Winner's POV: New York 1889 Part 1
I kid you not, the day after I started writing my preliminary notes for this post, I got hit with a flu that has stayed in my system for weeks. This tournament is cursed and I hate it.
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.
New York 1889: "Sixth American Chess Congress"
The subtitle is in quotes because the name is really a technicality; this event was a congress of chess players in America, but its international flavour went against previous ACCs in such a way that this really can't be genuinely lumped in with what came before.
This tournament was famous in contemporary times for being the largest tournament ever held, because America. British magazines had said before that long tournaments are usually undesirable, both from the players' position and from spectators - interest wanes in a weeks-long event. That fate befell this gathering as well, which saw a marked drop-off in spectators after the initial weeks, causing financial issues for the organizers (not enough to materially affect the prizes, but other concessions had to be made that I won't go into detail about here).
This tournament is famous in modern times for being incorrectly considered a proto Candidates tournament, which is stated on the Wikipedia page for World Chess Championships among other places:
This assertion comes from a misinterpretation of one of the congress's additional goals, which was not to select a challenger for Wilhelm Steinitz, but rather to select two challengers who would play each other to succeed Steinitz.
The tournament book, The Book of the Sixth American Chess Congress (hereafter "Tournament Book" or "TB") discusses the rules for this match right after those of the tournament itself:
Rules 2-6 cover the logistics, prizing, timing etc. of the match. The parts that we're interested in begin with rule 7:
More than four European players entered so rule 9 didn't apply, but it very clearly implies that the Championship Match was for the overall World Championship, to be played between the winner of the tournament and either the runner-up or third-place finisher.
The confusion is understandable given what actually happened: Max Weiss and Mikhail Chigorin tied for first (spoiler alert, I know, I'm sorry), refused to play the match, then third-place Isidor Gunsberg challenged Chigorin to a match that ultimately took place in 1890. That match was drawn, and Gunsberg used these two results as justification for his challenge to Steinitz for the World Championship later that year.
Perhaps I'm splitting hairs a little as the tournament ultimately did possess Candidates Tournament characteristics, but here we are. Let's dig into the tournament itself.
Format and Prizes
Twenty players participated in this double all-play-all, which is a sentence I hope to never write again (spoiler alert: I will write it again). In the first cycle, draws counted as a half point, which is sensible; in the second round, drawn games would be replayed with the colours drawn at random, and only if that game was a draw would the point be split. Dedicated readers will already know my thoughts on this rule.
The prizes, at least, were sufficiently grand:
$1000 in 1889 would be worth about $34,500 today, which is a very tidy payday. Note that the fifth ACC had a first prize of $500.
Players
The 1889 Edo list gives the top of the field as Chigorin (4th in the world), Weiss (5th), Amos Burn (6th), Gunsberg (9th), and Joseph Blackburne (14th). Really the only notable players missing were Steinitz and George Mackenzie, who was battling health issues at the time.
The Winner*: Max Weiss
Obviously I'm going to start with Weiss, who drew many more games than his co-champion and would inflate the second part of this chapter even more. We have a lot (and I really mean a whole lot) to go over, so let's start chugging through the New York 1889 tournament from "the" Winner's POV.
Round 1: vs. Constant Ferdinand Burille
Burille was a member of the Mandarins of the Yellow Buttons, a group of Boston chess players and theoreticians who each won a game of an internationally established master on even terms. He was one of the operators of the automaton Ajeeb, and reportedly solved 60 mate-in-two puzzles in an hour for a friendly wager. This gentleman was clearly a very passionate player, and at only 23, was no doubt one of America's most anticipated up-and-comers.
The Ruy Lopez was far and away the most played opening in this installment, with this first iteration featuring an incorrect decision as early as move 7. Weiss executed a "trap" that had been played as far back as 1863, which saw him tear Burille's Kingside to shreds en route to netting a clean pawn. If Burille had kept the Queens on the board, his lead in development might have allowed him some swindling opportunities; after they were traded, the mistakes crept in quite quickly, and Weiss won a second pawn before pinning his young opponent's Bishop.
I would also like to point out that the co-winner Chigorin started this event with a 135-move loss to American Eugene Delmar. Soul-crushing stuff, that.
Round 2: vs. Jean Taubenhaus
These two had played in three previous tournament games, all of which saw Taubenhaus on the white side of a Ruy Lopez, with two draws and a win for Weiss among them. Our subject remains one nut this Frenchman cannot crack.
