| Sometimes I read postings 
      that are worth preserving but which I know will eventually be lost in the 
      tide of the mundane. Here's a worthwhile discussion about Steinitz's claim 
      to the title of World Champion prior to his 1886 match with Zukertort.   chancho: Wilhelm Steinitz played many matches, and won almost all of them. The only 
      exception being his two losses to Lasker. Wilhelm Steinitz, was a Champion 
      in every sense of the word. He was always willing to take on all comers.
 
 ckr:
 After he defeated Anderssen Steinitz became the (self proclaimed) World 
      Champion. Many others had serious reservations in placing so much weight 
      on a single match. It was because, as chancho 
      notes, willing to take on all comers 
      that enabled Steinitz to keep his title and later actually become 
      recognized as the World Champion. It was also Steinitz himself that 
      publicized the term 'World Champion". Probably a good example of the 
      'Power of Positive Thinking'.
 
 chancho:
 If his claim as champion after the Anderssen match was recognized, his 28 
      years,1866 to 1894, would be the record. Not Lasker's 27 years as 
      titleholder.
 
 lblai:
 Nobody has yet produced any record of Steinitz (or anyone else) making a 
      claim in the 1860s that Steinitz was the World Champion. Steinitz himself 
      argued (in 1874) that he had a claim to the title of champion, by noting 
      that he had "not yet lost any set match on even terms" and had "come out 
      victorious in the last two international tournaments". Is that the 
      argument of someone who believed that he had won the title in 1866? As far 
      as we can tell, it was much later when claims were made about Steinitz 
      having been World Champion since 1866.
 
 chancho:
 lblai you may have a point there, but some players from the past 
      thought he was champion after the Anderssen match. Reti wrote in his book 
      Masters of the Chessboard, "In 1866 Steinitz played a match against 
      Anderssen again the leading player after Morphy's retirement, and won 8:6 
      without a draw. Although the title did not exist at the time, Steinitz had 
      actually become World Champion. Raymond Keene wrote in his pocket book of 
      Chess, "Steinitz unofficial reign as World champion began in 1866,but it 
      was only in 1886 that Steinitz felt able to call himself World Champion 
      after defeating his greatest rival Zukertort". I cannot say for sure that 
      Steinitz claimed he was champion after the Anderssen Match. I just 
      followed the ckr post, saying if 1866 was 
      recognized as the start of his reign, he would have been champ for 28 
      years. I did say something about a claim but I mistakenly wrote that in.
 
 ckr:
 lblai Nobody has yet produced any record 
      of Steinitz (or anyone else) making a claim in the 1860s
 Kurt Landsberger's book pg.66
 
        "When Steinitz defeted Anderssen he announced that he 
        was the World Champion. Nobody objected to his claim, especially since 
        Steinitz was always willing and never hesitant in defending his title."
        . . . . .
 "In Williams Winter's analysis of Staunton, Anderssen Morphy and 
        Steinitz as World Champions of the 19th century he explains that of 
        these, [Just on what he said about Steinitz] Steinitz after his victory 
        over Anderssen was the first to claim himself World Champion, and his 
        right to the title was generally recognized by the chess world."
 Reading from this source it would appear that Steinitz did 
      indeed claim himself to be World Champion, as to how wide the recognition 
      was (or how well accepted) I am not sure of.
 lblai:
 Kurt Landsberger did indeed make the claim that
 Steinitz announced that he was the World Champion when he defeated 
      Anderssen in 1866. However, when asked for specifics to back up that 
      claim, he had absolutely nothing from the 1860s to document the claim. He 
      had simply believed what he had read in another history book. Chess 
      history authors are notorious for making assertions without checking the 
      facts.
 
 lblai:
 One can see Kurt Landsberger writing on the subject (and quoting nothing 
      from the 1860s) in the third issue of the Quarterly for Chess History. It 
      seems like a good guess that he had relied on what William Winter wrote.
 Unfortunately, Kings of Chess does not inspire confidence. In the 
      introduction, 1867 (instead of 1866) is given as the year of the Steinitz 
      victory over Anderssen, and, in the first chapter, William Winter confuses 
      the 1909 non-championship Lasker-Janowski match with the 1910 championship 
      Lasker- Janowski match. In Championship Chess, P. W. Sergeant asserted 
      that Steinitz "did not claim any title when he defeated Anderssen in a 
      match in 1866". According to William Hartston, "In later years, Steinitz 
      was to backdate his tenure of the World Championship to that match with 
      Anderssen in 1866 ..., though at the time there was no suggestion of any 
      title at stake."
 
 lblai:
 An 1866 claim that Steinitz was world champion would have been 
      the subject of considerable discussion. I found no such discussion in 1866 
      issues of the magazine, Chess World.
 
