There is speculation that Lasker may have avoided Tarrasch as retribution since Tarrasch refused to play Lasker in a match before the world championship of Steinitz and Lasker in 1894 since Tarrasch was better known than Lasker at the time.

Lasker's inactivity at the turn of the century is likely due to his Ph.D. thesis requirements. Unfortunately, the only chance to play Pillsbury was at this time.

Afterwards, when one could argue that Lasker was avoiding Capablanca and Rubinstein, World War 1 was a problem so Lasker was inactive again.

But then Steinitz twiced published his birth date as being May 17, 1836 in the International Chess Magazine.

However, further reading mentions Dr. Hermann Neustadtl of Prague and his going to the Jewish City Hall and obtained the May 14, 1836 date as Steinitz' birth date. Also that Steinitz himself acknowledged this fact (date) in the American Chess Magazine of July 1899.

Landsberger, fairly familiar with most of the evidence concludes the "preponderence of evidence is for the date of May 14, 1836" <e4Newman> can again rejoice and CG.com needs to update it's Steinitz bio.

If you could provide some references and quotes to support the statement it would be greatly appreciated.

Later, Landsberger again asserts that Steinitz had claimed the title since he was 30 and that 20 years later the world beleived him.

I would conclude that because the stakes and title of world champion were recognized prior to the match play that any previous claims (self proclaimed or not) were not completely accepted and this match would be the deciding factor.

<Begin>
Staunton writes, "... the defeat of the Prussian champion by an antagonist scarcely recognized among the magnates must have appeared incredible .... Mr. Anderssen was beaten because his day for match playing is over ...." The october issue of Chess World wondered about "... the unjust elevation which they would assign to the latter [Steinitz] ... though his claim to be placed in the first rank rests on this match alone" (112). Despite his victory over Anderssen, Steinitz was still not regarded as his equal (3).

When Moorphy previously defeated Anderssen, it was just anothe rchess match. When Steinitz defeated Anderssen he announced that he was the world champion. Nobody objected to his claim, especially since Steinitz was always willing and never hesitant in defending his title (109, 128, etc.). Morphy would have been entitled to such a title if he would have accepted and won challenges against Paulsen and Kolish. Since he did not care to do this, the question of the championshipwas left open until the claim of Steinitz (112). Steninitz by intuition was a great public relations expert. With mastery of the english language, Steinitz aquired a journalist's appreciation of the value of terms, and the title - world champion - he made for himself was destined to stay, and to be taken up all over the world. It is difficult to imagine why no previous journalist had thought of popularzing the title. We must give Steinitz the credit of making a title to fit that supremacy. He had a firm conviction of the importance of chess among the activities of the human brain, and still firmer convistion of the glory of being the best player at it. "Here I am William Steinitz," he is alleged to have said, "the youngest child of a poor rabbi; and I am Steinitz, the Chess Champion of the World" (112) (He was in fact neither the youngest nor the son of a rabbi.)

For years to come little was said about the title, unntil the 1886 Steinitz and Zukertort agreed that the loser would recognize the winner as the world champion (46). Chess historians seem to agree that Steinitz not only claimed, but also invented this new title.

In Williams Winter's analysis of Staunton, Anderssen Morphy and Steinitz as World Champions of the 19th century he explains that of these, <Just on what he said about Steinitz> Steinitz after his victory over Anderssen was the first to claim himself World Champion, and his right to the title was generally recognized by the chess world... (128)"
<End>

(3) Zukertort. Yorklyn, Del.:Cassia Editions 1989

(109) Schonberg, H. Grandmasters of Chess. Philadephia:J.B.Lippincott, 1973

(112) Championship Chess. New York:Sterling, 1960

Landsberger (seems to me) to imply that it was Steinitz own Journalism that lays this claim and coining of the term World Champion as it is noted as being self a proclaimed title.

However, the Oxford Chess Companion lists Steinitz' literary contributions as:

Figaro (1876-82)
Ashore or Afloat (1883)
New York Tribune(1890)
New York Herald(1890-93)
The Field (1873-82)
International Chess Magazine (1885-91)

The OCC does not show that in 1866 he was contributing to a publication in which he could have published his claim.

Very muddy waters.

<lblai Referring to the subject in the third issue of the Quarterly for Chess History> Year and quote would be greatly appreciated.

As to Morphy not accepting Paulsen and Kolish challenges and not being able to lay the claim and coining of the term world champion (bunkum). After the Mongredien match the Era quotes Mongredian toasting Morphy at the London Chess Club to the "Health of the Champion of the Chess World". Not exactly 'World Champion' but the implication is the same indicating that the conceptual idea of a world champion existed well before 1866.

Lowenthal aknowledged after the 1872 Zukertort match that Steinitz may be fairly regarded as the present occupant of that exceptional position formerly held by Morphy and Burn wrote that Steinitz was "now probably the strongest player in the world".

<As early as 1874, Steinitz was willing to argue that he had a claim to the title.> I would agree and justifiably so, perhaps even back to the 1866 Anderssen match.

However, the question is did he make the claim in 1866.

Schonberg (author of Grandmasters of Chess) wrote, "when Steinitz won, he trumpeted the fact everywhere and
announced that he was the world's champion. There was no dispute about the claim; no magazines, newspapers, or, indeed, the chess world rose to object." Judging from the 1866 Staunton quote, it is unlikely that there would have been no dispute after a well-publicized world champion claim in 1866 by Steinitz. Schonberg was another author who (like William Winter) apparently did not put much care into checking his facts. His discussion of the Morphy-Staunton dispute is a mess. (Schonberg's book was published in the 1970s.)

P. W. Sergeant made his position clear in Championship Chess, asserting that Steinitz "did not claim any title when he defeated Anderssen in a match in 1866".

As I have mentioned before, Landsberger's book produced no 1866 quote about Steinitz being world champion. Referring to the subject in the third issue of the Quarterly for Chess History, Landsberger again had no 1866 quotes of anyone commenting on whether or not Steinitz was world champion. It seems like a good guess that Landsberger had (unwisely) chosen to believe Kings of Chess by William Winter.
Schonberg may have made the same mistake.