The first chess champion. Chess player Wilhelm Steinitz - biography, career, achievements Steinitz biography

Wilhelm Steinitz (1836-1900) is a renowned American and Australian chess player who has managed to prove himself in quality. It was he who first created the doctrine of positional play.

Childhood and youth

The future chess player, who was given the name Wolf at birth, was born on May 14, 1836 in the city of Prague. He was the youngest, thirteenth child of a large Jewish family. Unfortunately, there was a lack of money in the family. However, the parents tried to ensure that their son had the opportunity to graduate well from school and go to higher education, especially since the young Wolf had a mathematical ability.

Steinitz met chess at the age of 12, watching his father play.

At 22, the future chess player moved to Vienna to start studying to be a journalist. But everything turned out differently - Steinitz was studying mathematics at the Vienna Polytechnic School.

At this time he lived with a poor tailor's family. There was no financial opportunity to buy chess, so Wolf made them himself, by cutting out figures from cardboard and signing their names.

Career and success

To earn his living, he began attending the Partridge chess club, where Steinitz gambled. Wolf, 23, could beat any club member almost blindly. Later, the young man leaves his studies and starts working as a reporter.

During the same time period, Steinitz took part in chess tournaments held by the Vienna Chess Society. The chess player went to success consistently: in 1859 he managed to take 3rd place, in 1860 - 2nd, and in 1961 - already the first.

Subsequently, Steinitz moved to London, where he took part on behalf of Austria in such a competition as the International Chess Tournament, in which he took 6th place. He receives the title of maestro.

Remaining to live in Great Britain, Steinitz gets the opportunity to hold a series of meetings with such chess players as S. Dubois, D. Blackburn, F. Deacon, W. Green. As a result of these fights, the chess player gains his victories.

After that, Steinitz wins in tournaments held in cities such as Dublin (1865) and London (1866).
In 1866, the chess player played with the strongest player at that time, Adolf Andersen. As a result, Steinitz managed to win with a score (+ 8-6). After that, the talented chess player beat G. Byrd (1866) and D. Blackburn (1870). And Steinitz began to be considered the strongest chess player in Great Britain at that time.

However, in tournaments he had setbacks - in 1867 in Paris the chess player took 3rd place, and in Baden-Baden - 2nd. Only in 1871-1872 he managed to win the championship in London tournaments. In 1872, Steinitz took 1-2 place in the Vienna tournament, after which he won a micromatch with Blackburn.

Other rules

In the same year, he began to actively manage the chess department of the sports magazine "Field". There Steinitz promoted his own method of playing and was looking for fundamental chess laws. The chess player devoted about 3 years to this activity, while he did not take part in tournaments at that time, but came to them as a correspondent. He observed the course of games in tournaments in 1878 in Prague, in 1880 in Wiesbaden and in 1881 at the congress of the German Chess Union in Berlin. The games of greatest interest were published in Field, but Steinitz criticized them because the winners were based on the rules of the combinational school. Mostly, the performance of Zukertort and Blackburn was criticized.

Steinitz resumed his chess career in 1876 against Blackburn. He managed to beat the opponent 7 times. Now no one at that time had any doubts that it was Steinitz who was the strongest chess player in the world.

In 1882, the renowned chess player was fired from the publication. In this regard, Steinitz decides to leave for New York with his family. It was there that he started publishing his own magazine called "International Chess Magazine", while he worked on the creation of the theory of positional play. However, this magazine was destined to close in 1892 due to lack of funds.

In 1886, the first match took place, which would determine who is the world champion. Steinitz believed that it was sacrilegious to play a match during the life of a genius. In addition, his desire was to have a duel with Johann Zukertort - it was he who beat him in the London tournament in 1883 and was able to take his place on the editorial board of "Field".

The preparatory stage lasted 2 years, the negotiations were not easy, since Zukertort did not think that it was necessary to prove once again that he was the strongest. And Steinz set out to show the advantage of the positional method that he developed.

According to the rules of the meeting, the start of the match should be in London, where the competition is held up to 4 victories, and later - in St. Louis up to 3. The end of the match was held in New Orleans, the birthplace of Paul Murphy. It was planned to recognize the champion who can win 10 victories. If the score was 9: 9, then the identification of the winner would not have taken place. But as a result, Steinitz still managed to win 10 victories, and the score of the match was 12.5: 7.5.