The first nine moves of this Spanish constituted an opening with which Weiss was incredibly familiar, and Taubenhaus's 10th allowed our subject to throw his g-pawn down the board and net a central pawn. This cost him his Bishop pair, however, and without a good place for his King, Weiss couldn't really bank on this extra pawn being much comfort. He avoided any serious attacks, but the exchanges resulted in an opposite-coloured Bishop endgame that he didn't even try to push. That's three draws in a row between these two.
Round 3: vs. George Gossip
We missed Gossip in both of his previous tournament appearances, London 1872 and London 1883 (Vizayanagaram). Although born in New York, he played extensively in the Counties' Chess Association in the 1870s and even had a stint in Australia earlier in this decade. In 1874 (and then again in 1888) he wrote The Chess-Player's Manual, a 900-something-page book that sought to be an all-encompassing English work on the openings of the game.
While the Double Spanish is an opening we've covered a handful of times, never have we seen both players exchange on c3/c6 so quickly. Weiss's remaining Bishop was likely better, and Gossip prudently began a Kingside attack to compensate. His pawns went up the board, but didn't effect any breaks, instead locking up the Kingside position completely. The whole position was quite locked up, actually, and the players didn't do much before agreeing to the draw on move 30. This isn't the last short draw we'll see this chapter, don't you worry.
The last player on a perfect score was David Baird, due in part to a withdrawal from James Mason from this round. Blackburne and Taubenhaus were half a point behind, with Weiss in a large group on 2/3.
Round 4: vs. Jackson Whipps Showalter
Showalter was the winner of the 1st United States Chess Association Meeting in 1888, and for the next 20ish years would be the on-and-off US Chess Champion. He was inducted into the US Chess Hall of Fame in 2010 - for comparison, Mackenzie was inducted in 1992 and Max Judd in 2019.
Showalter tried 3... Be7 in this Spanish, and the experiment can't be called a success. He ended up with an IQP that Weiss won nine moves later, but shortly after that, Weiss (who was among the better calculators when it came to series of trades) miscalculated and gave back the pawn. In what was likely time trouble, he actually gave yet another, and was down a pawn in an imbalanced endgame. Showalter was left with some back rank issues, and Weiss managed to exploit those to win back the pawn and enter a level Rook endgame.
Had Showalter accepted the repetition and made a draw, this would still have been one of the more entertaining games of the tournament. He instead decided to sacrifice his Rook for three connected pawns, and the resulting endgame is so interesting that I almost made it the thumbnail. Steinitz claimed the position was well-known, but his drawing technique didn't work. Showalter's didn't either, and Weiss picked up a very turbulent second win.
Round 5: vs. David Baird
Sadly I don't have a picture of either Baird brother. At the fifth ACC, Baird came second in the minor tournament behind Nicolai Gedalia (someone I plan on writing about one of these days). His most recent success was winning the 1888 Manhattan Chess Club Championship, which was likely used to justify his entering. He was still on a perfect 4/4 score, but Weiss would catch him with a win.
The Open Spanish was this round's choice, with Baird deviating on move nine from things we've seen. Weiss really played with fire, and had Baird been feeling more optimistic after move 20, we might have had a serious test of Weiss's defensive skills. Baird instead chose to trade into a Bishop endgame, which was quite equal with best play, as usual. Want to guess how easy "best play" is?
I admit my notes for this endgame are rather light, partially because my original plan was to include multiple games in this round (which I have since scrapped so we only have to look at 19 games this chapter). Although neither player played perfectly, Weiss ultimately converted his second consecutive "equal" endgame, moving into shared first with 4/5.
Also on 4/5 were Chigorin, Gunsberg, and Taubenhaus. Blackburne, Burn, and Samuel Lipschutz were all a half point back, meaning this tournament was back to being wide open.
Round 6: vs. Samuel Lipschutz
Lipschutz was invited to this tournament due to his victory at the New York State Chess Association tournament earlier in the year (a 32-player knockout event that started and ended in a single day), though his participation in the 1886 BCA tournament (see here) would have likely helped him get in regardless.
With so many Spanish games taking place, a fair number of Steinitz Defences were also tried, much to the delight of the champion himself. Lipschutz's 5... f6 earned explicit praise for stifling any chance of Weiss attacking, and sure enough, very little concrete action was taken through the first time control. When Lipschutz was allowed to break with d5, the exchanges that followed left the players in an endgame that was perhaps marginally better for black, but never anything Weiss couldn't handle.
