Members · Prefs · Collections · Openings · Endgames · Sacrifices · History · Search Kibitzing · Kibitzer's Café · Chessforums · Tournament Index · Players · Kibitzing

Wilhelm Steinitz
Number of games in database: 890
Years covered: 1859 to 1899

Overall record: +453 -191 =155 (66.4%)*
   * Overall winning percentage = (wins+draws/2) / total games in the database. 91 exhibition games, blitz/rapid, odds games, etc. are excluded from this statistic.

With the White pieces:
 Vienna Opening (90) 
    C25 C29 C28 C26
 French Defense (74) 
    C00 C11 C01 C02 C10
 King's Gambit Accepted (51) 
    C39 C37 C38 C33 C35
 French (46) 
    C00 C11 C13 C10 C12
 King's Gambit Declined (34) 
    C30 C31
 Evans Gambit (25) 
    C51 C52
With the Black pieces:
 Ruy Lopez (125) 
    C62 C70 C60 C64 C65
 Evans Gambit (72) 
    C52 C51
 Giuoco Piano (33) 
    C50 C53 C54
 King's Gambit Accepted (25) 
    C33 C39 C38 C34 C37
 Scotch Game (21) 
 Three Knights (15) 
Repertoire Explorer

NOTABLE GAMES: [what is this?]
   Steinitz vs Von Bardeleben, 1895 1-0
   Steinitz vs Chigorin, 1892 1-0
   Dubois vs Steinitz, 1862 0-1
   Zukertort vs Steinitz, 1886 0-1
   Steinitz vs Mongredien, 1863 1-0
   Steinitz vs Mongredien, 1862 1-0
   Steinitz vs Paulsen, 1870 1-0
   Steinitz vs Rock, 1863 1-0
   Steinitz vs Bird, 1866 1-0
   M Hewitt vs Steinitz, 1866 0-1

WORLD CHAMPIONSHIPS: [what is this?]
   Steinitz - Zukertort World Championship Match (1886)
   Steinitz - Chigorin World Championship Match (1889)
   Steinitz - Gunsberg World Championship Match (1890)
   Steinitz - Chigorin World Championship Rematch (1892)
   Lasker - Steinitz World Championship (1894)
   Lasker - Steinitz World Championship Rematch (1896)

NOTABLE TOURNAMENTS: [what is this?]
   Anderssen - Steinitz (1866)
   Steinitz - Zukertort (1872)
   Steinitz - Blackburne (1876)
   Vienna (1873)
   Vienna (1882)
   2nd City Chess Club Tournament (1894)
   Schiffers - Steinitz (1896)
   Baden-Baden (1870)
   London (1883)
   St. Petersburg 1895/96 (1895)
   Paris (1867)
   Vienna (1898)
   Hastings (1895)
   Nuremberg (1896)
   London (1899)

GAME COLLECTIONS: [what is this?]
   Match Steinitz! by amadeus
   The Dark Side by lonchaney
   Biography - Steinitz (Linder) by Qindarka
   The tT Players (Bonus Addition) by fredthebear
   World championship games A-Z by kevin86
   the rivals 1 by ughaibu
   Match Chigorin! by amadeus
   Wilhelm Steinitz's Best Games by KingG
   Max Euwe - From Steinitz to Fischer, Part 1 by Chessdreamer
   Vienna 1898 by suenteus po 147
   Modern Chess Instructor (Steinitz) by Qindarka
   Move by Move - Steinitz (Pritchett) by Qindarka
   Vienna 1882 by suenteus po 147
   London 1883 by suenteus po 147

   Showalter vs Gossip, 1889
   Chigorin vs Gunsberg, 1889
   J McConnell vs Steinitz, 1886
   Pillsbury vs Schlechter, 1895
   Burn vs N MacLeod, 1889

Search Sacrifice Explorer for Wilhelm Steinitz
Search Google for Wilhelm Steinitz

(born May-14-1836, died Aug-12-1900, 64 years old) Austria (federation/nationality United States of America)
[what is this?]

Wilhelm Steinitz was the first official World Champion of chess.


