The game may have changed the course of Pillsbury's chess career. Before Hastings, he was a relative unknown in Europe. Sure, he'd had some mild successes in the States, but what great player had the U.S. produced outside of Morphy? Most of its representatives, like MacKenzie or Paulsen, were immigrants from Europe.

In the first round, Pillsbury had lost a difficult game to Chigorin. Had he lost this one as well, would he have gone on to success at Hastings? Or would his confidence have been sapped?

Instead, he went toe-to-toe with one of the top five players in the world, and beat him unflinchingly. That had to open a few eyes, especially when he kept doing it round after round.

So what about the opening, specifically <4.Bg5>? As pointed out, it had been played before, as you can see from this Opening Explorer list:

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/ches...

Sixty-one appearances in our incomplete database, including three times each in the world championship matches of 1886 and 1894. Steinitz seemed to be getting fond of it in the 1890s. However, the demerits of the move were well known. Here's what Isidor Gunsberg had to say about it in the tournament book:

<"No good results from this early sortie of the bishop. The attack, or, perhaps better speaking, would-be attack, differs from similar play in the French defence, inasmuch as White has not P to K5 at his command. Generally speaking, both the first and second player in this opening require their Queen's Bishop on the Queen's side.">

(One of the highlights of my chess career was finding a copy of the tournament book in the University of Michigan Graduate Library with a pencilled comment next to the note: <"Totally wrong! This game established 4.B-Kt5 as White's best move! Gunsberg is an idiot!!"> I imagine that writer is posting on the Internet at this very moment. Such creative anachronism never dies.)

Less colorful was C.E. Ranken's comment in the 1895 <British Chess Magazine>, p. 384:

<"The early sortie of the the QB to B4 or Kt5 has now become quite fashionable in this opening, but not infrequently it leaves the Q's side rather weak.">

This is, I feel, closer to the truth, and note that it's exactly what goes on in the game. The Opening Explorer offers some insight as to what came next. Pillsbury played <4.Bg5> several more times at Hastings, and Lasker, Janowski, and Tarrasch (!) also gave it a whirl. By 1896, it's in use by a wide range of players in several different tournaments. It had become fashionable.

We all know the legends of Greasy Grey-Haired Grandmasters who have burned the Midnight Oil in the never-ending quest for the Holy Grail, a <TN> next to one of their moves. More often than not, I have the feeling that an innovation is nothing more than a player looking at a position and saying, "Oh, what the heck! This looks interesting."

I liked the bit where two lads were (to put it more politely), discussing the relative value of a Bishop v Pawns and one challenged the other to a King and Bishop v King and five pawns game. (page 8)

Anyway....

Much mention has been made of Gunsberg's comment about 4.Bg5.

click for larger view

"No good results from this early sortie of the Bishop..."

I have the original book of the tournament printed in 1896. What may not be too well known is that Gunsberg is still going on about 4.Bg5 as late as move 27.

click for larger view

"Now the position affords an object lesson as to the effect of White's early move 4.Bg5. The attack on the King's side, which this move was intended to promote, has apparently been met, and therefore Black begins to advance from the Queen side, where White's pawns are insufficiently supported."

No one can accuse Gunsberg of annotating by result. Infact quite the reverse. In the game:

K A Walbrodt vs Steinitz, 1895

We read:

"In the game Lasker v Steinitz, we have given our opinion about this defence , and the fact that Black is successful in this instance does not induce us to alter our views."

No idea who the 'we/our' are. The comment on the Lasker v Steinitz can be seen here.

Lasker vs Steinitz, 1895

All the games are given notes by different players from the tournament, no player being allowed to note up his own game. So you get a smashing mixture of prose and opinions. You could say Gunsberg was just unlucky in getting drawn to note up this game.

But this game was played on 6th August.

It was round 2, the first meeting of Pillsbury and Tarrasch. When history ended for them the score was 5-5 with 2 draws.

Doh! I am a big Lasker fan, as well.

I knew that he didn't win a few of the tournaments he took part in while he was World Champion. I also knew Pillsbury won this one and I had a blind spot: "If Lasker didn't win it he wasn't in it".

How long will this garbage continue?