Round 7: vs. Joseph Blackburne
Blackburne presently led their lifetime score with three wins to two, though Weiss scored the last victory at Bradford. While this isn't the most interesting of rivalries, it's an unusual clash of styles, with both players renowned for their accurate endgame play - a rarity in this era.
Blackburne played this opening rather indifferently, deviating from the book on move six before lazily dropping a tempo on move 10. Weiss pounced, winning the Bishop pair before coercing Blackburne into trading Queens, getting into an endgame that was surprisingly unpleasant for Blackburne. His pieces sat depressingly at home while Weiss's Bishops took aim at the Queenside pawns, though after Weiss allowed a trade of Rooks, the game remained within the drawing margins.
Unlike the other games, this one wasn't really decided by a one-move blunder. Blackburne incorrectly pushed forward his pawn to f4, which didn't immediately lose the game, but it created weaknesses that no doubt ate away at his clock as the players approached the third time control. Technically speaking, 42. Ne3+ was the "game-losing" move, but it allowed him to make the time control with time left on his clock. The position once he made the time control was losing, however, and Weiss correctly showed how to convert the endgame, trading down despite Blackburne having a passed h-pawn and counter-promoting just in time to neutralize the enemy Queen. Blackburne getting ground down in an endgame is a rare sight, so take this one in while you can.
Sensationally, both Chigorin and Gunsberg lost (to Mason and Burille respectively), so Weiss's win leapfrogged him into sole first place. He would face both of his rivals in the next two rounds, so there's plenty of room for drama as we approach the end of the first half (quarter?).
Round 8: vs. Isidor Gunsberg
As far as I can tell, these two had played only one decisive game: Weiss won their first encounter at Nuremberg, when Gunsberg's career had just started. Naught but draws have followed, with their most recent encounter at Bradford (see here) being so uneventful that it wasn't even published.
Gunsberg showed every intent to win this round by opening with Owen's Defence, throwing pawns forward and getting a super blocked position where Weiss had much more space. The question was when would Weiss break through, and the answer could have been move 20, with 20. d5 looking like a powerful break to cement an advantage. After he missed this, Gunsberg quickly dissolved the space advantage, saddling Weiss with an IQP and giving Black the better endgame.
Although both players made a handful of subpar moves, Gunsberg mostly held the edge right up until he decided to trade Queens. This decision actually cost him a pawn, though it somehow didn't give Weiss any winning chances. The White King never had an inlet into the center of the board, and the extra pawn sat vulnerable in the center. Although Gunsberg certainly could have played for more, he was never much of an endgame specialist, and I'm sure both players were content with a draw.
Round 9: vs. Mikhail Chigorin
It's been six years since we've seen the Russian star, so let's welcome him back into the fold. He had kept quite busy since we last saw him, doing important journaling work in his home country, and perhaps more importantly, dedicating himself to very deep opening theory development. He had become such a master of the Evans Gambit that he scored 4.5/8 with it in his World Championship match with Steinitz earlier in the year.
This is one of those games that very clearly illustrates my frustrations with writing about Weiss. His opening play was very strong, and after breaking with 11... d5, Chigorin's novelty was very poor and allowed rapid development with advantage. Had Weiss kept up the pressure with 16... f5, we would have had a lively and exciting game to go over; he instead effected trade after trade, and while the resulting endgame might be interesting for some, we have so many games to go over that I paid it little mind. It's there if you want to dig deeper on your own.
Blackburne, Chigorin, Gunsberg, Lipschutz, and Weiss were all tied for first with 6.5/9 at this stage. Does anyone else find it amusing that Weiss shared first with his previous four opponents?
Round 10: vs. Henry Bird
Would you believe me if I told you that Bird had a 3-1 record against Weiss (3-2 if you count Bird forfeiting a game at Vienna 1882)? Weiss had better get to work if he wants to right this wrong.
Bird and his g6 Sicilians are a welcome reprieve from the endless Spanish games that have plagued us (and will continue to plague us). This developed much like the Gunsberg game where Weiss gained a huge amount of space, but unlike in that Gunsberg game, Bird was completely lost before move 20. He shuffled his pieces around aimlessly, and it wasn't until move 23 that he finally started one of his trademark counterattacks. He sacrificed one pawn to open the h-file, then another to get his Bishop on the long diagonal. The counterplay was brewing.
