|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 30 OF 30 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
Aug-21-08
 |
| 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 |
 |
Oct-06-08
 |
| Karpova: Hanon W. Russell published Wilhelm Steinitz's introduction to "The International Chess Magazine", Volume I, Number 1: http://www.chesscafe.com/text/icmin... An excerpt:
Wilhelm Steinitz: <It will be admitted that the editor has played a not
unimportant role on the chess historical stage for more than 20
years, and we may state he does not intend to abdicate his part yet.
It is also well known that during that period he had to perform a sort of Steinitz Gambit in the game of life, in which his King was subjected to many worse than useless checks which apparently looked very dangerous. Believing however, all the time, that his strategy at least, and even his tactics, were quite sound in the main, he has now come to the conclusion that he has a won game in hand, and as no draw has been proposed by his consulting opponents (which, to say the truth, he would be rather reluctant to accept) he may have to fight on. It may be his turn now to administer some checks with his King to badly posted pawns of his adversaries, and he would be failing in generalship if he confined himself to the defense. Rarely as he has assumed the attack his style has been generally simple and effective, and "Si vis pacem para be/lure." We may also have to prove analytically that his previous play was not as black as it was printed, and that variations containing fine combinations have been either ignored or misrepresented by some authors on the game of chess life.> |
|
Oct-31-08
|
| Karpova: On page 406 of Gaige's "Chess Personalia" (McFarland, 2005) I found an entry on his wife Caroline. Caroline Steinitz died 1892.05.27 in New York, NY, USA. Further Information from Edward Winter's C.N. 4756 containing information from the British Census: <1871 census: William Steinitz. Age: 33. Born in Prague, Bohemia, Austria. Address: 2 Princes Street, St Giles without Cripplegate, London. Occupation: Professor of chess. Married to Caroline Steinitz (age 25). Child: Flora Steinitz (daughter, age 4). The address was shared by several households.1881 census: Wm. Steinitz. Age: 44. Born in Austria. Address: 11 Newton Street, Shoreditch, London. Occupation: Journalist. Married to Caroline Steinitz (age 35). Child: Flora Steinitz (daughter, age 14).> Source: http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/... Does anyone know more about her and if she played chess herself (why else should Gaige include her in his book?)? |
|
Nov-12-08
 |
| brankat: <Karpova> Caroline Steinitz, just like Steinitz's daughter Flora. may have been mentioned simply because they were his family. I find it interesting that in '71 census Steinitz declared himself a "Professor of Chess", and in '81 "Journalist" :-) Also, in both cases, the age given seems to be incorrect. W.Steinitz was born in 1836. |
|
Nov-12-08
|
| Karpova: <brankat: <Karpova> Caroline Steinitz, just like Steinitz's daughter Flora. may have been mentioned simply because they were his family.> For sure, I also took that into consideration but I wouldn't have asked if the solution was that simple. Gaige doesn't include the whole family of chessplayers but only chessplayers (that still adds up to 14,000 entries). E. g. Jose Raul is the only Capablanca included. Alekhine's wife (and his cats) are also not mentioned. The only Laskers mentioned are Emanuel, Berthold and Edward (and Berthold probably wasn't included just because he was Emanuel's brother). And so on. So why does he single out Steinitz's wife or Menchik's sister but not one of Capablanca's ten siblings? The idea that Steinitz's wife and Menchik's sister were more deeply involved in chess than those ten Capablanca family members suggests itself, doesn't it? P.S. Gaige didn't mention Flora but only Caroline. Flora is mentioned in the british census. |
|
Nov-16-08
|
| brankat: <karpova> You may be right. Actually I was looking at the quotes from the census, not the one from the Gaige's "Personalia". But then, it may be interesting to wonder why A.Alekhine wife Grace Wishart was not included. After all, she was a pretty good chess player. Won a Paris Championship for Women, if I remember this correctly. |
|
| Jan-04-09 |
| WhiteRook48: Steinitz! Your page's been neglected! Well? no kibitzing for over a month? |
|
Jan-24-09
|
| Karpova: Oscar Conrad Mueller: <‘The question whether chess was exhaustible, or even near exhaustion, was often discussed at Simpson’s when Steinitz remarked on more than one occasion: “The game itself, I think, is fairly inexhaustible, but the players, of course, are easily exhausted.” He also said, frequently: “Slow chess is good chess.” In recent years I have often been told that Steinitz was rather irritable and morose. I always found him, on the contrary, very amiable, but of a rather quiet and retiring disposition.’> From page 483 of the November 1932 "BCM".
Source: C.N. 5970
http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/... |
|
| Jan-24-09 |
| WhiteRook48: interesting that he died in 1900 |
|
Jan-25-09
 |
| zdigyigy: Would you let this man babysit your children??
|
|
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. |
|
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 30 OF 30 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
