WILHELM STEINITZ (born May-14-1836, died Aug-12-1900, 64 years old) Austria (federation/nationality United States of America) PRONUNCIATION: [what is this?] William (né Wolfgang, aka Wilhelm) Steinitz Born: Prague, Bohemia, Austrian Empire Died: New York, New York, United States Wilhelm Steinitz is the earliest World Champion recognized by FIDE. Background The last of thirteen sons of a hardware retailer, he was born in Prague in what was then the Kingdom of Bohemia within the Austrian Empire and which is now within the Czech republic. Like his father he was a Talmudic scholar, but then he left to study mathematics in the Vienna Polytechnic. He eventually dropped out of the Polytechnic to play chess professionally. Soon after, he played in the London tournament of 1862, and then settled in London for over twenty years, making his living at the London Chess Club. He emigrated to the USA in 1883, taking out US citizenship, living in New York for the rest of his life, and changing his first name to "William". Matches He was recognized as the world's leading player, and considered to be the world champion by many, after he defeated the then-acknowledged number one chess player in the world (now that Paul Morphy had retired), Adolf Anderssen, in a match in 1866 which he won by 8-6. However, it was not until his victory in the Steinitz - Zukertort World Championship Match (1886) – where he sat beside a US flag - that he was recognised as the first undisputed world chess champion. He successfully defended his title three times in the Steinitz - Chigorin World Championship Match (1889), the Steinitz - Gunsberg World Championship Match (1890), and in the Steinitz - Chigorin World Championship Rematch (1892). In 1894, Emanuel Lasker won the crown from Steinitz by winning the Steinitz - Lasker World Championship Match (1894) and retained it by winning the Lasker - Steinitz World Championship Rematch (1896). Steinitz was an extremely successful match player. Between 1860 and 1897, he played 36 matches, winning every serious match with the exception of his two matches against Lasker. Some of the prominent players of the day that he defeated in match play other than in his world championship matches included Max Lange, Serafino Dubois, Frederick Deacon, Dionisio Martinez, Joseph Blackburne, Anderssen, Augustus Mongredien, Henry Bird, Johannes Zukertort, George Mackenzie, and Celso Golmayo Zupide. Tournaments Steinitz was more adept at winning matches than tournaments in his early years, a factor, which alongside his prolonged absences from competition chess after 1873, may have prevented more widespread recognition of his dominance of chess as world champion until the first "official" world championship match in 1886. Nevertheless, between 1859 and his death in 1900, the only tournament in which he did not win prize money was his final tournament in London in 1899. His wins include the Vienna Championship of 1861 which he won with 30/31 and earned him the nickname the "Austrian Morphy", the London Championship of 1862, Dublin 1865 (equal first with George MacDonnell), London 1872, equal first at Vienna 1873 and 1882 (the latter was the strongest tournament to that time, and Steinitz had just returned from 9 years of absence from tournament chess), and first in the New York Championship of 1894. Other successes include 3rd and 2nd at the Vienna Championships of 1859 and 1860 respectively, 2nd at Dundee in 1867, 3rd in Paris in 1867, 2nd in Baden Baden in 1870, 2nd in London in 1883, 5th at the Hastings super tournament in 1895, 2nd at the sextuple round robin St Petersburg quadrangular tournament behind Lasker and ahead of Harry Pillsbury and Mikhail Chigorin, 6th at Nuremburg in 1896, and 4th at Vienna in 1898. Steinitz's Legacy The extent of Steinitz's dominance in world chess is evident from the fact that from 1866, when he beat Adolf Anderssen, to 1894, when he relinquished the world crown to Emanuel Lasker, Steinitz won all his matches, sometimes by wide margins. His worst tournament performance in that period was third place in Paris in 1867. This period of Steinitz's career was closely examined by Chessmetrics exponent and advocate, Jeff Sonas, who wrote an article in 2005 in which he found that Steinitz was further ahead of his contemporaries in the 1870s than Bobby Fischer was in his peak period (1970–1972), that he had the third-highest total number of years as the world's