Hastings (1895) The chess club in the English coastal town of Hastings was founded in 1882. In 1895 the club organized a tournament (1) that was the strongest ever held up to that time. Taking place over the month of August all the leading players of the day participated. Among the participants were the veterans Blackburne and Bird and the young masters Janowski, Schlechter, Teichmann and Walbrodt. The favourites were Lasker, Steinitz, Tarrasch and Chigorin. However, the winner turned out to be the then relatively unknown American Harry Nelson Pillsbury who was playing in his first major tournament. The tournament was memorable for a number of masterpieces created and a very exciting finish with the lead changing hands in the last three rounds. Pillsbury, after his return home to the USA, said "The reception to me at Hastings was very cordial, especially on the part of Steinitz, Tarrasch, and Tschigorin. The English players, Blackburne and Bird, were also very courteous. Before the tournament began, we would sit for hours and discuss matters pertaining to chess, or analyze a game, or try to expand the theories of certain openings, and so on, and I shall not forget the many happy and pleasant hours I spent with these gentlemen at Hastings. The same feeling was shown to me after defeating Gunsberg in the final round. When it was known that I had won the game, Tschigorin, Steinitz and Tarrasch left their respective boards on which they were engaged to play and came over to congratulate me on my success, saying many nice things to me."(2) At the closing banquet Chigorin announced that the top prize winners had been invited to the St. Petersburg 1895-96 (1895) tournament to begin later in December that year. Crosstable: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 Pts 1. Pillsbury * 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 ½ ½ 1 1 1 1 1 1 ½ 1 1 1 1 16½ 2. Chigorin 1 * 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 ½ 1 0 1 ½ 1 ½ 1 1 ½ 1 1 16 3. Lasker 1 0 * 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 ½ 1 1 ½ 1 1 ½ 1 1 15½ 4. Tarrasch 0 0 1 * 1 1 ½ 0 ½ 1 1 1 1 0 1 ½ 1 1 0 ½ 1 1 14 5. Steinitz 0 1 0 0 * 1 1 ½ ½ 1 1 ½ 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 ½ 1 1 13 6. Schiffers 0 1 0 0 0 * ½ ½ 0 1 1 ½ 1 ½ 1 1 0 ½ 1 ½ 1 1 12 7. von Bardeleben 0 0 1 ½ 0 ½ * ½ ½ 0 0 1 ½ 1 ½ 1 ½ 1 1 1 0 1 11½ 8. Teichmann 0 0 0 1 ½ ½ ½ * ½ 0 0 1 ½ 1 1 0 ½ 1 ½ 1 1 1 11½ 9. Schlechter 1 0 0 ½ ½ 1 ½ ½ * ½ ½ 1 0 1 ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ 1 0 11 10. Blackburne ½ 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 ½ * 0 1 1 0 ½ 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 10½ 11. Walbrodt ½ ½ 0 0 0 0 1 1 ½ 1 * 0 0 ½ ½ ½ 0 ½ ½ 1 1 1 10 12. Burn 0 0 0 0 ½ ½ 0 0 0 0 1 * 1 0 ½ 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 9½ 13. Janowski 0 1 0 0 1 0 ½ ½ 1 0 1 0 * ½ ½ 0 0 1 ½ 1 0 1 9½ 14. Mason 0 0 ½ 1 0 ½ 0 0 0 1 ½ 1 ½ * 1 0 ½ 0 1 1 0 1 9½ 15. Bird 0 ½ 0 0 1 0 ½ 0 ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ 0 * 1 1 ½ 0 ½ ½ 1 9 16. Gunsberg 0 0 0 ½ 0 0 0 1 ½ 1 ½ 1 1 1 0 * 1 ½ 0 1 0 0 9 17. Albin 0 ½ ½ 0 0 1 ½ ½ ½ 0 1 0 1 ½ 0 0 * 0 0 1 1 ½ 8½ 18. Marco ½ 0 0 0 0 ½ 0 0 ½ 1 ½ 0 0 1 ½ ½ 1 * 1 1 0 ½ 8½ 19. Pollock 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 ½ ½ 0 ½ 0 ½ 0 1 1 1 0 * 0 0 1 8 20. Mieses 0 ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ 0 0 ½ 1 0 0 0 0 ½ 0 0 0 1 * 1 1 7½ 21. Tinsley 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 ½ 1 0 1 1 0 * 1 7½ 22. Vergani 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 ½ ½ 0 0 0 * 3 References: (1) http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hast..., (2) https://picasaweb.google.com/Caissa... Original collection: Game Collection: Hastings 1895, by User: Benzol  page 1 of 10; games 1-25 of 231  Game   Result Moves Year Event/Locale Opening 1. Albin vs Bird 0-1 52 1895 Hastings A04 Reti Opening 2. Janowski vs Blackburne 0-1 63 1895 Hastings C10 French 3. Chigorin vs Pillsbury 1-0 51 1895 Hastings C30 King's Gambit Declined 4. Teichmann vs K Walbrodt 0-1 48 1895 Hastings C25 Vienna 5. Lasker vs G Marco 1-0 29 1895 Hastings D37 Queen's Gambit Declined 6. Steinitz vs B Vergani 1-0 41 1895 Hastings C11 French 7. Schlechter vs W Pollock ½-½ 24 1895 Hastings C77 Ruy Lopez 8. Schiffers