# Talk:Wilhelm Steinitz

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)

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)

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)
I agree 100%. an encyclopedia can not present crazy rumors and non-referenced facts and expect to keep any sort of reputation.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Azzy7 (talk • contribs) 03:34, August 26, 2007 (UTC) 

"Overall, chessplayers are much less odd than is generally supposed. It is unfortunate that Fischer is such an extreme type; his unbalanced behaviour has inevitably encouraged journalistic muck-raking for other eccentricities amongst chess masters. I find the references to Steinitz and his statement that he could give God odds at chess particularly repugnant; Steinitz’s mind broke down when he was old, ill, unhappy and within a year of his death. It is as misleading as it is heartless to represent his conduct then as if it were his normal behaviour." C. H. O'D. Alexander, A Book of Chess, London 1974. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 20:34, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

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)

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.
Eldred 05:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

In the interest of resolving this on the discussion page, rather than join others such as Ioannes Pragensis in their endless series of reverts on this and other pages over the past two day, I move this discussion for the moment to this talk page.
Pragensis has suggested that zionism and judaism are the same thing.  In the article on Wilhelm Steinitz, Pragensis based his revert of the fact that Steinitz was Jewish as "second-hand zionist ideology."  
When I pointed out in discusson on the history page that he was confusing two separate issues, he again RVd while taking the position that the citations were "dubious."  His characterization was not supported by anything other than his POV.  
After Pragensis had already engaged in 3 reverts, EliminatorJR (upon solicitation from Pragensis) RVd the page, despite my request that edit warring and reverts be ceased, and that discussion be had instead on the talk page. 
I might point out that this series of reverts by Pragensis parallel those that he has made over the past two days in a number of other articles.  Pragensis has now for example also asserted in the Mikhail Botvinnik article that Jews should not be reflected as such if they are Soviet or Communists.  Similar problems have been caused by RVs these past two days in the articles on Reuben Fine, Samuel Reshevsky, Aron Nimzowitsch, and Aron Nimzowitsch.
Since this is part of a series of similar instances, relating to other Jewish chess players, I suggest that discussion be had on the talk page of Reuben Fine, where I have initiated discussion with a more fullsome analysis of the arguments presented.
This is a problem, I would submit, that goes beyond this article.  It continues, as Pragensis continues to strip these mentions out of Wiki bios, despite discussion and multiple citations (his answer to the citations is to delete them). 
2.  I would suggest that the RVs that I have pointed out by others are bereft of basis or citations.  
Therefore, I would ask that they undo their RVs of the sourced material while this discussion takes place on this page.
Furthermore, for the above reasons, I believe that the original language should remain permanently.
3.  I would be grateful for suggestions as to both how to fix this issue on this page, and in general. 
Thanks.--Epeefleche 20:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I removed the whole section "Chess and the Jews" which was based on a single citation (n.b. not a sentence published by Steinitz himself in one of his works but only an indirect citation). It shows Steinitz as a Jewish racist, which may be true, but it does not deserve a mention here, because it has nothing in common with real Steinitz' chess merits, and therefore is hardly notable; even if Steinitz really believed that his "pure breed" race is "the best natured of all peoples", it would surely not deserve a whole section here. Steinitz was not Goebbels, he was never seen as an expert in the "racial theory" and never had a notable political influence. (WP:UNDUE: Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.) Moreover if mentioned here, it should be well referenced from Steinitz' own writings, as this is a relatively heavy accusation from today's point of view.--Ioannes Pragensis 14:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe this is not notable and should be removed. It is an indirect quote from a 1911 source. While Edward Winter is a thorough researcher who unearths all sorts of interesting facts, mainstream chess historians (e.g. Israel Horowitz and Reuben Fine, both Jewish incidentally) ignore it. I suggest you create an article with a name like "Jews in Chess" and put all that stuff there. Rocksong 00:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I encourage creation of a separate page devoted to consideration of Jews in Chess.  There should be enough material for it, and it would be more useful to have the discussion unified in a single place rather than scattered through dozens of pages. Quale 17:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
