|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
Feb-27-08
 |
| Knight13: I would've cheered for Chigorin had I been there. |
 |
May-08-08
 |
| keypusher: <In reference to the Irregular (Zukertort) Opening which was invariably adopted by the author in this contest, we may state that we had never previously tried this debut in actual play. But we essayed it on this occasion for the purpose of testing our theory as regards the inadvisability of pinning a Knight early in the opening (especially the KKt) . . . against that of Mr. Tschigorin who was evidently not of the same opinion. For in the celebrated match by telegraph and correspondence which was won by St. Petersburg against London in 1888, and in which Mr. Tschigorin was the leader for the Russian side, Black (St. Petersburg) in one of the two games of the match, after the moves 1 KKt-B3, 1 P-Q4; 2 P-Q4, answered 2....B-Kt5. It was naturally to be expected that the Russian master would try the same experiment against the author, and we believe that not alone our actual score in the opening, but also the most stringent analytical examination of the play on both sides will now verify our view that 2....B-Kt5 ought to place the defence at a disadvantage.> Steinitz, <Modern Chess Instructor>, p. 164. |
|
| Jul-28-08 |
| ath: You can find some arguments *against* this match being for the World Championship here: http://www.anders.thulin.name/SUBJE... I won't pretend that they are conclusive -- but there certainly are some odd goings-on in this corner of chess history. |
|
| Jul-28-08 |
| Petrosianic: You don't find any of them worthy of comment. Steinitz's own booklet on this match calls it a championship match. Is there anything you can mention that would create enough doubt to make someone want to read a thesis on it? |
|
| Jul-28-08 |
| Petrosianic: <and we believe that not alone our actual score in the opening, but also the most stringent analytical examination of the play on both sides will now verify our view that 2....B-Kt5 ought to place the defence at a disadvantage.> 2... B-Kt5 is too old fashioned. Better is 2...Bg4.
|
|
| Jul-29-08 |
| ath: That's the rub, isn't it?
After NY 1889, Steinitz clearly states the match with Chigorin to have been for the title. Yet before NY 1889, any mention of the world championship match that I have found refers to the match that was planned to be part of the congress. There's not a word that Chigorin played for the title -- even the Havana arrangers say that the match was not for the championship. And as the plans for NY1889 were made a long time before the match with Chigorin was even thought of ... I can't really see that Steinitz comes across as entirely believable here. But I can't claim conclusive evidence -- only some notes on discrepancies and inconsistencies. |
|
Jul-29-08
|
| keypusher: <ath> <petrosianic> The article <ath> linked to is definitely worth a skim. Before the congress, Steinitz made statements to the effect that he would regard the winner as world champion, possibly subject to a later match between the winner and Steinitz (reminiscent of current events!). |
|
| Jul-29-08 |
| Petrosianic: Okay, but I'd question whether it was even possible for Steinitz to play a non-title match at that point. The title only existed at all because he and Zukertort had invented it themselves. The only credibility it had was based on Steinitz's image as the king of match play. If he goes out and loses a big match to a top player, what credibility has he got left? Who'd want to challenge him rather than Tchigorin for any title after that? |
|
| Jul-29-08 |
| RookFile: Well, Chigorin actually beat him in a 2 game Cable match, but nobody thought that was for the title. |
|
| Jul-30-08 |
| ath: <Petrosianic> You have a point, and very probably the same point that the Havana people tried to make: to a certain extent, any match by a titleholder will involve that title. However, as Steinitz had promised the NY 1889 match to be for the title even before the Chigorin match was planned, the problem you mention never arises: Steinitz could easily point to the published programme of the NY 1889 congress and say 'these are the plans for the next WCh match. Anything else are assumptions.' And he did just that over other things, one of which was the idea that the winner of NY 1889 would have to play Steinitz for the title. |
|
Dec-05-08
 |
| kevin86: What's with this match? Are all of the games here or are the draws extracted? The game ends in the only draw-was 10.5 points required to win,or what? |
|
| Dec-24-08 |
| ath: <kevin86> Looks like all games are here. The match was planned for 20 games, but the remaining three were not played (as match games) as Steinitz clearly had won. |
|
| Dec-24-08 |
| Petrosianic: Actually, all 20 games <were> played. But the final three games were played as exhibition consultation games, with both Steinitz and Tchigorin taking officials from the Havana club as their partners. Despite the fact that Steinitz should have had White in 2 of the 3 remaining games, they reversed it, and gave Tchigorin White in games 18 and 20, and Steinitz White in Game 19, so that Steinitz could test his Qf6 line in the Evans Gambit further. The result of those final three games was a win, a draw, and a loss for each side. |
|
Jun-30-09
 |
| talisman: steinitz falls asleep and the "russians" smile. |
|
Oct-30-09
 |