top player, behind Emanuel Lasker and Garry Kasparov, and that he placed 7th in a comparison the length of time great players were ranked in the world's top three. Despite his pre-eminence in chess for those decades in the late 19th century, Steinitz's main contribution to chess was as its first true theoretician. He rose to prominence in the 1860s on the back of highly competent handling of the romantic attacking style of chess that had been popularised by Morphy and Anderssen and which characterised the style of the era. However, in the Vienna tournament of 1873, he introduced a new positional style of play which not only commenced his run of 25 consecutive high level victories, but profoundly transformed the way chess was played from shortly after that time, when its efficacy was embraced by the chess world. It enabled him to establish his complete dominance over his long time rival, Johannes Zukertort, and to easily win the first official match for the World Championship. Lasker summarised Steinitz's ideas as follows: "In the beginning of the game ignore the search for combinations, abstain from violent moves, aim for small advantages, accumulate them, and only after having attained these ends search for the combination – and then with all the power of will and intellect, because then the combination must exist, however deeply hidden." Although these ideas were controversial and fiercely debated for some years in what has become known as the <Ink Wars>, Lasker and the next generation of the world's best players acknowledged their debt to him. "He was a thinker worthy of a seat in the halls of a University. A player, as the world believed he was, he was not; his studious temperament made that impossible; and thus he was conquered by a player ..." - <Emanuel Lasker>. "He understood more about the use of squares than did Morphy, and contributed a great deal more to chess theory.' - <Bobby Fischer>. Sources <jessicafischerqueen>'s YouTube documentary http://www.youtube.com/playlist?lis... - in turn sourced mainly from <Kurt Landsberger's> biography "Bohemian Caesar." References Wikipedia article: Wilhelm Steinitz https://www.findagrave.com/memorial... Last updated: 2025-09-08 13:34:19

Try our new games table.

page 1 of 44; games 1-25 of 1,086  Game   Result Moves Year Event/Locale Opening 1. K Hamppe vs Steinitz 0-1 23 1859 Vienna C29 Vienna Gambit 2. Steinitz vs Lenhof 1-0 32 1859 Casual game C52 Evans Gambit 3. Lenhof vs Steinitz 0-1 45 1859 Casual game C23 Bishop's Opening 4. Steinitz vs P Meitner 1-0 34 1859 Casual game C52 Evans Gambit 5. E Pilhal vs Steinitz 0-1 21 1859 Casual game C53 Giuoco Piano 6. K Hamppe vs Steinitz 0-1 28 1859 Casual game C38 King's Gambit Accepted 7. Steinitz vs F Nowotny 1-0 31 1859 Vienna CC t C55 Two Knights Defense 8. Steinitz vs E Pilhal 1-0 17 1860 Vienna C52 Evans Gambit 9. K Hamppe vs Steinitz 0-1 31 1860 Casual game C27 Vienna Game 10. Steinitz vs NN 1-0 12 1860 Unknown C25 Vienna 11. Harrwitz vs Steinitz   1-0 25 1860 Casual game D20 Queen's Gambit Accepted 12. Steinitz vs Harrwitz   0-1 39 1860 Casual game B44 Sicilian 13. Steinitz vs NN   1-0 18 1860 Casual game 000 Chess variants 14. NN vs Steinitz 0-1 24 1860 Casual game C59 Two Knights 15. Steinitz vs NN   1-0 24 1860 Odds game 000 Chess variants 16. Steinitz vs NN   1-0 15 1860 Casual game C41 Philidor Defense 17. Steinitz vs NN 1-0 16 1860 Casual game C50 Giuoco Piano 18. Steinitz vs NN   1-0 20 1860 Casual game C52 Evans Gambit 19. Steinitz vs NN   1-0 20 1860 Odds game 000 Chess variants 20. Steinitz vs H Strauss 1-0 33 1860 Casual game C29 Vienna Gambit 21. H Strauss vs Steinitz 0-1 31 1860 Casual game C51 Evans Gambit 22. Steinitz vs P Meitner 1-0 26 1860 Casual game C55 Two Knights Defense 23. Steinitz vs Lang 1-0 19 1860 Casual game C37 King's Gambit Accepted 24. Steinitz vs Reiner 1-0 32 1860 Casual game C51 Evans Gambit 25. Steinitz vs Lang 1-0 29 1860 Casual game C25 Vienna  page 1 of 44; games 1-25 of 1,086

REFINE SEARCH:   White wins (1-0) | Black wins (0-1) | Draws (1/2-1/2) | Steinitz wins | Steinitz loses

< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 11 OF 48 ·  Later Kibitzing> Mar-30-05    keypusher: The ultimate example would be a match between the two, actually. Thanks to Morphy, there never was one. Mar-30-05    RookFile: Sure! Because Steinitz would not allow Morphy to give him pawn and move, to even up the odds! Mar-30-05    hintza: <BishopBerkeley> Thanks for those links to the photographs, I loved looking at especially those of Steinitz-Lasker and Morphy-Loewenthal. Mar-30-05    keypusher: This common opponents argument is nonsense anyway, especially given the size of the sample. In the Staunton-Harrwitz match Staunton conceded odds of pawn and move or pawn and two moves in fourteen out of the 21 games. Nevertheless, he won the match easily, including +7-0=0 in the games not at odds. Morphy's record against Harrwitz was an unimpressive +5-3=1. Good thing the Staunton-Morphy match never happened. Staunton would have crushed him, right? Mar-30-05    RookFile: Apparently, a sample size of 30 games is not enough for you. You know, the 30 games that Anderssen and Steinitz played, a series that was WON by Anderssen? ( Meanwhile, Morphy beat him 12 to 3... think if they played 15 more games, Anderssen is suddenly going to win, 13 to 2? ) The Harrwitz - Staunton games are not particularly interesting, because Harrwitz had just started playing the year before. By 1858, Harrwitz was a battle hardened veteran, having played a number of tough guys such as Anderssen over intervening 13 years. This game amuses me. An old Anderssen, who would be DEAD only 6 years later, still outcalculates the young stars of the day: Steinitz / Bird / Blackburne vs Adolf Anderssen, 1873 Mar-30-05    BishopBerkeley: You are quite welcome, <hintza>! Mar-30-05    RookFile: By the way, you forgot to mention that there are some games worthy of consideration for a Staunton vs. Morphy match, both won by Morphy, of course: Morphy / Barnes vs Staunton / Owen, 1858 Staunton / Owen vs Morphy / Barnes, 1858 Mar-30-05    keypusher: I don't really think Staunton would have crushed Morphy, obviously; I was just giving an example how weak the common opponents argument is. Mar-30-05    RookFile: So how many games did Anderssen need to play, and demonstrate a superiority over Steinitz, for the common oppoents argument to be valid? 30 is not enough? Mar-30-05    keypusher: Anderssen didn't demonstrate his superiority, first of all. He won the first several games between them early in Steinitz's career. When they played a match, although Steinitz was years away from his best form, Steinitz beat him. Find 100 chess masters knowledgeable about chess and ask them if they think Anderssen was superior to Steinitz. I doubt you'll find five who think Anderssen was better. Second of all, the fact that Player A does better against player C than Player B does does not prove that Player A is better than Player B. Harrwitz-Staunton-Morphy is a counterexample. Geller-Spassky-Fischer is another. Obviously if some master beats me ten straight, and then I beat you ten straight, then it's probably a good bet that the master is better than you are. But that isn't what happened with Anderssen, Steinitz and Morphy. Also, when I referred to sample size, I was talking about the number of common opponents, not the number of games, since as no doubt is well known to you, some players do better or worse against particular opponents. You don't think Polugaevsky is better than Karpov, do you? You shouldn't; his lifetime score against Karpov is +0-8=22. But you would think Polugaevsky was better if you only looked at their respective records against Tal. Mar-30-05    Gypsy: < Steinitz had rivals like Anderssen and later Blackburne and Zuckertort, all whom probably surpassed him in natural ability for chess. His general theory was so profound, however, that he defeated all of them in their matches with him. ... > Richard Reti Mar-30-05    RookFile: Actually, the Anderssen games against Steinitz where played long after Anderssen's peak, which is commonly acknowledged to be 1851. Notwithstanding the fact that Steinitz played a sub par Anderrsen, Anderssen enjoyed a lifetime plus score against Steinitz. Mar-31-05    percyblakeney: Chessmetrics have Anderssen as 2516 after winning the London tournament 1851, and as 2570 when playing Morphy. However, he peaks in 1870 with 2744. This may be interpreted in various ways, but Anderssen being sub par when he played Steinitz as compared to when he played Morphy is not seen as a fact by everyone. That Steinitz was much better in the late 1870's and 1880's than when he played Anderssen could probably be called a fact, though. Mar-31-05    RookFile: Yes, sure, and these are the same people that think Zukertort is stronger than Petrosian. What a