The last of thirteen sons of a hardware retailer, he was born in Prague in what was then the Kingdom of Bohemia within the Austrian Empire and which is now within the Czech republic. Like his father he was a Talmudic scholar, but then he left to study mathematics in the Vienna Polytechnic. He eventually dropped out of the Polytechnic to play chess professionally. Soon after, he played in the London tournament of 1862, and then settled in London for over twenty years, making his living at the London Chess Club. He emigrated to the USA in 1883, taking out US citizenship, living in New York for the rest of his life, and changing his first name to “William”.


He was recognized as the world's leading player, and considered to be the world champion by many, after he defeated the then-acknowledged number one chess player in the world (now that Paul Morphy had retired), Adolf Anderssen, in a match in 1866 which he won by 8-6. However, it was not until his victory in the Steinitz - Zukertort World Championship Match (1886) – where he sat beside a US flag - that he was recognised as the first undisputed world chess champion. He successfully defended his title three times in the Steinitz - Chigorin World Championship Match (1889), the Steinitz - Gunsberg World Championship Match (1890), and in the Steinitz - Chigorin World Championship Rematch (1892). In 1894, Emanuel Lasker won the crown from Steinitz by winning the Lasker - Steinitz World Championship (1894) and retained it by winning the Lasker - Steinitz World Championship Rematch (1896).

Steinitz was an extremely successful match player. Between 1860 and 1897, he played 36 matches, winning every serious match with the exception of his two matches against Lasker. Some of the prominent players of the day that he defeated in match play other than in his world championship matches included Max Lange, Serafino Dubois, Frederic Deacon, Dionisio M Martinez, Joseph Henry Blackburne, Anderssen, Augustus Mongredien, Henry Edward Bird, Johannes Zukertort, George Henry Mackenzie, and Celso Golmayo Zupide.


Steinitz was more adept at winning matches than tournaments in his early years, a factor, which alongside his prolonged absences from competition chess after 1873, may have prevented more widespread recognition of his dominance of chess as world champion until the first “official” world championship match in 1886. Nevertheless, between 1859 and his death in 1900, the only tournament in which he did not win prize money was his final tournament in London in 1899. His wins include the Vienna Championship of 1861 which he won with 30/31 and earned him the nickname the “Austrian Morphy”, the London Championship of 1862, Dublin 1865 (equal first with George Alcock MacDonnell), London 1872, equal first at Vienna 1873 and 1882 (the latter was the strongest tournament to that time, and Steinitz had just returned from 9 years of absence from tournament chess), and first in the New York Championship of 1894. Other successes include 3rd and 2nd at the Vienna Championships of 1859 and 1860 respectively, 2nd at Dundee in 1867, 3rd in Paris in 1867, 2nd in Baden Baden in 1870, 2nd in London in 1883, 5th at the Hastings super tournament in 1895, 2nd at the sextuple round robin St Petersburg quadrangular tournament behind Lasker and ahead of Harry Nelson Pillsbury and Mikhail Chigorin, 6th at Nuremburg in 1896, and 4th at Vienna in 1898.

Steinitz’s Legacy

The extent of Steinitz’s dominance in world chess is evident from the fact that from 1866, when he beat Adolf Anderssen, to 1894, when he relinquished the world crown to Emanuel Lasker, Steinitz won all his matches, sometimes by wide margins. His worst tournament performance in that period was third place in Paris in 1867. This period of Steinitz’s career was closely examined by Chessmetrics exponent and advocate, Jeff Sonas, who wrote an article in 2005 in which he found that Steinitz was further ahead of his contemporaries in the 1870s than Robert James Fischer was in his peak period (1970–1972), that he had the third-highest total number of years as the world's top player, behind Emanuel Lasker and Garry Kasparov, and that he placed 7th in a comparison the length of time great players were ranked in the world's top three.

Despite his pre-eminence in chess for those decades in the late 19th century, Steinitz’s main contribution to chess was as its first true theoretician. He rose to prominence in the 1860s on the back of highly competent handling of the romantic attacking style of chess that had been popularised by Morphy and Anderssen and which characterised the style of the era. However, in the Vienna tournament of 1873, he introduced a new positional style of play which not only commenced his run of 25 consecutive high level victories, but profoundly transformed the way chess was played from shortly after that time, when its efficacy was embraced by the chess world. It enabled him to establish his complete dominance over his long time rival, Johannes Zukertort, and to easily win the first official match for the World Championship.

