New-York tribune., 1885-01-16
INTERNATIONAL CHESS MAGAZINE,

From the statement with which Mr.. Stelnitz IN
troduces the first number OF his new chess maga-
zine aud the general flavor Of nearly all its con-
tents 1t Is evident that the editor has a fund Of
grievances, rsonal and professional. and that he
looks upon the pages over which no has assumed
supervision the proper medium for their ventlla-
ton, This is unfortunate Mr. SteiDitz Is one Of
the abest chess players IN the world. He has come
from London, taken up his residence IN
this city. and joined the Manhattan
Chess Club. Every lover of chess will DO
interested in his comments, criticisms and analy-
ses but touching his private grievances the Ameri-
can chess public have neither curiosity nor inter-
cot. cynic, no matter b1v able, can rarely make
q good editor and as we wish MIR. Steinitz and his
literary undertaking, for which think there Is
room, every success, we hope to find less personal
equation in tho future mum Of The International
Chess Magazine than dsfgurcs the first issue.
The most interesting article in the January NUM-
bcr is the tirss instament of dis
cussion of the ability Of Paul Morphy.
It's obvious purpose Is to demonstrate tnat
while Morphy was the strongest player of his
time he coul not have peted successfully with
the best masters of to-day. among whom VIC must
certainly place Mr. SteinitZ, who writes tho article.
While the question at issue Is of little interest to
the present generation of PLAYERS, the analyses of
MOrphy's games and the writer's reasoning on them
are of great value. Mr.. Steinitz's theories to
he First, that brliancy of play Is no match for
the slower methods of the modern school second
that Morphy was not so brilliant as has long been
supposed. 70 the first proposition 1t may be re-
piled that the public like brliancy. and whom chess
becomes a game in which at the end Of a
hundred moves the winner Is simply a
pawn ahead the public will abandon it.
10 answer the second proposition would consume
more time aud space than are at our disposal We
wish simply to call attention to some errors which
have been committed by the critic. Mr.. Steinitz
asserts that the wonderful game with Paulsen in
which Morphy sacrificed the Queen was an Off
hand encounter. The game was tournanent game,
and the brilliant sacrifice was made in o sharply
contested battle. Again IN game IL with
Loveptnal. Morphy made hazardous sacrifice of q
Knight rather than incur 'cramped position. Mr.
stenitz says this was forced, az the piece would
have been lost anyhow had 1t been retreated to
Knight by the move of Queen to @. In this
Mr.. Stenitz is clearly in error. The editor asserts
that Morphy did not originate any new openings;
IN view of the fate of the Steinitz gambit
at the London tournament 1t would seem
that in this respect the judgment Of our country
man was sound If not brilliant.
Mr. Steinitz charges that some of Morphy's win
ming games in matches do not stand the test of
analysis. In this he 10 doubtless correct. In o
game over the board all the possible variations can
not be analysed and the instinct of position must be
the chief guide. Even Zukertort the winner Uf the
l.ondon tournament, IN his celebrated game with
Shpworth played his Queen in such position that
thorough analysis shows 1t could have been cap
tursd.