Subsequently, Steinitz managed to defend the champion title in 2 matches with Mikhail Chigorin, which took place in Havana in 1889 and 1892, and in a meeting with I. Gunsberg in 1891 in New York.

It should be said about Wilhelm Steinitz that he was the person who laid the foundations and postulates of the chess game that we see now. He became the first world chess champion in history.

After analyzing the games that belonged to his contemporaries and predecessors, Steinitz came to the conclusion that combinational attacks succeeded with imperfect defense. Instead of looking for tactical moves, the renowned chess player recommended using a strategy related to position evaluation.

Career decline

In 1894 he had to give up his title to E. Lasker, as Steinitz lost with a score (+ 5-10 = 4). However, even after this failure, the renowned chess player will continue to take part in tournaments. He managed to win the New York competition in 1895, to take 2nd place in the tournament in St. Petersburg in 1896.

Later, Steinitz had more modest results - in Nuremberg in the same year he took 6th place, in 1898 in Cologne - 5th, and in London in 1899 - generally 10-11th. And he was completely defeated in the match with Lasker in Moscow in 1897 with a score (+ 2-10).

Life is like a struggle

Steinitz, as a person, was quite complex - he was distinguished by honesty, stubbornness and love of moralizing. In the future, he was tormented by increased nervous excitability.

After the match with Lasker in 1897, Steinitz had a severe seizure, after which he was sent to a psychiatric hospital in Moscow. He felt a little better, but after Steinitz returned to New York, the disease began to progress, and the chess player began to suffer from delusional ideas, so he again ended up in a psychiatric hospital.

In addition, Steinitz felt the influence of anti-Semitism, as he was of Jewish origin. For example, in 1891 Jewish chess players were expelled from the St. Petersburg chess collection.

Shortly before his own death, the chess player wrote a pamphlet, subsequently published, which was directed against anti-Semitism.

Chess Quotes

“I am not a chess historian, I myself am a piece of chess history that no one will pass by.”

"Victory in a disproportionate combination, however effective, fills me with artistic horror."

"Chess is intellectual gymnastics."

"Criticism is viewed by many as an enemy, not a vehicle of truth."

Video about the life of a chess player

Biography

Wolf Steinitz (he later adopted the name Wilhelm) was born in 1836 in Prague, in the ghetto, he was the thirteenth child of the poor Jewish tailor Joseph-Salomon Steinitz (1789-1868) and Anna Steinitz, nee Torsheva (1804-1845) (all in the family there were 7 boys and 6 girls). He got acquainted with chess at the age of 12, became interested in the game, and quickly showed a noticeable talent for chess. At school, he was also noted for his ability in mathematics. He moved to Vienna, intending to become a journalist. He also began studying mathematics at the Vienna Polytechnic, but had to drop out due to lack of funds and health reasons. At the same time, he became a regular at the Kuropatka cafe, where Vienna's amateur chess players gathered and played. Steinitz worked part-time in a cafe by playing chess on a bet, gradually turning into a professional.

He started his performances in competitions in the tournaments of the Vienna Chess Society: - 3rd place, - 2nd place, - 1st place. Represented Austria at the 2nd International Tournament in London - 1862, where he won the 6th prize. At the end of the tournament, Steinitz won the match against S. Dubois. In the same year he settled in England. He won matches between the English chess players J. Blackburn, F. Deacon and Mongredien, and in 1864 he defeated V. Green. He excelled at tournaments in Dublin (1865) and London (). At that time, Steinitz was characterized by a combinational game, but in some games a fundamentally new approach had already appeared - a strategic approach to the conduct of chess.

Steinitz's successes made it possible to organize his match () with A. Andersen, who was considered the strongest chess player of that time, which ended with Steinitz's victory. The match with G. Byrd () and especially with Blackburn () confirmed Steinitz's reputation as the strongest match chess player. However, he did not manage to take the first prize in major tournaments for a long time: 3rd international tournament (Paris,) - third place, Dundee () - second place, Baden-Baden () - second place. Steinitz achieved a new success only in -: he won two London tournaments, then defeated I. Zukertort, his future rival in the struggle for world championship, in a match. At the big international tournament in Vienna () Steinitz tied for 1-2 place with Blackburn, and then defeated him in a micro match for the first prize. The success in Vienna was not only a major sporting victory for Steinitz, but, in fact, a triumph of new ideas.

