< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
|Oct-14-06|| ||percyblakeney: <we can say that one has rating about 2700 and the other 2400>|
I've always thought that description was a bit harsh on Steinitz. He did lose 10-5 against an almost 33 years younger player, but wasn't that outclassed. Result wise it was exactly the same as in Tal-Botvinnik 1961, and many games were very hard fought and could have finished differently. The 2700-2400 comparison implies that Lasker was like Ponomariov and Steinitz like Ana Matnadze (ranked a bit below top 5 of the Georgian women), which sounds like an enormous difference...
|Oct-14-06|| ||Eyal: <percyblakeney> I tend to agree with you. Kramnik's description is, if at all, more fitting for the 1896 match. Maybe Kramnik's exaggeration is related to the deep impression Lasker made on him as the pioneer of modern chess. In the same interview he says: <When you look at Steinitz`s games, you understand that they have a smack of the past ages. And Lasker had a lot of games, which can be regarded as the games played by modern chess player.>|
|Jan-07-07|| ||Maatalkko: Steinitz must HATE Philly! Other than those five games, the match was tied! He wasn't feelin' the brotherly love over there!|
|Aug-20-07|| ||sanyas: <Eyal> I think Kramnik just got the dates mixed up and actually meant to refer to the rematch.|
|Aug-20-07|| ||iron maiden: No, he was referring to the original match. <By the way, it is significant that the World Chess Championship in 1894 (not to mention the return) was a total mismatch. |
My impression is that two completely different players in terms of insight met over the board. In present day Elo, we would say that a player with a rating of 2700 played against another rated 2400.>
|Aug-20-07|| ||sanyas: The next time Kramnik says he has 'carefully studied' something, someone should tell him how carefully they studied his loss to Deep Fritz.|
|Jan-06-08|| ||keypusher: <The next time Kramnik says he has 'carefully studied' something, someone should tell him how carefully they studied his loss to Deep Fritz.>|
Sure, if someone wants to act like an idiot.
|Feb-29-08|| ||Knight13: At least Lasker popularized Steinitz's ideas. He must've had great respect for Steinitz.|
|Aug-10-08|| ||visayanbraindoctor: So this is the historic match that won Lasker the Title. My impressions are:|
1. It was not as one sided as many people think it was. Steinitz played very well in the New York and Montreal stages. He was actually outplaying Lasker in some of the games, and won both tactical and positional games. However he played poorly in the Philadelphia stage; he just seemed to collapse. Without the Philadelphia stage, Lasker was not clearly superior to Steinitz in this match.
Was Steinitz ill in Philadelphia?
2. All the games were hard-fought. Lasker and Steinitz at that time apparently had not heard of the 20 move Grandmaster draw. Even their draws were played out. They just kept on slugging it out in each game until there was a victor or until the game was clearly a draw.
3. Except for the openings, the games look modern. If one were to remove the names 'Lasker' and 'Steinitz', take each game from a position commencing from the middlegame (so that the openings are not so obvious), and market the games to present-day chess players who are not previously aware of them, they could well pass off as uncompromising GM slugfests.
|Nov-24-08|| ||GrahamClayton: The Lasker-Steinitz match was the last World Championship match in which the "pendulum" chess clock invented by TB Wilson of Manchester was used to time the games.|
Source: Gareth Williams "Time Matters", "CHESS", September 2008
|Feb-10-09|| ||keypusher: There appears to be an error in the match summary; the first eight games seem to have been played in New York, and when they left the city Lasker was already ahead of Steinitz 4:2, with two draws.|
I recently downloaded J. G. Cunningham's book on the match from Google Books. http://books.google.com/books?id=Gb...
It states: <The articles of agreement for this important encounter were signed on the 3rd March, 1894, by the two contracting parties, at the Manhattan Chess Club, New York....The match to be played in three divisions: first in New York where a total of eight games were to be played, or until one of the players had scored four games; second in Philadelphia, where not more than five games were to be played, or until one player had scored a total of seven games; third in Montreal, where the match was to be completed. Between the New York and Philadelphia play there was to be a week's intermission, and a similar intermission took place between the Philadelphia and Montreal play.>
The match was played in accordance with these rules, and therefore eight games were played in New York, three in Philadelphia, and eight in Montreal.
