< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 37 OF 38 ·
|Mar-23-12|| ||jnpope: <How do you explain Steinitz's statement concerning New York 1889:|
"Anyhow, I may positively state that if I do not take part in the main contest I shall not challenge the winner...the ultimate winner, provided that he fulfills all the conditions of the Committee shall have my most loyal support for his Champion title to which I shall lay no claim..."?>
Easy. There was no ultimate winner that fulfilled all the conditions of the Committee. Perhaps you should actually do some research...
From the Committee Report published in the tournament book (page xxiii): "At the end of the tournament there was a tie between M. Tschigorin, of St. Petersburg, and Herr Max Weiss, of Vienna. Both these masters expressed a desire not to be compelled to play a championship match, as provided by the rules, and as there was no other challenge for the title and the prizes offered for the purpose, the Committee decided that this contest should not take place."
No contest. No ultimate winner. No new champion. Steinitz retained his title even though he was willing to give it up before the tournament.
You did bother to actually read the tournament book and committee report before you started spouting off your own version of history?
<How do you expalain the fact that the Gunsberg match was limited to 20 games given Steinitz's position on such matches?>
I refer you to the negotiation process itself:
"Mr. Steinitz, with the consent of the Manhattan Chess Club, under the auspices of which organization this match is to be played, is willing to accept Mr. Gunsberg's offer, provided the latter will consent to begin on Nov. 15, and provided Mr. Gunsberg will also agree upon altering the rules to the following effect:
1. That the winner of the first ten games be declared the winner of the match.
2. That no more than twenty games be played, and that he shall be the winner who has scored the majority of games. Draws not to count."
source: New York Sun, 1890.10.06
From Gunsberg's reply:
"4. That the first winner of ten games, exclusive of draws shall be declared the victor, "provided, however, that not more than twenty games shall be played. Should the maximum be reached without either party having scored ten games, the winner of the majority of games, exclusive of draws, shall be the winner of the match." My opinion, and that of my friends in England, is averse to imposing a value on drawn games, which is indirectly, though obviously conferred on them by the portion of this condition which I have quoted above. I hope you will be able to suggest or accept an amendment, which, while meeting your own convenience, will meet my objections as here expressed."
To which Steinitz replied:
"3 and 4. My propositions were made with the view of enabling me to play a match in Havana with Dr. Tarrasch or some other player early in January. Should such a match not come off I quite agree to ask the committed of the Manhattan Chess Club to alter the conditions as originally proposed, namely, that twenty games shall be the minimum. Anyhow, I shall support your request to commence the match on or about Dec. 1."
source: New York Sun, 1890.10.29
<How do you explain Gunsberg publicly challenging the championship status of the 1894 Lasker-Steinitz match if he considered Steinitz the World Champion?>
<Most of the leading masters of the time, including Gunsberg, Chigorin, and Tarrasch objected and called the match a farce.>
Citation, please, for sources where I can find all three of the players you named above calling the match a farce.
As for <How do you explain all the chess literature of the time stating that Game 23 of the 1892 Steinitz-Chigorin match cost Chigorin the title? etc.>
I'll do some research, but I highly suspect you have misread something, miscomprehended something, or more than likely, as the past has shown already, you have latched onto some small piece of information that was corrected or expanded upon later on.
In the meantime:
"As will be remembered, the Havana Chess Club proposed a match for the championship of the world, to be played between Steinitz and Tschigorin at Havana. Previous to a special despatch of The Sun informing Tschigorin of this proposal, the Russian challenged Steinitz for a match to be played in St. Petersburg."
source: The Sun, 1891.05.20
And you may want to refrain from calling people idiots. Again, you just end up looking like a fool.
|Mar-23-12|| ||Phony Benoni: <AVRO38> I usually stay out of these wars. But, in case you didn't know, <jnpope> is one of the leading chess historians of that era in the United States, if not the world. To say that he has "...no knowledge of chess history" is beyond disrespectful. It's positively laughable.|
If nothing else, I refer you to this site, particularly the "Excavations" area:
This is a person who tirelessly does original research in the original sources, simply for the love of it.
You may disagree with what he says; there's plenty of room for interpretation here. But if you want your arguments to be taken seriously instead of simply being part of a flame war, then have some respect for him and what he says. He's spent more time and sweat on chess research than most of the people around here combined.
