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 BOH (Austrian Empire); died New York, NY USA. Wilhelm Steinitz is the earliest World Champion of chess 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 Robert James 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: 2025-04-13 18:53:01

Try our new games table.

page 1 of 44; games 1-25 of 1,085  Game   Result Moves Year Event/Locale Opening 1. K Hamppe vs Steinitz 0-1 23 1859 Vienna C29 Vienna Gambit 2. Lenhof vs Steinitz 0-1 45 1859 Casual game C23 Bishop's Opening 3. Steinitz vs Lenhof 1-0 32 1859 Casual game C52 Evans Gambit 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 NN 1-0 12 1860 Unknown C25 Vienna 9. Steinitz vs Harrwitz   0-1 39 1860 Casual game B44 Sicilian 10. Steinitz vs NN   1-0 20 1860 Odds game 000 Chess variants 11. Steinitz vs NN   1-0 15 1860 Casual game C41 Philidor Defense 12. Steinitz vs NN 1-0 16 1860 Casual game C50 Giuoco Piano 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. Harrwitz vs Steinitz   1-0 25 1860 Casual game D20 Queen's Gambit Accepted 16. K Hamppe vs Steinitz 0-1 31 1860 Casual game C27 Vienna Game 17. Steinitz vs NN   1-0 20 1860 Casual game C52 Evans Gambit 18. Steinitz vs E Pilhal 1-0 17 1860 Vienna C52 Evans Gambit 19. Steinitz vs NN   1-0 24 1860 Odds game 000 Chess variants 20. H Strauss vs Steinitz 0-1 31 1860 Casual game C51 Evans Gambit 21. Steinitz vs H Strauss 1-0 33 1860 Casual game C29 Vienna 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 1,085

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

< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 21 OF 48 ·  Later Kibitzing> Jun-18-06    notyetagm: What did Fischer think about Steinitz? Jun-18-06    Karpova: iron maiden: <I guess you could make an argument for Pillsbury and Rubinstein, but both were really only one-tournament wonders.> Rubinstein a <one-tournament wonder>? Sorry, but this statement is completely ridiculous. Just have a look at Rubinstein's tournament results (especially in 1912) speak for themselves but Rubinstein won all the matches he ever played (except for the first one against Salwe in 1903 which ended 5-5). His record: 1903 - Salwe: 5-5 (10 games) Salwe: 5-3 (10 games) 1908 - Teichmann: 3-2 (6 games) Marshall: 3-2 (8 games) 1909 - Mieses: 5-3 (10 games) 1918 - Schlechter: 2-1 (6 games) 1920 - Bogoljubov: 5-4 (12 games) He was a strong player throughout his career though he suffered from a mental illness which made him commit grotesque blunders and throw away completely winning games in later years. Still, Capablanca thought highly of him but wait - who's this Capablanca-guy? If iron maiden says that Rubinstein was merely a <one tournament wonder> this counts... Jun-18-06    Gypsy: < Rubinstein won all the matches he ever played (except for the first one against Salwe in 1903 which ended 5-5> Rubinstein also drew a playoff match for the master title with Duras (1-1) at the end Barmen 1905. After two draws, the match had to be terminated because Rubinstein had to leave. Organizers, in an exception of the norm, awarded the title to both. The score of the first game is lost; the second game was Duras vs Rubinstein, 1905. It is quite a griping game, by the way. Jun-18-06    iron maiden: <Karpova> Okay, but how many of those successes you listed were achieved against the toughest players of Rubinstein's day--Lasker and Capablanca? At St. Petersburg 1909 Rubinstein tied for first with Lasker, but he was never able to replicate this success in any other tournament with Lasker or Capa. Jun-21-06    lblai: Near the beginning of August of last year, we had a discussion that involved the third issue of the Quarterly for Chess History. If anyone is still interested in that book, they may want to look at www.chesscafe.com . Jun-21-06    lblai: On Feb-11-06, I wrote: "Nobody has found a record (from the time when Morphy was alive) of a challenge by Morphy to everyone in the world to a Pawn-and-move match. It was reported that Morphy had decided that he would play no more matches without such odds, but there does not seem to be any indication of an invitation, open to anyone, to play with those odds." (1) A prediction from Fiske (about Harrwitz and "any English player") is not "an invitation, open to anyone". (2) A proposal to Harrwitz is not "an invitation, open to anyone". (3) A St. Amant belief is not "an invitation" from Morphy. (4) A refusal to play anyone on level terms, is not "an invitation, open to anyone". It IS indeed commonly believed that Morphy offered to give odds to any player in the world because it was reported by a 1900 pamphlet by Charles A. Buck. Since then, that pamphet has come to be recognized as containing numerous errors. Surprisingly, famous Morphy biographer, David Lawson, also believed that there had been an odds offer to the world, but he produced nothing other than the sort of non-evidence listed above. Jun-27-06    apawnandafool: chessgames has this opening of the day using that crazy gambit of his, where the white king goes to e2 after a check form teh queen. it actually looks pretty sound. out of about 60 games on this database only about 10% are drawn, the rest are battles, some where that funky white king hunts (opposite of king-hunt). has anyone try this opening in they're game's? 1. e4 e5 2. Nc3 Nc6 3. f4 exf4 4. d4 Qh4+ 5. Ke2 Jun-27-06    RookFile: Paul Morphy could have announced to the world: "I will not play chess anymore." That would have simple, clear, and unambiguous. Instead, Paul Morphy said: "I will not play chess anymore unless it's pawn and move." Question: why didn't Morphy say: "I hereby challenge the entire civilized world to a match at pawn and move." Answer: If I