vs Gunsberg 1-0 36 1895 Hastings C46 Three Knights 9. Burn vs Von Bardeleben 0-1 40 1895 Hastings D37 Queen's Gambit Declined 10. J Mason vs Tarrasch 1-0 30 1895 Hastings C50 Giuoco Piano 11. Tinsley vs Mieses 0-1 33 1895 Hastings D05 Queen's Pawn Game 12. Gunsberg vs Burn 1-0 53 1895 Hastings C01 French, Exchange 13. Tinsley vs J Mason 1-0 51 1895 Hastings D05 Queen's Pawn Game 14. Mieses vs Blackburne 1-0 32 1895 Hastings C45 Scotch Game 15. B Vergani vs Janowski 0-1 29 1895 Hastings D05 Queen's Pawn Game 16. Schiffers vs Teichmann ½-½ 34 1895 Hastings C49 Four Knights 17. Lasker vs Chigorin 0-1 57 1895 Hastings D02 Queen's Pawn Game 18. Pillsbury vs Tarrasch 1-0 52 1895 Hastings D63 Queen's Gambit Declined, Orthodox Defense 19. Steinitz vs Schlechter ½-½ 49 1895 Hastings C54 Giuoco Piano 20. Albin vs Von Bardeleben ½-½ 80 1895 Hastings C50 Giuoco Piano 21. G Marco vs W Pollock   1-0 26 1895 Hastings C62 Ruy Lopez, Old Steinitz Defense 22. Bird vs K Walbrodt ½-½ 37 1895 Hastings A03 Bird's Opening 23. Burn vs Schiffers ½-½ 56 1895 Hastings D37 Queen's Gambit Declined 24. K Walbrodt vs Gunsberg ½-½ 33 1895 Hastings C45 Scotch Game 25. Schlechter vs Lasker 0-1 51 1895 Hastings B34 Sicilian, Accelerated Fianchetto  page 1 of 10; games 1-25 of 231    REFINE SEARCH:   White wins (1-0) | Black wins (0-1) | Draws (1/2-1/2)     Nov-05-12    fref: Nowadays, super-tournaments don't have that much rounds anymore. Nov-16-12    brankat: This is an absolutely fantastic collection of games from a legendary tournament! <fref> Nowadays, people are always in a hurry. Only when they get near their deathbed do they reconsider. Too late. From Pillsbury's interview after the event: <Before the tournament began, we would sit for hours and discuss matters pertaining to chess, or analyze a game, or try to expand the theories of certain openings, and so on,> You are not going to witness that kind of a thing again. May-05-13    Phony Benoni: Nick Pope's "Chess Archaeology" site now has issues of the <Brooklyn Daily Eagle> covering Hastings 1895. Since Pillsbury was living in Brooklyn at the time, you can imagine they got somewhat more excited as the tournament went on. But, really, proclaiming him World Champion after the last round was going a bit far. http://www.chessarch.com/excavation... May-05-13    nok: Consistent with Hastings being perceived as a kind of unification tournament, as the first half of the 1890s had been very messy. But it didn't clear the dust just yet. May-05-13    nok: Of course, as I said in another thread, we should also remember that <in the 19th century an international tournament was a rare event, and the winner often had moral rights to the title>. May-05-13    perfidious: The apparently interminable orgy of self-justification by one poster, in the face of facts, has migrated to another page. How lucky we are-as in not. Most unfortunate that it should sully another fine tournament page, but that can be the curse of having certain anonymous random posters on the internet. May-05-13    Phony Benoni: <perfidious> There's room for research about 19th century attitudes toward the world championship. <We> know what happened--history is 20-20, after all--but it may not have been as clear at the time. As a comparison, think of the confusion in the 1990s when it wasn't clear whether FIDE or Kasparov and his Friends would ultimately prevail. I came across another tidbit today. When Lasker clinched first in the Paris 1900 tournament, the headline in the New York Times was <"LASKER STILL CHAMPION">, as if to imply he wouldn't have been had he not won the tournament. Now these are little molehills against mountains of contrary evidence. But it's still a question that could use some research. 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: No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language. No spamming, advertising, or duplicating posts. No personal attacks against other users. Nothing in violation of United States law. See something which 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 Chessgames.com, 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 | Little ChessPartner | privacy notice | contact us Copyright 2001-2013, Chessgames Services LLC Web design & database development by 20/20 Technologies