OK. I'll now go back to lurking in the quieter areas of the site. But I simply couldn't let that pass.
|Mar-23-12|| ||TheFocus: <Phony Benoni> Absolutely right. <jnpope> is one of the leading historians in the U.S.|
|Mar-23-12|| ||AVRO38: <No contest. No ultimate winner. No new champion.>|
Gunsberg and Chigorin disagree. Gunsberg recognized Chigorin as the winner and world champion and exercised his right as the third place finisher to challenge him to a match, a true World Championship match i.e. first to 10 wins, draws do not count, identical to the 1886 conditions, not the phony limited match of Steinitz-Gunsberg.
When Gunsberg raised the issue of Steinitz's resignation of the title during his dispute with Steinitz over the Lasker match, here is what Steinitz had to say:
"...he (Gunsberg) seems to be possessed of the idea that the championship of the world can only be at stake when he himself is a party in a contest. Thus he played a match with Chigorin for the championship of the world..."
This proves that Gunsberg and Chigorin disagree with your assessment that New York 1889 was inconclusive. They both considered it conclusive and they further considered themselves to be operating within their rights as stipulated in the tournament rules by holding a World Championship match.
<I refer you to the negotiation process itself>
That doesn't answer the question. Where is the mention of the match being for the World Championship? Steinitz himself (see above) stated that Gunsberg considered Chigorin to be the World Champion in 1890, therefore how could Gunsberg be negotiating a World Championship match with Steinitz when he considered Chigorin to be the champion? Obviously the match with Steinitz was an informal affair.
<I'll do some research..>
If it's anything like the research you've already presented here, don't bother, because you'll just be wasting everyone's time with your misinformation.
|Mar-23-12|| ||jnpope: I like the fact that you make ascertains and post quotes without citing any sources and yet I'm the one wasting everyone's time with "misinformation"?|
|Mar-24-12|| ||brankat: <jnpope> Great work!|
|Mar-24-12|| ||King Death: < jnpope: I like the fact that you make ascertains and post quotes without citing any sources and yet I'm the one wasting everyone's time with "misinformation"?>|
You've done an outstanding job on this and earned the respect of those who understand what happened. One poster full of hot air and disrespect won't change that.
|Mar-24-12|| ||jnpope: Some coverage of Chigorin-Gunsberg:
<It is confidently predicted that the result of the match will be to bring the unconquered Steinitz into the field once more, as it is well known that both of the players have expressed a desire to try conclusions with the invincible little Bohemian, who, it goes without saying can readily be induced to emerge from his retirement.>
source: New York Herald, 1889.10.04.
<The eyes of the entire chess world are directed at the present moment toward Havana, that chess players' Ed Dorado, where Tschigorin and Gunsberg are preparing to battle for the supremacy. It is a mistake, however, to assume that the world's championship is involved in the present contest, although there is the possibility of the result affecting that title.
Gunsberg and Steinitz have made marvellous records in matches and tournaments and have both laid claim to the world's sceptre, and yet these noted champions have never faced each other across the magic squares. Steinitz defeated Tschigorin a year ago by the decisive score of 10˝ to 6˝. It now remains to be seen whether Gunsberg by achieving a more brilliant victory over the Russian master may make it necessary for Herr Steinitz to throw down the gauntlet.>
source: New York Herald, 1889.12.29
<But the chief merit of the Havana Chess Club is in bringing together great masters in matches which might never have taken place but for its generous action. A year ago the club offered a rich purse for the meeting of Messrs. Steinitz and Tschigorin, besides donating to each player a handsome fee and reimbursing them for their travelling expenses. This year it has aranged a match between Messrs. Gunsberg and Tschigoin, masters who have equal claim to the championship of Europe. The match will be the best in twenty games, the winner of each game to receive $20 and the loser $10. In drawn games the money will be equally divided. Each player will receive a fee of $350 in addition, and his travelling expenses. In addition, the rivals will play for a stake of $600 posted by themselves. The match will be followed by a greater one, for the championship of the world is held by Mr. Steinitz of New York, and the winner will have to defeat Mr. Steinitz before he can justly claim the championship.>
source: New York Sun, 1890.01.03.
<Thus far the Russian has the best of the fight by three games to two. Whichever player wins, the victor will challenge the world's champion, Steinitz.>
source: Brooklyn Daily Eagle, 1890.01.15.
