The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1894-07-29
LAskER AND sTEINITz.
An English Opinion of the Relative
Merits of the Two Chess Masters.

An English Opinion of the Relative
Merits of the Two Chess Masters
From the London Chess Monthly.1
Having promised to give our opinion
about the match we are reluctantly
compelled to do so. We would rather
have abstained altogether Lasker is
the victor and he is entitled to the
championship thus acquired. Moth
ing succeeds like success" But he has
not risen in our estimation as a player
in spite of his victory. On the con-
trary, we came to the conclusion that
with such a repertory. viz: the Ruy
Lopez and the p to Q 4 opening, to SET
out to conquer the champion of the
world. is simply a quiXotic. Has he
shown any originality in any of this
games? All he has done is that he
played the book variations correctly
lin some cases not even that, namely
in the defense of the first Giuoca Pia%
no. and the attack of the same open
ing in the seventeenth game. Assum-
ing, therefore, that his opponent would
have confined himself to d similar pol
icy, is it conceivable that he would
have lost the match? Is there a single
instance in any of the games where it
could be said that Lasker defeated
Steinitz by superior combinations? Not
one! 1t is always Steinitz himself who
caused his defeat. by the adoption of
unsound openings, and, in some in
stances, even by the disregard of ele-
mentary principles. IF Mr.. Steinitz is
reckless enough to jeopardize his life
long reputation, it is his own concern;
but we take it that it was his duty to
safeguard the interests of his support
ers, and to justify their confidence
otherwise than by INDUCING fads and
fancies on such an important occasion.
Handicapped as he was with age and
physical infrmities at starting, he need
not have played into the hands of his
astute opponent by giving him the adj
ditional advantage of his idiotic Ruy
Lopez defense, and the. compromise
variations of the queens pawn OPEN
ings. 1t is a matter of congratulation
that he did not try his hand at his
famous defense of the Evans, his two
knights defense, and the Steinitz gam
bit. 1t was Mr.. Steinitz's duty to start
with the queens pawn openings, ts
play them correctly, and then. if the
score justified it, he might have in
obliged his pranks, just as he did with
Aukertort, when he had him quite at
his mercy, by finishing the match with
Steinitz gambit
Our candid opinion is, that Lasker
lcould not nave stood up as yet, against
tine conquerOr of Andersen and Zuker-
I tort There Is no doubt that Steinitz
has fallen off, and we make bold to saw
that ms play of today brings him down
TO the level OF mediOcrity and that
Steln1tz was defeated by Lasker. but
not THE" Steinitz. It cannot be said
mat we did not fully recognize Last5-
erS talent We spotted him when a
mere youth. he gained his rnastership
at Breslau in 1889 Only a few months
later, in April 1890. we published his
.E0TTT91t binOTa Tlbx-
ms games in the Chess Monthly. a dis
junction which we felt was beyond his
then merit, and we concluded his bio
.graphy with the following apology
Herr LaSkerS record of successes.
credltaole as 1t is, would not entitle him
10 hgure IN Our Portrait Gallery" vet
out we honor him with a place among
our eminent men, not for what he has
achieved hitherto, but for what we ex-
pect him to do in future" But in snite
OF all, Lasker is not our ideal of a first
ciass player Formerly he would
have disappeared in the crowd.
Is it possible to imagine tbat
with his repertory he could have sue
cesfully ment Morphy Kohsch Anderson.
or Aukertort? The great masters have
gone, others have grown old, and our
time is anything but prolific in men hors
nnge If 1T were not for Tarrasch and
IchISorln, and perhaps WalbrOdt,
Lasker would stand isolated.
Our structures will probably be con-
sidered severe in some quarters. but
we feel confident that those who know
Steinitz's games of former years. Zl-
kertort's games of the London tourna-
ment of 1888, will indorse the justice of
our remarks. Some of the columns Of
the London press conveyed the erron-
eous impression that the games were Of
high order. As a case in point. Lasker's
brilliancy in the fourth gane-bril-
iancy engendered by a blunder-was
not even understood to have been a des-
perate effort on the part of Lasker to
save the game, until it was pointed ous
nv TIG