were alive during the day, I'd be the first one to be knocking at Morphy's door. Me, and every other member of my chess club. Of course: Morphy would beat me easily, and every other chess club player. At a GREAT COST OF TIME to himself. Morphy's careful wording means that players like Steinitz could have played Morphy at pawn and move, because they were strong enough to have made such a match interesting. Certainly, by Steinitz going out and losing to Morphy's punching bag Maurian, Morphy felt under no obligation to play Steinitz at full odds. Jun-27-06    lblai: In 1859 (the year of the Morphy "Pawn and move" announcement), Steinitz did not have much of a reputation as a chessplayer (although I have not heard of Steinitz losing to Maurian). In 1861, Morphy publicly proclaimed that he had adopted a rule "of playing no more matches in future". He did offer to make a "special exception" for Ignatz Kolisch, but he changed his mind about that exception in 1863. It was in 1866, of course, that Steinitz had his famous success against Anderssen. Steinitz met Morphy in 1883, but, by then, it was wondered if Morphy would "ever play chess again". Jun-27-06    SBC: Buck wrote that upon reaching New Orleans (12/12/1859), "...Morphy issued a final challenge offering to give odds of Pawn and move to any player in the world, and receiving no response thereto, he declared his career as a chess-player finally and definitely closed..." I'm not really sure where Lawson indicated he bought into the idea that such a declaration was made. Such a declaration would seem a most un-Morphyish thing. There seems to be indications that Fiske understood Morphy's intentions were to not play anyone even who could not first succeed at pawn and move odds, but this seems, to me at any rate, a formality in the highly intricate ranking system know as odds-giving. Did Morphy declare his chess career over at that time? Well, he kept open the possibility of playing with Paulsen, at odds, and of playing Kolisch. Whether he ever intended to play either, only he knew, but it would seem that the fact that he entertained the idea seems to indicate that he hadn't retired, per se, from chess nor "declared his career as a chess-player finally and definitely closed." He did, however, state in his original correspondence with Kolisch in 1861 that he would consider playing a quiet, friendly match at no stakes - but it was as a "special exception" to his personal rule of playing no matches in the future. Jun-27-06    SBC: <"special exception"> I see that was already mentioned. Sorry for the repetition. Jun-27-06    lblai: On page 184 of his famous Morphy biography, Lawson indicated that he believed that Morphy had made a "formal challenge to the chess players of the world offering the odds of Pawn and move". As I indicated on Jun-21-06, Lawson did not present any convincing evidence of such a challenge. My instinct is that, if there had been such a challenge, it would have received a lot of attention at the time, and there would be no trouble finding a record of it. I do not get the impression that Morphy was willing to play another match with Paulsen. During an 1860 visit to New York, Morphy wrote, "I had not come North to play chess, and would only encounter him, if at all, at odds, and in an occasional game or two at the club." By 1863, Morphy had changed his mind about Kolisch and was no longer willing to make an exception to his personal no-more-matches rule. Jun-27-06    SBC: <On page 184 of his famous Morphy biography> Ah yes!... thanks. Though Lawson seem to agree that there was a formal announcement but that it was given in France. What do you make of: "Edge, in his long dispatch of January 5 1859, to the New York Herald, was the first to announce that "Paul Morphy had declared that he will play no more matches with anyone unless accepting Pawn and Move from him." ? But I agree that there seems to have been no formal announcement... and for all the reasons you stated. I'm not sure Morphy ever seriously entertained playing Kolisch. Of course, only Morphy knew for sure. But it's easy to to say, yes, I'll make an exception if I'm in Paris the same you are and if you agree to my conditions.. when such a situation is distant and nebulous... then, when by the hand of fate that very situation arises, find a reason not to honor the promise. All that would seem to show that Morphy really had little intentions of playing any serious chess from 1860 on. Jun-28-06    lblai: I think the January 5, 1859 announcement was exactly what it said - a refusal to play anyone on level terms. Such a refusal is not an invitation, open to anyone, to play a match at odds. It seems to me that Lawson was seeing what he wanted to see, while lacking real evidence. Everyone can have their own theory about the motive for Morphy's announcement. My theory would be that it was a way to discourage more match challenges. The best players would be reluctant to publicly agree that they were so far below Morphy as to make such odds appropriate. Also, it would not be appealing to accept the risk of a humiliating loss at such odds. Without stakes, there would be little to gain from defeating Morphy with odds, unless there was a reasonable chance to follow-up with victory on level terms. In 1859, who would have thought they had much of a chance to defeat Morphy on level terms? Travel was expensive in those days, and would not have been likely to be undertaken by someone with little chance to gain anything. SBC may be right about the 1861 Morphy Kolisch statement, but, of course, there does not seem to be a way to be sure. I am not sure how Morphy's attitude evolved from 1859 to 1863, but it does seem that