Members · Prefs · Collections · Openings · Endgames · Sacrifices · History · Search Kibitzing · Kibitzer's Café · Chessforums · Tournament Index · Players · Kibitzing

St. Petersburg 1895/96 Tournament

Emanuel Lasker11.5/18(+8 -3 =7)[view games]
Wilhelm Steinitz9.5/18(+7 -6 =5)[view games]
Harry Nelson Pillsbury8/18(+5 -7 =6)[view games]
Mikhail Chigorin7/18(+5 -9 =4)[view games] Historical Chess Event
St. Petersburg 1895/96
At the closing banquet for the Hastings (1895) tournament, Chigorin announced that the top prizewinners had been invited to St. Petersburg for a match-tournament to begin in December of that year. The top three finishers (Pillsbury, Chigorin, and Lasker) plus fifth-place finisher Steinitz agreed to play; fourth-place finisher Tarrasch declined. Even so, St. Petersburg was enormously strong; the top five places on the December 1895 Chessmetrics list are occupied by Lasker, Tarrasch, Chigorin, Steinitz, and Pillsbury respectively. Each entrant played six games against the other three.

St. Petersburg 13 Dec 1895 - 27 Jan 1896

Emanuel Lasker 11.5 XXXXXX 11=01= 00=1== 1=11=1 Wilhelm Steinitz 9.5 00=10= XXXXXX 1==111 01100= Harry Nelson Pillsbury 8.0 11=0== 0==000 XXXXXX 11100= Mikhail Chigorin 7.0 0=00=0 10011= 00011= XXXXXX

The tournament began on December 13, 1895 with 23-year-old Harry Nelson Pillsbury, the victor at Hastings, crushing the 26-year-old world champion, Emanuel Lasker (Lasker vs Pillsbury, 1895). After three cycles (half the tournament), Pillsbury held the lead, having scored 2 1/2 out of 3 against Lasker and 3 out of 3 against Chigorin. But Lasker's 2 1/2 out of 3 against both Steinitz and Chigorin, combined with Pillsbury's loss and two draws against Steinitz, kept it close. At the midpoint, the score stood: Pillsbury 6 1/2 out of 9; Lasker 5 1/2; Steinitz 4 1/2; Chigorin 1 1/2.

The second half of the tournament began on January 4, 1896, with Lasker facing Pillsbury and scoring perhaps the greatest victory of his long career (Pillsbury vs Lasker, 1896). Pillsbury lost his next two games to Chigorin and Steinitz, so at the end of the fourth cycle Lasker, despite a loss to Steinitz, led the field by a point, and Steinitz had caught up to Pillsbury. In the fifth cycle, Pillsbury again lost to Chigorin and Steinitz, finally ending his miserable run of five straight losses with a drawn game against Lasker on January 19, 1896. Lasker, meanwhile, had beaten Steinitz and drawn with Chigorin, so that after five cycles the identity of the winner was scarcely in doubt, and Pillsbury had fallen to third place: Lasker 9 1/2, Steinitz 7 1/2, Pillsbury 7, Chigorin 6. In the sixth and final cycle, Lasker beat Chigorin and drew with Steinitz and Pillsbury to coast home with 11 1/2 out of 18, two points ahead of Steinitz, who beat Pillsbury (for the fourth time in the tournament!) and drew with Chigorin. Pillsbury also drew with Chigorin and so was able to avoid falling into last place. Final standings: Lasker 11 1/2 (+8-3=7), Steinitz 9 1/2 (+7-6=5), Pillsbury 8 (+5-7=6), Chigorin 7 (+5-9=4). It was a fine result for Lasker, solidifying his position as world champ, and creditable for the 59-year-old Steinitz. But it was a great disappointment for Pillsbury and Chigorin.

The prizes were: first 50 pounds sterling, second 30 pounds, third 20 pounds, fourth 10 pounds, plus four pounds for a win, two pounds for a draw, and 1 pound for a loss. (I am quoting from a British tournament book, so I don't know if the authors converted ruble prizes into pounds sterling, or whether the prizes were paid in pounds.) Lasker received 99 pounds, Steinitz 74 pounds, Pillsbury 59 pounds, and Chigorin 47 pounds. All players received traveling expenses and incidentals. According to Soltis' <Why Lasker Matters>, there were no brilliancy prizes.

The head-to-head matchups were intriguing. Pillsbury beat Lasker (3 1/2 - 2 1/2) and Chigorin (3 1/2 - 2 1/2) while scoring a horrible 1-5 (two draws, four losses) against Steinitz -- a result that is even more remarkable when you consider that, outside of this tournament, Pillsbury had a +5-0=2 score against the first world champion! (<Calli>) Lasker beat Steinitz 4-2 and Chigorin 5-1 but, as noted, lost his mini-match to Pillsbury.

