well played (some aren't necessarily both...) I must admit, some games in the main body of the tournament were a little disappointing. I'll go through national-only tournaments with a bit more scrutiny moving forward (starting with the next chapter, amusingly). The subject of the next chapter is an incredibly strong player, so odds are good the games will be as well. There's only one way to find out.

By the way, my favourite blog turned 1 year old this week, and I'm still really proud of it. Please give it a look here.