<The committee of the Havana Chess Club expressed a wish previous to the commencement of the Gunsberg vs. Tschigorin match that the same opening or defence should not be played more than twice by each player, in order to get a greater variety and more interesting games. As will have been seen from the summary of the first ten games published last week, both masters have so far respected the desires of the Havana Club.>
source: New York Sun, 1890.02.02
<The desire of the Havana Club to have the same opening or defence played only twice by each master engaged in the championship match has produced a greater variety of games, but is very doubtful whether the quality of these games has not materially suffered. Tschigorin, who favors the Ponziani and Evans gambit, two openings over which this player has a perfect mastery, could not play each more than twice in the match.
Gunsberg had likewise to suffer by not being permitted to play his favorite, the French defence. Mr. Gunsberg is known to have a poor memory, and he cannot avoid falling into some trap or other when playing defences with which is is not thoroughly familiar.>
source: New York Sun, 1890.02.16.
|Mar-24-12|| ||jnpope: <When Messrs. Gunsberg and Tschigorin sat down to-day to play the twenty-fourth game in the championship match. Seńor Golmayo, President of the Havana Chess Club, informed them that the committee had passed a resolution asking them to abandon the match as drawn. Mr. Golmayo, in the course of his remarks, said that it would not be just to allow one game to decide a contest which has been of such a close nature.> source: New York Sun, 1890.02.20.|
<Mr. Gunsberg, the great chess-player, who arrived yesterday from Havana, where he had been playing a tournament with Tschigorin, was seen by a Tribune reporter in the afternoon who asked him to give an account of the termination of the great match. Mr. Gunberg replied in substance as follows:
In the match between Steinitz and Zuckertort it was agreed that the match should be declared a draw in case the score should stand at eight each. Well, when I and Tschigorin came so close together toward the end, the committee thought that some similar provision ought to have been made in our match, and when finally we were nine each and five draws, the committee met and asked both players what they thought about drawing the match. I replied that I should prefer playing it out, and my opponent replied that he would like to play three or five more games to decide the issue between us. I would not consent to prolong the match at Havana. I then offered either to play the one remaining game of the match or draw it, as the committee thought fit. My opponent doing the same, the committee unanimously decided upon abandoning the match as drawn.> source: New York Daily Tribune, 1890.02.27.
|Mar-24-12|| ||jnpope: As for Gunsberg considering Chigorin the world champion after New York 1889:|
<The tie between Max Weiss, the Vienna champion, and Michael Tchigorin, the Russian champion, has been played off, with the disappointing result that four games having been played, all ending in draws, the combatants have in accordance with the rules of the tournament, equally divided the first and second prizes, of the respective values of 200l. and 150l. As in consequence of this lame and impotent conclusion there is no actual winner of the tournament, we presume the contemplated match for the championship of the world has fallen through.>
source: Knowledge, London, July 1, 1889, p194-195.
<Your readers will already know that the Havana players are promoting a match between Mr. I. Gunsberg (London) and Herr Tschigorin (St. Petersburg). There seems every probability that the match will come off. Mr. Gunsberg has made an appeal to the Chess playing fraternity here to support him, and there is every prospect that his appeal will not fall on deaf ears. Mr. Gunsberg wears his honors modestly, but is firm in supporting his position. He evidently has great idea of the result of the match. He says in his Chess column: "This match may prove the stepping stone to an encounter with Steinitz and the means of bringing back to England the Chess championship of the world.">
source: International Chess Magazine, Nov 1889, p321-322.
|Mar-24-12|| ||jnpope: <When Gunsberg raised the issue of Steinitz's resignation of the title during his dispute with Steinitz over the Lasker match, here is what Steinitz had to say...>|
Again, you have no idea of which you speak... Gunsberg was talking about how ludicrous it would be for Steinitz to play Lasker if the New York 1893 tournament was going to be for the World Championship. It had nothing to do with any supposed resignation of the title by Steinitz.
<Mr. Gunsberg is not alone a chess professor, but he also professes to be a philosopher of the so-called "individualistic school," and he has lectured and written on doctrines which, if I may quote myself, are based on the theory that "one man has rights, but two men have none." When, however, he applies his egotistic principles to chess affairs, he finds that though he may be unique in the chess world he is not alone in it. For instance, he seems to be possessed of the idea that the championship of the world can only be at stake when he himself is a party in a contest. Thus he played a match with Tschigorin for "the championship of the world," and the whole chess world laughed. He fought another for the title against myself in which he virtually received the odds of the draw and played to take advantage of the odds. The whole chess world might have laughed if-he had won it. And now that he is going to enter the forthcoming Columbia Congress, he issues the following decree in "The London Evening News and Post," in reference to the projected match between myself and Lasker: "It is quite clear that an International Chess Tournament for the Championship of the World does not admit of a match between two players for the championship. One even must dwarf the other. A special gold medal as champion of the world will be given by the President of the United States, to be awarded to the winner of the tournament, and he can very properly veto the result of the match. Moreover, supposing Dr. Tarrasch, who has a very much superior record to Lasker, should go to New-York, and again win the first prize, then he could laugh to scorn the idea of either Lasker or even Steinitz claiming the championship."
