I think we're generally in agreement. As I said, Steinitz' love of experimentation in the opening led him into many very difficult games. It's a tribute to his patience and defensive skill that he was able to save so many of those games. However, as I mentioned, his loss percentage in the <chessgames.com> database (24%) may be the highest of any who have called themselves World Champion. (This is a guess on my part and subject to correction.)

For an example, consider this game from his 1890 World championship match with Isidor Gunsberg:

Gunsberg vs Steinitz, 1890

Look at the truly weird position Black arrives at in that game after move 13. In the kibitzing to that game, poster <Honza Cervenka> makes a very cogent point along the same lines as I had said in my original post.

Actually, I was the one who pointed this out, back on October 4th. But, I'm curious, you should explain more of this concept of - 'make bad moves -- get a large advantage -- therefore you're a great player'.

Adolf Anderssen, at a staggering 38.8% had the highest percentage of games lost. Steinitz was second, at 23.7%. Here's the rest of what I found:

Player Loss %
Lasker 22.8
Euwe 16.4
Alekhine 13.7
Botvinnik 12.6
Smyslov 12.2
Fischer 11.3
Tal 11.2
Morphy 10.6
Spassky 10.3
Karpov 10.1
Petrosian 8.2
Kasparov 8.1
Capablanca 7.4

The simple fact is that no human player can do full-width searches of move possibilities, and if in any particular instance a player somehow experiences chess blindness to the key tactical pattern, he just ain't gonna see it ... even if he is world champion.

Steinitz had a small advantage until he moved his King to a horrible square.

Anand lost a game within 4 moves!

Does that make him a lousy player as well?

Except for two major anomalies, Morphy and Capablanca, the stats show a general decline in loss percentage for the more recent players. The main reason for this of course is the prevalence of draws in modern chess. What is striking about Morphy’s relatively low percentage of losses is that he achieved it in an age when draws were rare and most players regarded them as anathema. The whole style of play, as we know, was aimed at reaching a decisive result. Morphy lost only 27 games in the database, but drew only 26! (Anderssen and Steinitz played most of their careers in this same atmosphere, and Lasker at least began his in it.)

Capablanca, of course, not only played when technique and style had made draws more common but was famous for his ability to draw.

Points per game (with 1 for a win, 1/2 for a draw, and 0 for a loss) evens out the anomalies except for Morphy. His “batting average” in the database is .844. No one else, as far as I can tell, even comes close. Fischer and Capablanca, for example, are both below .750. Steinitz comes in at about .667.

Again, though, what can we really learn from such statistics? Steinitz, for instance, played for some forty years--he didn’t win the “official” world championship until he was nearly fifty. And because he badly needed the income, he continued to play into his sixties, after both his physical health (he could no longer walk) and mental health (he died in an asylum) had deteriorated terribly. A quick glance at his results will show that a disproportionate number of his losses came in these later years. Few if any other former world champions have faced the necessity of competing under the burden of such a crippling old age (although certainly some faced other problems: Tal with his illness and Alekhine with his drinking come to mind). Alekhine and Capablanca died relatively young; Fischer and Morphy removed themselves from the game while still young. Lasker had a long career but apparently was quite vital at the end of it, as was Botvinnik.

<Honza> I know better than to argue with your assessment.

I'd suggest you learn some manners.

Do you think you're a better player than Steinitz was in the open game?

Do you think you're a better player than Steinitz was in the open game?>

The topic here is Steinitz. He had a demonstrated weakness with defending with the black pieces in these open games. Your 'argumentum ad hominem' is irrelevent to the fact that some of the weakest players of the day rolled Steinitz up with White in the Evans.>

No ad hominem, you lack manners and you haven't answered my question which imo is relevant.

Now if you want ad hominem, imo your assessment RookFile is that of a Rookie;)

The weakest players at that time were stronger than you:p