 ckr:
 lblai I 
      found no such discussion in 1866 issues of the magazine
 You have access to excellent resources. It is unfortunate that those type 
      of references are not available over the net for all to view. Also, I 
      agree, something so newsworthy certainly would have appeared in print 
      somewhere. I also remember reading something that stated Steinitz was not 
      comfortable claiming the World Championship while Morphy was still alive.
 
 lblai:
 Apparently, another myth is the belief that Steinitz was not comfortable 
      claiming the World Championship while Morphy was still alive. As early as 
      1874, Steinitz was willing to argue that he had a claim to the title. (See 
      my Jul-23-05 note above.)
 
 
 ckr:
 lblai As early as 1874, Steinitz was 
      willing to argue that he had a claim to the title.
 If you could provide some references and quotes to support the statement 
      it would be greatly appreciated.
 
 During this period Landsberger continues to refer to 1866 regarding the 
      title, however, none of the sources being quoted in his book seem to 
      support the claim he has made. Also, there is no mention of Steinitz 
      making assertions or defending his claim to the title during the period 
      you mention. (as that would contradict previous statements in the book).
 
 
 ckr:
 Prior to the 1886 match at a banquet a toast was proposed to the world 
      champion and both Zukertort and Steinitz rose, marking the event as the 
      first official world championship, to which both players had agreed.
 Later, Landsberger again asserts that Steinitz had claimed the title since 
      he was 30 and that 20 years later the world believed him.
 
 I would conclude that because the stakes and title of world champion were 
      recognized prior to the match play that any previous claims (self 
      proclaimed or not) were not completely accepted and this match would be 
      the deciding factor.
 
 lblai:
 The 1874 Steinitz quote (along with information about where the quote 
      originally appeared) can be found in the Steinitz entry of The Oxford 
      Companion to Chess.
 
 lblai:
 It appears to be yet another myth that both Steinitz and Zukertort rose 
      after a toast proposed to the world champion. Landsburger found an account 
      of the 1884 dinner. "Neither Steinitz nor Zukertort responded to the 
      toast," Landsberger wrote on page 41 of his book, The Steinitz Papers.
 
 chancho:
 If Morphy is considered a World Champion before the title even existed, 
      Then Steinitz should also have that acknowledgement as well, commencing 
      with his defeat of Anderssen in 1866. But it appears that he never did 
      consider himself a World Champion until his match with Zukertort in 1886.
 
 lblai:
 As I have noted before, Kurt Landsberger did indeed make the claim that 
      Steinitz announced that he was the World Champion when he defeated 
      Anderssen in 1866.
 However, as ckr notes, none of the sources 
      quoted in Landsberger's book seem to support the claim. Referring to the 
      subject in the third issue of the Quarterly for Chess History, Landsberger 
      again had no 1860 quotes of anyone commenting on whether or not Steinitz 
      was world champion. It seems like a good guess that Landsberger had 
      (unwisely) chosen to believe Kings of Chess by William Winter.
 Unfortunately, that book does not inspire confidence. In the introduction, 
      1867 (instead of 1866) is given as the year of the Steinitz victory over 
      Anderssen, and, in the first chapter, William Winter confuses the 1909 
      non-championship Lasker- Janowski match with the 1910 championship Laker-Janowski 
      match.
 
 lblai:
 As early as 1874, Steinitz was willing to argue that he had a claim to the 
      title. (See my Jul-23-05 note above.)
 
 ckr:
 lblai, From pg.36 Landsberger
 
        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).
 When Morphy previously defeated Anderssen, it was just another chess 
        match. When Steinitz defeated Anderssen he announced that he was the 
        world champion. Nobody objected to his claim, especially since Steinitz 
        was always willing and never hesitant in defending his title (109, 128, 
        etc.). Morphy would have been entitled to such a title if he would have 
        accepted and won challenges against Paulsen and Kolisch. Since he did 
        not care to do this, the question of the championship was left open 
        until the claim of Steinitz (112). Steinitz by intuition was a great 
        public relations expert. With mastery of the English language, Steinitz 
        acquired a journalist's appreciation of the value of terms, and the 
        title - world champion - he made for himself was destined to stay, and 
        to be taken up all over the world. It is difficult to imagine why no 
        previous journalist had thought of popularizing the title. We must give 
        Steinitz the credit of making a title to fit that supremacy. He had a 
        firm conviction of the importance of chess among the activities of the 
        human brain, and still firmer conviction of the glory of being the best 
        player at it. "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). Chess historians seem to agree that Steinitz 
        not only claimed, but also invented this new title.
 