At the same time, during short visits, meetings, when chess issues were not touched upon, Steinitz could be a very pleasant companion, cheerful and witty, a connoisseur of anecdotes and poetry (he never learned poetry, since he memorized one or two readings). He loved music, giving preference to Wagner.

In 1865, when he was 29 years old, Steinitz married 18-year-old Caroline Golder from Great Britain (born November 22, 1847). In 1866 their daughter Flora was born. In 1888, at the age of 21, Flora died; Steinitz was very upset about the death of his only daughter, and 4 years later, on May 27, 1892, at the age of 45, Carolina, who had lived with him for 27 years, also died of hepatitis. Steinitz spent the last eight years of his life alone.

Steinitz came to the conclusion that many combination attacks of the past were successful only because of the imperfect defense. His strategy is based on assessing the nature of the position. He established that the real value of the pieces, their maneuverability depend on the pawn skeleton of the position, strong and weak squares, and on this basis he gave assessments of the position and made plans for further play. The starting point of Steinitz's teachings is the theory of equilibrium: with correct play, one equilibrium position is replaced by another, but as a result of inevitable mistakes, the equilibrium is disturbed, which allows one of the partners to seize the initiative. The owner of the initiative is obliged to actively develop it, otherwise it will go to the enemy. If the balance of the position is violated in favor of the opponent, the attack is contraindicated. The main principle of Steinitz's defense is economy of strength; defending, one should only make such concessions that are absolutely necessary and, if possible, avoid weakening the pawn position. If the position is devoid of weaknesses, it is easier to defend than to attack. Thus, the course of action is dictated by the very nature of the position.

Steinitz's contribution to the opening theory is evidenced by the variations and entire systems named after him: the Steinitz Defense in the Spanish game, the Steinitz variations in the French Defense and Queen's Gambit, in the Vienna game, and numerous continuation developed by him in the Italian, Scottish, Russian games, and the Royal Gambit. and Evans, defending two knights. Steinitz is the author of the gambit named after him.

Steinitz's doctrine, which signified a fundamentally new approach to chess, had its origins: for the theory of strong and weak squares - Philidor's pawn game, for the idea of ​​a figured outpost in front of an isolated pawn (using a strong square) - the views of L. Labourdonna. To lay the foundations for the strategy of closed positions, it was necessary to master the method of playing P. Morphy in open positions. Of Steinitz's rivals, the greatest influence on the formation of his views was exerted by L. Paulsen, whom Steinitz called "one of the pioneers of the modern school."

Of course, Steinitz's teaching is not ideal; from the standpoint of modern chess theory, a lot of contradictory and simply erroneous can be noted in it. For example, his assertion that the king should be actively used in the game all over the board, and not “hidden” in a safe place, looks very controversial: “We consider it an established fact that the king should be looked at as a strong piece and for defense, and for the attack. " In general, in the conditions of the use of energetic tactical means of struggle for the initiative, many positions have now begun to be assessed differently than Steinitz did. However, the basic tenets of Steinitz's teachings have stood the test of time; supplemented by new ideas, it continues to be the foundation of chess strategy.

It should be noted that Steinitz's carried away and stubborn nature often led him to failures in research: sometimes he undertook to defend openly bad or rejected by the pre-existing theory options that seemed attractive to him. At the same time, Steinitz did not limit himself to theoretical research, he brought these variations into practical games of the most important tournaments and matches and repeated them in various variations, despite even obvious failures. Sometimes this led to the birth of a really high-quality system, sometimes the experiments stopped only after many defeats, when Steinitz was finally convinced of the uselessness of the version.

Matches matched Steinitz's character and his views on chess better than tournaments, which was especially evident in his chess successes: he won 28 matches against the strongest chess players in the world, which is still a record, while at the same time he was the absolute winner of a major tournament only once - in 1873 in Vienna (and even there he shared 1-2 places with Blackburn, and then defeated Blackburn in a micromatch), or received second or third or even more modest places.