by 1863 he was pretty well set on his personal no-more-matches rule, and publicly indicating this. For this reason, I doubt that that there was ever much serious thought given to the possibility of a match with Steinitz who made a name for himself somewhat later. Jun-28-06    RookFile: lblai: If Morphy's goal was to retire from chess play, this could have been achieved simply and more concisely by saying: ""I will not play chess anymore." Instead, Morphy said: "I will not play chess anymore unless it's pawn and move." And why not? He beat the entire civilized world at even odds, quite convincingly - there was not a player in the world to even challenge him at an even game. I still am amazed that Steinitz could come to Lousiana, lose a game to Maurian, and expect to play Morphy under full odds. The fact that Steinitz didn't accept these odds shows that he was afraid of Morphy, and his trip was really just a half-hearted attempt to say "I tried." Jun-28-06    SBC: <My theory would be that it was a way to discourage more match challenges.> I think that's fairly reasonable and consistant with what we know about Morphy the man. Even had Morphy wanted, in his heart, to continue in the role of Chess Champion, his personal situation disallowed that possibility for the most part. His attempt to withdraw for public chess graciously was a difficult proposition at best and ultimately doomed to misconstruction. Jun-28-06    SBC: <RookFile> Steintz met Morphy in 1883 when he was in New Orleans for a month during which he gave a simul(s) at the New Orleans Chess, Checkers and Wist Club. I wouldn't think Steinitz entertained any real hopes of playing Morphy, though I imagine he would have liked to discuss chess with him. I have always been under the impression, though I can't say where I got that impression, that the published Steinitz-Maurian games came from simultaneous play. I'm sure someone with in-depth knowledege of Steinitz might know more about this. <there was not a player in the world to even challenge him at an even game> That would make an interesting discussion since there are many great players whom Morphy didn't play, such as Dubois, Lasa, Petroff, van Blijdenstein, Max Lange. (But not Steinitz until at least 1863) Jun-28-06    RookFile: Speaking of simuls, Morphy might have entertained the notion of a simul against these five players.... after all, he had successfully done something like that before. Jun-28-06    SBC: <RookFile> Who knows! Morphy's simul against Rivière, Boden, Barnes, Bird and Löwenthal - just like Morphy giving Knight odds to Thompson - is a hard act to follow.. Jun-29-06    lblai: It is not my impression that Morphy had resolved to stop playing chess by January of 1859. It would appear that that was a resolution that formed somewhere along the way from 1859 to 1863. My theory about the January 1859 announcement was that it was a way "to discourage more match challenges." I see no evidence that Steinitz had any expectation of being able to play Morphy in 1883. As I previously mentioned, by that time, people were wondering if Morphy would "ever play chess again" with anybody. Morphy's five person simul was more than two decades in the past. As early as 1866, a chess magazine had commented, "as Mr. Morphy no longer considers himself a chessplayer, there is no reason why others should do so." I know of no record of Steinitz turning down any form of play with Morphy. I see no reason to believe that Steinitz was afraid of Morphy. I would be interested to know where one could read about Steinitz playing Maurian. Of course, if it was during a simul, no great significance would be attached to such play. Jun-29-06    lblai: While Morphy was having his victories in England in France, I believe that Dubois and Lange were in Germany, Lasa was in Rio de Janeiro, and Petroff was in Russia. Jun-29-06    RookFile: That was a good place for them. Either Steinitz or Morphy would have beaten any one of these guys in a match. Jun-29-06    SBC: <It is not my impression that Morphy had resolved to stop playing chess by January of 1859> Well, since he played 2 matches after that date, it would seem not. But it's also true that any great desire to play public chess had begun dimming even before the Anderssen match. So, the idea that Morphy was setting up obstacles, whether intentionally or instinctively, to more matches would seem highly possible, even probable. <While Morphy was having his victories in England in France, I believe that Dubois and Lange were in Germany, Lasa was in Rio de Janeiro, and Petroff was in Russia.> I don't think it was being suggested that such a simul was possible except as an abstract scenario or a fantasy. Jun-29-06    RookFile: Well, I've never even heard of Lasa until this thread, and doubt that Morphy ever heard of him either. Jun-29-06    SBC: <RookFile> Tassilo von Heydebrand und der Lasa?? One of the Berliner Pleiades, the Seven Stars, who finished and revised the first four editions of Bilguer's famous Handbuch, who was not only considered one of the strongest players in the world but was considered possibly the greatest 19th century chess historian (who encouraged and assisted Murray in writing his "History of Chess") and who had the greatest chess library during his lifetime. Anderssen, as did most Germans, considered him his mentor and superior. Morphy most definitely knew of Lasa. And Lasa had a strong interest in Morphy. You can read Anderssen's letter to Lasa concerning Morphy: http://batgirl.atspace.com/Andersse... Jump to page #   (enter # from 1 to 48) search thread:    < Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 21 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