Equally intriguing were the varied fortunes of Chigorin and Pillsbury, compared with the consistency of Lasker and Steinitz. Lasker scored 5 1/2 in the first half, and 6 in the second. Steinitz scored 4 1/2 in the first half, and 5 in the second. Chigorin managed only one win and one draw in the first half of the tournament, but in the second half scored 5 1/2 out of 9, just a half-point less than Lasker. Pillsbury's reversal of fortune was even more dramatic: in the first half he scored five wins, one loss, and three draws to lead the field, but in the second half he obtained three draws, six losses and not a single win.

Many explanations have been offered for Pillsbury's collapse. It has been said that he caught syphilis from a St. Petersburg prostitute, which caused his poor performance in the second half; it has even been suggested that he received the diagnosis of the disease on the day of his dramatic fourth-cycle encounter with Lasker. (OMGP I, p. 135.) These stories don't seem credible to me. If Pillsbury was infected with syphilis in St. Petersburg, he probably would not have suffered any serious symptoms there. It is also unlikely that he would have been diagnosed as having the disease immediately after catching it; no blood test for syphilis existed in 1895-96. On the other hand, there is no question that Pillsbury was unwell during the second half of the tournament; many of his games had to be postponed. <Calli> has uncovered an article from the Brooklyn Eagle in January 1896 saying that Pillsbury was still suffering from "influenza" that had afflicted him during the second half of the tournament. The symptoms of second-stage syphilis are apparently not that different from severe flu; if Pillsbury had caught syphilis <before> the St. Petersburg tournament, the second stage might have manifested itself during the tournament. Alternatively, of course, he could have just caught the flu.

Finally, it is worth noting that St. Petersburg posed unusual problems for a 19th century master. "Supertournaments" where every player was a leading master, like Corus or Linares today, were rare back then. Major international tournaments like Hastings or Nuremburg included a number of local masters, who were easy prey for the likes of Pillsbury, Chigorin, Steinitz and Lasker. But at St. Petersburg 1895-1896, there were no weak opponents. A master in bad form, like Chigorin in the first half of the tournament or Pillsbury in the second half, could expect no mercy.

Later in 1896, the St. Petersburg masters plus many others gathered in Dr. Tarrasch's hometown of Nuremburg. Lasker again emerged the winner. Pillsbury tied for 3rd-4th with Tarrasch; Steinitz finished sixth and Chigorin finished in a tie for 9th-10th. Late in the year, Lasker and Steinitz returned to St. Petersburg for their rematch. Lasker overwhelmed his opponent, 10:2 with 5 draws.

As for Pillsbury, the St. Petersburg tournament book, echoing Paradise Lost, said: "Pillsbury is still young, and the chess world is all before him. A match between Lasker and Pillsbury would be interesting from many points of view." But it was not to be. Pillsbury continued to play strongly, but never repeated his feat at Hastings of winning a leading international tournament. His last major tournament was Cambridge Springs, where he finished in a tie for 8th-9th. But he did have the pleasure of defeating Lasker in the same variation that had brought him disaster at St. Petersburg on January 4, 1896: Pillsbury vs Lasker, 1904.

The main source for this collection was The Games of the St. Petersburg Tournament 1895-1896 by James Mason and W.H.K. Pollock.

Steinitz / Chigorin vs Lasker / Pillsbury, 1896 and Lasker / Pillsbury vs Steinitz / Chigorin, 1896 were other games played immediately after the final round.

