< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 6 OF 8 ·
|Jan-27-12|| ||jnpope: The problem is that "consensus" is a matter of perspective. What do you consider to be the "consensus"? A majority opinion by chess columnists, a majority opinion by chess players, or a majority opinion by newspaper reporters (i.e. non-chess columnists)? |
All I can do is locate/identify when the term was used by Steinitz or Zukertort in regards to themselves, or when it was first used by others to describe either Steinitz or Zukertort.
How others use that information is another matter.
|Jan-27-12|| ||jnpope: <By the way, under this kind of logic, Steinitz would have ceased being world champion when Tarrasch won 3 international contests in the late 1890's.>|
Interesting that you should bring that up. I came across an interview with Steinitz where he says that he has no problem with Tarrasch being the World Tournament Champion... I'll dig that up this weekend when I'm hunting for other info.
|Jan-27-12|| ||Petrosianic: He probably had no problem with it because World Tournament Champion doesn't mean anything.|
In 1907, he really did become "World Tournament Champion". The title was forgotten in a year or so precisely because it meant nothing.
|Jan-27-12|| ||RookFile: Tarrasch and Lasker were both amazing because they had outside interests (not chess) that they excelled at, but were also among the best chess players in the world.|
|Jan-27-12|| ||jnpope: Bird seemed to think Steinitz was World Champion in 1882...|
<... By H. E. Bird .. Winner of the Amateur Championship Match, 1873, and the best score on record against Steinitz, the present Champion of the World (vide Adjourned Match, 1867: Steinitz, 8; Bird, 7; Drawn, 7).>
source: Chess Practice by H. E. Bird, 1882, p3.
And Steinitz beating Anderssen in 1866 and becoming "champion" was not something Steinitz created to help market his match with Lasker in 1894... for example:
<In 1862, we again see Anderssen coming to the fore, by winning the second London International Tournament. One of the competitors in that tournament, Wilhelm Steinitz, then came to the front, and, in 1866, he dethroned Andressen by defeating him in a set match, of which, we believe, the result was - Steinitz 6, Anderssen 4. About the year 1870, Zukertort appeared in the Chess arena in England. In 1874, Zukertort engaged in a match with Steinitz, but the latter won by seven games to one. In 1876, Blackburne boldly threw down the gauntlet, and challenged Steinitz; but he met with even a worse fate than Zukertort. Steinitz won every game of the match.
Steinitz's title to be regarded as the Chess Champion of the World was not questioned until a few years afterwards.>
source: Our Chess Column by Mephisto (Gunsberg), Knowledge, 1885.11.01, p32
<Then Mr. Steinitz defeated Anderssen in 1866, from which time until the summer of 1883 his claim to be regarded as the champion was not seriously contested.>
source: The Saturday Review, 1885.12.26, p838
|Jan-27-12|| ||RookFile: Evidently, Zukertort didn't get the memo. He thought he was world champion.|
|Jan-27-12|| ||ughaibu: Was London 1883 before the summer?|
|Jan-27-12|| ||ughaibu: Apparently it finished on June the 23rd Game Collection: London 1883 which exactly accounts for the wording of the Saturday Review piece quoted by Jnpope.|
|Jan-27-12|| ||jnpope: Found the Tarrasch comment by Steinitz... interestingly the Sun initially calls Tarrasch the world's chess champion:
But with the Steinitz interview the Sun articles identify Tarrasch as the champion tournament player of the world:
|Jan-27-12|| ||AVRO38: <I came across an interview with Steinitz where he says that he has no problem with Tarrasch being the World Tournament Champion>|
I believe the same thing happened in 1887 when Mackenzie won in Frankfurt. A feud erupted and Steinitz acquiesced to Mackenzie being called the World Tournament Champion.
A few comments about your sources: 1) None of them quote Steinitz, and 2) All are retroactive, i.e. none of them are from 1866 describing the title as being at stake in the Anderssen-Steinitz match.
What you have shown is that some people did consider Steinitz world champion prior to 1886. But with all due respect, that was already established. What has never been shown is a contemporary source from 1866 describing that match as a World Championship match or Steinitz claiming to be World Champion as a result of that match prior to 1894.
One more point, didn't Zukertort defeat Anderssen in a match by a huge margin in 1865, a year before Steinitz just barely beat him? This has often been described as an "offhand" match, but it was no more "offhand" than the Morphy match. Also, who considered him World Champion in 1866 after receiving such a drubbing in 1865?
|Jan-27-12|| ||jnpope: <A few comments about your sources: 1) None of them quote Steinitz, and 2) All are retroactive, i.e. none of them are from 1866 describing the title as being at stake in the Anderssen-Steinitz match.>|
Those cites were just to refute the erroneous statement that: "Steinitz invented this notion of being champion since 1866 in order to justify the 1894 match as a World Championship."