In New York the games were played between March 15 and April 6, when eight games had been played (and Lasker had achieved four wins); in Philadelphia three games were played between April 14 and April 21, Lasker winning all three; and the Montreal portion of the match ran from May 3 to May 26, with Lasker winning three, Steinitz winning three, and two draws.
|Feb-10-09|| ||keypusher: Cunningham's "Summary of the Match," Part I of II:
<The play throughout the match was characterised by solidity and strength, rather than by dash and brilliancy, and notwithstanding that some accredited critics would bias public opinion in favor of the latter style, the fact remains that between two players like Lasker and Steinitz but few opportunities for brilliancy can ever be expected to occur. Accuracy and tenacity are the leading features of the games of such players; therefore solidity, rather than brilliancy, must result. We may regret the lack of brilliancy, but the fact remains that modern chess contests will be governed by modern solidity, notwithstanding the popular cry for brilliancy.
The absolute gain to the theory of the game from the contest has not been great. Lasker has certainly proved that 3....P-Q3, in the Ruy Lopez, is unreliable, but this defense was discredited before the match commenced. To a great extend Steinitz's theories -- as apart from Steinitz's fads -- have been abundantly justified in the process of the various games, and he may be said to have forged some of the keenest weapons that defeated him.
The chief merit of Lasker's play has been its general accuracy, especially in the end-game, and Steinitz himself has pronounced Lasker to be <"the finest living end-game player."> It is also clear that these games, with one or two exceptions, cannot be taken as examples of what Lasker can do when circumstances demand his full powers. What his powers are in moments of dire peril is shown in the fourth and seventh games, in which after getting into serious difficulties he boldly faced the consequences. In the fourth game his struggles were sufficient to show that he is a formidable opponent even when he has the worse game. In the seventh game, he was rapidly drifting into deep waters, when, by the unexpected advance of the KtP, he threw Steinitz on the defensive, and playing really wonderful chess, won the game. His play too in games eleven and sixteen was also praiseworthy. In the former, the advance of the King's Pawn on the 23rd move, demonstrated that danger lurked beneath the apparent safety of his opponent's position. In the sixteenth game, Lasker's play from the 16th move was a succession of maneuvers, showing really wonderful ingenuity and strength. Broadly then, in some games where Lasker had an early advantage owing to some failure on Steinitz's part, he played discreetly and within his powers, contenting himself with nursing the game to victory; and the logical conclusion is, that had Steinitz improved upon the weak form he displayed in some of the games, Lasker still had reserve force to draw upon. >
|Feb-10-09|| ||keypusher: Part II of II
<In Steinitz's play, the most noticeable feature was his wonderful resource in trying to avert defeat in apparently hopeless positions. His play in the third game is a splendid example of his tenacity and powers of resistance; for there he was at bay, but dropping defensive operations he boldly essayed an attack at the expense of material, and handles his forces with such vigour that few players could have resisted; indeed nothing could have saved Lasker except his great coolness and foresight. Steinitz in the thirteenth game is perhaps seen at his best; his advance of the P on the 18th move was worthy of his fame even at its zenith, and had he played throughout the match as he did in the third and thirteenth games, there would not have been such a great disparity in the final score.
