برای دیدن بازی به صورت کنترل شده 
اینجا کلیک کنید.
Steinitz v von
Bardeleben
Edward Winter
William Steinitz
William Steinitz – Curt von Bardeleben
Hastings, 17 August 1895
Giuoco Piano
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bc4 Bc5 4 c3 Nf6 5 d4 exd4 6 cxd4 Bb4+ 7 Nc3
d5 8 exd5 Nxd5 9 O-O Be6 10 Bg5 Be7 11 Bxd5 Bxd5 12 Nxd5 Qxd5 13
Bxe7 Nxe7 14 Re1 f6 15 Qe2 Qd7 16 Rac1 c6 17 d5 cxd5 18 Nd4 Kf7 19
Ne6 Rhc8 20 Qg4 g6 21 Ng5+ Ke8 22 Rxe7+ Kf8 23 Rf7+ Kg8 24 Rg7+
Kh8
25 Rxh7+.
‘But Bardeleben didn’t resign. He stared at 25 Rxh7+, shot a
glance at Steinitz, and without a word got up from his chair and
left the room. He didn’t come back. Tournament officials
searched and found Bardeleben pacing angrily. No, he wouldn’t
return to the board so that outrageous Austrian could mate him.
So Steinitz had to wait for Bardeleben’s time to run out before
he could claim the win. Not only claim it – he demonstrated the
final ten-move mate and the crowd cheered.’
The author of that apparent exercise in imagination,
simultaneously fertile and sterile, is A. Soltis (The Great
Chess Tournaments and Their Stories, pages 67-68). He then
moved on to discuss ‘John’ Henry Blackburne, but we shall move on
to chess history, with a straightforward question: what really
happened at the conclusion of Steinitz v von Bardeleben, Hastings,
1895? All kinds of assertions have been made; for instance, page
110 of Kasparov’s first Predecessors book stated (without
specifying any source) that von Bardeleben ‘suddenly stood up and
silently walked out of the room (later he sent a note by special
delivery tendering his resignation)’.
The game was played in round ten, on 17 August. ‘The weather is
very hot’, noted Horace F. Cheshire’s tournament book (page 156).
Publications of the time gave no impression that a scandal of any
significance had occurred. The Chess Monthly (September
1895, page 12) merely noted that the game had been von
Bardeleben’s first loss, ‘and he got so despondent in consequence
that without serious pressure he would have retired from the
contest’. The BCM (October 1895, page 412) described him
as:
‘a very reserved gentleman, with somewhat wearied look,
probably from ill-health, fragile figure, suggestive of highly
strung nervous temperament, with hat upon head – he generally
wore it – in his favourite attitude, right elbow upon the table
and hand supporting his face on that side.’
The BCM’s annotations (December 1895 issue, page 529)
were by C.E. Ranken and made no mention of any incident. An
account of how the game ended was, however, included in the
annotations by W.H.K. Pollock, who had been a participant in the
tournament, on pages 298-300 of La Stratégie, 15
October 1895. As it has not yet been established where the
original English version appeared we quote the French translation
after the move 25 Rxh7+:
‘La partie a été terminée ici, M. de
Bardeleben s’est retiré sans abandonner et la partie a
été adjugée à M. Steinitz à
l’expiration du temps limité. M. de Bardeleben a dit
à son adversaire que sa conduite était pour
protester contre les applaudissements souvent trop
prolongés dont les visiteurs saluaient les victorieux
et c’est à la suite de cet incident que le
Comité du tournoi a défendu toute
démonstration.’
In short, von Bardeleben left the hall without resigning and
allowed his time to run out because of the disturbance caused by
spectators applauding winners of games, and he informed Steinitz
personally of this. The above-mentioned tournament book confirms
the remark by Pollock that von Bardeleben’s grievance was acted
upon promptly, for regarding the next round of play the book
reported (page 171):
‘On this day also the Committee, finding that applause, even if
slight, was liable to be misunderstood by our foreign
competitors, and in any case was annoying to the players, put up
a notice asking visitors to refrain, and the directors of play
and stewards had strict instructions to enforce the notice.’
Did either Steinitz or von Bardeleben ever write about their
Hastings game?
Curt von Bardeleben
(3114)
On the basis of contemporary chess magazines’ coverage of the
Steinitz v von Bardeleben game we commented in C.N. 3114 above:
‘Publications of the time gave no impression that a scandal of any
significance had occurred.’ Now Roger Bristow, the Information
Services Librarian at Hastings Library, has looked at the local
newspapers. He has examined six of them (all weekly publications),
in each case checking through the first issue following the date
of the game, i.e. 17 August 1895. Mr. Bristow comments:
‘There is nothing about the circumstances in which this game
ended. Two of the newspapers reprint (from the Daily News)
a report of the game, simply recording the moves, with
occasional commentary. But no particular comment is made about
von Bardeleben’s resignation, and there is no mention of his
walking out at all.’
(3117)
Joost van Winsen (Silvolde, the Netherlands) has found the
following note by Pollock, after White’s 25th move, in the Baltimore
News:
‘Bardeleben here retired and lost the game on the time limit.
Subsequently he explained to his opponent that his action was
meant as a protest against applauding a victor. Hence the notice
of the committee described above.’
Pollock’s description of the notice read as follows:
‘At the beginning of the third week’s play the following notice
was posted: “Visitors are requested to refrain from applause on
the conclusion of any game, as such demonstrations are most
obnoxious to the masters and are contrary to the wish of the
committee.” This stopped the applause, which, it must be said,
had been frequently quite prolonged and irrepressible, which
arose quite spontaneously, and which was evidently more objected
to by the modest winners than the losers. Here it should be
stated emphatically that the constant efforts of the committee
to secure comfort to both players and spectators have been
attended with great success. Reserved seats close around any
board are sold at 2s.6d. a day.’
The report by Pollock in the Baltimore News was dated 21
August 1895, but the exact date of the newspaper; is not
available. Our correspondent found the item on page 126 of a
scrapbook of Baltimore News cuttings held by the Cleveland
Library.
(5671)
Addition on 21 September 2008:
Olimpiu G. Urcan (Singapore) draws attention to a passage on page
731 of Contemporary Review, July-December 1900, in an
article by Antony Guest entitled ‘Steinitz and Other Chessplayers’
(on pages 727-737):
Addition on 18 June 2011:
On pages 149-150 of the April 1932
BCM, in an article
entitled ‘Chess Reminiscences’, R.C. Griffith wrote:
‘I was a steward at the big international tournament at
Hastings in 1895 and was on duty when that wonderful game
between Steinitz and Bardeleben was played. Bardeleben seeing he
had a lost game left the room, and Steinitz sat at the board for
50 minutes before he could claim the game on time. He then
showed to the spectators how he won in every variation. The
applause was difficult to stop.’
Griffith’s recollections were also reported by Frank Rhoden on
page 66 of the February 1971 Chess Life & Review:
An unsubstantiated statement by Eric Schiller on page 381 of Encyclopedia
of Chess Wisdom (New York, 1999):
‘Don’t pull a “Von Bardeleben!” The nineteenth-century player
had a habit of simply walking away from the board. Eventually,
he’d exceed the time limit and his opponent would finally get
the point.’
Olimpiu G. Urcan sends this cutting from page 2 of the 8
September 1900 edition of the Newcastle Weekly Courant:
(7638)
From Jerry Spinrad (Nashville, TN, USA) comes this item on page
13 of the Newark Sunday Call, 22 September 1895:
