< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 620 OF 620 ·
|Feb-20-17|| ||zanzibar: What's the exact phraseology you're looking for then?|
The German sources I cited used the phrase <Weltmeisterschaft> already.
What's the phrase you're looking for then:
|Feb-20-17|| ||zanzibar: OK, so I'm confused. Is this a semantic issue then?|
Under whose auspices could it possibly be deemed official in 1886?
Or are you just specifically looking for the term <WCC> (with or without the modifier "official") in connection with the 1886 match as adopted in, say, the 20th century?
|Feb-20-17|| ||jnpope: <zanzibar: I suppose the bestowed title for Zukertort was due to his win here:
Correct. Immediately upon winning the event the London Morning Post, n34633, 1883.06.25, p5, stated:
"By the result of the International Chess Tournament which was brought to a close on Saturday the title of Chess Champion of the World, which has been connected in times past with such names as Philidor and Labourdonnais, and more recently with those of Staunton, Morphy, Anderssen, Blackburne, and Steinitz, has passed on to Zukertort."
Not only was the title "bestowed" upon Zukertort, he outright claimed the title (see Nashville Daily American, 1884.03.31), quoted in my article on the preliminaries to the 1886 match:
|Feb-20-17|| ||jnpope: I'm trying to nail down when people started to use the word "official" in regard to any event for the title.|
I'm basically building the case that calling the 1886 World Championship the "first official" match is total fiction and I'd like to know when it got started. However, with the Lasker article it seems that he was calling events from 1873-1874 as already being formal and official...
|Feb-20-17|| ||zanzibar: <jnpope> that link you cited, it's the lineage that's the point, yes?|
<The sceptre of chess, in Europe, has been for the last century, at least, wielded by a Gallic dynasty. It has passed from Legalle to La Bourdonnais, through the grasp, successively, of Philidor, Bernard, Carlier, and Deschapelles. It is of the last-named potentate we are about more particularly to speak,— he being in every respect one of the most extraordinary creations of the past or present day.>
It's funny, or perhaps just ignorance on my part, but I can't say I recognize Carlier, and know very little about Bernard.
In fact, I think, despite the acclaim afforded above, the only entry on <CG> for these players is this one:
Bernard / Carlier
Am I mistaken? Why don't I know more about them?
It doesn't seem fitting that <CG> has joined them together as collaborators, however.
|Feb-20-17|| ||zanzibar: As for Winter, here's the link to his early history of the term:|
I think he could integrate some of the refs I posted here to fill out his timeline a little.
(I'm glad we both have the Kennedy letter though)
And, as I said above, I'm curious about the vote which was mentioned in the "Two Americans" publication. This isn't mentioned by Winter.
|Feb-20-17|| ||zanzibar: I see I filled out a lot of what <PmD> wrote:|
Biographer Bistro (kibitz #16036)
When exactly did Steinitz first assert himself as WC in print, I wonder?
|Feb-20-17|| ||jnpope: <zanzibar: <Am I mistaken? Why don't I know more about them?>>|
Very little was written about the French world champions in France at the time, even the exploits of Philidor. The bulk of what we know about Philidor and La Bourdonnais was because they travelled to England. What little we know about Deschapelles is due to English players going to France. We know very little about Legall, Bernard and Carlier as they had almost no interaction with English players.
Also, the French players normally didn't record their games with the same zeal as their English counterparts (namely Lewis, Walker and Cochrane) so there is a void of material.
It wouldn't be until La Bourdonnais started Le Palamède that the French truly started reporting about French chess history (prior to that almost all material was instructional).
|Feb-20-17|| ||zanzibar: Maybe the 1886 match was "official" because it said it was:|
<The first sentence of the contract between the two players (the Chess Monthly, January 1886, pages 136-137) specified that the match was ‘for the Championship of the World’.>
From the winter link (about 1/2-way down).