At the beginning of any competition, Steinitz first "accelerated", often losing a few points, and only then got into shape, while failures at the initial stage, it seemed, did not touch him at all. Exceptional endurance (just fantastic - if we take into account poor health) allowed him to carry out even very long series at a consistently high level (once he won 16 games in a row), and in the final stage he usually made a dash, gaining points and often just snatching victory out of opponent's hands. According to Znosko-Borovsky, many of Steinitz's match rivals were getting nervous at the finish, and precisely because they, tired and already broken, saw Steinitz in front of them, playing as if all the previous games of the match had never happened.

In addition to professional matches and tournaments, Steinitz played many sessions of simultaneous play, achieving great success here too: he often won all games, although he usually played slowly, taking session games with all seriousness. Steinitz also became famous for his blind game, which was very strong for his time, including against several opponents, but he himself refers to the game of blindness, rather, as entertainment.

Wilhelm Steinitz. Deutsche Schachzeitung, 1862

1.h6-h7 + Kg8-g7 2.h7-h8Q +! Kg7: h8
3.Kre7-f7 Rh1-f1 + 4.Bh4-f6 + Rf1: f6 +
5.Kf7: f6 Kh8-g8 6.g6-g7 Kg8-h7 7.Kf6-f7 with a victory.

World Championship matches

Notes (edit)

Literature

• Levidov M. Yu. Steinitz. Lasker. - M .: Zhurgazob "unity, 1936. - 304 pp. - (The life of wonderful people)."
• Neishtadt Ya.I. The first world champion. Moscow: Physical culture and sport, 1971.288 p. (Outstanding chess players of the world).
• Kasparov G.K. My great predecessors. T. 1. From Steinitz to Alekhine. Moscow, 2003.

Wilhelm Steinitz

Chess is not for faint-hearted people. Chess requires the whole person, completely, and someone who knows how not to hold on slavishly to the past, but independently tries to explore their depths. It is true that I am a difficult, critical person, but how can you not be critical when you so often hear superficial judgments about the provisions, the full depth and meaning of which you see only after careful analysis. How can you not be angry when you see that you slavishly hold on to outdated methods only in order not to get out of your peaceful calm. Yes, chess is difficult, it takes work, and I can only be satisfied with serious thought and earnest research. Only relentless criticism leads to the goal. But the critical-minded person is considered by many to be the enemy, not the one who blazes the path to truth. But no one will turn me off this path. "

This is what the sixty-year-old Steinitz said in a conversation with Bachmann. And there is no doubt that the neat Bachmann recorded precisely these words with particular accuracy. They perfectly characterize Steinitz, but is it only Steinitz? Are they not related to a big person in any branch of the art of thinking? But the fact that these are Steinitz's words, that they are the life slogan of a professional chess player, is the best proof that in chess, this seemingly "entertaining" game, which differs from other games only in its complexity, can be invested will, and noble emotion, and honesty of thinking, and hatred of opportunism, lack of principle, cowardice, mental and volitional lethargy - in a word, the struggle for the elements of a new human culture. And in this sense, chess is on a par with any other branch of science and art. Steinitz raised chess to unprecedented heights with his attitude to chess. This is what Steinitz did for chess.

But Steinitz did no less in chess. This has already been said in the story about his life - how could it be otherwise if his life is inseparable from the life of chess? Summing up, we can say that by deepening the element of art in chess, he gave them at the same time a scientific basis. The so-called theory of openings is the "first book to read" of every qualified chess player, and on every page of this book we come across the same name of Steinitz more than once or twice. And that's not all. After all, the theory of openings was, from Steinitz's point of view, only an integral part of the general concept of the chess game, which he gave, as we have seen, a philosophical meaning. Let the whole of Steinitz's theory be created in the process of practical play, that is, not in the same way as "scientific theories" are created from the point of view of stagnant bourgeois thought. If we draw here an analogy between the struggle of chess pieces and the struggle of social forces, then the most ingenious theory of revolutionary socialism was created in integral interaction with life practice, due to which the priests of bourgeois science once declared it “unscientific”.

