New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1894-07-16
LISKER AND S7ETNITI.
AN ENGLINr OPINION OF THE RELATIVE MERITS
OF THE Two CHESS MASTERS.


OF THE Two CHESS MASTERS.
From The London Chess Monthly.
match we are reluctantly compelled to 30 80;
would rather have aostaned altoSether hnsk kt
IS the victor and he is entitled TO ne charnplonsh'P
thus acquired. Nothing succeeds Ike success
But he has not risen In our estimation as player
in spite OF lbs victory. ON the contrary. we come
the conclusion that with such repertory, VIZ.
the Ruy Lopez and tho = 20 - opening. TO SET
out to conquer the champion Of the world. Is sim
ply Qulxouc. Has he shown any or'tihahty IN
played the book variations correctly dn som" cases
not even that namely. In the deren'e o, me nrSt
Gluoco Piano and the attack OF III" sam" opening
in the seventeenth game). Assuming. therefore,
that his opponent would have confined himself 70
a similar policy H. IL conceivable that he would
have lost the match? Is there single instance in
any OF the games where 1t could be said thnt
Insker defeated Stenitz by superior combinations
Not one, Ii is always Strinitz himself VINO caused
his defeat. by the adoption OF unSound opemlnKs;
elementary principles. II Mr. Steinitl is reckless
GnouS a 10 1 W. take + HAT IL was h.f
duty to safeguard ia" interests OF MS supporters
Inducing fads and fancies on such M important
occasion Handicapped az ne was with age anh
physical innrmitcs at starting, he need not haze
played into The hands OF his astuie opponent by
giving him the additional advantage of his idiotc
Kuy Lopez defence. and the compromising Varia-
lions In the Queens Pawn openings. Ii Is matter
OF congratulation that he did not Try his hand ~
his famous defence OF the Evans ms Two hhien.
defence. and the steinitz Gam6t II was Mr.
sleinltzs duty to start Win the rf Sn f,Sn
score Justified II; he mlSht have indulged his
he did with Iukrltort Wnel ne
had him quite at his mercy. by finishing thc match
with StcinitZ Gnmbt.
our candid opinion ~. that Lasker could not ihnve
stood up ms yet against the victor OF Andersen
and Zukertort There H. no doubt that Stclniz has
fallen on, aad We make bold 20 say That h!'i play
OF to-day brings him down 10 the level OF med'oc-
rlty and that StcinitZ defeated by fasker.
but not THE" Stenitz II cannot be said that we did
not fully recognise T.asker's talent We spotted
him when, a mere youth, he gained hts mnsd"rshlp
at Hrcslau I'm 1889. only few months litcr. In
April lSeo published his portrait, biography and
a selco ton u his games. In 'The Cheas Monthly"
t.sbfs va yns hon
merit and concluded his biography NTH the
following apology: Herr Inskrr's record of sue
cesses crcditable rs II IL. would not enhte him
10 figure H. "Our Portrait Gallery" yet but
honor him with a place amongst our emirhnt men,
not for what he has achieved hitherto bu'.sOr what
we expect him to do In future But In spite Of
all Iasker is not our ideal Of a first-clsss player
Formerly he would have disappeared In the crowd
Ia Il possible TO imagine that with hs irencrtorv
he could have successfully met MorrhS Kolisch
Andersen or Zukcrtori? Tn. great m fsters have
gone. others have grown old and our time Is any
thing prolific In men hors lgnc. II 10 not
for Tarrarch and Tchigortn. and perhaps Wal
brodt. I.nsker would stand Isolated.
our structures will probably be considered severe
I'm some quarters. but feel confdcit that those
who know Steinitz's games OF former 'gears Iuler-
indorae the Justice OF remarks. Some OF the
columns OF the London press convey'E the errone
GUS impression that the games We're ~ high order.
AS n case IN point, IaSkcrs brilllanclIn the fourth
game rilliancy enFcndcred by II 'blunder-was
not even understood to have becfl 4 desperate
effort on the part OF I.nsker to save hhc game
I'll II pointed ont by us.