World Chess Championship 1894


The fifth World Chess Championship was held in New York City, Philadelphia, and Montreal, and was contested from 15 March to 26 May 1894. Holder William Steinitz lost his title to challenger Emanuel Lasker, who was 32 years his junior.
Lasker challenged Steinitz after moving to the United States, which the latter accepted, after having publicly contemplated retirement. Lasker had made a name for himself by having defeated several elite European players, including Curt von Bardeleben and Joseph Henry Blackburne. The two agreed the match would be won by the first to ten wins.
Though the match began with Steinitz consistently tying the score, Lasker pulled ahead convincingly from game 7 with five consecutive wins. Though Steinitz played several more wins after this point, he failed to equalise, and the match ended with Lasker scoring his tenth win on May 26, 1894.
The two would go on to rematch in World [Chess Championship 1896–1897|1896], with Lasker defeating Steinitz for a second time.

Background

Reigning World Champion Steinitz publicly spoke of retiring; Lasker challenged him, and he changed his mind.
World Championship matches at this time typically involved negotiation as to the stakes, conditions and length of the match, as at the time, top-level chess had no central governing body. The agreed format was that the players would each select two seconds and a referee in each city, which were agreed to be New York, Philadelphia, and Montreal. The match would be won by the first to reach ten wins.
As for the prize, initially Lasker wanted to play for $5,000 a side and a match was agreed at stakes of $3,000 a side, but Steinitz agreed to a series of reductions when Lasker found it difficult to raise the money, and the final figure was $2,000 each, which was less than for some of Steinitz's earlier matches. Although this was publicly praised as an act of sportsmanship on Steinitz's part, he may have desperately needed the money.
The first eight games were played in New York, with the next three being played in Philadelphia, and the last eight were played in Montreal.

Results

The first player to win ten games would be champion.
12345678910111213141516171819WinsTotal
Emanuel Lasker>'Emanuel Lasker'|Germany|empire

Games

Game 1: Lasker-Steinitz, 1-0

Steinitz played the opening named for him, 3.. d6, with Lasker introducing the novelty with 6. Bc4. Both players after this points in their turn faced potential attacks, with Steinitz neutralising the immediate threat of the novelty, and Lasker being forced to play defensively after 12.. Be6, after which the game continued roughly equally until 37.. Bc7?! which enabled Lasker to win a pawn on move 41. Though this placed Lasker in a convincing lead, he failed to capitalise immediately by playing 42. Nd3 instead of 42. Nc2, which Steinitz described as a move that "wins easily". The game was adjourned after move 50, and reconvened the next day at 3 o'clock. Steinitz went down the exchange, and made a last-ditch effort to save his position with 53.. d3, which leaves white with the only move Rg1 to play for a win, which Lasker found.
Steinitz said of the game:
Lasker spoke to the press very little about the game.

Game 2: Steinitz-Lasker, 1-0

The game was delayed by a day to May 18, as Steinitz had a cold. In this game, Lasker played into the Berlin Defence. After Steinitz played 12. Ng5, the pressure on Lasker's position began mounting, and following 15.. h6 16. Qf3, Steinitz promised an attack along the h-file if Lasker captured his knight. Steinitz's attack only strengthened from there, and he won material through a tactic following 27.Rxg6!.

Game 3: Lasker-Steinitz, 1-0

This game saw Steinitz playing his eponymous defence once again, and Lasker altered the course of play with 6.. exd4 instead of Nxd4. With 17.. f6, Steinitz allowed Lasker to plant his knight on e6 on move 21, and shortly afterwards the latter played a sequence winning him a pawn and a piece. The game was adjourned after the 45th move at 11 o'clock to be resumed at 3 the next day. This may explain Lasker's choice of 46. Rxd3, which though still advantageous, is inferior to either king move. As his move was sealed, it would've been beneficial to play something that Steinitz would be less likely to prepare for. The next day, Lasker played a better endgame, and Steinitz eventually played 51.. Rg5?, which loses to 52. f7 and an unstoppable passed pawn. Steinitz referred to this move as, "an awful blunder", and suggested he could've played for a draw by instead playing Kd7.

Game 4: Steinitz-Lasker, 1-0

In this game, Steinitz played the main line of the Giuoco Piano, an unusual opening for him. Lasker, also unusually, played 8.. Be7, in order to divert the usual play in the opening. Steinitz captured exf6 en passant on the 11th move, giving up a passed pawn to strengthen his attack. On move 19 Steinitz took the black d-pawn with his knight, though he had the option to play the sacrifice 19. Be4, dislodging the d-pawn instead and allowing the sequence 20. Qb3+ Kh8 21. Nxh4. Steinitz later suggested that the best course of action in this position would've been removing the tension by playing gxh4 right away. Following this, though lasker considered 19.. Bxg3 20. hxg3 Bxf3 21.Rxf3 Rxf3 22.Kg2, which leads to a pin and a capture chain that white gets the better of.
After 32.. Kxd7, the king and rook endgame saw Steinitz a pawn up, and held the advantage until 51. hxg5?? leading to a drawn position, though he regained the advantage a few moves later, with Lasker playing 53.. Ra3+?, allowing the king to come to the defence of his connected passed pawns.

Game 5: Lasker-Steinitz, ½-½

In this game, Steinitz switched out 9.. Ne5, as he had played in the first and third games for the stronger 9.. Be6. He puts pressure on the queenside with 16.. a5. Lasker is better after 22.. Rad8 23. Rd4. The move 24. exd5 was sealed by Lasker and the game was adjourned until the next day. He had to make four moves in six minutes following 27.Bxg6?!, which explains its inaccuracy. If the h-pawn had taken the bishop, 28. Rh4 would've led to a stronger attack. He deliberated for 33 minutes on 31. Qf3, the only move to play for a draw and prevent 31.. Re2. Though Steinitz was up a pawn by the end, a draw as still agreed.

Game 6: Steinitz-Lasker, ½-½

In this game, Lasker played 8.. Bb6 instead of his previously favoured Be7. He was in a commanding position by move 14, and weakened white's queenside a move later with 15.. Bxf3, forgoing Bc8. The game was adjourned with Lasker sealing 21.. Nd6. This is superior to Nd2, which appears to threaten a fork, and win a knight by pin tactic, but after 22.Bxd2 Rxe2 23.Be3, the rook becomes boxed in, forcing black to play Bxd4, meaning he gains nothing from this exchange. Lasker deliberated for over half an hour over this move, choosing to go up the exchange. Both players came under time pressure around the fortieth move, and white was slightly advantaged after move 45. After the queens were traded on move 58, the players entered a theoretical drawn position, despite Steinitz being up a pawn, and they came to a draw after playing to the 71st move.

Game 7: Lasker-Steinitz, 1-0

Game 8: Steinitz-Lasker, 0-1

Game 9: Lasker-Steinitz, 1-0

Game 10: Steinitz-Lasker, 0-1

Game 11: Lasker-Steinitz, 1-0

Game 12: Steinitz-Lasker, ½-½

Game 13: Lasker-Steinitz, 0-1

Game 14: Steinitz-Lasker, 1-0

Game 15: Lasker-Steinitz, 1-0

Game 16: Steinitz-Lasker, 0-1

Game 17: Lasker-Steinitz, 0-1

Game 18: Steinitz-Lasker, ½-½

Game 19: Lasker-Steinitz, 1-0