The Ouachita telegraph. [volume] (Monroe, La.) 1865-1889, 1883-03-24
CHESS CHAMPIONS AND THEIl
METHODS COMPARED.

The Philadelphia Times chess eX.
pert discourses as follows There is
no greater fallacy among chess players
than the one in which is founded the
remark "He is not playing his
tain percentage of defeat is due tc
.'not feeling WELL" ''headache," scout
of practice" etc, but we contend that
in the main \ player does play his
strength, or very near it, in every care
fully played partie.
Take Mr.. Anderson, for example.
Here is a master, and y great one, too,
who for over a quarter of = century
held his own against the strongest op.
ponents, excepting in one instance.
He defended himself against Steinitz,
Zukertort, Blackburnc, Mackenzie and
others, but when he met Morphy it all
at once became apparent that he
"couldn't play his game Why was
this ? Every player in formulating
his attack (or defense, as the case may
bel puts into practice his knowledge OF
the powers of pieces and his knowledge
as applied in analyzing the positions
Now, his play is either sound or un'
sound, according to the strength Of the
play that is opposed to it, for s'sound
ness,' be it observed, is but a relative
term, when we say that a certain line
of play is ssound we merely mean that
to the best of our knowledge and be-
lief, there is no opposing play that car,
overcome it.
No player can play q perfect game,
for the full resources of chess are far
beyond the ken even of Morphy.
Therefore, when Mr.. Andersen plays
his play is necessarily imperfect, though
the errors of his system are of u deli
cate nature and not gross defects like
the blunders of an ordinary player.
Mr.. Andersen played for series of
years and held his own against the
great masters because he had met with
no one powerful enough to detect and
take advantage of his errors. Then he
encountered Morphy! The play OF
Andersen, that had hitherto looked
as impenetrable as bands Of steel, all at
once fell to pieces and displayed gaps
of omission and neglected precaution
because Il greater master was opposed
to him, able to take advantage Of his
mssses. Andcrssen's play was really
the same, but it looked bad, for every
move that he made yielded no fruit.
During the match, in fact, afriend said
to ANDERSEN: "What is the matter
with you: You are not playing as
formerly" Andersen good naturedly
replied 81 can't. Morphy won't let
me-" Mr.. Andersen had met a great
er master than himself, and his game,
in consequence, looked shabby and
mean.
Now, take Mr.. Steinitz. During his
recent visits to the American clubs it
was said that Mackenzie, Maurian and
Martinez played like school-boys
against hirn. Not SO. Their play
looked off color because it could find
no winning vent against the stcel-clad
defense opposed to it.
Were Steinitz to meet Morphy,
what then? Why, then the small i'm
projections of Steinitz's play, invisible
to us, would be brought to light, be-
cause the greatest of all masters would
be there to illustrate the fact. Then
the critics would soy that Steinitz had
lost his powers of play, had lost his art
Of "crowding" and "dancing," but the
more discriminating would affirm that
Mr.. Steinitz had not lost his cunning
Of fence, but that a greater game than
his was overshadowing it.