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