Why Castle: Jacques Mieses vs Harry N Pillsbury - Hastings (1895)

Jacques Mieses (White)

Harry Nelson Pillsbury (Black)

Hastings (1895), Hastings ENG, rd 6, Aug-12

Vienna Game Stanley Variation. Reversed Spanish

Thanks for watching.

[Event "Hastings"]
[Site "Hastings ENG"]
[Date "1895.08.12"]
[EventDate "1895.08.05"]
[Round "6"]
[Result "0-1"]
[White "Jacques Mieses"]
[Black "Harry Nelson Pillsbury"]
[ECO "C26"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]
[PlyCount "44"]

1.e4 {Notes by C. von Bardeleben} e5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.Bc4 Bb4 {I
prefer Bc5 or Nc6.} 4.f4 d6 5.Nf3 O-O 6.Nd5 {Unsound. White
should have played 6 fxe5 dxe5 7 O-O and would have obtained a
very good game by the open King's Bishop’ file.} Nxd5 7.Bxd5
Nc6 {Better would be Bc5 to prevent White's Castling.} 8.c3
{White fails to take advantage of the opponent's mistake;
instead of 8 c3 he ought to have Castled.} Bc5 9.f5 Ne7 10.Bb3
d5 {!} 11.d4 exd4 12.f6 gxf6 13.Nxd4 dxe4 14.Bh6 Ng6 {! The
sacrifice of the exchange is quite sound, Black being two
Pawns ahead. Bad would he 14...Re8 because of 15 Qh5 Ng6 16
O-O-O, and White would have a strong attack.} 15.Bxf8 Qxf8
16.Rf1 {Another weak move. If White played 16 Castles, his
game was not so bad.} Qh6 {! Very cleverly played.} 17.Qe2
Bxd4 18.cxd4 f5 19.g4 {Overlooking the simple reply of
Black. Of course the right move was 19 g3.} Nf4 {Now it is
plain sailing for Black.} 20.Qc4 Nd3+ 21.Ke2 Qxh2+ 22.Ke3 f4
0-1