Game No. 41 in Wilhelm Steinitz’s The Book of the Sixth American Chess Congress (1891), printed pages 51–53; played 1889.05.14. The original descriptive notation and printed analysis are retained.

1. 6.e5 6 Kt X P, which, we believe, has not been suggested or adopted before, deserves a trial for the attack. Evidently Black cannot well answer 6 . . . Kt x P, on account of the reply 7 Kt — B5, etc.
2. 8.Bf4 This is novel, but we doubt the experiment. 8 Kt — B5 leads to some complications, but by best play on both sides the game ought to be equalized.
3. 8…Nxd4 The right move for Black, which, we think, ought to give him the pull, is 8...P—B3, with the probable continuation: 9 B—B4 ch., 9 K—R sq.; 10 Kt x Kt, 10 KtP x Kt; 11 Q—Q4, 11 P x P; 12 B x P, 12 Kt—B3; 13 Kt—B3, 13 P—Q3; 14 QB—KKt3, 14 P—Q4, with the better game.
4. 11.Nc3 11 B — Q3 or — R4 gave him a more legitimate chance to play for a win.
5. 11…Bf5 For now Black could have produced a dead draw by 11...Kt x B; 12 Q x Q (if 12 Kt x Kt, 12 P—QB3; 13 Q x Q, 13 B x Q leads to the same position), 12...B x Q; 13 Kt x B, 13 P—QB3; 14 Kt—B7 (or 14 Kt—Q4, 14 B—B3, with the better game. Again, if 14 Kt—Q6, 14 B—B2; 15 Kt x B, 15 B x B; 16 Kt—K7 ch., 16 K—K sq.; 17 Kt—B5, best [or else the retreat of the Knight will be cut off by P—KKt3]; 16...QR—Q sq., with a slight superiority), 14...B x Kt, and no more than a draw can be expected, on account of the Bishops being of opposite colors, with even Pawns.
6. 12…Bf6 12...Kt—K5; 13 Q x Q, 13 B x Q would have equalized his game, whereas now his position becomes inferior.
7. 13.Qc5 Finely played. He threatens to isolate the QP at once, and should Black retreat B— K2, then Kt—Q5 would follow. Otherwise the attack might also be continued with QR — Q sq.
8. 14.Qc6 White has now two Bishops against Knight and Bishop, and he has formed an ugly hole at QB6, which subsequently causes the opponent great embarrassment.
9. 17…gxf6 In order to reserve Kt — B4 in case White should take the QBP, whereupon he would either recover his Pawn or else exchange Knight for Bishop and remain with Bishops of opposite colors.
10. 18.Rfe1 We should have preferred the preparation 18 B—B6, 18 QR—QB sq.; 19 P—QKt4, for it was important to hold the Knight aloof from the occupation of QB4.
11. 22…Ne5 Black seems to have labored under some false alarm, or else he must have overlooked that White’s 27th move retains the great advantage of the exchange ahead. There was no danger in 22...KR—Q sq., and the game might have proceeded: 23 B—Kt7, 23 R—Kt sq.; 24 R x QBP, 24 Kt x KtP; 25 P—QR3, 25 Kt—Q6; 26 B—QR6 (or 26 B—K4, 26 QR—QB sq., etc.), 26...Kt—B4; 27 R x P (if 27 KB—QB4, 27 R—Q2, etc.), 27...R—R sq., with at least an even game.
12. 30.Rc3 It is a feature of Mr. Tschigorin’s style that he handles the Rooks with a special skill that we do not think has ever been equalled. Noteworthy instances of this peculiarity in his play over the board will be found in his second game against Mackenzie, played in the London tournament of 1883, and in his third game of the contest against the editor, played at Havana. His analysis of the two games of the match by telegraph and correspondence between St. Petersburg and London, as well as the actual conduct of those games in which Mr. Tschigorin was the leader of the Russian council, also comprise some beautiful manoeuvres with the Rooks of the greatest depth and ingenuity.
13. 32.Kf1 White quietly threatens now B — K2, and Black has nothing left but the desperate sacrifice that follows, which, of course, cannot save the game.