Wilhelm Steinitz vs Samuel Tinsley (1899)

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

Kibitzing

Wilhelm Steinitz vs Samuel Tinsley
London (1899), London ENG, rd 22, Jun-28
French Defense: Advance Variation. Paulsen Attack (C02) · 1-0

ANALYSIS [x]

FEN COPIED

explore this opening	find similar games	2 more Steinitz/Tinsley games
	PGN: download \| view \| print	Help: general \| java-troubleshooting

TIP: Some games have photographs. These are denoted in the game list with the

icon.

For help with this chess viewer, please see the Olga Chess Viewer Quickstart Guide.

PREMIUM MEMBERS CAN REQUEST COMPUTER ANALYSIS [more info]

May-17-14		profK: Whoops missed something___22 Re2!. I played the advanced Variation 3.e5 for 20 yearsm and I believe that 5...f6 is the best for Black.

Mar-19-17		KEG: Tinsley for once played the opening decently, but then played a faulty combination on his 16th move that lost the game immediately. Unlike profK, I am not fond of 5...f6 in the Advance Variation of the French Defense (the more normal 5...Qb6 or 5...Bd7 or even 5...Nge7 all seem much better), but 5...f6 is certainly playable and had nothing to do with Tinsley's defeat here. In fact, when Steinitz played 6. exf6 (instead of the far superior 6. Bd3) Tinsley got the better of the opening and maintained his advantage through his 15th move. The Tournament Book criticizes Tinsley's 14...Nb4 as a loss of time, but the move looks fine to me. True, the Knight can be chased away by White with 16. a3, but White also loses time in having to move his Bishop and also loosens his Queen-side pawn structure. All in all, I like the move. Tinsley's 16...Bxh2+, however was simply a blunder. He apparently thought he would obtain a good attack for the piece with 19...Nc2 20. BxN RxB, but overlooked Steinitz' 20. Re2!! winning immediately. In fact, and as the Tournament Book notes, Steinitz could have won even without this resource (e.g., 20. Rf1, though not as decisive as 20. Re2!!, would have refuted Tinsley's combination). Tinsley's desperate 20...Nxe3 was crushed by Steinitz' 21. Qd3. In fairness, however, the game was past redemption after 20. Re2.

NOTE: Create an account today to post replies and access other powerful features which are available only to registered users. Becoming a member is free, anonymous, and takes less than 1 minute! If you already have a username, then simply login login under your username now to join the discussion.

Please observe our posting guidelines:

No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.
No spamming, advertising, duplicate, or gibberish posts.
No vitriolic or systematic personal attacks against other members.
Nothing in violation of United States law.
No cyberstalking or malicious posting of negative or private information (doxing/doxxing) of members.
No trolling.
The use of "sock puppet" accounts to circumvent disciplinary action taken by moderators, create a false impression of consensus or support, or stage conversations, is prohibited.
Do not degrade Chessgames or any of it's staff/volunteers.

Please try to maintain a semblance of civility at all times.

See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform a moderator.

NOTE: Please keep all discussion on-topic. This forum is for this specific game only. To discuss chess or this site in general, visit the Kibitzer's Café.

Messages posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors.
All moderator actions taken are ultimately at the sole discretion of the administration.

This game is type: CLASSICAL. Please report incorrect or missing information by submitting a correction slip to help us improve the quality of our content.