Wilhelm Steinitz

The specificity of chess required daily and hourly practical testing of Steinitz's theory and, being a "man of action" in the chess sense of the word, he courageously and passionately threw himself into this test. And in this test, as the outstanding chess theorist Richard Reti says, "he was looking not for quick successes, but for stable, lasting values." I just forgot in these searches that chess is not only an art on a scientific basis, but also a sport. And this forgetfulness was fatally reflected in his personal successes, in the number of units in his tournament and match tables. The venerable Encyclopedia Britannica says in an article on chess: "Steinitz felt that his combinational strength was weakening, and therefore invented a new theory, wanting to retain the title of champion." What, indeed, venerable vulgarity! Back in 1895 at Hastings, the sixty-year-old Steinitz showed what an enormous combinational power he possesses; in the game with Bardeleben, he played a forced 14-move combination on the 21st move, mating the opponent. And this gift of his, which promised him quick, but, from his point of view, cheap successes, he sacrificed to the search for permanent and lasting chess values.

However, Steinitz's appearance cannot be called complete. He was quite a man of his era and his environment, and his fate was determined by the entire character of bourgeois culture, and this was his misfortune.

Chess is a "game of kings"; This definition dates back to the Middle Ages, when the chessboard and pieces were an indispensable part of a knight's castle. In the 19th century, the game of chess was somewhat democratized, but it could not become a truly popular game. Who formed the "chess cadres" of bourgeois Europe and America! A small handful of professionals - participants in tournaments and matches, and a relatively narrow circle of amateurs, chess patrons, representatives of the aristocracy and the bourgeoisie, on whose voluntary donations, in the end, there were professionals. Steinitz was well aware of this, and all his life he hated patrons of art. Wherever he ran from the Viennese banker Epstein, he did not have to run away from him. After all, at the beginning of his journey he had to hear Staunton's haughty words that it was "indecent" to play chess for money, that it "humiliates a noble game." And at the very end of the journey, shortly before his death, he had to hear the protest of one member of the Manhattan Chess Club about the fact that a professional who plays chess for money is a member of the club.

Steinitz was a proud and proud man. And this attitude left a disfiguring imprint on his personality.

Steinitz's contemporaries were constantly amazed at his morbid stubbornness, his stubborn desire to carry out in practical games some of the opening variations he had created, but which turned out to be useless, and his persistent war against the obvious. This character trait influenced the strength of his playing, especially in recent years; it also prevented him from mastering the "Steinitz style" in full measure. Of course, Steinitz always had the beginnings of this trait, but it became aggravated because his psyche was wounded by that fierce struggle for his human dignity, which he had to endure and had to simply fight for existence.

The basic law of bourgeois culture - the law of competition - made itself felt and quite brutally in the field of chess. And here the slogan prevailed: push the falling one! And here - in the field of chess - it would be in vain for the falling one to seek the help of a friendly collective.

And if Steinitz were a member of the creative team, if he felt around him the atmosphere of commonwealth, co-creation, respect for man - how much richer and more joyful his life would be. In such social conditions, there would have been no need for him in the last five years of his life to rush around the world in order to regain his lost title, and this shameful, but real need to look at the same time to earn money for a piece of bread. How much new and valuable he could create in these five years, moving away from the practical game and watching how his teachings are being implemented in life. But he had no one to rely on, both morally and in a purely everyday plan, and he was under the unbearable pressure of bourgeois sports morality and the wolfish laws of the struggle for existence. Is it any wonder that in the end he broke, just as Chigorin broke too!

This chess player, thinker and fighter, Wilhelm Steinitz, was made of magnificent human material. And it will not be aimless to think about what an enormous value would arise from this wonderful material in our conditions of socialist culture, new social morality, freedom and joy of creativity, respect for man.

From the book Portraits in words the author Khodasevich Valentina Mikhailovna

"Wilhelm Tell" By 1932, the Leningrad State Opera and Ballet Theater created a favorable environment for the birth of fundamentally new performances. Director Buchstein is a highly cultured party member, chief conductor V. A. Dranishnikov, head of the musical

From the book of 100 great psychologists the author Yarovitsky Vladislav Alekseevich

WUNDT WILHELM. Wilhelm Wundt was born on August 16, 1832 in Baden. In adolescence, he became interested in medicine and from 1851 to 1856 studied medicine at the universities of Heidelberg, Tübingen and Berlin. Since 1858, Wundt published articles "Reports on the theory of sensory cognition." V

From the book Catastrophe on the Volga author Adam Wilhelm

DILTHEI WILHELM. Wilhelm Dilthey was born on November 19, 1833 in the city of Biberich (Germany) in the family of a priest. From early childhood, his parents prepared him for the dignity of a Protestant pastor. After graduating from the local school in 1852, Dilthey enters Heidelberg.

