Hastings 1895 chess tournament

The chess tournament that was conducted at Hastings, England from August 5 to September 2 1895 has been called by many commentators as the greatest of all time, and a milestone in the history of chess, for several reasons.

Related Topics:
Chess - Hastings - August 5 - September 2 - 1895

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Firstly, all the greatest players of the time were present. This was the first time such a "super-tournament" was conducted. The participants (in the order in which they finished) were Harry Nelson Pillsbury, Mikhail Chigorin, Emmanuel Lasker, Siegbert Tarrasch, Wilhelm Steinitz, Emanuel Schiffers, Curt von Bardeleben, Richard Teichmann, Carl Schlechter, Joseph Henry Blackburne, Carl Walbrodt, Amos Burn, David Janowski, James Mason, Henry Bird, Isidor Gunsberg, Adolf Albin, Georg Marco, William Pollock, Jacques Mieses, Samuel Tinsley and Beniamino Vergani. Pillsbury, a young American unknown in Europe, was the surprise winner with 16.5/21 points ahead of Chigorin (16) and Lasker (15.5). Following the success of the event, the Hastings tournament would become an annual feature. Today such competitions are conducted annually at various places.

Related Topics:
Harry Nelson Pillsbury - Mikhail Chigorin - Emmanuel Lasker - Siegbert Tarrasch - Wilhelm Steinitz - Emanuel Schiffers - Curt von Bardeleben - Richard Teichmann - Carl Schlechter - Joseph Henry Blackburne - Carl Walbrodt - Amos Burn - David Janowski - James Mason - Henry Bird - Isidor Gunsberg - Adolf Albin - Georg Marco - William Pollock - Jacques Mieses - Samuel Tinsley - Beniamino Vergani

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Secondly, many of the games were of very high quality and extremely hard fought. Two of the games, in particular, stand out for their depth, beauty and drama: Steinitz vs. von Bardeleben and Pillsbury vs. Gunsberg (see below).

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The third unique aspect was the Book of the Tournament, in which the participants annotated their own games. The Book too became an annual feature and was of very high instructional value.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~