Original collection: Game Collection: St. Petersburg 1895-96, by User: keypusher

 page 1 of 2; games 1-25 of 36  PGN Download
Game  ResultMoves Year Event/LocaleOpening
1. Steinitz vs Chigorin 0-138 1895 St. Petersburg 1895/96D37 Queen's Gambit Declined
2. Lasker vs Pillsbury 0-133 1895 St. Petersburg 1895/96C42 Petrov Defense
3. Chigorin vs Pillsbury 0-126 1895 St. Petersburg 1895/96C49 Four Knights
4. Lasker vs Steinitz 1-032 1895 St. Petersburg 1895/96C71 Ruy Lopez
5. Chigorin vs Lasker 0-126 1895 St. Petersburg 1895/96C52 Evans Gambit
6. Steinitz vs Pillsbury 1-060 1895 St. Petersburg 1895/96C43 Petrov, Modern Attack
7. Pillsbury vs Chigorin 1-057 1895 St. Petersburg 1895/96D07 Queen's Gambit Declined, Chigorin Defense
8. Steinitz vs Lasker 0-139 1895 St. Petersburg 1895/96D35 Queen's Gambit Declined
9. Pillsbury vs Steinitz ½-½54 1895 St. Petersburg 1895/96D37 Queen's Gambit Declined
10. Lasker vs Chigorin ½-½44 1895 St. Petersburg 1895/96C77 Ruy Lopez
11. Pillsbury vs Lasker 1-046 1895 St. Petersburg 1895/96C67 Ruy Lopez
12. Chigorin vs Steinitz 0-162 1895 St. Petersburg 1895/96C52 Evans Gambit
13. Steinitz vs Pillsbury ½-½37 1895 St. Petersburg 1895/96C43 Petrov, Modern Attack
14. Chigorin vs Lasker 0-147 1895 St. Petersburg 1895/96C53 Giuoco Piano
15. Steinitz vs Chigorin 1-034 1895 St. Petersburg 1895/96D21 Queen's Gambit Accepted
16. Lasker vs Pillsbury ½-½31 1895 St. Petersburg 1895/96C42 Petrov Defense
17. Chigorin vs Pillsbury 0-132 1896 St. Petersburg 1895/96C43 Petrov, Modern Attack
18. Lasker vs Steinitz ½-½32 1896 St. Petersburg 1895/96C64 Ruy Lopez, Classical
19. Pillsbury vs Lasker 0-130 1896 St. Petersburg 1895/96D50 Queen's Gambit Declined
20. Chigorin vs Steinitz 1-026 1896 St. Petersburg 1895/96C52 Evans Gambit
21. Steinitz vs Lasker 1-031 1896 St. Petersburg 1895/96D35 Queen's Gambit Declined
22. Pillsbury vs Chigorin 0-138 1896 St. Petersburg 1895/96D07 Queen's Gambit Declined, Chigorin Defense
23. Pillsbury vs Steinitz 0-144 1896 St. Petersburg 1895/96D37 Queen's Gambit Declined
24. Lasker vs Chigorin 1-030 1896 St. Petersburg 1895/96C79 Ruy Lopez, Steinitz Defense Deferred
25. Lasker vs Steinitz 1-047 1896 St. Petersburg 1895/96C62 Ruy Lopez, Old Steinitz Defense
 page 1 of 2; games 1-25 of 36  PGN Download
  REFINE SEARCH:   White wins (1-0) | Black wins (0-1) | Draws (1/2-1/2)  

Kibitzer's Corner
Premium Chessgames Member
  Benzol: I'm glad this tournament is up. It is arguably the strongest tournament of the 19th century. There were no "easy" opponents here. Thanks to <keypusher> for assembling it.


Nov-06-12  TheFocus: <Thanks to <keypusher> for assembling it.>

I second that motion.

Premium Chessgames Member
  Shams: Six-player round robin, brutal.

Did Scott write the text? Parts of it are written in the first person, which is a bit odd without a byline.

Premium Chessgames Member
  Benzol: <Did Scott write the text?> As far as I know he did.
Premium Chessgames Member
  keypusher: <shams> I did, yes. It used to be "my" collection, so my name appeared at the top and the use of the first person was less jarring, though maybe I should have avoided it as a matter of style.

Anyway, I love this and all the other tournament pages. They're wonderful! Thanks,, and everyone who helped put them together.

Jan-16-15  RookFile: What a strong tournament. In every round you're playing a guy who would be strong enough to contest a match for the world championship.
Premium Chessgames Member
  perfidious: Kibitzer is looking for short draws....

Ten years on, he is still seeking one from this event.....

NOTE: You need to pick a username and password to post a reply. Getting your account takes less than a minute, totally anonymous, and 100% free--plus, it entitles you to features otherwise unavailable. Pick your username now and join the chessgames community!
If you already have an account, you should login now.
Please observe our posting guidelines:
  1. No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.
  2. No spamming, advertising, or duplicating posts.
  3. No personal attacks against other users.
  4. Nothing in violation of United States law.
Blow the Whistle See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform an administrator.

NOTE: Keep all discussion on the topic of this page. This forum is for this specific tournament and nothing else. If you want to discuss chess in general, or this site, you might try the Kibitzer's Café.
Messages posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of, its employees, or sponsors.
Spot an error? Please suggest your correction and help us eliminate database mistakes!

home | about | login | logout | F.A.Q. | your profile | preferences | Premium Membership | Kibitzer's Café | Biographer's Bistro | new kibitzing | chessforums | Tournament Index | Player Directory | World Chess Championships | Opening Explorer | Guess the Move | Game Collections | ChessBookie Game | Chessgames Challenge | Store | privacy notice | advertising | contact us
Copyright 2001-2015, Chessgames Services LLC
Web design & database development by 20/20 Technologies