Of course the alleged ratification of Mr Gunsberg's individualistic notions about the championship, so to speak, by Congress and the President of the United States, is a little hoaxing blind for "the gallery." By the way, the Columbia Congress Committee has already, as I am informed, relinquished the idea of dispossessing me of the champion title, and the original proposition of awarding the championship to the winner of the tournament was, I understand, only inserted by mistake in a hurriedly drawn up preliminary programme.>
source: New York Daily Tribune, 1893.07.09.
|Mar-24-12|| ||AVRO38: <jnpope> You're a complete idiot. You're just making my point with your stupid cut and paste jobs. Here is what you yourself posted:|
<"..it goes without saying can readily be induced to emerge from his retirement." source: New York Herald, 1889.10.04.>
Yet you claimed Steinitz wasn't retired but was the reigning champion.
Lear how to read moron!
More of your amateurish cut and pasting:
<"The eyes of the entire chess world are directed at the present moment toward Havana, that chess players' El Dorado, where Tschigorin and Gunsberg are preparing to battle for the supremacy."
source: New York Herald, 1889.12.29>
<"When Messrs. Gunsberg and Tschigorin sat down to-day to play the twenty-fourth game in the championship match."
source: New York Sun, 1890.02.20>
<"The desire of the Havana Club to have the same opening or defence played only twice by each master engaged in the championship match..."
source: New York Sun, 1890.02.16>
Need I go on?
All your posts just prove my point, i.e. that Steinitz was retired and that the Chigorin-Gunsberg match was a World Championship match.
It's also funny how almost all you supposed quotes come from New York publications, i.e. chess columns controlled by Steinitz and his cronies. Why no European publications? After all Europe was the center of the chess world at the time. Almost all chess activity was in Europe and almost all chess masters were European. Why are you trying to hide their views?
The answer: Because none of the European masters or writers considered Steinitz to be the World Champion after 1889, and that's a fact!
|Mar-24-12|| ||TheFocus: <The answer: Because none of the European masters or writers considered Steinitz to be the World Champion after 1889, and that's a fact!>|
Post some citations for this, if you have any.
British Chess Magazine?
And tell me, did any of them say that Lasker was not Champion after he defeated Steinitz? Any citations for that?
So far, <jnpope> is spanking you like a yard dog.
|Mar-24-12|| ||chancho: <It is confidently predicted that the result of the match will be to bring the unconquered Steinitz into the field once more, as it is well known that both of the players have expressed a desire to try conclusions with the invincible little Bohemian, who, it goes without saying can readily be induced to emerge from his retirement.>|
The "retirement" as mentioned in the above is obviously a provocative tease at Steiniz in regards to putting his title on the line.
It says both players have expressed a desire to try conclusions with the invincible Bohemian, i.e. play a match with him.
|Mar-24-12|| ||jnpope: Those quotes only support your position when YOU butcher them and take things out of context. Like you did with Steinitz's response to Gunsberg regarding a match with Lasker.|
<Why are you trying to hide their views?
The answer: Because none of the European masters or writers considered Steinitz to be the World Champion after 1889, and that's a fact!>
When you start citing facts and not just posting the delusions of a madman I will address them.
"Hello in there, Cliff. Tell me, what color is the sky in your world?"
|Mar-24-12|| ||AVRO38: <When you start citing facts and not just posting the delusions of a madman I will address them.>|
A childish way of saying you can't address them! You still haven't addressed my original points. Where is your "research" on Game 23 of 1892?
You claim to be a historian? Doesn't it strike you as odd that the only backup you have is from Steinitz's home city? A city that was considered a chess backwater at the time. How is this representative of the chess world at large? Is this what you call objective research? It's like trying to tell the story of the Civil War but your only sources are press releases from the office of Jefferson Davis! This is what you call history? You should change your handle to jnDOPE!
|Mar-24-12|| ||King Death: < jnpope: ..."Hello in there, Cliff. Tell me, what color is the sky in your world?">|
Is this an actual quote? It's very funny even if it isn't though! The sky in <AVRO's> world is rose colored I think, until he gets taken down a notch or two by his betters. He's messin with the wrong crew here between you and <TheFocus>.
|Mar-24-12|| ||AVRO38: <King Death><He's messin with the wrong crew here>|
Yea, you're right, I better watch out because I'm messin with a hick from Oregon. Freakin' Oregon!!! Are there actually people up there?
