It seems that Bird, like many other masters of that generation, couldn't fathom Steinitz' new style of positional chess. He once described Steinitz' style quite humorously:

<"Place the contents of the chess box in a hat, shake them up vigorously, pour them on the board from a height of two feet - and you get the style of Steinitz.">

Just to provide some balance, Adolf Anderssen also played with both, and in his opinion Steinitz was superior. He voiced this opinion after his 1866 match with Steinitz (see Evans' "New Ideas in Chess" and Chernev's "Wonders and Curiosities of Chess").

But just because you can't understand the depth of their strategic masterpieces doesn't mean that they usually won because of a "tactical cheapo" rather than strategically outplaying their opponents, and it's quite a cheapo on your part to suggest it.

However, as chess developed it more closely resembled the style of Nimzowitsch than Capablanca. And Nimzowitsch's influence on chess theory (opening and middlegame) was far more significant than Capablanca's.

<59 at the time of the tournament, Steinitz was born May 17, 1836 at Prague.

Educated in Vienna, he soon made a chess name for himself, and was sent to the London tournament in 1862 as the representative of Austria. At that time he adopted this country, but deserted in 1883, becoming an American citizen.

His style of play is firm and tenacious, aiming at accurate positioning and steady crushing rather than at brilliant attacks or rapid finishes. Opponents are always treated with due respect, in that he invariably does his best, but should his opponent be weak the crush quickly produces a smash. Skittle play is unknown to him.

On the other hand he has a way of treating the openings with all sorts of eccentricities, perhaps owing to the over-desire to experiment, or arising from self-reliance. Some of his ventures must be very trying to an opponent who may scarcely feel flattered by being met with an apparently weak maneuver at the commencement of the game.

Mr. Steinitz stands high also as a theoretician and a writer; he has a powerful pen, and when he chooses he can use expressive English. He evidently strives to be fair to friends and foe alike, but appears sometimes to fail to see that after all he is much like many others in this respect. Possessed of fine intellect, and extremely fond of the game, he is apt to lose sight of all other considerations, people and business alike. Chess is his very life and soul, the one thing for which he lives.

In appearance he is peculiar and striking: a fine and large head with prominent forehead, grey hair and ruddy beard, rather portly, suffering from a slight lameness which naturally increases with the years; he now walks with a stick. He is said to be a good swimmer, and he has at any rate plenty of buoyancy of nature, and can be entertaining and affable.>

To be continued...

<Before entering the tournament some important conditions were made in the various chess columns of the press, and the Committee feared his entry might be lost, but were pleased to find that he eventually joined in the ordinary way, accepting the same conditions as the other competitors.

There is one curious fact, that while he is shortsighted, his writing is remarkably thin and small, being peculiarly difficult to read.

With such a grand list of successes the veteran should be able to rest on his laurels, at peace with all, using his pen and his great experience in advancing chess in all branches, and enjoying the just fruit of his gigantic achievements.

His chief successes are:

1862: Sixth prize at London, following Anderssen, Paulsen, Owen, MacDonnell and Dubois. 1867. Third prize at Paris with thirteen entries, following Kolisch and Winawer. 1867. Second prize at Dundee with ten entries, following Neumann. 1870. Second prize at Baden-Baden with ten entries, following Anderssen. 1872. First prize at London with eight entries.
1882. Divided first and second prize with Winawer at Vienna. 1883. Second prize at London with fourteen entries, following Zukertort. This is the tournament in which the late Dr. Zukertort played so magnificently. 1894. First prize at New York, followed by Albin and Hymes. 1895. Fifth prize at Hastings.

There have also been numerous prizes (mostly first) in handicap tournaments. It is, however, in match play that he chiefly shines. His victims are:

1862. Dubois by 5 to 3.
1863. Deacon by 5 to 1.
1863. Mongredien by 7 to 0.
1863. Blackburne by 7 to 1.
1866. Anderssen by 8 to 6.
1866. Bird by 7 to 5.
1867. Fraser by 3 to 1.
1870. Blackburne by 5 to 0.
1872. Zukertort by 7 to 1.
1876. Blackburne by 7 to 0.
1882. Martinez by 7 to 0.
1882. Martinez by 3 to 1.
1882. Sellman by 3 to 0.
1883. MacKenzie by 3 to 1.
1883. Golmayo by 8 to 1.
1883. Martinez by 9 to 0.
1885. Sellman by 3 to 0.
1885. Zukertort by 10 to 5.
1886. Tchigorin by 10 to 6. [This match was in 1889.] 1892. Gunsberg by 6 to 4. [This match was in 1890-91.] 1892. Tchigorin by 10 to 8.