On the other side, do we have articles like Americans in football or Indians in cricket? I doubt that such articles were more than just playgrounds for original research and nationalistic/racistic superstitions.--Ioannes Pragensis 18:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I have a different view.  Notability on Wiki is determined (as I have discussed with some of you, with citations) by whether the material appears in multiple, unrelated, etc., sources.  Not by the subjective POV of any of us.  That is rather clear in Wiki policy.  So if there are such references on the web to Indians in cricket, it is notable.  Also, Wiki makes it very clear that it is appropriate for ethnicity and religion to be related within an article.  So the above reference, for example, to "nationalistic/racistic superstitions" is not one that, to the extent that I understand it, is compelling. Whether there might as well be sufficient material for another article on the subject is a separate issue -- I would have no problem with one being created, but it does not determine the instant issue. --Epeefleche 23:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I've said it before and I'll say it again: So create an article called "Jews in Chess". Rocksong 23:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I said it above and I'll say it again.  That is secondary to this issue.  One could create an article on Blacks in baseball.  But that does not mean that one should delete references in the Jackie Robinson article to the fact that he is black.  Separate issues.--Epeefleche 00:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I never said delete references to Steinitz being Jewish. I said delete his opinions on Jews and chess, because I believe they are unimportant to this article. In a very long article we might perhaps include it, but it looks out of all proportion to me. Perhaps best of all is to put the quote in "Jews in Chess", and refer the reader there. Rocksong 01:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Ioannes and Rocksong.  Steinitz was a great chessplayer and had great ideas about chess.  On other subjects, including this one, he was no expert, and even something of a crackpot.  While the fact that so many chessplayers are Jewish is an interesting one, and might well be the subject of an article, Steinitz's take on it is not particularly interesting or insightful. So I don't see any reason to include this material in the Steinitz article.Eldred 04:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I've sought to reduce the size and prominence of the quote, as one way of working towards the greater balance suggested above.
Whether we work towards a page on Chess and the Jews, something I gather editors such as IP may well object to, I think that this is sufficently notable here given Winter's reference to it for mention to be made here, even if in a less prominent fashion than it appeared previously.
--Epeefleche 00:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I think it would be fair and factual to note (without any theorizing) how many Champions were Jews - Steinitz, Lasker, Botvinnik, Smyslov, Tal, Spassky, Fischer (half-Jewish, paternity debated) and Kasparov (half-Jewish, his father's name was Weinstein). Then you could add those who were in the top 5 of their times - Zukertort (his father was a Christian Protestant missionary of Jewish origin), Tarrasch, Rubinstein, Nimzowitsch, Flohr, Kashdan, Reshevsky, Fine, Boleslavsky, Bronstein, Geller, Korchnoi (50%), etc. I haven't even got near the last 20 years, and have probably missed out several oldies. For refs, you could start with GREATEST JEWISH CHESS PLAYERS ("Of the fifty-one highest ranked players, approximately one-half were Jewish, or of Jewish descent" - Elo's historical ratings) Philcha (talk) 04:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed (except for Spassky - it appears to be a myth that he is Jewish). The issue I (previously known as Rocksong) have is that it belongs at a "Chess and the Jews" article, not the Wilhelm Steinitz article. Peter Ballard (talk) 05:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I meant to say, "in Chess" - even if it becomes a separate article, it's of little use if Chess doesn't link to it. You might want to look at Talk:Chess, where I seem to have started a bit of a debate about how much of what should be in Chess. Philcha (talk) 00:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Does anybody have a good source for the incident where Steinitz was playing a game by telegraph with somebody -- Lasker, maybe, or Chigorin -- and got arrested by the police for espionage because they thought he was transmitting information in a secret code?  I think it would be an interesting and funny addition to the article. (Hopefully Winter hasn't proved this story was aprocryphal!)Eldred 04:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

NY Times Mar 11 1894 should be used - if I don't get around to it, someone else should. Philcha (talk) 22:51, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Good find! I've added it to World Chess Championship 1894. Peter Ballard (talk) 04:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
And I've patched it (very briefly) into Wilhelm Steinitz. So who's going to incorporate it into Emanuel Lasker - the NYT article makes it plain that even people who respected Steinitz regarded Lasker as the favourite. I didn't mention this in Wilhelm Steinitz because that would have entailed explaining why the heavily-hyped Zukertort stood little chance in 1872 and less in 1886, which even I would regard as OR. Philcha (talk) 14:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The pattern I see emerging from Steinitz' record is that he was more concerned with developing his theories and demonstrating their superiority than with winning contests or making money:

Long lay-off from competition 1873-1882, but active as a commentator - except for whitewashing Blackburne.
He entered the Vienna 1882 super-tournament. While he was away The Field replaced him with other chess correspondents.
He entered the London 1883 super-tournament.
Moved to USA and set up own journal.
He inisted the contract for the 1886 Zukertort match should say, "for the Championship of the World".
He offered to play the 1886 match for free.
Championship matches every 2-3 years after that. He played a behind-the-scenes role in organising his 1889 match with Chigorin (Steinitz—Chigorin, Havana 1899 - A World Championship Match or Not?).
He help organise the NY 1889 "candidates" tournament.
Before the 1894 Lasker match he said "... if I do lose he will have to beat me with my own weapons" (NY Times March 1894). According to the NY Times Steinitz dropped plans for retirement in order to play Lasker - despite that fact that several commentators who understood and respected Steinitz' theories regarded Lasker as the favourite.
In other words he used journalism to promote his theories, returned to competition when office politics made journalism unavailable as a pulpit, set up his own journal, found that beating Zukertort in 1886 was the best possible advertising, and actively sought championship matches after that - even against Lasker.
Does anyone know of any good historical sources that would cast light on Steinitz' motivations? (Not Fine-style retrofitted psychoanalyses). If we could add well-supported material on Steinitz' motivations it would add human interest, which most chess articles tend to lack (not just in Wikipedia).
It would also be very useful to have information about the state of Steinitz' finances throughout his career. For example cash shortage may have forced him to play Lasker in 1894. And in 1888-89 he had a sponsor lined up (Havana Chess Club) then went looking for an opponent (Chigorin). 
But I still suspect that money was more of a hygiene factor than a motivating factor for Steinitz - contrast Joseph Henry Blackburne, who made a very nice income out of his frequent exhibitions. Philcha (talk) 13:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The following are backup copies of material for which new places need to be found:

Barely five feet in height, and handicapped by lameness and later by arthritis, Steinitz had a sharp tongue and violent temper. As a result of this, his relations with the London chess community became difficult, so in 1883 he decided to leave England and moved to New York, where he lived for the rest of his life, although he made enemies there too. Despite his combative nature Steinitz could praise in glowing terms great play by his competitors; for example he described Zukertort's win over Blackburne in the London 1883 tournament (where Steinitz finished second behind Zukertort) as "one of the most brilliant games on record", and Blackburne's win over Schwarz in Berlin, 1881, with the words "White's design, especially from the 21st move in combination with the brilliant finish, belongs to the finest efforts of chess genius in modern match play."
Philcha (talk) 19:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Fine (The World's Great Chess Games) says "By 1871 Steinitz' enemies in London ... imported at foreign player, Zukertort, to dethrone him." All the material I've found recently about the politics of chess during Steinitz' reign is about the 1880s. Does anyone know of any material that would support or refute Fine's statement? Philcha (talk) 00:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Which is correct as a possessive:  Steinitz' or Steinitz's ?  This article has it both ways.
Daniel Freeman (talk) 02:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I would think Steinitz'. Thanks, I'll check the article. Philcha (talk) 04:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I think it would be "Steinitz's".  Bubba73 (talk), 05:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Do we have a dialect issue? I was educated in Scotland. Philcha (talk) 07:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps.  I asked a language expert, and he said "'s", but he supposes that some people would write it without the "s".  Bubba73 (talk), 14:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
As with Hispanic names, I'd have thought the ending without the 's' would have been correct. In either case, consistency of orthography counts for something too. Hushpuckena (talk) 23:21, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I commented out as unsourced an alleged quote from Petrosian: "The significance of Steinitz's teaching is that he showed that in principle chess has a strictly defined, logical nature." Can we find a good ref for this? 3 of the 4 that Google returns are Wikipedia clones. Philcha (talk) 10:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The text currently says this: Lasker won convincingly (5 wins, 10 losses, 4 draws). I'm trying to figure out whether the results in parenthesis are from Steinitz' viewpoint, or if it's just a mistake or something... maybe it should be clarified if anybody knows.
Seigneur101 (talk) 02:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is from Steinitz' viewpoint.  Bubba73 (talk), 04:22, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Re-phrased - hope it's an improvement. -- Philcha (talk) 08:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The image File:AdolphAnderssen.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --07:30, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Done - stupid dogFURbot! --Philcha (talk) 08:29, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

