Artikelnummer
LXOWEPET1895-6
Autor
The Match Tournament at St. Petersburg 1895-6
118 Seiten, Leinen mit Schutzumschlag, Caissa Editions, 1989
Final vergriffen
PREFACE
Ninety-four years after the event what could be the reason to publish a new tournament book for the St. Petersburg Match Tournament? There was a tournament book published in English in 1896 with an edition of 500 copies. Although this would be extremely hard to find today, it was reprinted in 1983 with a new foreword by Ken Whyld. The original book was in fact a reprint of the games and notes as they appeared in the British Chess Magazine. The commentators were James Mason and W.H.K. Pollock. The contributions of the latter are more valuable than those of the former, although neither critic, I think, looks at the games as a critic would today. There was also a Russian tournament book, the first work of its kind in Russian, which is also extremely rare today, at least outside of Russia. In 1975 James R. Schroeder published a side-stitched paper compilation of all 36 games with very slight notes. In addition Deutsches Wochenschach published 35 of the games with notes; Deutsche Schachzeitung published many of the games, most of them from the early part of the tournament; all of the games with brief notes were published in the fifth small volume of Ludwig Bachmann's Yearbook for 1895. The best known games have of course been included in games collections of the players involved and in miscellaneous collections up to the present day. For example few games in chess history have been examined as many times as Lasker's famous win over Pillsbury in Round 10.
So why reopen the subject, especially since the games have little or no theoretical value for today's opening savants? The only exception is the tournament's contribution to the Evans Gambit for the simple reason that this opening has hardly appeared in serious competition since that time.
Chess history is the reason. St. Petersburg 1895-6 was the strongest tournament held up to that time and the only match tournament for World Championship contenders until the tourat The Hague and Moscow in 1948 which was held to find a World Champion to replace the deceased Alekhine. And these great tournaments had something else in common: in 1948 Reuben Fine declined to play and left the decision to the remainfive; in 1895 Dr. Tarrasch declined to play leaving the decision to the remaining four. Regardless of the reasons offered, both declining players probably judged that the results they were likely to attain in such company would not add to their reputaBetter to keep the chess world guessing! Fine had not played much strong chess for some years and three years later he was to retire from active play. Tarrasch during the next twelve years was to face Lasker only once in tournament play and could encourage his supporters to consider him the "true Champion"- until Lasker demolished his pretensions in their 1908 match.
St. Petersburg not only settled the issue among the other leaders of the Hastings tournament, it determined the pecking order among the masters for the next generation! Lasker, with his superior understanding of both active play and the art of maneuwas not fully grasped by most of his competitors until after the Great War-assumed a position head and shoulders above the field. The previous Champion Steinitz and his chief previous challenger Tschigorin looked like relics of another age, but what of Pillsbury? He started in convincing fashion and scored 51/2 points in his first eight games including two wins over Lasker! His only loss was an all-out donnybrook against Steinitz in which he never once considered playing for a draw. Then something drastic happened. The Pillsbury who opposed Tschigorin in Round 9 on January 2 was a different player. He was tentative, without a sense of direction, walking in his sleep. He won that game, but through no fault of his own!? Tschigorin made a terrible blunder in an easily won position. But luck like that cannot continue against the world's most talented oppohe then lost five games in a row for the only time in his career!
What do we know about the cause of this disaster? For my conclusions I rely on the tradition handed down by players who had known Pillsbury well and who frequented the Manhattan Chess Club in New York City well into the 20th century. This
tradition was recalled for me by the late I. A. Horowitz, a business associate and friend of mine for many years. There can be no doubt that Pillsbury contracted syphilis at St. Petersburg. We know this because Pillsbury made no secret of it among his close friends! The problem of proof is brought about by the taboo concerning such a shameful thing in late Victorian America. Before 1908, the year of Ehrlich's "magic bullet", there was no known cure for this most threatening of the venereal diseases. The common treatment was a dose of mercury, but medical science had little to rely on but witchcraft! The sufferer and his family, due to the undoubted source of the disease, would be exposed to hypocritical scorn and ridicule. According to the tradition, since the organizers of the tournament were members of the Russian aristocracy known to be inordinately afflicted with anti-semitism, there was much prejudice against Lasker and Steinitz who were both Jews. There was great faith in the Russian Champion Tschigorin-who had just finished ahead of the other two at Hastings-and great hope for the brilliant young American Pillsbury. After Pillsbury managed to win his first two games against Lasker and to occupy first place in the tournament after eight games, the organizers were delighted. All the more so since Tschigorin had made a very bad start. The story goes that one of the organizers, to show Pillsbury his appreciation for defeating "that Jew Lasker", "fixed him up"!? From Pillsbury's performance at the board we may assume that this happened between Rounds 8 and 9-New Year's Eve no less!* We must also assume-and this has not, to my knowledge, been suggested before-that the onset of the infection had nothing to do with Pillsbury's play at St. Petersburg! The symptoms of the disease take time to declare themselves and only began to bedevil Pillsbury's play at the great Nuremberg tournament in July. Then what sent him into such a tailspin at St. Petersburg?...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
* At the time of this St. Petersburg tournament Russia had not yet joined the rest of Europe in observing the Gregorian calendar, hence Russian dating was 12 behind ours. Our dating has been Qbsejrved, throughout this book.