Shortly after move 30, when I would expect the players to have the most time, is when Weiss started making mistakes. He missed a win on move 34, and then again on move 35, with this second one allowing Bird to immediately trade off everything and regain his pawns, liquidating into a drawn opposite-colour Bishop endgame. Yet another miss for our subject, but credit where it's due, this was quite possibly the finest defensive effort we've ever seen from Bird, so kudos to him.
Round 11: vs. Nicholas Macleod
This picture of MacLeod is from a little later, as he was only 19 at this time. Already he was a multi-time Canadian champion, winning outright in 1886 (at only 16 years old), sharing first but losing the playoff in 1887, and then sharing first while winning the playoff in 1888. He was a prodigy in every sense of the word, and while this event was far from his best, I feel really happy as a Canadian that I get to talk about one of our first true masters of the game.
In case you were wondering why 2. c3 is known as the MacLeod Attack, this game gives you the answer. It's far from a model game, as while the first 10 moves could be criticized somewhat, it's really MacLeod's 11th move that deserves all of the negative attention. He clearly underestimated how detrimental the pin on his e2 Bishop would be, and a precise tactic from Weiss netted him early material. It was too much for the young Canadian to come back from, and Weiss scored his first victory in four rounds. With this being the closest thing to a cool tactic Weiss played, I guess it'll be this chapter's thumbnail.
Round 12: vs. John Baird
The "other" Baird, John was older and widely considered to be the weaker of the two brothers. Interestingly, at the same New York tournament Lipschutz won, Baird didn't lose a game; he drew his third-round game against Hanham, and as the tournament had to be completed in a single day, it seems he lost by random draw. A very unfortunate result, but his invite to this tournament hopefully made up for that.
Baird deviated from the book on move six, initiating a "sacrifice" that Weiss correctly declined. He gained the initiative after Baird refused to win the Bishop pair back on move 15, but this initiative was used only to trade off every single major piece. What was left was a Bishop and Knight for Baird vs. the Bishop pair for Weiss, the perfect grounds for our subject to show off his world-class endgame skills.
It's quite hard to write anything interesting about these games because they're really just one-movers. In this game, that move was Baird's 33. Bh8, moving the Bishop off a crucial diagonal and allowing Weiss to win the a-pawn for free. Things collapsed quickly after that.
Round 13: vs. Eugene Delmar
We last saw Delmar at the fifth ACC (see here), so it's been a while. In the meantime, he won the Manhattan Chess Club Championship in 1885, the New York Chess Club Championship in 1886, and the New York Chess Association Championship of 1887 (using the same one-day knockout format as Lipschutz's win). He had very clearly become one of New York's (and America's in general) strongest players, whose entrance to this tournament was justified.
Another feather in this gentleman's cap is that he gave us our first Caro-Kann of the series, and new openings are always fun. It was unfortunately not well played; after 11 mostly logical moves, his 12th-move decision to castle Queenside was incorrect, as was his f6-e5 construction played just before the first time control. Weiss picked up a pawn and its compensation, and never lost control of the game for a moment. We'll have better contested Caro-Kann games in the future, I'm sure of it.
Round 14: vs. Amos Burn
Of all the games played in the Sixth American Chess Congress, New York 1889, this sure was one of them.
Assuming I've done my counting correctly (which I can't guarantee), Blackburne currently held sole first with 11/14, while Chigorin and Weiss were a half point back, and nobody else had more than 9 points. If this was a single all-play-all then I'd maybe be talking about this being a three-horse race, but obviously we still have over 20 rounds to play so... let's cover five more of them.
Round 15: vs. James Hanham
We technically last saw Hanham at the Nottingham 1886 tournament (see here) though I did kind of gloss over his game. He'd since racked up an impressive string of second-place finishes: the 1887 New York Championship (losing only to the winner Delmar), the 1888 US Chess Association tournament (behind Showalter), and the 1889 New York Championship (beating Delmar and losing only to the winner Lipschutz). It wasn't until 1890 that Hanham "won" the New York Championship, splitting the final game with Delmar due to want of time (maybe one day I'll look into why they insisted upon a one-day time limit).
Like with MacLeod, if you're wondering why 3... Nd7 in the Philidor is the Hanham Variation, now you know. It led to an incredibly solid position, and Weiss was able to make no progress for the first 20 moves. Hanham then gave up his Bishop pair, which might have promised Weiss something, but slowly the pieces began coming off the board until once more it was two minor pieces per side.