This discussion says the Landberger's bio of Steinitz (p 66) says:
"When Steinitz defeated Anderssen he announced that he was the World Champion. Nobody objected to his claim, especially since Steinitz was always willing and never hesitant in defending his title."
. . . . .
"In Williams Winter's analysis of Staunton, Anderssen Morphy and Steinitz as World Champions of the 19th century he explains that of these, [Just on what he said about Steinitz] Steinitz after his victory over Anderssen was the first to claim himself World Champion, and his right to the title was *:::generally recognized by the chess world."
However the rest of that discussion is sceptical. It seems L relied in Winter's Kings of Chess, which the participants did not regard highly --Philcha (talk) 08:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

"Chess is a scientific game and its literature ought to be placed on the basis of the strictest truthfulness, which is the foundation of all scientific research." — W. Steinitz. SunCreator (talk) 23:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Nice! Can you provide a ref? --Philcha (talk) 01:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
The International Chess Magazine‎ by William Steinitz - 1891. Page 117 SunCreator (talk) 03:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Was there only 1 issue for the whole of 1891? Or was this an end-of-year compendium edition? --Philcha (talk) 07:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

This edit added "It's common knowledge that immediately after the last game, Steinitz shook Lasker's hand, then invited the spectators to salute the new World Champion with three Hurras" (after 1894 match), but without a citation. I'm about to remove it. I'll reinstate it if anyone can provide a good source. --Philcha (talk) 04:15, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The article says "Some contemporaries and later writers described him as world champion since 1866, when he won a match against Adolf Anderssen, while other contemporaries considered him champion when he beat Zukertort in 1871."  It needs to name some of those people and give a reference.  Bubba73 (Who's attacking me now?), 04:20, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Rather a long list on both sides, IMO too long for the main text - see ref 37, beginning "Dating the start of Steinitz' reign to 1886" --Philcha (talk) 04:34, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
But Golombek's encyclopedia, for instance, list him as W.C. starting in 1866, but it also states that 1886 was the first match designated as a world championship and it doesn't say anything about his contemporaries considering him to be the W.C. as early as 1866.  I think it needs one specific source that says that.  Bubba73 (Who's attacking me now?), 05:09, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
There's not neat and tidy definition, and any attempt to make it neat would distort the evidence - the murky beginnings appeared in the early 1840s. --Philcha (talk)
I know that, but "some contemporaries" is still weasel wording.  Bubba73 (Who's attacking me now?), 05:58, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Not weasel wording, as the reference gives all the details - but it's better not burden the main text with all this detail. --Philcha (talk) 09:26, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi everybody,
I noticed SyG deleted my addition concerning the fact that some of the ideas of Steinitz, in embryonic form, were formulated in the Traité des Amateurs by some contemporaries of Philidor in 1775. I am referring to the concept that at the beginning of the game the forces stand in equilibrium; correct play on both sides maintains this equilibrium and leads to a drawn game, therefore a player can win only as a consequence of an error made by the opponent. From this prospective, there is no such a thing as a winning move and even the most skilled master can do nothing against these natural laws of the game. You can find this in different points of the "Traite des amateurs". I added this because it is not known and quite surprising. Philidor, for instance, had a different opinion since he tought that with correct play white should win.
My addition was deleted on the basis that it was not referenced. That is perferctly fine, of course, I am not here to criticize SyG's opinion. I just want to understand how to make a better contribution. Thus, just for my understanding, I tought my contribution was referenced enough since I quoted the reference to the Traite des amateurs with the link to google books where you can go and read what I was talking about. Did somebody read it? Is that not enough as a reference? What do you think should be a better way to referenciate it? I thought that to add in the references exactly the book where this was formulated was the best reference you can have. Initially I wanted to quote directly the introductive section of Chapter IV, which is one point of the Traite where this is explained

"The combinations being endless, it is clear that the winning or losing of the game, between players equal in point of skill, must depend on the first bad, or what amounts to the same thing, the first lost move on either side; we cannot, therefore, avoid protesting against the erroneous doctrine laid down by Philidor and others, that he who has the first move, ought to win the game in consequence of that advantage. We proceed to prove, from the very games adduced by Phihdor in support of his position, these three important points. Firstly, that the move alone can never be considered a sufficient advantage to insure success : Secondly, that he who has not the move, will very soon acquire it, or neutralize its effects; and, Lastly, that supposing each move to be the best that could possibly be played, the game ought to be drawn."

which is interesting considering that it was written one century before Steinitz. But then I tought it was too much since this is the article about Steinitz not about the Traite. Moreover, there was the link to the Traite page where everything is explained. What do you think?