Winter also talks a little about Steinitz's assertions, but without specific refs.
|Feb-20-17|| ||zanzibar: Thanks for the thumbnail on French history. I hadn't that exact perspective before.|
(Ca suffit pour aujourd'hui, a tout a l'heure.)
|Feb-21-17|| ||Paarhufer: <z: So I'm wondering a little about the ref <Paarhufer> gives from 1936.> I quoted from Hannak's book about Steinitz, and you from his Lasker book.|
|Feb-21-17|| ||zanzibar: Ah, <Paarhufer> that explains it.|
I wasn't even aware that Hannak had published that other book, which seems not to ever been published in English.
|Feb-21-17|| ||jnpope: <zanzibar: Maybe the 1886 match was "official" because it said it was:|
<The first sentence of the contract between the two players (the Chess Monthly, January 1886, pages 136-137) specified that the match was ‘for the Championship of the World’.>>
At some point somebody decided that the inclusion of the title in the 1886 match conditions made it "official". I'd still like to nail down who the first person was to call that match "official" in print (so far the top name on the culprits list is Reti-1930).
|Feb-21-17|| ||zanzibar: The "official" business is still a tad confusing to me, especially given the vicissitudes of proper translation from German or other foreign languages.|
Does the author just need to just the phrase, or do you require him to present some logical argument making the case that only the 1886 match could be considered as "official".
* * * * *
I managed to stop by the library and download many of the 1885/6 US newspaper coverage.
The match was blatantly, and very commonly, promoted as determining the:
<"chess champion of the world">.
A couple of the articles seem to have Steinitz making the case himself- post-match. I only managed to skim the articles, and will read them a bit more thoroughly later - and might have something to report back.
I also did a search in the literature for the exact phrase "world chess champion".
There are a couple of early examples (I vaguely remember 1906), but it was until the 1920's when it came into common currency in reference to Capablanca.
|Feb-21-17|| ||jnpope: I'm looking for whomever first used the word "official" in any context regarding the 1886 match. I don't care about early mention of the title, etc. I'm just trying to nail down who started this whole "official" nonsense.|
|Feb-21-17|| ||zanzibar: According to a Proquest search, the first use of "World Chess Champion" is from the 27th annual dinner of the Manhattan Chess Club on Saturday night, as mentioned in NYT 1904-04-11 p14.|
<Four chess champions of intl reputation will be present ...
Emanuel Lasker, world chess champion;
M. Tschigorin, Russian ch;
D. Janowski, Parisian ch;
Harry N. Pillsbury, American ch;
Karl Schlechter, Vienna chess expert.
Sydney Rosenfeld, VP of the club, will act as toastmaster ...>
This was all in advance of the upcoming Cambridge Springs tn.
|Feb-21-17|| ||zanzibar: <jnpope> Then, if I might ask, what is the exact phrase that you're looking for in German?|
And does this mean that none of the following can, in this viewpoint, lay claim to being "official" WCC's since they all pre-date FIDE's shepherding of the title?
<Lasker, Capablanca, Alekhine>
Furthermore, just for clarification, do you consider then the first "official" WCC to be the 1928 Bogoljubow–Euwe, being as it was the first match held under FIDE's auspices?
Bogoljubov - Euwe: First FIDE Championship (1928)
(OK, I'll stop here).
|Feb-21-17|| ||zanzibar: Apologies, I inadvertently leaft Euwe off the list of unofficial champions.|
|Feb-21-17|| ||WannaBe: Well, I'll never forgive you for leaving me off, not to mention leaft [sic].|
|Feb-21-17|| ||zanzibar: OK, I give up. Leaft?!|
|Feb-21-17|| ||jnpope: <zanzibar: <jnpope> Then, if I might ask, what is the exact phrase that you're looking for in German?|
At this point I'm looking at context and any use of the word "official" in any language when it comes to describing the 1886 match (or earlier WC events such as the Lasker article which was pleasantly unexpected).
At this point the earliest usage found is Reti in 1930 for the 1886 match specifically and at least the 1873-1874 period by Lasker in his 1906 article.
I don't have a specific phrase in German (or Russian) to look for at this point... perhaps just searching for the keywords: official, chess, match, 1886 in German, Russian, French, etc., may turn up something.
|Feb-22-17|| ||zanzibar: OK, maybe I should just let others comment further. |
But here's the thing - the German version of the match book appears with this title:
W. Steinitz und J. H. Zukertort
Meisterschaft der Welt.>
which google translates into:
<The decision-making struggle
W. Steinitz and J.H Zukertort
Championship of the world.>
Now, I'm not a German speaker, but I think <Meisterschaft der Welt> is fairly close to declaring the match as the official WCC. The German phrase carries the "official" label implicitly, and I think would ever be written with an explicit modifier.