Lasker summarised Steinitz’s ideas as follows:

"In the beginning of the game ignore the search for combinations, abstain from violent moves, aim for small advantages, accumulate them, and only after having attained these ends search for the combination – and then with all the power of will and intellect, because then the combination must exist, however deeply hidden."

Although these ideas were controversial and fiercely debated for some years in what has become known as the <Ink Wars>, Lasker and the next generation of the world’s best players acknowledged their debt to him.

"He was a thinker worthy of a seat in the halls of a University. A player, as the world believed he was, he was not; his studious temperament made that impossible; and thus he was conquered by a player ..." - <Emanuel Lasker>.

"He understood more about the use of squares than did Morphy, and contributed a great deal more to chess theory.' - <Bobby Fischer>.

Sources: Wikipedia article: Wilhelm Steinitz and <jessicafischerqueen>'s YouTube documentary - in turn sourced mainly from <Kurt Landsberger's> biography "Bohemian Caesar."

Steinitz played on the following consultation teams: Steinitz / Bird / Blackburne, Steinitz / Boden, Burn / Steinitz / Zukertort, Steinitz / Allies, Steinitz / Zukertort, Schiffers / Steinitz, Steinitz / Chigorin, Steinitz / Blackburne & Blackburne / Steinitz / De Vere.

Last updated: 2017-02-11 20:05:54

 page 1 of 36; games 1-25 of 890  PGN Download
Game  ResultMoves Year Event/LocaleOpening
1. Steinitz vs Lenhof 1-032 1859 Vienna (Austria)C52 Evans Gambit
2. E Pilhal vs Steinitz 0-121 1859 ViennaC53 Giuoco Piano
3. Steinitz vs Meitner 1-034 1859 ViennaC52 Evans Gambit
4. Hamppe vs Steinitz 0-128 1859 ViennaC38 King's Gambit Accepted
5. Lenhof vs Steinitz 0-145 1859 ViennaC23 Bishop's Opening
6. Hamppe vs Steinitz 0-123 1859 ViennaC29 Vienna Gambit
7. Steinitz vs F Nowotny 1-031 1859 ch Vienna Chess ClubC55 Two Knights Defense
8. Hamppe vs Steinitz 0-131 1860 ViennaC25 Vienna
9. Steinitz vs Lang 1-019 1860 ViennaC37 King's Gambit Accepted
10. Steinitz vs Lang 1-023 1860 Vienna m2C44 King's Pawn Game
11. Steinitz vs E Jenay 0-132 1860 Vienna m1A13 English
12. Steinitz vs Strauss 1-029 1860 Vienna (Austria)C52 Evans Gambit
13. Steinitz vs Lang 1-029 1860 ViennaC25 Vienna
14. Steinitz vs E Jenay 1-033 1860 Vienna m1D32 Queen's Gambit Declined, Tarrasch
15. Steinitz vs Reiner 1-019 1860 Vienna (Austria)C51 Evans Gambit
16. Steinitz vs Reiner 1-032 1860 Vienna m4C51 Evans Gambit
17. E Jenay vs Steinitz 0-135 1860 Vienna m1C44 King's Pawn Game
18. Steinitz vs Meitner 1-026 1860 Vienna (Austria)C55 Two Knights Defense
19. Strauss vs Steinitz 0-131 1860 Vienna m3C51 Evans Gambit
20. Steinitz vs NN 1-012 1860 UnknownC25 Vienna
21. E Jenay vs Steinitz 1-022 1860 Vienna m1C53 Giuoco Piano
22. Reiner vs Steinitz 0-118 1860 Vienna (Austria)C44 King's Pawn Game
23. Steinitz vs Strauss 1-033 1860 Vienna m3C29 Vienna Gambit
24. Steinitz vs NN 1-015 1861 Casual Game000 Chess variants
25. Steinitz vs NN 1-031 1861 ch Vienna Chess ClubC30 King's Gambit Declined
 page 1 of 36; games 1-25 of 890  PGN Download
  REFINE SEARCH:   White wins (1-0) | Black wins (0-1) | Draws (1/2-1/2) | Steinitz wins | Steinitz loses  

A free online guide presented by

Kibitzer's Corner
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 45 OF 45 ·  Later Kibitzing>
Premium Chessgames Member
  Sally Simpson: Hi Zanzibar,

I'd trust Tim as he is a pretty meticulous researcher though if pushed I would have said Ken Whyld or David Hooper.