 In Williams Winter's analysis of Staunton, Anderssen Morphy and Steinitz 
        as World Champions of the 19th century he explains that of these, [Just 
        on what he said about Steinitz] Steinitz after his victory over 
        Anderssen was the first to claim himself World Champion, and his right 
        to the title was generally recognized by the chess world... (128)"
 (3) Zukertort. Yorklyn, Del.:Cassia Editions 1989
 (109) Schonberg, H. Grandmasters of Chess. Philadephia:J.B.Lippincott, 
      1973
 (112) Championship Chess. New York:Sterling, 1960
 (128) Winter, W. Kings of Chess, New York:Pitman Press 1954
 
 ckr:
 lblai The October issue of Chess World 
      wondered about
 Can you quote from it? Then Landsberger cites (112) as a reference and 
      not Chess World??
 Landsberger (seems to me) to imply that it was Steinitz own Journalism 
      that lays this claim and coining of the term World Champion as it is noted 
      as being self a proclaimed title.
 
 However, the Oxford Chess Companion lists Steinitz' literary contributions 
      as:
 
 Figaro (1876-82)
 Ashore or Afloat (1883)
 New York Tribune(1890)
 New York Herald(1890-93)
 The Field (1873-82)
 International Chess Magazine (1885-91)
 
 The OCC [Oxford Companion to Chess] does not show that in 1866 he was 
      contributing to a publication in which he could have published his claim.
 
 Very muddy waters.
 
 lblai Referring to the subject in the third issue 
      of the Quarterly for Chess History
 Year and quote would be greatly appreciated.
 
 As to Morphy not accepting Paulsen and Kolisch challenges and not being 
      able to lay the claim and coining of the term world champion (bunkum). 
      After the Mongredien match the Era quotes Mongredian toasting 
      Morphy at the London Chess Club to the "Health of the Champion of the 
      Chess World". Not exactly 'World Champion' but the implication is the same 
      indicating that the conceptual idea of a world champion existed well 
      before 1866.
 
 Lowenthal aknowledged after the 1872 Zukertort match that Steinitz may be 
      fairly regarded as the present occupant of that exceptional position 
      formerly held by Morphy and Burn wrote that Steinitz was "now probably the 
      strongest player in the world".
 
 As early as 1874, Steinitz was willing to argue 
      that he had a claim to the title.
 I would agree and justifiably so, perhaps even back to the 1866 Anderssen 
      match.
 
 However, the question is did he make the claim in 1866.
 
 lblai:
 The 1866 Staunton quote does not mention the idea of considering Steinitz 
      to be World Champion.
 
 Schonberg (author of Grandmasters of Chess) wrote, "when Steinitz won, he 
      trumpeted the fact everywhere and announced that he was the world's 
      champion. There was no dispute about the claim; no magazines, newspapers, 
      or, indeed, the chess world rose to object." Judging from the 1866 
      Staunton quote, it is unlikely that there would have been no dispute after 
      a well-publicized world champion claim in 1866 by Steinitz. Schonberg was 
      another author who (like William Winter) apparently did not put much care 
      into checking his facts. His discussion of the Morphy-Staunton dispute is 
      a mess. (Schonberg's book was published in the 1970s.)
 
 P. W. Sergeant made his position clear in Championship Chess, asserting 
      that Steinitz "did not claim any title when he defeated Anderssen in a 
      match in 1866".
 
 As I have mentioned before, Landsberger's book produced no 1866 quote 
      about Steinitz being world champion. Referring to the subject in the third 
      issue of the Quarterly for Chess History, Landsberger again had no 1866 
      quotes of anyone commenting on whether or not Steinitz was world champion. 
      It seems like a good guess that Landsberger had (unwisely) chosen to 
      believe Kings of Chess by William Winter.
 Schonberg may have made the same mistake.
 
 I can not quote everything that Landsberger did write. That would be too 
      much to type. The same goes for the October 1866 issue of Chess World. In 
      any event, what is needed is for an 1866 world championship quote to be 
      produced by someone who claims that such a quote exists.
 
 ckr:
 lblai, Thanks, so what I bought thinking it may be a good biography 
      on Steinitz may be full of more bunkum than facts. Now where is that sales 
      slip?
 
 lblai:
 I, myself, would not be too hard on Landsberger. His mistake was to 
      unwisely trust some chess history books. For a newcomer to the chess 
      history subject, that is an easy mistake to make. I think the Steinitz 
      biography book is still worthwhile in view of the large amount of primary 
      source material that it contains.
 
 By the way, there is not an obvious choice for the year of the third issue 
      of the Quarterly for Chess History. On the cover, it says: Autumn 1999, 
      but that probably does not correspond very well to when it was published. 
      Inside the book, the date, "October 14, 2000", appears.
 
 
 |