You might be onto something.

<Before entering the tournament some important conditions were made in the various chess columns of the press, and the Committee feared his entry might be lost, but were pleased to find that he eventually joined in the ordinary way, accepting the same conditions as the other competitors.

There is one curious fact, that while he is shortsighted, his writing is remarkably thin and small, being peculiarly difficult to read.

With such a grand list of successes the veteran should be able to rest on his laurels, at peace with all, using his pen and his great experience in advancing chess in all branches, and enjoying the just fruit of his gigantic achievements.

His chief successes are:

1862: Sixth prize at London, following Anderssen, Paulsen, Owen, MacDonnell and Dubois. 1867. Third prize at Paris with thirteen entries, following Kolisch and Winawer. 1867. Second prize at Dundee with ten entries, following Neumann. 1870. Second prize at Baden-Baden with ten entries, following Anderssen. 1872. First prize at London with eight entries. 1882. Divided first and second prize with Winawer at Vienna. 1883. Second prize at London with fourteen entries, following Zukertort. This is the tournament in which the late Dr. Zukertort played so magnificently. 1894. First prize at New York, followed by Albin and Hymes. 1895. Fifth prize at Hastings.

There have also been numerous prizes (mostly first) in handicap tournaments. It is, however, in match play that he chiefly shines. His victims are:

1862. Dubois by 5 to 3.
1863. Deacon by 5 to 1.
1863. Mongredien by 7 to 0.
1863. Blackburne by 7 to 1.
1866. Anderssen by 8 to 6.
1866. Bird by 7 to 5.
1867. Fraser by 3 to 1.
1870. Blackburne by 5 to 0.
1872. Zukertort by 7 to 1.
1876. Blackburne by 7 to 0.
1882. Martinez by 7 to 0.
1882. Martinez by 3 to 1.
1882. Sellman by 3 to 0.
1883. MacKenzie by 3 to 1.
1883. Golmayo by 8 to 1.
1883. Martinez by 9 to 0.
1885. Sellman by 3 to 0.
1885. Zukertort by 10 to 5.
1886. Tchigorin by 10 to 6. [This match was in 1889.] 1892. Gunsberg by 6 to 4. [This match was in 1890-91.] 1892. Tchigorin by 10 to 8.

Beating everyone until he met Lasker in 1894.>

Steinitiz actually played a record of 27 matches and you are missing four of them I count the two matches he lost to Lasker in 1894 and 1896.

I know he played in a match with Schieffer from Russia in 1896 which he won but I dont know of the two other matches you are missing.

If any knows of those three other matches please do share.

<Oct-10-07 keypusher: The Hastings 1895 tournament book includes pen-portraits of the players by Horace F. Cheshire, the first editor. Here is what he has to say about Steinitz>

This might explain the absence of matches played a year later...

<Owl: I know he played in a match with Schieffer from Russia in 1896 which he won> Emmanuel Schiffers

I know he played in a match with Schieffer from Russia in 1896 which he won but I dont know of the three other matches you are missing.

If any knows of those three other matches please do share.

Also what website did you get this information from keypusher? Correction three matches are missing not two.

‘One interesting trait in Steinitz’s chess character was his warm admiration for and strong advocacy of problems, the “Poetry of Chess”. He was no composer himself, but a very expert solver; and on one occasion signalized his interest in the art by taking part in a problem solution tournament. This fact is worthy of passing notice, because there are those who affect “to see no good” in problems, and depreciate their study on the hypothesis that it has a prejudicial effect on the power for play over the board. This is a most mistaken notion; for the very contrary is the fact, and the study of problems is bound to improve one’s practical play. It will be generally found, however, and it is a rather curious coincidence, that those who preach that fallacious doctrine know nothing whatever of problems. They have never journeyed through the fairyland of problem lore; nor, indeed, have they the capacity to understand or appreciate its delights. They are, in fact, so many chessical gradgrinds. With souls that cannot soar into the infinite of chess, they are dead to the spirit of its poésie. The homely aphorism “you cannot make a silken purse out of a sow’s ear” aptly fits their case; and when he who held the sceptre of the chess world for over a quarter of a century paid such high tribute to the charm and worth of problems, the apostles of that other faith may well be allowed to revel in the luxury of their own benighted belief.’>