Quite a few players seemed to have crossed Stenitz but it does appear the 'ink war' was primarily him and Hoffer with allies sniping from the side-lines.

Harding says that Kurt Landsberger (A great nephew of Steinitz) gave the poem in full in his bio on Steinitz. Never seen it.

I've read some of the 'Ink Wars' in various sources. Pretty wild stuff.

Premium Chessgames Member
  zanzibar: <Sally> looks like I was right in the first place...

<Harding> <In consequence of want of agreement between Herr Steinitz and the ... briefly by Sergeant,96 which Landsberger terms the “Ink-war” between Steinitz and Hoffer ..>

<Landsberger> <... of the First World Chess Champion William Steinitz Kurt Landsberger ... the "Ink War" erupted (the phrase of Kenneth Whyld, who with the late David Hooper ...>

both snippnets from a google search.

Proper attribution should be to Whyld from hereon.

Premium Chessgames Member
  Joshka: Do we have any historical record of where the Simul took place in 1883/NewOrleans? Morphy I presume spent the last year of his life there, hard to believe they wouldn't have discussed chess. 2 top players in the world in the same area!
Premium Chessgames Member
  Sally Simpson: Hi Zanibar,


Harding says it was Landsberger who says it was Whyld and Hooper (who should have said they got it from Harding!)

As I said I have never seen the Landsberger book.

The main thing is the above bio is misleading.

Premium Chessgames Member
  zanzibar: <SallyS> yes, the intro would be better with a rewrite.

Landsberger looks like a good book, but I don't have it either. Like I said, a google search's snippets yielded the attribution trail.

I'd like to see a ref for the original usage of <Ink War> by Whyld though.


Premium Chessgames Member
  Ron: Yikes, Steinitz's birthday was a few days ago.

Happy Birthday to one of my chess heroes!

I've been influenced by great theoreticians of the game such as Tarrasch and Nimzowitsch, but I like to think of myself as a Steinitzian.

Premium Chessgames Member
  brankat: Steinitzian? Bobby Fischer felt the same way :-)
Premium Chessgames Member
  Joshka: I believe if anyone has the authority to talk about the strengths of Morphy versus Steinitz, it has to be Anderssen. Morphy and Steinitz were only a year apart in age. Anderson played around 17 games with Morphy. He also played around 22 games with Steinitz. Don't think there is another top professional who played both of them that many times. Although Anderssen was about 20 years older than both Morphy and Steinitz, his opinion on who would have prevailed in a long match I hold paramount. NOW, did Anderssen ever write or talk about his studies in playing both of them? We argue and debate all the time who would have won Karpov or Fischer, and as far as I'm concerned only Spassky has the authority to have his comments taken most seriously, as he played BOTH! Any thoughts? And what did Anderssen say?
Premium Chessgames Member
  MissScarlett: I think it was Steinitz himself who said that Anderssen, over the course of time, calmed down in his appreciation of Morphy.
Premium Chessgames Member
  keypusher: <Joshka>

<In 1862 Anderssen told Steinitz he was no Morphy; in 1866 he put him far above Morphy.>

See p. 7:

An unsourced paraphrase from a book of the 1894 Lasker-Steinitz match. Pretty weak. It would be nice to see a primary source quoting Anderssen's actual words.

Premium Chessgames Member
  Joshka: <keypusher> Hey thanks for the great link!!!
Premium Chessgames Member
  Ron: I recently read the Wikipedia article on Steinitz, and came across this: ' His second wife and their two young children were still alive at his death.'

I wonder if there are any living relatives of Steinitz. For example, someone whose great-grandfather was Steinitz.

