What Winter in C.N 3114 concludes about Bardeleben's behavior sounds a trifle less damning to me than your above summation.

To wit:

"In short, von Bardeleben left the hall without resigning and allowed his time to run out because of the disturbance caused by spectators applauding winners of games, and he informed Steinitz personally of this. The above-mentioned tournament book confirms the remark by Pollock that von Bardeleben’s grievance was acted upon promptly, for regarding the next round of play the book reported (page 171):

‘On this day also the Committee, finding that applause, even if slight, was liable to be misunderstood by our foreign competitors, and in any case was annoying to the players, put up a notice asking visitors to refrain, and the directors of play and stewards had strict instructions to enforce the notice.’"

Shrug. :)

Cheers,

<cracknik> brought up the very valid point that Steiniz's combination is built on a very simple principle: keeping Black's king in the center and exploiting its presence there.

This game will be enjoyed forever because it illustrates that principle in such a clear-cut and understandable way. There's a lesson that anybody can use in their own play. Plus, the final combination is exciting, aesthetic, and humorous. You can't do better than that. The sight of White's rook blithely dancing as his whole position is hanging gives the game a special appeal that overshadows other, perhaps "better" games.

Now, what can you learn from Kasparov vs Topalov, 1999, outside of the fact that Kasparov is god? You can't play that game without a special power of imagination that only Kasparov has, and that the rest of us can admire but never achieve.

Also, to speak up for the benighted denizens of 1895, they were impressed by:

-- After 22...Kf8, and for several moves that followed, every one of White's pieces is hanging, including his king, because of the threat of ...Rxc1#. So everything had to work for Steinitz.