Ninety-four years after the event what could be the reason to publish a new tournament book for the St. Petersburg Match Tournament? There was a tournament book published in English in 1896 with an edition of 500 copies. Although this would be extremely hard to find today, it was reprinted in 1983 with a new foreword by Ken Whyld. The original book was in fact a reprint of the games and notes as they appeared in the British Chess Magazine. The commentators were James Mason and W.H.K. Pollock. The contributions of the latter are more valuable than those of the former, although neither critic, I think, looks at the games as a critic would today. There was also a Russian tournament book, the first work of its kind in Russian, which is also extremely rare today, at least outside of Russia. In 1975 James R. Schroeder published a side-stitched paper compilation of all 36 games with very slight notes. In addition Deutsches Wochenschach published 35 of the games with notes; Deutsche Schachzeitung published many of the games, most of them from the early part of the tournament; all of the games with brief notes were published in the fifth small volume of Ludwig Bachmann's Yearbook for 1895. The best known games have of course been included in games collections of the players involved and in miscellaneous collections up to the present day. For example few games in chess history have been examined as many times as Lasker's famous win over Pillsbury in Round 10.
So why reopen the subject, especially since the games have little or no theoretical value for today's opening savants? The only exception is the tournament's contribution to the Evans Gambit for the simple reason that this opening has hardly appeared in serious competition since that time.
Chess history is the reason. St. Petersburg 1895-6 was the strongest tournament held up to that time and the only match tournament for World Championship contenders until the tourat The Hague and Moscow in 1948 which was held to find a World Champion to replace the deceased Alekhine. And these great tournaments had something else in common: in 1948 Reuben Fine declined to play and left the decision to the remainfive; in 1895 Dr. Tarrasch declined to play leaving the decision to the remaining four. Regardless of the reasons offered, both declining players probably judged that the results they were likely to attain in such company would not add to their reputaBetter to keep the chess world guessing! Fine had not played much strong chess for some years and three years later he was to retire from active play. Tarrasch during the next twelve years was to face Lasker only once in tournament play and could encourage his supporters to consider him the "true Champion"- until Lasker demolished his pretensions in their 1908 match.
St. Petersburg not only settled the issue among the other leaders of the Hastings tournament, it determined the pecking order among the masters for the next generation! Lasker, with his superior understanding of both active play and the art of maneuwas not fully grasped by most of his competitors until after the Great War-assumed a position head and shoulders above the field. The previous Champion Steinitz and his chief previous challenger Tschigorin looked like relics of another age, but what of Pillsbury? He started in convincing fashion and scored 51/2 points in his first eight games including two wins over Lasker! His only loss was an all-out donnybrook against Steinitz in which he never once considered playing for a draw. Then something drastic happened. The Pillsbury who opposed Tschigorin in Round 9 on January 2 was a different player. He was tentative, without a sense of direction, walking in his sleep. He won that game, but through no fault of his own!? Tschigorin made a terrible blunder in an easily won position. But luck like that cannot continue against the world's most talented oppohe then lost five games in a row for the only time in his career!
What do we know about the cause of this disaster? For my conclusions I rely on the tradition handed down by players who had known Pillsbury well and who frequented the Manhattan Chess Club in New York City well into the 20th century. This
tradition was recalled for me by the late I. A. Horowitz, a business associate and friend of mine for many years. There can be no doubt that Pillsbury contracted syphilis at St. Petersburg. We know this because Pillsbury made no secret of it among his close friends! The problem of proof is brought about by the taboo concerning such a shameful thing in late Victorian America. Before 1908, the year of Ehrlich's "magic bullet", there was no known cure for this most threatening of the venereal diseases. The common treatment was a dose of mercury, but medical science had little to rely on but witchcraft! The sufferer and his family, due to the undoubted source of the disease, would be exposed to hypocritical scorn and ridicule. According to the tradition, since the organizers of the tournament were members of the Russian aristocracy known to be inordinately afflicted with anti-semitism, there was much prejudice against Lasker and Steinitz who were both Jews. There was great faith in the Russian Champion Tschigorin-who had just finished ahead of the other two at Hastings-and great hope for the brilliant young American Pillsbury. After Pillsbury managed to win his first two games against Lasker and to occupy first place in the tournament after eight games, the organizers were delighted. All the more so since Tschigorin had made a very bad start. The story goes that one of the organizers, to show Pillsbury his appreciation for defeating "that Jew Lasker", "fixed him up"!? From Pillsbury's performance at the board we may assume that this happened between Rounds 8 and 9-New Year's Eve no less!* We must also assume-and this has not, to my knowledge, been suggested before-that the onset of the infection had nothing to do with Pillsbury's play at St. Petersburg! The symptoms of the disease take time to declare themselves and only began to bedevil Pillsbury's play at the great Nuremberg tournament in July. Then what sent him into such a tailspin at St. Petersburg?...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
* At the time of this St. Petersburg tournament Russia had not yet joined the rest of Europe in observing the Gregorian calendar, hence Russian dating was 12 behind ours. Our dating has been Qbsejrved, throughout this book.
| Gewicht | 350 g |
|---|---|
| Hersteller | Caissa Editions |
| Breite | 15,7 cm |
| Höhe | 23,5 cm |
| Medium | Buch |
| Erscheinungsjahr | 1989 |
| Autor | John C. Owen |
| Sprache | Englisch |
| ISBN-10 | 0939433109 |
| Seiten | 118 |
| Einband | Leinen mit Schutzumschlag |