Premium Chessgames Member
  brankat: Could be Carlsen :-)
Premium Chessgames Member
  Big Pawn: Does anyone have any recommendations as to which biography of Steinitz is the best?

Years ago I read David Lawson's biography on Morphy and thought it was excellent and I'm hoping to find something of similar quality on Steinitz. I could read the Amazon reviews but figured this would be a good place to ask first.

Premium Chessgames Member
  TheFocus: <Big Pawn: Does anyone have any recommendations as to which biography of Steinitz is the best?>

The one I'm publishing in two years. I have to finish my research first.

Premium Chessgames Member
  Big Pawn: <Focus: The one I'm publishing in two years. I have to finish my research first>

Fantastic! Put me down for a first edition copy right away.

I just got done search Amazon and other places and, surprisingly, there is very little in the way of a Steinitz biography. There is that one A Bohemian Caesar, or something like that, written by a great, grand nephew but he writes somewhat poorly according to some of the reviews I read. Worse still is that he isn't a chess player so the commentary in the regard is wanting.

Jan-29-17  Paarhufer: <Big Pawn: but he writes somewhat poorly according to some of the reviews I read.> The book is quite confusing. Landsberger did detailed research, but was not capable of presenting it without adding many errors. Moreover, he mixed everything with everything: facts, anecdotes, chess lore and Steinitz's self-portrayal, and it seems that he believed all this to be true. A documented flop, but somehow still interesting. His book "The Steinitz papers" is quite different and shows lots of rare documents.
Premium Chessgames Member
  Big Pawn: I've recently purchased William Steinitz 1st World Chamption by Isaak and Vladimir Linger.

It's a pretty good book with quality annotations and good anecdotes sprinkled here and there.

One of my favorites relates to Steinitz quirky personality and tendency to speak boldly.

<In his student days, Steinitz became a constant visitor of the popular chess cafe in Vienna, Romer. A prominent banker, Gustav Epstein, was one of his opponents.

Once, Steinitz, while thinking for a while about his move, heard impatient muttering:"Come on, come on!" Wilhelm's pride was hurt. Soon after, his opponent sank into deep thought,

"Come on, come on!" Steinitz said with a smile.

"Do not forget, young man, who you are and who I am!"

"Yes, I know, in life you are Epstein, a banker, and I am Steinitz, a student! But at the chessboard, I am Epstein!">

Premium Chessgames Member
  zanzibar: <

I [Hoffer] had the pleasure of making Steinitz's acquaintance then, and had to interpret his numerous protests. His second interpreter was Loyd, but he soon tired of the position, and told him on one occasion,

“Look here, Steinitz, if a man wants to quarrel he must either be strong here,” pointing to his fist, “or here,” pointing to his pocket.

“Or here,” replied Steinitz, pointing to his head.

Fortunately Steinitz could only protest in two languages.


FN v46 p756 (1886)

Premium Chessgames Member
  zanzibar: <A TALK ABOUT CHESS.

Herr Steinitz, who is now contesting the chess championship in the States, has been interviewed.

<“How far, he was asked, does an expert generally go into the game?” asked the reporter.>

“One can’t give a specific answer to that question. Sometimes two-move problems will puzzle an expert; at another time he may see the solution of a six-move problem at a glance. In some ‘endings’ one can see almost twenty moves ahead. Problems have been evolved looking one hundred moves ahead. But in such cases the moves are forced. The same process is repeated and there are no variations possible. Ordinarily I should say that a first-class player sees five or six moves ahead. The possible combinations in a game of chess are practically infinite. At the outset you have the choice of twenty moves, and to each one of these moves your opponent in reply has twenty moves to choose front. It is like the old problem of starting with a penny and doubling it for each succeeding nail in a horse’s shoes.”

<“What are the qualities requisite to make a good chess player?”>

“First, I should say, judgment. That judgment may be intuitive or acquired by long practice. Intuitive judgment is the highest gift. That implies originality—capacity to depart from the beaten track. Then come the qualities of accuracy and what might be called farseeing. One may be good at mapping out a general plan, but weak in carrying out the details. Another may be accurate in his play but not good at planning. The good chess player must have both qualities. Memory and imagination—the power to see with the mind’s eye the men in various combinations— are important elements.”