| whatthefat: Looking at the quality of the games in this match, it's a wonder the chess world championship didn't die in its cradle. The fact that Steinitz managed to score 3.5/8 with his horrible defence to the Evans Gambit is simply a crime against chess. I would even believe it if told this was a collection of blitz games. Using computer analysis, <nimh> has estimated the playing strength of Steinitz and Chigorin to be in the range 2350-2400 for modern players. Frankly, in light of this match it seems pretty generous to me. Note that his analysis excluded the opening moves, which is doubly generous here! |
|
Jan-19-10
 |
| kingscrusher: whatthefat: The point was that there was a Steinitz principle at stake - that he was essentially saying the pawn sacrifice must be unsound, because he had not built up an advantage with the "Accumulation of advantage" philosophy that Steinitz had been teaching for more than 10 years in his position as a magazine editor and authority as the 1st official world champion. The match was a battle of idealogy as much as about just trying to win. |
|
Jan-19-10
|
| kingscrusher: Game 4 video annotated:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfez... |
|
Jan-19-10
|
| keypusher: <kingscrusher: whatthefat: The point was that there was a Steinitz principle at stake - that he was essentially saying the pawn sacrifice must be unsound, because he had not built up an advantage with the "Accumulation of advantage" philosophy that Steinitz had been teaching for more than 10 years in his position as a magazine editor and authority as the 1st official world champion.> Yes, that explains why Steinitz took the pawn, but not the horrible defenses he played afterwards. |
|
Jan-19-10
|
| kingscrusher: It is quite frankly incredible no one has noted that Chigorin was actually the adopted father of the Soviet Chess School. Also incredible that no one seems to understand the underlying ideoligical struggle here between Steinitz the "Generalist" and Chigorin the "Individualist", who sought to essentially almost refute many Steinitz generalisaitons such as : - The power of the two bishops (with persistence with the Chigorin system of Bg4xf3) - The unsoundness of going for the attack without 1st accumulating a positional advantage (thus Steinitz was going into the Evans Gambit deliberately). Okay maybe not many people have tried to track down and trace the evolution of chess style but this match predates the Hypermodern revolution, and I thought it was important to highlight that in a way Chigorin was like a very early but unrecognised "Hypermodern". |
|
Jan-19-10
|
| keypusher: <kingscrusher: It is quite frankly incredible no one has noted that Chigorin was actually the adopted father of the Soviet Chess School.> It's been noted a million times. It's in the introduction to Botvinnik's 100 Selected Games, various Kotov writings, and a bunch of posts on this website. There's even Petrosian's joke about succeeding because his Soviet opponents were followers of Chigorin. <I thought it was important to highlight that in a way Chigorin was like a very early but unrecognised "Hypermodern".> Hardly unrecognized. That's why Keene, Lawrence Day etc. have paid so much attention to games like Lasker vs Chigorin, 1895 and Pillsbury vs Chigorin, 1896. |
|
Jan-19-10
|
| kingscrusher: keypusher: I meant it is not noted *here* in this kibitzing discussion of this match. It is like the games are just perceived as ordinary games without any ideological significance. |
|
Jan-19-10
|
| whatthefat: <kingscrusher>
I am aware of the theoretical debate that was at stake, but I don't think this excuses the woeful quality of play. |
|
Jan-19-10
|
| kingscrusher: keypusher: BTW Excellent - I was going to video annotate that Lasker vs Chigorin Hastings 1895 game. I might do that next. It again is like a revolution against the Steinitz deduced principle of the two bishops. I.e. it is like a rebellion against a Steinitzian abstraction, and that is why that game is important - and that Chigorin won it in such a high profile event. Raymond Keene is a kibitzer on this site sometimes. It is a shame he hasn't put some kibitzing against it *on this site* against that particular game. Some games are of vast ideological importance for contextualising abstract abstractions, which then impact the evolution of chess style. BTW What do you think of the Tao symbol analogy I made in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfez... |
|
Jan-19-10
|
| kingscrusher: BTW that Pillsbury game is crushing - I hadn't seen that one recently. It is almost like he his playing with Nimzo Indian principles long before they were invented. |
|
Jan-19-10
|
| kingscrusher: In the introduction I have to disagree with this comment slightly :
"Chigorin rejected the doctrinal approach of Steinitz and Tarrasch" I would say more something like this:
"Chigorin put Steinitz elements and deduced positional abstractions such as the value of the bishop pair into a more dynamic context - often finding contexts where for example the two bishops were ineffective. In particular in this match, he often voluntarily played the immediate Bg4xf3 and playing for pressure on d4 and fast development and initiative. " I would not say it is a case of "rejection", but rather contextualisation of the Steinitz abstractions. Such a contextualisation is really important for practical positional play - to factor in the specific dynamics of the position. |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
Steinitz-Chigorin World Championship Match (1889)
