Today's world is, contrary to my view, not as cynical as one would imagine. For example the most modern: Topalov has praised Kramnik and vice-versa.

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.>

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.

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.

<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. >

<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.">