Clearly sources before 1894 refer to Steinitz as being the champion since his victory in the 1866 match with Anderssen.
I make no claims that the Steinitz-Anderssen match of 1866 was for the world championship, nor have I gone looking for any contemporary sources in regard to that question.
All I've been able to show is that Steinitz was identified as the world champion as early as 1882. Clearly at some point between 1866 and 1882 Steinitz became regarded as the world champion and all I've done is establish that window.
The question I want to answer is: did Steinitz ever make a proclamation that he was world champion before London 1883, and if so when? It is highly possible that Steinitz never made a direct claim himself and his record and the opinions of the press substantiated his position as the best player in the world.
|Jan-27-12|| ||jnpope: <One more point, didn't Zukertort defeat Anderssen in a match by a huge margin in 1865, a year before Steinitz just barely beat him? This has often been described as an "offhand" match, but it was no more "offhand" than the Morphy match.>|
Well, actually no. Anderssen played a series of offhand games with Zukertort while he was on Easter vacation in Breslau according to the Neue Berliner Schachzeitung.
Anderssen had white in 6 games (scoring +5-1=0)
Zukertort had white in 18 games (scoring +12-2=4)
With such a disparity in color allocation I'm not sure saying that it was 'no more "offhand" than the Morphy match' holds any merit.
|Jan-28-12|| ||AVRO38: <Well, actually no. Anderssen played a series of offhand games with Zukertort while he was on Easter vacation in Breslau according to the Neue Berliner Schachzeitung.|
Anderssen had white in 6 games (scoring +5-1=0)
Zukertort had white in 18 games (scoring +12-2=4)
With such a disparity in color allocation I'm not sure saying that it was 'no more "offhand" than the Morphy match' holds any merit.>
Well, actually yes because your numbers are wrong. They played 37 games in that 1865 encounter, you only account for 24. The final score was 25-12 in favor of Zukertort. The 13 games you failed to account for make up the "disparity" in colors. The status of this match was at the very least no different than that against Morphy, if anything it was more formal, not less.
<Those cites were just to refute the erroneous statement that: "Steinitz invented this notion of being champion since 1866 in order to justify the 1894 match as a World Championship.">
The issue is not what others thought about Steinitz, but did he himself ever claim to be world champion since 1866 prior to 1894. As far as I know the answer to that question is no. Steinitz never claimed to have won the championship in 1866 until he was promoting his match with Lasker and trying to sell it as a title match. It's almost a certainty that nobody in 1866 regarded the Anderssen-Steinitz match as a title match, including Anderssen and Steinitz.
|Jan-28-12|| ||jnpope: My sources indicate Anderssen and Zukertort played 8 games in 1864, 24 games in 1865 and 4 games in 1866. I'm not sure where the 37th game comes from, but I'll stick in a pin in this and dig a little deeper. Could you perhaps cite a source for your information that 37 games were played in 1865?|
<The issue is not what others thought about Steinitz, but did he himself ever claim to be world champion since 1866 prior to 1894.>
An interesting question and slightly different than identifying when Steinitz and/or the public started identifying him as the world champion. I'll keep an eye open for that specific claim by Steinitz.
|Jan-28-12|| ||keypusher: <The idea that "I beat Anderssen, therefore, you have to beat me in a match" was invented in 1894 to justify the title status of the Lasker match.>|
This is a very strange kind of trolling.
|Jan-28-12|| ||keypusher: <The issue is not what others thought about Steinitz, but did he himself ever claim to be world champion since 1866 prior to 1894. As far as I know the answer to that question is no. >|
Steinitz in 1888:
<And I mean to devote to the task [i.e. exposing the alleged dishonesty of James Séguin], if necessary, the space of this column for the next 12 months, or for as many years, in case of further literary highway robberies perpetrated by the same individual, and provided that I and this journal survive, in order to statuate for all times, or as long as chess shall live, an example that the only true champion of the world for the last 22 years (I may say so for once), who has always defended his chess prestige against all-comers, >
Steinitz in 1888:
<‘Difficult as the task was, for I have had sometimes as many as half-a-dozen such editorial lunatics under treatment simultaneously, I have undertaken it empowered by my conscience and the right of natural selection, or, as Carlyle calls it, “the divine right of the strongest”, which, either by merit or accident, as you like to judge, has chosen me as the only true champion of the world for the last 22 years.’>
Steinitz in 1890:
<‘…in 1866 I won the Match championship of the world by beating the late Prof. Anderssen and I have held it ever since though Zukertort, Blackburne and Martínez contested it twice each in Matches as well as various other players including Chigorin, Mackenzie etc. in a match or series of games.’>
Steinitz in 1891;
<‘Mr Emmet Hamilton, of St Paul, Minn., has placed himself on record as the champion of individual generosity among chessplayers. He is the only one of our time. May there be many like him when another chess master of the future will celebrate his jubilee of the chess championship for 25 years.’>
I don't know of anyone who disputed the title status of the 1894 match. Thus the Hastings tournament book (the very same tournament that AVRO38 says was to settle the championship) states in its biographical sketch of Lasker: <On May 26, 1894, he won the championship of the world by scoring his tenth win against Steinitz's five (four drawn). On October 19 of the same year, he was carefully attended by Dr. Lasker, his brother, who came over from Berlin for the purpose. This illness, after some delays, prevented him from playing his promised return match with Steinitz. Doubtless he will, however, soon given Steinitz an opportunity for revenge.>
This was written before the St. Petersburg tournament that, again according to AVRO, entitled Steinitz to a return match.