You're probably in one of those skin-head militias..ooooo I'm soooo scared!!! Go marry your sister or your sheep or something and leave the internet to educated people.
|Mar-25-12|| ||Dr. Yes: Going back to the original topic of the beginning of Steinitz's reign. Both AVRO38 and AlexMagnus have chosen to say that it didn't begin in 1866.|
They cite as evidence, a narrow cherry-picked definition of the word 'champion' and proffer an explanation of what they claim is mistranslated German.
Instead of using Daniel Webster as a resource, (which traces it's authoritative publishing to the early 19th century and continues to this day as Merriam-Webster, owned by Encyclopedia Britannica), he chose to use Wiktionary which didn't exist until a couple of decades ago, and for which word etymology couldn't be traced as authoritatively.
But these arguments are red-herrings regardless of which definitions or mistranslations are real or imagined.
It is enough for most people to understand at the German level of versten. We understand that 'world champion,' 'best player,' and 'chess king' are used interchangeably. Tim Rice's tribute to WCCs gives Steinitz's reign from 1866 to 1894. Karpov called Steinitz the best player in 1866, and he got it right translating from German to Russian to English, apparently.
Numerous other sources would support Steinitz's ascension in 1866, I'm sure, if only jnpope would care to help out here.
|Apr-03-12|| ||AVRO38: <Going back to the original topic of the beginning of Steinitz's reign. Both AVRO38 and AlexMagnus have chosen to say that it didn't begin in 1866.>|
There are so many holes in the 1866 theory, for instance:
- Neither Steinitz nor Anderssen considered it a world championship. The whole idea of a world championship is that the contestants must recognize it as such prior to it's commencement.
- On what basis was Anderssen the World Champion in 1866?
- If the title reverted to Anderssen, at what point did it revert?
- Who decided that the title would revert? Who agreed to this?
- Why do those who say the title reverted to Anderssen not say the same for Euwe?
- If the title reverted to Anderssen in 1862, why did Kolisch challenge Morphy to a world championship match in 1862?
- Zukertort defeated Anderssen in a match in 1865, why wasn't he considered World Champion? Shouldn't Steinitz's reign begin in 1872 in that case?
- What publication in 1866 claimed that Steinitz was the World Champion?
I could go on and on, but alas, I have other matters to attend to...
|Apr-03-12|| ||alexmagnus: <We understand that 'world champion,' 'best player,' and 'chess king' are used interchangeably.>|
A world champion is a winner of a world championship. Which not necessarily is the best player...
|Apr-09-12|| ||jnpope: <How do you explain all the chess literature of the time stating that Game 23 of the 1892 Steinitz-Chigorin match cost Chigorin the title? Given the 9-9 clause, this would only be possible if Chigorin was the reigning champion, otherwise the title was already out of reach after Game 22.>|
I finally got some time to poke around this "point", and here is what I found:
<Havana, Feb. 27.-An understanding has been effected between Steinitz and Tschigorin should the latter succeed in scoring his ninth victory. In this case the match will be extended until one of the participants has won twelve games.>
source: The Sun, New York, 1892.02.28
And from Steinitz's own chess column:
<In the Steinitz-Tschigorin match there was no game played last Sunday, as the Russian master claimed his last day of rest. The following is one of the rules governing the contest: "In case of both players winning nine games all, a match of three games up, draws not counting, shall be played between them, the winner of this match to be declared the victor." The present score is: Steinitz 9; Tschigorin, 8, and five games drawn.>
source: New York Daily Tribune, 1892.02.28
|Apr-09-12|| ||AVRO38: <jnpope>
All of which points to the fact that Steinitz would not "retain the title" in case of a draw. How do you explain this if Steinitz was the reigning champion and playing a title defense?
How do you explain that never before or since has the "champion" been required to defeat the challenger in a match to retain his title?
The burden has always been on the challenger to defeat the champion, not the other way around. 1892 was clearly not a title defense for Steinitz.
|May-17-12|| ||talisman: happy birthday champ.|
|May-17-12|| ||Llawdogg: Happy Birthday William Steinitz!|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 37 OF 38 ·