Sersunzo (talk) 04:20, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, the quote is interesting, but seems to be about First-move advantage in chess rather than than Steinitz's view (Steinitz on Paulsen; Lasker's "In the beginning of the game ...") that attacks are futile unless one has gained a positional advantage first. The first part from the Traite, "The combinations being endless, it is clear  that the winning or losing of the game, between players equal in point  of skill, must depend on the first bad, or what amounts to the same  thing, the first lost move on either side", appears to assume what it tries to prove, that Black can draw - Black's first bad might be getting the Black pieces. --Philcha (talk) 06:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I see your point and indeed you are right; this particular quote was mainly focused on replying to Philidor. I see some connections, tough, because it implies the concet of natural equilibrium of forces. The equilibrium can only be altered by bad moves they say. They of course focus on the first bad move, because they have in mind the starting position, but Steinitz law would be a natural extention of their reasoning. If you think at the romantic era, where the focus was on good moves that a genius could create out of noting, the amateurs are anticipating Steinitz. Of course, this is not automatic or completely clear in the Traite (otherwise we would say today amateurs' laws instead of Stainit's laws). This is why I added "in embryonic form". I don not want to add anything to the article if is not shared, but to me simple sentence like:
"Some ideas of Steinitz, altough in embryonic form, can be found in the Traite des amateurs" would be not out of place.
Thanks for your attention
Sersunzo (talk) 13:24, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately there's not evidence for "Some ideas of Steinitz, altough in embryonic form, can be found in the  Traite des amateurs". OTOH Steinitz (cited) explicitly said Paulsen's ideas got S thinking. --Philcha (talk) 14:58, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, never mind. I do not want to insist. Just for sake of clarity, however. I was not saying that the Traite des amateurs influenced Steinitz. He quoted Paulsen and for what we know Steinitz maybe did not even read the Traite. I was just saying that in the Traite you can find some ideas that remind what Steinitz said one century later, which is not obvious and, in fact, the romantic school had a different view. Although I can see how this alone could be not enough for including it in this page of wikipedia. Thanks for the discussion anyway.
Sersunzo (talk) 15:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the wikipedia standard is for "Czech" versus "Austrian" or "Bohemian" in this situation, but I don't think any serious source would include the "American", even though he did live there for quite some time at the end of his life. Also, the phrasing was "an Czech-American chess player" which suggests whoever changed it is less than meticulous. So I changed it. 83.70.226.235 (talk) 12:24, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

It's mess, as one would expect with a multi-national empire.
The best compromise I see now is:
Although S grew up in Prague (then "capital" of Bohemia, now capital of Czech Republic), his chess achievements started in Vienna and almost of S's chess career was as an Austrian , so "Austrian" is the most accurate short description for most of S' career and "Bohemia" and/or "Czech" is unimportant.
S spent his last 12 years as a US citizen, which is a significant time and includes: the 2nd half of the project to drawing up regulations for the future conduct of world championship contests; how the new generation of masters accepted S's approach to play. So I've added this period to the lead and infobox.
What do you think? --Philcha (talk) 14:41, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
His birthplace and jewish childhood in the Czech city of Prague is by no means unimportant.
That his chess achievements started in Vienna is unimportant. His chess career was as a Czech player representing Austria/Hungary.
Austria is not always the most accurate description for a person coming from a multi-national empire. --Posp68 (talk) 14:07, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Before your contribution, the last contribution to this discussion was in 2010, so it may well be that the article treats Steinitz's nationality differently now from the way it did then.
There is some discussion of this in MOS:BIO, but it can indeed be tricky to determine the right way to describe a person's nationality in the face of shifting national boundaries and the subject's own migration.  Wikipedia is more or less tied to its "reliable sources"; that is, we editors are supposed to avoid as much as possible making our own judgments about nationality, but to rely as much as possible on the judgments made in the sources we cite, such as, for example, the Landsberger biography of Steinitz.  Bruce leverett (talk) 04:17, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Does anyone know what this means. 'From the 1870s onwards, commentators have debated whether Steinitz was effectively the champion earlier'The Gaon (talk) 08:26, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