<“What temperament do you think the best?”>

“The nervous temperament. A racehorse has more nerves that: a donkey. It requires a delicate organization to produce the fine combinations necessary to rank as an expert. Good chess players generally suffer much from their nerves.”

<“What do you think of chess as a mental exercise?”>

“I think it does for the brain what athletics do for the body. It both stimulates and conserves the mental powers. Chess players as a class live long. A statistician has computed that the average duration of life for a professional chess player is Sixty-five years. Like every mental and physical exercise, it may of course be overdone. A man should not go in for more than he can stand, and he soon finds out what his limit is. It is opposed to the drinking habit and the gambling spirit; therefore it is a good game for the working man. It ought to be generally encouraged.”


The Pall Mall Budget, v34 (Feb 4, 1886) p23

Premium Chessgames Member
  zanzibar: Rod Edwards has recently updated his background page on his EDOchess rating site. Looking there I found the following mention of Steinitz:

<(Updated Jan. 2017) The results speak largely for themselves, but here are a few general observations.

By far the strongest four players of the period 1821-1921, according to the Edo ratings, are Morphy, Steinitz, Lasker, and Capablanca, in historical order. These are the only four whose Edo ratings exceed 2750, with the next highest peak being 2721 for von der Lasa. This puts a significant gap between them and any other player of the period.

That these players should appear at the top is perhaps no surprise, but it is interesting that Morphy comes out so high, while some previous historical rating attempts have put him in a somewhat less favourable light. Even considering only results up to 1900, Chessmetrics puts Morphy's one-year peak below Lasker, Pillsbury, Janowski, Tarrasch, Steinitz, Chigorin and Kolisch, and about equal to those of Maroczy, Neumann and Blackburne. The Edo ratings are more in agreement with Elo, who put Morphy's peak second only to Lasker's in the nineteenth century (but at 2690, still considerably lower than my peak of 2811). The discrepancy may partly be that Chessmetrics uses only official matches, of which Morphy had few (62 game results are used), whereas I have used all available information on his many less formal matches against ratable opponents (820 games).

It is also interesting that Capablanca comes out as the strongest of the four, with Morphy and Steinitz close behind, and with Lasker trailing slightly. Steinitz's fantastically high peak came as a bit of a surprise to me initially, and despite the Edo system's adjustment to avoid overly optimistic rating estimates based on insufficient evidence, Steinitz's peak remains very high. I wonder if Steinitz's developing theory, which he claims to have been working on from the time between his 1872 and 1873 tournaments, combined with his obviously great ability, was simply too much for other players to handle for a while until they started to absorb his ideas. Steinitz himself certainly held this view. Edward Winter, in Kings, Commoners and Knaves (pp.228-229), cites a remark of Steinitz, originally published in the Glasgow Weekly Herald and quoted in the Sept. 1899 American Chess Magazine:

<"I was champion of the world for twenty-eight years because I was twenty years ahead of my time. I played on certain principles, which neither Zukertort nor anyone else of his time understood. The players of today, such as Lasker, Tarrasch, Pillsbury, Schlechter and others have adopted my principles, and as is only natural, they have improved upon what I began, and that is the whole secret of the matter.">


It fills out a little Steinitz's well-known quote. But it also is an interesting reassessment of Morphy's quality of play.

Premium Chessgames Member
  Chessical: A short time ago ' Mars ' (the Rev. G. A. Macdonnell) remarked that in his circle of acquaintances there was no man more energetic and industrious than Mr. Steinitz.' But,' he continued, ' Mr. Steinitz is not quick in intellect, or, if quick, is so deliberate and painstaking that he impresses people with the idea that he is a slow coach. He spent eight months in writing his review of Wormald's book on chess openings. His work may be, and often is, very poor, but the labour he expends upon it is immense. He always does his best, no matter what he is doing'

Four week later 'Mars' discovered that some 'small-minded persons ' had construed what he had said as a disparagement of Mr. Steinitz's intellectual powers. He therefore considered himself bound to supplement his remarks as follows :

