Rehabbing the Immortal "Losers"

Curt Von Bardeleben wasn't just the loser of a famous game with Steinitz.

If you’ve heard of Curt Von Bardeleben, it’s probably for one of two reasons - likely both. First, he lost a famous, beautiful game to Wilhelm (William) Steinitz in Hastings 1895. Second, he is infamous for the way he finished that game: he didn’t continue to mate and he didn’t resign; instead, he simply left the playing hall. Given that he isn’t famous for his own “immortal” game, for playing for a world championship or winning any major tournaments, it’s easy to assume he was a weak player - just strong enough to be invited to a good tournament, but only to serve as cannon fodder for the real players.

Perhaps this profile fits some of the victims of famous brilliancies, but not always, and not in the case of Von Bardeleben. Did you know, for example, that he finished =7th out of 22 players at Hastings, tied with Richard Teichmann and ahead of famous players like Carl Schlechter, Joseph Henry Blackburne, David Janowski and many other well-known masters? Moreover, he was tied for second place with 7.5/9 going into the game with Steinitz, and had defeated Emanuel Lasker - the World Champion - in round 4? (If that’s not enough, it wasn’t his only win against Lasker, either.) Colloquially put, Von Bardeleben’s got game.