In an excellent summary of the match, a correspondent of the New Orleans <Times Democrat> says: -- <"Some of the critics, especially Tschigorin and Hoffer, have expressed an opinion that Lasker's victory was mainly due to weak play on Steinitz's part, and not to Lasker's superior tactics. They further think that the games lack brilliancy, especially so when comparing them with the games of the old masters. Whether this be true or not, attention ought to be drawn to the fact that since more than thirty years, the more brilliant player hardly ever came out victorious in any important match. There is really not a single exception to this rule. Thinking people will therefore come to the conclusion that it is more difficult to keep the balance of position, and let small advantages tell, than to finish a game in a brilliant fashion. Brilliancy after all is only a form, while the real value of a move is expressed in its effects. To say that Steinitz lost by weak play is quite superfluous. Such an assertion proves itself by the actual result. The losing player must, of necessity, have committed a mistake or error of judgment somewhere. The degree of weakness in Steinitz's play has, however, probably been overvalued. It is true that Steinitz made some remarkably weak moves in some positions, but only when he was hard pressed already, and when his opponent was slowly getting the best of it. A notable exception to this is the seventh game, which Steinitz lost, although he held at some stage of the game a material advantage. Of course, it is easy to judge after the game is finished, but those who have witnessed the fight itself, will hardly forget the surprise which was provoked by some of the moves of this particular game, and how unforseen a victory was scored by Lasker, when almost all present believed in his inevitable defeat. The eighth and sixteenth games may be taken as similar examples, both of which were won by Lasker, in spite of the superiority in position, which at some stages of the game Steinitz undoubtedly held. However, the other victories were carried off by Lasker on the merits, as may be seen of the analysis published on these games.> With this opinion most cool-headed people will agree.">
|Jun-30-09|| ||talisman: steinitz falls asleep and lasker asks, " the referee too?".|
|Mar-27-10|| ||thegoodanarchist: This was fighting chess! Only 4 draws in 19 games. Bravo, gentlemen!|
|Jun-28-10|| ||jessicafischerqueen: WILHELM STEINITZ: CHESS CHAMPION
Part One: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-TY...
Part Two: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1-d...
Part Three: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NEJ3...
Part Four: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIBK...
Part Five: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTor...
Part Six: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGAF...
|Mar-20-12|| ||AVRO38: The table in the picture is from the Manhattan Chess Club, therefore, unless Montreal used the same exact tables, the picture was taken in New York.|
|Mar-28-12|| ||offramp: Kramnik is right. But it is worth remembering that Steinitz was 58 at the time. There has to be a stamina factor there.|
|Apr-07-12|| ||AVRO38: Lasker was doing fine with 1.e4, but immediately switches to 1.d4 after Steinitz does. Was this one of his psychological ploys?|
|Jul-11-13|| ||Conrad93: Everyone mentions Steinitz age, but they have no issue with the fact that Lasker was 55 in his World Championship match against Capablanca in 1927.|
|Jul-11-13|| ||AsosLight: <Conrad93> but only due to his age a truly superb virtuoso like Lasker could lose to Capablanca.|
|Jul-13-13|| ||mistreaver: <Everyone mentions Steinitz age, but they have no issue with the fact that Lasker was 55 in his World Championship match against Capablanca in 1927.>
It was played in 1921 i think.
<but only due to his age a truly superb virtuoso like Lasker could lose to Capablanca.>
I don't think it was the age (don't forget Lasker's subsequent tournament brilliances, New York 1924 among others),but rather the fact that he was playing Cuban in Havana, and i think they had played it in summer.
|Jul-13-13|| ||perfidious: <mistreaver: <Everyone mentions Steinitz age, but they have no issue with the fact that Lasker was 55 in his World Championship match against Capablanca in 1927.> It was played in 1921 i think....>|
Correct, at which time Lasker's age was 52.
<<but only due to his age a truly superb virtuoso like Lasker could lose to Capablanca.> I don't think it was the age (don't forget Lasker's subsequent tournament brilliances, New York 1924 among others),but rather the fact that he was playing Cuban in Havana, and i think they had played it in summer.>
The match was played in March and April, (Lasker-Capablanca World Championship Match (1921)), though in a tropical climate, it is warm even then.
|Jul-13-13|| ||Check It Out: <...Steinitz has grown old, and the old Steinitz is no longer the Steinitz of old.>|
That's a nice turn of phrase by Tarrasch.
|Jul-20-13|| ||Conrad93: My mistake, but his age was not 52.|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·