Johann Baptist Allgaier

Relatively few details of his life are known. Only a few years after his death almost all information concerning his life, including dates of birth and death, were lost. Daniel Fiske traveled to Vienna between 1862 and 1863 and searched the archives of the city for some details about him, but in vain. Only in 1870 Anton Baron Reisner (a founder of the Wiener Schachgesellschaft and collaborator of the Neue Berliner Schachzeitung), by working in archives and by interviewing Allgaier's family members and others who knew him, managed to recover some details of the life of this master.[2] Subsequently, it was discovered that some information was also present in the memories of Karl Heinrich von Ritters Lang written in 1842, but not known to the chess historians of the time.[3]

Johann Baptist Allgaier was born in 1763 in the Duchy of Württemberg; his mother tongue was the Swabian dialect. His father, Georg Allgaier, was employed at a monastery as a Hofmeister, the person, who, in those days, was in charge of the education of the children of the rich and noble families. The young Johann received a Catholic education and was directed by his father towards the study of theology. Following a trip to Poland, however, he learned chess from a Polish Jew and the game became his main interest at the expense of the study of theology.[2] Subsequently, in 1798, he moved to Vienna and joined the army.[4] In the Austrian capital, he was able to improve his chess skills. Towards the end of 1780, he won an important match from which he earned 1,500 florins and the reputation of the city's best player.[5] This allowed Allgaier access to the aristocratic circles of the capital where he gave chess lessons. He also became the teacher of the sons and brothers of the Emperor Francis II. Since Allgaier was in the army, he participated in the Napoleonic wars between Austria and France. In 1809, he was employed in a field hospital, where he became ill with chronic asthma.[2] Later it was moved to Prague where he became an accountant at the military hospital. He returned to Vienna in 1816 where the Emperor gave him, for health reasons (asthma), a modest pension. In order to make some additional money, he played chess in the Cafés of Vienna, and in particular to the Zur Goldenen Krone, the meeting place of many strong players in the capital, including Anton Witthalm and the Count Johann Somssich.[6] Witthalm was one of the persons interviewed by Anton Baron Reisner to reconstruct Allgaier's life of that period. Witthalm reported that Allgaier's style was brilliant and mainly focused on attacking, while Somssich, by contrast, was more cautious and defensive. When Allgaier played, a crowd of spectators gathered at the premises of the Café to admire his brilliant play. Santo Vito, who edited the 6th and 7th edition of Allgaier's book, collected some of these games in an appendix.[7] Allgaier was used to accept the challenge of anyone for a florin. This price for weaker players, also included a short lesson of the master after the game. In fact, Allgaier throughout most of his life had to deal with a constant shortage of money as it emerges from the memoirs of Karl Heinrich von Ritters Lang.[3] Financial problems were often the reasons, for some players, to accept Mälzel's offer to operate the Turk. Allgaier played hidden in the chess Automaton in 1809.[8] A game played that year by the Turk against Napoleon at Schönbrunn Palace is attributed to Allgaier.[9]

A 1980s Turk reconstruction

At the end of December 1822, he was admitted to the military hospital in Vienna and died a few days later of dropsy. The fact that he died in a public institution, although he was married, gives, according to Anton Baron Reisner, a clear proof of Allgaier's shortage of money. This was also confirmed by the papers of his legacy, which Reisner examined.[2]

In 1795 and 1796 published in Vienna (in two volumes) his book Neue Theoretische-praktische Anweisung zum Schachspiel,[10][11] which was regarded in some parts of Europe as the best text book of the time[12] and was reprinted several times, even after his death; the seventh and final edition was in 1843.

From his treatise, it is clear that Allgaier knew very well the literature of his time. He was influenced both by the ideas of Philidor and the Modenese School (del Rio, Lolli and Ponziani) between which he tried some sort of compromise. The influence of the French master seemed dominant, however, and Allgaier was later called the "German Philidor".[13]

Allgaier had a particular preference for the kingside pawn majority, which he believed to be, ceteris paribus, a decisive advantage since it can advance, as Philidor had taught in his treatise,[14] against the enemy castling (e.g. e2–e4–e5, f2–f4, g2–g4, f4–f5 etc.). Unlike Philidor, however, he did not think that after 1.e4 e5 the move 2.Nf3 was a mistake. The French master believed that this move was wrong, in principle, because it prevents the f2-pawn from advancing and supporting, if needed, the e5-pawn. The pieces, according to Philidor, were better developed behind the pawns and, consequently, the knight had to be placed on e2 or f3, but only after the f-pawn was moved to f4. Often in Philidor's analysis, White occupies the center with e2–e4 followed by c2–c3 and d2–d4, starting from this configuration, the French pushed the pawn on e4 to e5 with the goal to gain space in the center and on the kingside. If the opponent attacked the e5-pawn with ... f6, Philidor supported it with f2–f4 and in case of fxe5, he continued with dxe5. At this point, having reached a configuration where White had a kingside majority, Philidor could advance the pawn e-, f-, and possibly g-pawn against the enemy castling.[15] According to Philidor this attack was not only winning, but, due to the fact that Black could not prevent the opponent from achieving a kingside majority, the French believed that the first player had a decisive advantage and, with perfect play, White would always win the game. The Modenese School, in contrast, preferred to develop the pieces quickly, change a couple of pawns in the center and concentrate all its forces against a specific target (usually the opponent's king). Allgaier is half-way between the two Schools, he agrees with Philidor on the force of the kingside majority, but at the same time he argues that his experience as a player and as a student of chess led him to believe that the pieces' play all'italiana was a good alternative.[5] Thus, the move 2.Nf3 was, according to Allgaier, perfectly playable if followed by a strategy that would lead to maximize the influence of the pieces rather than pawns. The games reported by Santo Vito, which, at least part of them, were probably played by Allgaier[7] show that he was much more inclined to tactical play where the pieces come violently in contact with each other rather than to the slow movements of infantry advocated by Philidor (this fact is also confirmed by Witthalm[2]). Only in his writings, he is closer to Philidor, whose ideas were prevailing at the time. From this perspective, it is probably not a coincidence that the variant of the King's Gambit named after him (1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 g5 4.h4 g4 5.Ng5, the so-called Allgaier's Gambit[16]) is a particularly sharp opening. After 5... h6, in fact, White must sacrifice the knight with 6.Nxf7, leading to a very tactical game (the author's analysis on this opening line is contained in the fourth edition of the Neue Anweisung of 1819).