It also carries the weight of Minckwitz's tacit approval as well:
Vorgeschichte und Verlauf des Matches mit biographisch-kritischer Einleitung und ausführlichem Glossarium der zu New-York, St. Louis und NewOrleans im Frühjahr 1886 gespielten 20 Partien.
langjährigem Redakteur "Deutschen Schachzeitung".
and in English:
History and course of the match with a biographical-critical introduction and detailed glossary of the 20 games played in New York, St. Louis and New Orleans in spring 1886.
According to original reports
Long-standing editor "Deutsche Schachzeitung".
So, in other words, the entire world seemed to accept the match represented the two best players. It was "official" and universally accepted.
Was Reti writing in English later, or was it his translator that decided to add the "official"? In which case, it's just a fashion of phraseology we're trying to trace.
I think the entire chess playing universe, at the time, accepted and acknowledged the match as "official".
<Der Entscheidungskampf zwischen W. Steinitz und J. H. Zukertort um die Meisterschaft der Welt:
Vorgeschichte und Verlauf des Matches mit biographisch-kritischer Einleitung und ausführlichem Glossarium der zu New-York, St. Louis und New-Orleans im Frühjahr 1886 gespielten 20 Partien.
Nach Original-Berichten herausgegeben von Joh. Minckwitz.
Mit 52 Diagrammen
A. Roegner, 1886 - 202 pages>
|Feb-22-17|| ||jnpope: <zanzibar: <jnpope> And does this mean that none of the following can, in this viewpoint, lay claim to being "official" WCC's since they all pre-date FIDE's shepherding of the title?|
<Lasker, Capablanca, Alekhine>
Furthermore, just for clarification, do you consider then the first "official" WCC to be the 1928 Bogoljubow–Euwe, being as it was the first match held under FIDE's auspices?>
To be honest, I'm not sure if "official" should even be a concept used in describing the WC. There are clearly periods in chess history where the qualifications for being the world champion differ between eras, but I'm not sure what makes something "official"; this is the crux of the problem I'm trying to resolve: Who first coined that term in regard to the 1886 match and why?
It appears to me that the only reason the title was specified in the 1886 conditions was due to the very public dispute between Steinitz and Zukertort.
If the 1886 match was the first of anything it was the first match to resolve a disputed world championship claim. Prior tournaments and matches don't mention the title as part of their conditions, but then again neither do the subsequent events such as the 1890 Gunsberg-Steinitz and 1894 Lasker-Steinitz matches (are those two matches "unofficial"?).
Personally I think some lazy research was involved in christening the 1886 match as the first "official" match for the title... at some point someone was doing some research and discovered the title was stipulated in the match conditions and said "eureka! This must be the start of it all" and it has become chess history dogma. So to isolate the origin-source for when it was first used (and by whom) maybe some light can be shed on this topic.
|Feb-22-17|| ||jnpope: <Now, I'm not a German speaker, but I think <Meisterschaft der Welt> is fairly close to declaring the match as the official WCC. The German phrase carries the "official" label implicitly, and I think would ever be written with an explicit modifier.>|
It is definitely a book of the match and it says nothing new that hadn't been said in the press at the time. It was a Match for the World Championship (no argument). It doesn't however use the word "official" in setting it apart from prior World Championship events.
You seem to be hung up on the use/mention of the title and not the appearance of the word "official". I'm seeking the usage of that specific word, EXPLICITLY. And specifically who used it first to describe the 1886 match.
Does this 1875 mention of Steinitz being the "Chess champion of the World" have any bearing on him being called the "official" Chess champion of the World?
One could argue that it is clearly implied. Heck, they even italicized "Chess champion" for emphasis. But if I was looking for an explicit mention of the word "official" in the context of describing Steinitz then this page would not pass muster.
|Feb-22-17|| ||Paarhufer: <z: but I think <Meisterschaft der Welt> is fairly close to declaring the match as the official WCC. The German phrase carries the "official" label implicitly> Definitely not. And therefore Reti and Hannak added the word 'offiziell' in their statements.|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 620 OF 620 ·
A free online guide presented by Chessgames.com