|St. Petersburg 1895/96|
At the closing banquet of the Hastings (1895) tournament, Chigorin announced that the top prizewinners had been invited to St. Petersburg for a match-tournament to begin in December that year. The top finishers Pillsbury, Chigorin and Lasker, plus fifth-place finisher Steinitz agreed to play; fourth-place finisher Siegbert 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
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.
Lasker ****** 11=01= 00=1== 1=11=1 11.5
Steinitz 00=10= ****** 1==111 01100= 9.5
Pillsbury 11=0== 0==000 ****** 11100= 8.0
Chigorin 0=00=0 10011= 00011= ****** 7.0
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. 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 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 avoided 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 champion, 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 found an article from the Brooklyn Daily 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.
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 Nuremberg 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 for the Nuremberg (1896) tournament. 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 Lasker - Steinitz World Championship Rematch (1896). 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 (1895) of winning a leading international tournament. His last major tournament was Cambridge Springs (1904), 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 William Henry Krause 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
| page 1 of 2; games 1-25 of 36
|Nov-06-12|| ||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.
|Nov-06-12|| ||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.
|Nov-06-12|| ||Benzol: <Did Scott write the text?> As far as I know he did.|
|Nov-09-12|| ||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, cg.com, 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.|
|Jan-16-15|| ||perfidious: Kibitzer is looking for short draws....
Ten years on, he is still seeking one from this event.....
|May-22-15|| ||Chessical: The following explanation of Pillsbury's poor form in the tournament suggests that Pillsbury became involved in a failed business scheme with Steinitz which cost him $600 or $17,000 in 2015 values.|
The shock of a grave financial loss weighing heavily upon him, Pillsbury's performance suddenly collapsed. After scoring 6.5/9, he lost five game in succession and then further scored only three draws.
"Josiah T Marean, president of the Brooklyn Chess Club ..."Pillsbury had gone into some wild scheme with Showalter (sic - this appears to be a misprint for Steinitz) to copyright the games played in the tournament outside of St. Petersburg:
"I know that such an assertion has been made (apparently in print by Showalter - ed), and I was rather sorry to see it in the form in which it appeared, because some of Mr Pillsbury’s acquaintances may draw a wrong inference from it. The story came originally, I happen to know, from one of Mr Pillsbury's friends, who would be extremely sorry to have people draw wrong conclusions form the indefinite assertion published. He never meant to intimate that here was anything wrong or disagreeable in the business relations of Mr Pillsbury and Mr Steinitz. What he did mean to say is this 'Mr Steinitz has no head for business and Mr Pillsbury is a young man who cannot afford to lose much money. Yet Steinitz persuaded Pillsbury to enter into an arrangement which was wild and foolish on its face, and the failure of the plan, I surmise, has so disappointed and disheartened Pillsbury that it seems his recent un-success is due to it.
'The scheme', said Mr Marean, "was one by which Pillsbury was to buy from the St. Petersburg Chess club the exclusive right to publish outside of St. Petersburg, the full report of the games played in the club. It was the plan to secure copyrights of the games but the whole scheme naturally fell through because in a club like St. Petersburg Chess club, where the games are semi-public, it is impossible to keep things out of the hands of other people.
The whole plan was a foolish one, and I can't understand how Pillsbury came to put his money in it. He lost, I understand, about $600. Now, Pillsbury's circumstances do not permit him to lose such a sum as that without feeling it. Six hundred dollars was a big sum to him and I suppose the loss of it worried him. I surmise, from what I know that his recent failure to win games is due, in part at least, to his unfortunate and unbusiness-like venture.' 
Josiah T Marean was a lawyer and a public figure in New York and was not at all likely to spin ill considered speculation to the press. Marean would be elected to the New York Supreme Court bench in 1903 
 "The Brooklyn Eagle", Saturday 18th January, 1896, p.10.
 “Courts and Lawyers of New York: A History, 1609-1925, Volume 1",
Alden Chester, Edwin Melvin Williams”, p.948. American Historical Society, 1925
|Jul-01-16|| ||zanzibar: Just a quick word about 365's version of the tournament:|
I often use 365 to compare against <CG>, a useful process. But it's surprising to see that <365> is not only missing this game:
Pillsbury vs Lasker, 1896
(it only has 35 games for the tournament) but is really also missing this one too:
Steinitz vs Pillsbury, 1896
since its version:
is really a copy of Lasker--Chigorin (R12.4).
* * * * *
BTW- I like to number the rounds like this:
Where <n> is the same as here on <CG> (i.e. mapping into the date of each two-table play), but <m> tracks the encounters within each pairing.
Since SCID and CBlight slough off the minor number its really just a convenience for the user I find helpful.
Spot an error? Please suggest your correction and help us eliminate database mistakes!
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
Please observe our posting guidelines:
- No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.
- No spamming, advertising, or duplicating posts.
- No personal attacks against other members.
- Nothing in violation of United States law.
- No posting personal information of members.
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.
posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors.|
your profile |
Premium Membership |
Kibitzer's Café |
Biographer's Bistro |
new kibitzing |
Tournament Index |
Player Directory |
World Chess Championships |
Opening Explorer |
Guess the Move |
Game Collections |
ChessBookie Game |
Chessgames Challenge |
privacy notice |
Copyright 2001-2017, Chessgames Services LLC