joke, did Zukertort ever beat anybody? All Petrosian did was WIN matches against Botvinnik and Spassky for the World Championship. Maybe I should play over the game where Steinitz lost to Maurian, again. Don't know how many open games of Steinitz's we need to play over, where he literally gets pounded, before it's considered safe to conclude that he wouldn't have a prayer against Morphy. Apr-01-05    percyblakeney: You're not the only one to think that Steinitz would have lost clearly against Morphy. Chessmetrics may claim that Anderssen was at his worst form for his last almost 30 years the year he played Morphy, but not everyone agrees with it, and I think few Morphy fans agree with his position here: http://www.chessmetrics.com/CM2/Pea... Apr-01-05    keypusher: I don't think Chessmetrics claims that Anderssen was at his worst form in 30 years when he played Morphy, <percyblakeney>. I don't have any idea how a Morphy-Steintz match would have turned out, although I am pretty confident that Morphy would have crushed him in 1862 and beaten him in 1866. I think by 1873 (when he won sixteen straight against the strongest masters in Europe) or 1876 (when he beat Blackburne 7-0) Steinitz was stronger than Morphy ever was, but if Morphy had kept playing there is no telling how good he would have gotten, or how his style would have developed. He didn't work at his game like Steinitz did, partly because no one really pushed him, partly because he was lazy. There is an obvious parallel between Morphy-Steinitz and Fischer-Karpov. Love him or hate him, Steinitz played and beat everybody out there, just like Karpov did. It isn't their fault that the men that could have been their greatest opponents decided to stop playing. Given that Morphy and Fischer abandoned the game, I don't understand why they are idolized. It is hard enough to gauge Fischer's true strength, given his truncated international career and the fact that he never played Karpov, clearly stronger than anyone he did play. With Morphy it's impossible. He played three serious matches and one (weak) tournament -- about 50 games. None of his opponents played at a level close to as good as Steinitz eventually became. And <RookFile>, if you want to dispute that, don't just go by scores. Play through the Anderssen-Morphy 1858 match games and the Anderssen-Steinitz 1866 match games and tell me when Anderssen played better. (And no facile remarks about how "Mr. Morphy won't let me" play well.) Apr-01-05    RookFile: Steinitz could have played Morphy if he wanted to. Paul Morphy issued a challenge to the entire world to play anyone at the odds of pawn and move for any stake whatsoever. Steinitz merely had to accept Morphy's offer. Considering that in his visit to Lousiana, Steinitz lost to Maurian, who Morphy used to give knight odds to, it is very understandable why Morphy felt that he could have toyed with Steinitz. Apr-01-05    iron maiden: <Paul Morphy issued a challenge to the entire world to play anyone at the odds of pawn and move for any stake whatsoever.> And then when Steinitz came along, Morphy refused to meet him. Apr-01-05    RookFile: That is absolutely not true, iron maiden. Not only did Morphy and Steinitz meet, but Steinitz praised Morphy as quite an interesting guy to talk to. No, the problem was, Steinitz wanted to play Morphy at even odds, instead of correctly realizing that he needed to play him by allowing Morphy to give him pawn and move. I mean, imagine you're Morphy. You've traveled the world, and have beat the best with percentages upwards of 75 percent. Some guy shows up and says he wants to play you at full strength, rather than at the pawn and move you've offered. While you're thinking about this, your friend, Maurian plays him down the street from where you live. Maurian comes over and shows you this game: Steinitz vs Maurian, 1883 So, maybe Morphy thought he needed to offer Steinitz knight odds, instead of pawn and move. After all, that's what he used to give Maurian. Apr-01-05    iron maiden: I'm willing to bet Morphy was never shown that Maurian game, since he was dead and buried by 1883. It's also worth considering that at that time, there were those who seriously argued that pawn and move was an advantage for Black because they allowed an early attack along the f-file. Apr-01-05    RookFile: When Steinitz met Morphy in 1883, Steinitz said: “Morphy is a most interesting man to talk to. He is