That's in the lead, which is a summary. The details are at Wilhelm_Steinitz#The_beginning_of_Steinitz.27s_reign and the linked "main article". --Philcha (talk) 11:29, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

How about replacing the main image with this one?  It appears that the one that is used is a drawing based on this photo.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 15:56, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I've never heard of this guy. Is Bill Hartston (The well known English chess author) intended?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.58.72 (talk) 18:38, 24 February 2013 (UTC) 

It might be William Hartston, but I don't know.  Notice the different spelling of the last name.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 19:24, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Wilhelm Steinitz. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081026085730/http://www.endgame.nl/bad1870.htm to http://www.endgame.nl/bad1870.htm
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081216145316/http://www.endgame.nl/wien.htm to http://www.endgame.nl/wien.htm
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080619023938/http://www.endgame.nl/newyork.htm to http://www.endgame.nl/newyork.htm
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080619170844/http://www.endgame.nl/wfairs.htm to http://www.endgame.nl/wfairs.htm
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070926221345/http://www3.sympatico.ca/g.giffen/19thcent.htm to http://www3.sympatico.ca/g.giffen/19thcent.htm
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060527101733/http://www.souvenirworldja.com/chessworld/playbetter/Technical_Articles/worldchamps/steinitz/william_steinitz_1836.htm to http://www.souvenirworldja.com/chessworld/playbetter/Technical_Articles/worldchamps/steinitz/william_steinitz_1836.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:32, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Steinitz won every serious match he played from 1862 until 1892, sometimes by wide margins. What does serious match means??? This needs further elaboration in the article. I known some matches that he lost in that period. Was he playing drunk, on drugs, was he losing on purpose...? 213.149.62.70 (talk) 01:03, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

There is a table of his match results in the article.  It shows that during that period, he lost an informal series of games with Anderssen in 1862, and tied a playoff match with Winawer in 1882.  So your objection is well taken.  That sentence doesn't add much, and is not well sourced; if you want to just delete it, I wouldn't object.  Bruce leverett (talk) 03:28, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Good catch 213.149.62.70, and thanks for the last sentence—it made me laugh. Quale (talk) 21:28, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Per Edward Winter, C.N. 9200 (reporting a communication by Thomas Niessen), it appears that Steinitz' birth name was actually Wolf Steinitz. This is in the Russian Wikipedia version of this article, but not in ours. Double sharp (talk) 05:11, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

@Smasongarrison: You have recently moved Wilhelm Steinitz from category 19th-century chess players to category 19th-century American chess players.  But he started his chess career playing under the flags of Bohemia/Austria, then lived in, and played for, Britain for a while, before moving to, and playing for, the United States. Bruce leverett (talk) 01:54, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

I don't know what your proposing here. He was an 19th-century American chess player, so he does belong in that category, as well as Austrian chessplayers and  chess players from Bohemia. SMasonGarrison 02:12, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
If you want to add him to more categories that are also defining, great! I added some more of the missing categories. SMasonGarrison 02:17, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
I wondered if a category like "19th-century American chess players" should be non-diffusing, because of people like Steinitz who change nationality in mid-career.  In the chess community, almost everyone has heard of Steinitz, but many people do not know that he became American while he was world champion.  So people might look for him in "19th-century chess players", and, not finding him there, and not finding a parallel category for 19th-century Austrian or Bohemian players, might be confused.
Thanks for adding some missing categories.  I was reluctant to do this myself, having participated in CfD discussions, and knowing that my lack of background in categories would make mistakes more likely. Bruce leverett (talk) 04:16, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
I agree with you that its definitely a problem. But, I think it would be easier to create a parallel category instead of putting everyone into the 19th-century chess players category (that would be like 100+ people with American and Germany alone).  SMasonGarrison 21:02, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

@Fakescientist8000: "commonly known as Wilhelm" is dubious. His biographer, Landsberger, used "William", as did the previous biographer, Devidé. The first sentence of the article, which is supposed to jump right into the most notable thing(s) about the subject, must not instead argue about what is the correct choice of first name to use. Bruce leverett (talk) 22:28, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

One of the books used as a source says he was 9th FergusArgyll (talk) 00:21, 7 November 2025 (UTC)