'Mr. Steinitz's great fault in chess is that he sees too much — takes too many points into consideration, a very different thing from being slow in perception, which he certainly is not. But in important contests he is slow in making up his mind. In them he examines unimportant details; and over them he is apt to waste time and to fatigue his brains. He requires en hour for 15 moves where many another master would not require 30 minutes. In complicated positions he may see the best move as quickly as any man, but he does not make it as quickly as some do. He sees the best move probably at a glance. But it is a long time before he recognises it as tho best. He is too hesitating, too fond of looking for a better move than that which strikes him as the best For it he labours with flashing eye and corrugated brow.

Of course, when he fails to find a better, he contents himself with the best move ; in short, he looks at a position much in the same way as an artist unendowed with a quick eye for salient features regards a person whom he is called upon to portray. He considers and ponders over points which it is quite unnecessary to notice even for a moment. In justice, however, it must be added that he invariably exercises a sound judgment, and arrives at a right issue in all, even the most complicated positions.

Give him his own time, and he is unbeatable in battle. But, for want of the time he sometimes lets victory slip from his hands. The fact is he lacks genius of the highest order for chess. The genius that consists in an infinite capacity for taking trouble he undoubtedly possesses, and perhaps to a larger extent than was ever possessed by any other player. But the intuitive faculty of always discerning at a glance the best move which so distinguished Paul Morphy is wanting to Mr. Steinitz; nor does he possess the gift that was Anderssen's, and is Blackburne's and Bird's — the gift of painting beautiful pictures on the chessboard when there is little or nothing there to suggest them.

Yet, though lacking genius, his talents for chess are of a grand and unexceptionable nature. Perhaps they are even superior to genius. Moreover, no more conscientious chess artist than Mr. Steinitz ever existed. To himself, to his opponent, to chess, he is ever faithful. He always treats his opponent as a possible equal, while chess is to him a temple wherein he worships with the keenest ardour and the most profound reverence. In the open field, and in fair fight, he has won the greatest successes which it was possible for him to achieve, and never were successes more richly deserved."

<Source:> "The Sydney Mail and New South Wales Advertiser", Saturday 22nd December 1888, p.1317.>

Premium Chessgames Member
  Joshka: While researching the Steinitz variation of the Caro-Kahn, he played 1 game with it, thus netting a whole variation named after?? In fact he didn't even play it as black!!LOL
Premium Chessgames Member
  TheFocus: Quote of the Day: <Fame, I have already. Now I need the money> - Steinitz.

You should have had a better financial adviser.

Premium Chessgames Member
  TheFocus: According to the <Atlana Sunny South>, of 5/5/1888, Steinitz reported that he lost a Knights-odds match versus S. Lopez, a 14 year old from Havana, Cuba. Lopez won 4 of 5.
Jump to page #    (enter # from 1 to 45)
search thread:   
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 45 OF 45 ·  Later Kibitzing>
NOTE: You need to pick a username and password to post a reply. Getting your account takes less than a minute, totally anonymous, and 100% free--plus, it entitles you to features otherwise unavailable. Pick your username now and join the chessgames community!
If you already have an account, you should login now.
Please observe our posting guidelines:
  1. No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.
  2. No spamming, advertising, or duplicating posts.
  3. No personal attacks against other members.
  4. Nothing in violation of United States law.
  5. No posting personal information of members.
Blow the Whistle See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform an administrator.

NOTE: Keep all discussion on the topic of this page. This forum is for this specific player and nothing else. If you want to discuss chess in general, or this site, you might try the Kibitzer's Café.
Messages posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of, its employees, or sponsors.
Spot an error? Please suggest your correction and help us eliminate database mistakes!

home | about | login | logout | F.A.Q. | your profile | preferences | Premium Membership | Kibitzer's Café | Biographer's Bistro | new kibitzing | chessforums | Tournament Index | Player Directory | World Chess Championships | Opening Explorer | Guess the Move | Game Collections | ChessBookie Game | Chessgames Challenge | Store | privacy notice | advertising | contact us
Copyright 2001-2017, Chessgames Services LLC