Notes by W. Steinitz.

1. 6.d4 The idea of blocking the Bishop with the Knight by development on the part of the first player, and by retreat (as here) for the second player, was first brought out by Steinitz, and, singularly enough, each time in a game against Blackburne. The development occurred in a match in 1876, and the retreat in a 'Three Knights' Game' in the London Tournament of 1883. In this opening the main object of the retreat is to avoid the necessity of exchanging centre Pawns, and thus to keep White King's Knight inactive. The judgment about the efficacy of this scheme involves the question whether the Black King's Knight should be brought out previously at B 3 or at K 2.
2. 6…Nd7 It is always worth while to obtain two Bishops against Knight and Bishop early. Kt to Q 5, with the view of exchanging, followed by R to K sq, was therefore stronger
3. 8.Ne2 B to B 2 is generally preferable in such positions, as it gives more freedom to the Queen's Knight's Pawn, which it may be useful to advance in some contingencies. 11. Kt to R 5, and if Kt to K Kt 3; 12. B x Kt, B x B; 13. Kt x B, ch, Q x Kt; 14. P x P, Kt x P; 15. Kt to Q 7, with the better game, was also worth trying for.
4. 11.Bb3 More lively and promising was 14. Kt to Kt 5, Kt to K 3; 15. Kt x Kt, B x Kt; 16, B x B, R x B; 17. P to B 3, &c. Dry dulness reigns in this game for a long time after the exchanges, which are the natural outcome of this, were effected.
5. 14.dxe5 Neumann and Winawer have first shown that the Knight is more often stronger than the Bishop when a Pawn is doubled in the camp of the latter. It was, therefore, all the more objectionable to allow his Pawns to be doubled here, as the adversary had still both Knights on the board. B to B 2, retaining the two Bishops, was best.
6. 30…g4 Life and spirit has been infused by Mr. Tchigorin into an apparently barren position, which did not seem capable of such interesting attacking development.
7. 31…Nd8 P x P would have either effected the isolation of White's King's Pawn, or given Black two Pawns to one on the King's wing, which being supported by heavier Pieces was rather stronger than White's similar constellation in the centre.
8. 32.f5 32. Kt to B 5, Kt to B 2; 33. Q R to Q sq, Kt to Q 3; 34. Kt x Kt, K x Kt; 35. B to B 5 led to equalisation, and White could expect no more.
9. 35.Nd1 Again an easy draw could have been secured by 34. B x Kt, ch, or Knight at Kt 6, followed by P to Q Kt 3. This and the next movements of the Knight imperil his game, the root of his central position, his King's Pawn, being left without good support.
10. 43.h4 White was bound to stop the advance of the adverse King's Rook's Pawn, which would also make room for the Black Rook attacking the King's Bishop's Pawn later on by R to R 4.
11. 47…Ng6 A fine move. Black threatens Kt to B sq in case White refuses to exchange at once. (See diagram.)
12. 52…Kg6 Threatening R to R 2.
13. 57.b5 White's defence, after the loss of the Pawn, has developed remarkable resources of resistance up to this point, where his tenacity breaks down. K to Q 3 would have made it at least extremely difficult for Black to win, and opened various prospects of a draw.
14. 63…Re6 The manner in which Black gains the move, and consequently the Pawn, is an instructive lesson for students.
15. 64.Ra5 In a similar way if 64. K to B 5, R to K sq: 65. K to K 4, R to K 2, &c.
16. 66…Kd6 This might have caused prolongation. The precise way of winning, as pointed out by Mr. Tchigorin, was 66.... K to Kt 5; 67. R to Kt sq, ch, K to B 6; 68. R to B sq, ch (or 68. R to Kt 5 or Kt 6, K to B 5, &c.), K to Kt 7; 69. R to B 5, K to Kt 6, and will give support for his Pawn with the King at Kt 5 or B 5 in a few moves.
17. 70.Rd5 If White had now played R to Kt sq, Black could not win except by entering on a war with his King downward again, and adopting the process shown in the last note.
18. 75…Re8 A fine ending, typical of its kind.