Talk:Wilhelm Steinitz

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Tap dancing 2 Contradiction 3 Steinitz/God 4 George Henry Mackenzie notations 5 New stuff for first two sections

[edit] Tap dancing

I would revert but I don't think that statement was true either. 130.63.18.225 made the edits about tap dancing and was reverted by 172.176.128.120. Unless evidence can be brought that he tapdanced I suggest we leave the new edits be. Falphin 02:48, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Contradiction

The article states that Steinitz didn't earn money playing chess. However, it also says that Lasker was very keen to keep the championship title to avoid poverty. Shouldn't it be explained why Steinitz got no money and Lasker tried to earn all his money from Chess? The current wording is confusing. MJGR 09:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The simplest answer is: Lasker was not Steinitz, and his business ability was better. Just because he has seen Steinitz' fate, Lasker wanted more money for play and knew that the champ title helps him in it.--Ioannes Pragensis 10:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Steinitz/God

The "story" has often been told that Steinitz claimed to be able to win a match at odds with God or that he claimed to have actually played a match with God. (There is more than one version of this legend.) However, nobody has ever found a record of such a story before the Reuben Fine book on the psychology of the chessplayer. This book was written decades after the death of Steinitz by an author who made no claims about having a verifiable source. Page 42: "One story says that [Steinitz] claimed to be in electrical communication with God, and that he could give God Pawn and move." It seems quite possible that Fine had incorrectly remembered something he had read on page 9 of Irving Chernev's book, The Bright Side of Chess: "Steinitz had enough [confidence] to say once that he did not believe even God could give him Pawn and move odds!" (Irving Chernev gave no source for his version of the story either.) Sadly, many authors have repeated and apparently embellished the "story" from the Fine book without considering the uncertainty about its origin. It would be nice if Wikipedia did not contribute to this unfortunate trend. - Louis Blair (September 24, 2006)

[edit] George Henry Mackenzie notations

New International Encyclopedia states that George Henry Mackenzie won the world championship at Frankfort in 1887. That must have been a "disputed" title, though. GhostofSuperslum 01:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

 :-) NIE is really a worthy source in this regard <end of joke>. There is an article called Wikipedia:Errors in the New International Encyclopedia that have been corrected in Wikipedia, you may add your discovery there.--Ioannes Pragensis 20:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

What occurred at Frankfort in 1887 that caused New International encyclopedia to print their statement? Did more than one "world chess champion" exist in 1887? In the modern world several "World Heavyweight Boxing Champions" exist side-by-side because there are several organizations that crown a "Champion." I am refraining from saying that the statement is an error because it is possible that a "dispute" existed in 1887. GhostofSuperslum 11:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Suppose that Steinitz did not compete at Frankfort in 1887. His absence from the contests may have caused some people to claim that he had not defended his title (and thereby had forfeited his title). I am unsure of his status in 1887 and 1888. What did he do at that time to permit him to remain the "undisputed" champion? New International Encyclopedia states that he defeated Anderssen in 1866 (yes, 1866) for the world's championship. Another statement is: "At the London tournament of 1872 he won every game." Also: "After 1883 he lived in the United states, and (1884-91) was editor of the International Chess Magazine. He published Book of the Sixth Chess Congress of 1889 and The Modern Chess Instructor (1889)." I may add these statements into his page on Wikipedia. Does everyone trust New International Encyclopedia well enough to allow my edits to remain where I place them? I'm not thrilled when other people summarily expunge my edits. The 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica also contains errors (and an errors page which served as the model for the errors page that accompanies New International Encyclopedia). GhostofSuperslum 14:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

You know, NIE is 1) a tertiary source (not worth citing if you have good secondary sources) and 2) an old one. Since then, many books about chess history have been written, and you should cite these sources now. It is well possible that a small minority of US chess players called Mackenzie "world champion" in 1890, but this did not make Steinitz' title disputed in the eyes of world chess public.--Ioannes Pragensis 19:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Errors in the Encyclopædia Britannica that have been corrected in Wikipedia is an article that reveals errors in another encyclopedia. New International Encyclopedia contains errors that seem to have been made because the contributors were experts who hastily submitted information. There were no higher authorities than those experts, therefore their information was printed. GhostofSuperslum 03:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New stuff for first two sections

In the intro I added the point that Steinitz and Morphy are widely considered the founders of modern chess. Cited Lasker but you can find the same evaluation in virtually any chess text. I also changed "held in high regard" to "further developed" to get across the idea of an organic development of chess theory.

In "Life" section I added some description of Steinitz's unusual physique and difficult temperament, citing Harold Schoenberg's entertaining history of chess masters. Doubtless there are more meticulously researched sources but I think Schoenberg is pretty reliable. In addition, it's a book that will hold the interest of high school and college students, who seem to be the biggest users of Wikipedia.

I reworded the Lasker quote because the version given wasn't sourced, and I found a different wording in my translation of Lasker's Manual of Chess.

Comments welcome.

Aldrichio 05:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)