|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 31 OF 31 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
Feb-01-09
 |
| whiteshark: Quote of the Day
<Chess is a scientific game and its literature ought to be placed on the basis of the strictest truthfulness, which is the foundation of all scientific research.> -- Steinitz
What is a 'scientific game'? |
 |
Mar-04-09
|
| whiteshark: Quote of the Day
"He always sought completely original lines and didn't mind getting into cramped quarters if he thought that his position was essentially sound." -- Bobby Fischer (<on Steinitz>) (from Kelly Atkins)
http://www.gmchess.com/ |
|
Apr-04-09
 |
| jackpawn: I'm going to open a can of worms here, but in my opinion if Morphy didn't retire prematurely Steinitz would be a relatively minor footnote today. Morphy would have been the best player in the world until the arrival of Lasker. |
|
Apr-05-09
 |
| Open Defence: I think Steinitz' closed game would have been the perfect foil for Morphy's attacks..it would have been a good contest |
|
| Apr-21-09 |
| Fanacas: Steinitz would have never been a minor footnoot maybe morphy whould have beaten him but steintiz is the father of mordern chess unlike morphy he took is idea's of postitinal chess and taught it to the world and showed it was the best way to play. |
|
| Apr-21-09 |
| WhiteRook48: Steinitz despised the fianchetto |
|
| Apr-22-09 |
| Fanacas: Sorry what i called modern is called clasical now but steinitz himself lasker tarrasch could it modern in his time. (i didnt mean the hypermodern movment or chess.) |
|
May-14-09
 |
| talisman: happy birthday william!
what does william steinitz, doestoevsky, and don mossi have in common? |
|
| May-21-09 |
| Fanacas: No idea what do they have in common ? |
|
| May-29-09 |
| Fanacas: Anyone ever plays his variatoin of the vienn athe steinitz gambit where th eking goes to e2 ? |
|
May-29-09
|
| talisman: <Fanacas> Looks! |
|
| May-29-09 |
| Fanacas: Steinitz vs Paulsen, 1870 like here |
|
| Jul-30-09 |
| theagenbiteofinwit: <my opinion if Morphy didn't retire prematurely Steinitz would be a relatively minor footnote today.> Probably not. Nimzowitsch is genrally considered to be under the shadow of not one, but two legends, yet his contributions to the game have hardly made him a footnote. Serious programmers who work with the goal of solving chess are basically providing proof of Steinitz's theory of chess. (I know programmers who quote Steinitz' theory when discussing tablebases and the distinct possibility that perfectly played chess is in fact 1.5-1.5) Whether or not Morphy had the chance to stomp him doesn't change the influence he still bears on the game. That influence has increased, interestingly enough, as computer science has come into play. |
|
Aug-04-09
 |
| BishopBerkeley: (This is a near-duplicate post to one I made over on the Emanuel Lasker message board. I post it here because Wilhelm Steinitz was, to a significant degree, an inspiration for Dr. Lasker's philosophy of Chess and of life....) Some of you may know that Dr. Emanuel Lasker wrote a book of philosophy titled "Struggle". This book has been out of print for many years, and getting a copy of it has been difficult (believe me, I have tried!) Surprisingly, I am delighted to see that very recently the book has become available as a digital download at no cost! (Having been published in 1907, it is in the public domain in nearly all countries.) Our own User: SBC has written a very good piece about it here: http://blog.chess.com/view/laskers-...
It is indeed interesting to compare Dr. Lasker's philosophical thought to that of his friend and fellow genius Albert Einstein . (A good summary of Einstein's spiritual philosophy will be found here: http://www.100bestwebsites.org/alt/... ) For those who would like to download a complete copy of Dr. Lasker's philosophical book, you may do so from this link: http://tinyurl.com/ntbk7n
with the specific download link being
http://dds.crl.edu/loadStream.asp?i...
The book is in PDF format, and the file size is about 1 MB. I find the section titled "The Problem" (from pages 5-12) to be particularly interesting. But be forewarned, you will look in vain for any Chess diagrams in it! But you will find much else that is worthwhile. As I understand it, Dr. Lasker believed his book was a generalization of his Chess philosophy to life in the broadest sense. He attributed the great synthesis of Chess theory to Wilhelm Steinitz , and believe that that great Chess luminary had developed his theory after long study of the Chessgames of Paul Morphy . (See the last long quote on this page for details: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Paul_M... ) If any of you happen to read all or a portion of this intriguing book, I hope you may share your thoughts here. Hope you are all in good spirits....
(:  Bishop Berkeley :) |
|
| Aug-04-09 |
| sneaky pete: Nihil obstat. |
|
Nov-09-09
 |
| vonKrolock: A biography, from 1936, by M. Levidov (1891-1942), author also from a monography on Jonathan Swift that appeared in 1939 - This work, "Wilhelm Steinitz", available online (plain text -and with a link to another virtual library with the same book - bot with the original in Russian) http://az.lib.ru/l/lewidow_m_j/text... |
|
| Nov-19-09 |
| theagenbiteofinwit: <BishopBerkeley> I can't thank you enough for providing that link. |
|
Dec-06-09
 |
| Bjornemann: Thank you so much for the link to this very interesting book, BishopBerkeley! |
|
| Dec-22-09 |
| Maatalkko: I was commenting on an unrelated topic when I realized a particular virtue of Steinitz; he defended his title, voluntarily, far more often than the other pre-WWII World Champions. The only credible challengers he didn't face in his eight year reign were Blackburne (whom I'm sure he would have beaten) and Tarrasch (whom I also think would have lost). Did either of them make a serious effort to arrange a match? Either way, five matches in eight years is unparalleled except for Kasparov and Karpov, and Kasparov was obligated to play each of those matches. So I think Steinitz's sportsmanship is underrated and deserves a shout-out. |
|
Dec-23-09
 |
| al wazir: Why are there no games here played by Steinitz after 1899??? He lost the title in 1894 (it says) and presumably played for several years thereafter. |
|
Dec-23-09
|
| jackpawn: Possibly because he died in 1900! |
|
Dec-23-09
|
| al wazir: Duh! No wonder I don't win any Holiday Presents. Thanks. |
|
| Jan-03-10 |
| Maatalkko: <al wazir> unfortunately, steinitz went insane after losing the rematch to Lasker in 1896. I believe he died shortly after. |
|
Jan-03-10
 |
| HeMateMe: Maybe 'insane' is too strong a word. That word is often given to describe aging chess masters who lose their mental faculties. But, if the same thing happens to leser knowns, or, people who have no connection to an intellectual activity, they are just said to be 'senile', or maybe there is undianosed Parkinson's or Alzheimers. |
|
Jan-09-10
 |
| kingscrusher: I am doing a video series on the evolution of chess style, and the following video relating to Steinitz's theory of chess may be interesting to check out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rf5Y...
Along with this example game:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mgJ1... |
|
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 31 OF 31 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