shrewd and practical and apparently in excellent health.” Unfortunately for Steinitz, he then goes out and loses to Morphy's best friend, and punching bag, in a full odds game. So, you're Morphy, and you see this. You tell me what he's supposed to think? Morphy would die later, at the age of 47, on July 10, 1884. Apr-01-05    iron maiden: You're right, my mistake, he died in 1884. I'm surprised, btw, that you've completely ignored games like this one: Steinitz vs Maurian, 1883. Not to mention that when evaluating the strength of two chess players, the value of individual results against a third party are questionable at best. Was Kasparov a clearly worse player than Fischer because he had an inferior lifetime score against Petrosian? Apr-01-05    keypusher: When discussing Morphy, it is always wise to consult <SBC>. Morphy made his famous challenge to the world to play at pawn and move in 1859, when Steinitz was cutting his teeth back in Vienna. http://batgirl.atspace.com/morphybi... Morphy agreed to meet Steinitz in 1883 on the condition that chess not be mentioned. There was no possibility of Morphy playing a match with Steinitz at that time, and Steinitz is not to blame for not accepting a (very insulting) offer that was no longer extant. Apr-01-05    percyblakeney: <I don't think Chessmetrics claims that Anderssen was at his worst form in 30 years when he played Morphy> Well, from the end of 1851 to 1879 he's got his lowest rating just before he played Morphy, at the end of 1858... But I agree with your posts, <keypusher>. Apr-01-05    RookFile: Sure, I knew about Steinitz's win against Maurian, have no problem with saying that Steinitz was the best player in the world after Morphy died. When you think about it, this was the opposite situation of what Morphy ran into with Staunton. Morphy was the traveler, in this case, Steinitz was. Morphy beat everybody: Steinitz split a couple of games with the White pieces against a punching bag. Staunton was afraid to play Morphy - Morphy was bored with Steinitz, and felt that the biggest problem was to determine what degree of odds to give Steinitz. Finally, Staunton had hurled the ultimate insult at Morphy: he called Morphy a professional chess player, who was only good because that's all he did. Steinitz of course would have had no problems had Staunton said this to him. What Morphy felt instead was that essentially, he regarded Steinitz as a duffer, and if he was less of a gentleman, I suspect he would have come right out and said so. When Paul Morphy died in 1884, he could have scarcely believed that a myth would developed that Steintz would be called the father of modern chess. That myth was started by Lasker, who needed to puff up Steinitz, whom he had beaten, to give his title some legitimacy. As far as original ideas go, I think Chigorin is a far more interesting player than Steinitz. Jump to page #   (enter # from 1 to 48) search thread:    < Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 11 OF 48 ·  Later Kibitzing>

NOTE: Create an account today to post replies and access other powerful features which are available only to registered users. Becoming a member is free, anonymous, and takes less than 1 minute! If you already have a username, then simply login login under your username now to join the discussion.

Please observe our posting guidelines: No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language. No spamming, advertising, duplicate, or gibberish posts. No vitriolic or systematic personal attacks against other members. Nothing in violation of United States law. No cyberstalking or malicious posting of negative or private information (doxing/doxxing) of members. No trolling. The use of "sock puppet" accounts to circumvent disciplinary action taken by moderators, create a false impression of consensus or support, or stage conversations, is prohibited. Do not degrade Chessgames or any of it's staff/volunteers. Please try to maintain a semblance of civility at all times. See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform a moderator. NOTE: Please keep all discussion on-topic. This forum is for this specific player only. To discuss chess or this site in general, visit the Kibitzer's Café.

Messages posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors. All moderator actions taken are ultimately at the sole discretion of the administration.

Copyright 2001-2025, Chessgames Services LLC