Sergeant gives no attribution for the source of that quote. So the question remains, what was the original source for :

<"Here am I, William Steinitz," he is alleged to to have said, "the youngest child of a poor rabbi; and I am Steinitz, the Chess Champion of the World">

<chancho> very useful indeed, mochas gracias.

It does give me another crack at the topic of fake quotes... or elaborated/synthetized/rumorized quotes.

<jnpope>'s citations are filled out more properly in a post by <ckr> in a conversation involving <chancho> and <lblai>:

Wilhelm Steinitz (kibitz #456)

Allow me to select the following Landsberger passages for comment:

<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).>

It is important to note the manner in which the contemporaneous coverage of a match was interpreted. The 1886 Steinitz--Zukertort match was brazenly publicized by at least the US press as being for the "chess champion of the world". The 1866 Steinitz--Anderssen match was not.

Of course, a historian can backfill, as even Steinitz himself did, to the 1866 date. It is significant, and did mark the beginning of the Steinitz dominated era of chess.

But Steinitz had more to do to prove himself, and do he did (see the DSZ match record history etc.).

<When Morphy previously defeated Anderssen, it was just another chess match. When Steinitz defeated Anderssen he announced that he was the world champion.>

I would like to see the "primary" source where Steinitz made the claim for the 1866. Landsberger gives no reference for that claim, and it's my belief that Steinitz himself only backdated his claim long after the actual match.

<Nobody objected to his claim, especially since Steinitz was always willing and never hesitant in defending his title (109, 128, etc.).>

As I've said, Steinitz was the right person to initiate our grand tradition of a WCC, as author, journalist, player, theorist, and champion.

<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 championship was left open until the claim of Steinitz (112).>

One could argue that Anderssen could also have made a valid claim to the title, given Morphy's self-imposed retirement. Again, his personality alone precluded this. And so his role is one of German champion, and grand man of chess.

As Landsberger says, Morphy was entitled, though the he and chess world were denied the Morphy--Staunton match which would have crystallized the title. But Morphy was a strange figure, and his personality was such as to prevent an actual claim of being a world champion. The press,

<"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, until the 1886 Steinitz and Zukertort agreed that the loser would recognize the winner as the world champion (46).>

This is certainly *not* true, at least, when reading the American press. In fact, the US press often talked about the chess champion of the world - starting with Morphy of course.

But here's an 1885 ref where Steinitz is explicitly referred to "chess champion of the world", from an Australian source(!):

<Once a Month: An Illustrated Australasian Magazine ..., v2 (March 15, 1885) p239>

<CHESS INTELLIGENCE. We are in receipt of the first number of the "International Chess Magazine," edited in New York by Ilerr Steinitz, the chess champion of the World. It contains an interesting sketch of the career of the late lamented Paul Morphy, games, problems, &c., and a rfaumt of the doings of the chess world both in Europe and America. Steinitz is unrivalled as an analyst and annotator, and his notes to the games alone render the magazine a valuable addition to chess literature. >

https://books.google.com/books?id=g...

And returning to finish with Landsberger:

<Chess historians seem to agree that Steinitz not only claimed, but also invented this new title. >

I would debate the invention of the title, as I've said, and Winter also has shown, many occurrences predate Steinitz's.

What Steinitz did was to formalize the process, the laying claim and periodic defending of the title via explicit match play.

http://www.chessarch.com/archive/Wo...

Well, it would be very revealing to actually trace who said what when.

Which, in your next post, you seem to indicate will be done.

As far as Steinitz attaching extra significance to his 1872 Zukertort match, vs. say, his 1866 Anderssen match, I'd like to see the evidence.

I know the American press raised it as a knock against those proclaiming Zukertort the world's best after his 1883 London triumph (where he bested Steinitz, fwiw). This was all part of the reason the 1886 match was so eagerly followed.

Most of my research work in the last couple of years has been focused on the history of the early tournaments. I somewhat deliberately avoided the early match history. Still, I encountered a lot of interesting commentary on the strength of various players written by some of the early figures along the way.

A lot of my memories are by now a bit vague, given my recent shift to training (i.e. waiting for <CG> to get its act together concerning PGN processing and tournament organization).

Still, I stumbled across a few revealing writeups in the past few days research. In particular, Bird, Gossip and Hoffer all wrote extensively on these matters, and we should try to get those articles into the discussion. Sergeant does a good job, but these other writers were actually participants in the history, and good writers each and every one (at least entertaining, if not informative and insightful).

Hoffer's 1886 article on <Chess Masters of To-Day>

https://zanchess.wordpress.com/2017...

(From FN v46 (1886) p753-765)

It's interesting, even if expected, that he can't bring himself to refer to Steinitz as WCC.

But he does say this about the WCC:

<His motto is Toujours prêt, and this makes him the best living match-player.>

<If I were to be asked who possesses the combination of all the required faculties in the highest degree for the purposes of practical chess-play, I should answer Steinitz.>

Winter actually includes images of the printed pages here:

http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/...

My version has the advantage that it's in plain text, making it much more convenient for cut-and-pasting. On the other hand, Winter includes some of the resulting commentary in the press replying in kind to the article.

<April 1888, page 86 (Steinitz’s description of himself):

‘... The only true champion of the world for the last 22 years (I may say so for once) ...’>

http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/...

It would be nice to have the full content of that. Unfortunately, I think that, much like Lasker's magazine, most of the volumes aren't available online.

Perhaps these volumes were stolen from the public libraries? I have a hard time believing their acquisition was neglected.

The 1888 version is v4, as can be seen here:

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei...

It would be nice to have the full content of that. Unfortunately, I think that, much like Lasker's magazine, most of the volumes aren't available online>

From Steinitz's <International Chess Magazine>, Vol. IV, Nos. 3&4, March and April, 1888, in his <PERSONAL AND GENERAL> column, pg. 81-86.

International Chess Magazine, v4, April 1888, p86:

<... into the haunts of his shystering arguments, his pettifogging falsehoods and hypocritical conclusions, where he conceals or tries to hide his latest thieving depredations on my private and public character.>

http://www.chessarch.com/archive/Wo...

<and good bur rare,> should be <and good but rare,> of course.

"the <betern> Herr Horwitz"