As I said, a very strange kind of trolling.
|Jan-28-12|| ||AVRO38: <<the Hastings tournament book...>|
That's old news...the British were the only one's supporting Lasker's claim because he was a resident of the UK at the time. You fail to point out that the same biographical sketch also says proudly that Lasker "has now definitely adopted England as his second fatherland." Gee I wonder what side they're going to take in the championship dispute!! If you're going to provide a quote don't hide the parts that ruin your case.
As to your "sources", "Steinitz 1888" doesn't constitute a source. I never heard of a periodical called "Steinitz 1888." Unless you can provide a publication and date from 1888 or 1890 or 1891 your sources are worthless.
<keypusher><This was written before the St. Petersburg tournament that, again according to AVRO, entitled Steinitz to a return match.>
Hey, moron, the book was written in 1896 AFTER St. Petersburg and after Steinitz EARNED a rematch. You must be blind as well as stupid!
|Jan-28-12|| ||keypusher: <AVRO38>
Not sure why I am responding to an obvious troll, but click on Winter's link (which I provided) for original sources. If you ever post a link that doesn't directly disprove whatever you most recently posted, it will be a first.
|Jan-28-12|| ||keypusher: <Hey, moron, the book was written in 1896 AFTER St. Petersburg and after Steinitz EARNED a rematch.>|
Sigh. There is a link to the St. Petersburg tournament book in my profile. You can search it for references to Steinitz earning a rematch by finishing second.
|Jan-28-12|| ||King Death: <keypusher> I haven't looked back since finding the ignore button for that awful <AVRO38>. You know, the first cousin to <RookFile>, they both know just enough to confuse that with being knowledgeable. Facts that are contrary to their wild assertions just get in the way.|
|Jan-28-12|| ||keypusher: <King Death>
At least RookFile believes what he writes. AVRO38...I don't think he does. My favorite cg conspiracy theory is that AVRO38 and schach matov are the same person. Which would make that person a troll of legendary proportions.
|Jan-28-12|| ||AVRO38: <keypusher><Sigh. There is a link to the St. Petersburg tournament book in my profile. You can search it for references to Steinitz earning a rematch by finishing second.>|
As usual, once you lose a debate you try to change the subject. The book in question is Hastings 1895 and it was written AFTER the St. Petersburg tournament. Do you have a link to the copyright of the Hastings book on your profile as well? Are you prepared to take back your previous post and admit you made yet another mistake? I doubt it!
<in 1866 I won the Match championship of the world by beating the late Prof. Anderssen>
<...the only true champion of the world...>
I'm still waiting for you to post something that hasn't already been established. We already know that Steinitz accepted two championships, match and tournament. This ground was already covered concerning Breslau 1889 and Frankfurt 1887. And that he considered the unlimited match as the only "true" test. Been there, done that!
Just regurgitating things that have already been established doesn't help your case. In 1894 Steinitz invented the idea that he alone is World Champion and can only be dethroned in a match, something that contradicts everything he ever said in the past about Tarrasch (1889), Mackenzie (1887), and the New York Tournament of 1889.
This idea of the champion being dethroned in a match has prevailed ever since, but it was invented in 1894 to promote the Lasker match, and you have produced nothing here to disprove that.
|Jan-28-12|| ||AVRO38: <keypusher><King Death>|
The hick and the patzer, perfect together!
|Jan-28-12|| ||keypusher: <My favorite cg conspiracy theory is that AVRO38 and schach matov are the same person.>|
The funny thing is, neither one has denied it. Not that it matters. Either it's one clever troll, or two boring ones.
|Jan-28-12|| ||keypusher: <The book in question is Hastings 1895 and it was written AFTER the St. Petersburg tournament. Do you have a link to the copyright of the Hastings book on your profile as well?>|
Here is a link.
It was published in 1896, after the St. Petersburg tournament obviously. The annotations by the players contain several references to St. Petersburg. Equally obviously, Cheshire's biographical sketches were written before St. Petersburg -- that is why Lasker's triumph isn't mentioned in his summary of Lasker, Steinitz, Pillsbury and Chigorin's results.
But it doesn't matter. As Cheshire and innumerable other sources state, the 1894 match was for the world championship.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 6 OF 8 ·