This is another one of those games where basically nothing happened for quite a while, and then one bad move erased hours of hard work. For Hanham, that was 51... Ba3, again removing the Bishop from its crucial diagonal and giving Weiss a powerful initiative. He rode this wave until it gave him an outside passed pawn, and once again our subject plucked a very professional win from the grips of a draw. If this tournament wasn't so goshdarn long, I would actually consider doing a deeper dive into these endgames (but I don't want to be here for literal months, so I'll let the interested reader explore on their own).
Round 16: vs. William Pollock
This was, safe to say, not Pollock's event, as his 5.5/15 score should indicate. Weiss won their game at Bradford, so he could at least get some revenge.
Pollock began this game with the most eccentric second move of the series, 2. Qd3. It wasn't good in itself, but 15 moves later it helped him execute a strong central pawn break, so perhaps the hypermodernists would be a fan (I hope I'm using that term correctly; the 1900s are the domain of a different blogger). This game is very strange on account of three of Pollock's moves: his second, his 20th, and most importantly his 32nd where he gave up a Bishop for absolutely nothing. I get the suspicion Pollock was playing more for the brilliancy prizes than for absolute tournament victory - tune into part 3 of this chapter for those games.
Round 17: vs. Dion Martinez
Martinez was born in Cuba, a country with one of the most active chess scenes in spite of its size. He emigrated to America in the 70s, and while he departed from the 4th ACC before we could see him, he remained very active in the Philadelphia chess scene afterward. Steinitz in particular held Martinez in very high regard despite their lopsided match history (I see three matches where Steinitz won 7-0, 4.5-2.5 and 10-1 respectively).
This Spanish was in book for the first 11 moves, with Martinez deviating with the surprisingly poor 11... Re8. Weiss responded in the best way, and within a couple of moves had a winning attack. I'm actually at a loss for words on how to describe this game (or maybe that's still due to the flu).
Round 18: vs. Max Judd
Judd had spent his time since we last saw him at the fifth ACC playing a fair amount of chess, but also doing a large amount of business. It was due to his influence that part of the 1886 World Championship match was played in his hometown of St. Louis (games 6-9), and it was he that raised a good sum of the money for this event. The American chess world had a lot to thank Judd for.
Judd gave us our first Italian of the chapter, and it proceeded along very innocuous lines for the first 12 moves. Judd's decision to castle on the 13th move is perhaps the first time in this series that short castling was an objectively poor move, but after Weiss broke in the center and exchanges ensued, Judd was indeed on the worse side of an isolated pawn. It wasn't a totally lost position, but we've seen Weiss grind out enough wins to know that this was never going to be easy for Judd. Quite oppositely, it was rather easy for Weiss as Judd blundered a piece on move 27, giving our subject his second straight quick win.
Round 19: vs. James Mason
James Mason remains one of the more enigmatic players I've read about. Remember that round three forfeit against David Baird? Reportedly he "stimulated his brain" (in the words of the New York Sun) and was a dazed, incoherent mess. Was he drunk? In other news, the players traded wins at Vienna 1882 before a series of draws, so there was no score to settle in this final round of the first half.
Our final Spanish of the day saw another early experiment, with 4... Be7 earning Mason's attention multiple times this event. He erred as early as move eight, giving up the Bishop pair in a fork, then having to trade his other Bishop only a few moves later. Problems began concretely after 13... Qd7, where Weiss very simply picked up a pawn and never let off the pressure.
I will never call Weiss an exciting chess player, and honestly I wouldn't even call him an interesting one very often. But sometimes he played games like these, and it's in games like these that chess just looks so easy.
"Conclusion":
Talk about a noisy crosstable. Can you believe we have to do this all again?
Despite some of the games being of lackluster interest, one can't deny that Weiss's score and undefeated status is an incredible accomplishment in such a stacked event. Blackburne's score is also incredible, and he was actually leading until a 19th-round loss to Burn set him back. Chigorin's return to tournament play is going quite well, while Gunsberg and Burn continue reminding us why England is the chess powerhouse still. As for the Americans, Lipschutz's performance is very admirable, and having Judd be among the prizewinners would be poetic justice.
Now remember, we still have a whole second cycle to go through, and that one will be even longer because we can't allow draws for some reason. If all goes well, I'll be able to write it within a month. Will things go well? Your guess is as good as mine.