From the book Beautiful features the author Pugacheva Claudia Vasilievna

RAICH WILHELM. Wilhelm Reich was born on March 24, 1897 in Galicia, which at that time was part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. His father was a small farmer and, despite his Jewish origin, a staunch Nazi. The family spoke only German, and the little

From the book Thoughts and Memories. Volume II the author von Bismarck Otto

From the book Letters author Hesse Hermann

Wilhelm Tell - Girls, the main thing is to remember in what year Wilhelm Tell was written! - In 1804, and remember that this was his last completed play, since he died in 1805, - Shura replied. after all, he wrote "Demetrius" about the Russian impostor even after? - Listen, I

From the book Personal Assistants to the Head the author Babaev Maarif Arzulla

From the book of Steinitz. Lasker the author Levidov Mikhail Yulievich

Salome Wilhelm [August 1947] Dear Madam Me, Thank you for your lovely letter about locusts. What worries you about China is quite clear to me. Since communism, nationalism and militarism became brothers, the East has temporarily lost its charm. I have nothing new. Coming soon

From the book Memoirs of Paulus Adjutant author Adam Wilhelm

Salome Wilhelm Montagnola, 01/11/1948 Dear, dear Madam Wilhelm, Your lovely December letter makes me literally unhappy. You obviously have not received or have not yet received two of my letters, where I hinted to you about my position and explained why I could not read

From the book "Rot Front!" Thälmann the author Minutko Igor Alexandrovich

Keitel Wilhelm Assistant to the Fuehrer of Germany Adolf Hitler Keitel Wilhelm was born on 22 September 1882 at the Helmscherode estate in western Braunschweig. Despite his passionate desire to remain the farmer that all his ancestors were, the 650-acre land plot turned out to be

From the author's book

Mikhail Levidov Steinitz. Lasker Foreword The release of the biographies of Wilhelm Steinitz and Emanuel Lasker in the Life of Remarkable People series may be puzzling. Alongside poets, thinkers, philosophers, major politicians and geniuses - along with geniuses

From the author's book

Wilhelm Steinitz is a dogmatist On this I stand - and I cannot do otherwise. Martin Luther Thought that does not become action is miscarriage or betrayal. Roman Rolland Time of action: a gloomy, dull February day in 1900 ... Scene of action: a small steamer gliding along the river

From the author's book

Legislator Steinitz Chess literature is rich in numerous works and research, excellent textbooks, which systematically set out, both historically and dogmatically, the main trends in the theory of chess. None of these books

From the author's book

Steinitz defends and makes mistakes ... “Herford Chess Club - Wilhelm Steinitz The Herford Chess Club congratulates Mr. Steinitz on his decisive victory over Mr. Zukertort. This triumph is all the more significant since Mr.

From the author's book

Wilhelm Pieck Once - this was in June 1943 - Colonel Novikov informed me through an interpreter that a German wanted to visit the Field Marshal. As soon as I had time to warn Paulus about this, the head of the camp and the translator had already climbed the stairs to our room. With them was

From the author's book

WILHELM TELL When Ernst woke up, there was no one in the room. The nighttime neighbors have disappeared. The painted lips and the girl's smoky voice seemed like a dream to him. In the daylight, the shelter looked even more unattractive. By the mud-splattered basement window flashed

Good evening!

(The match between Steinitz (right) and Andersen (London, 1866). The winner of two international tournaments (1851, 1862) was considered the favorite)

Continuing the story about the relatively young Steinitz, I would like to dwell on a period that was something like a transitional one in his chess worldview. Those. to become an apologist for a dry and calculating positional school, from a bright tactic "a la Andersen" - this is definitely not a "two-day decision."

Let me remind you that having taken a worthy, but not a champion's 6th place in the 2nd London International Tournament in 1862, Wilhelm stayed to live in London.

Perhaps this move played an important role in the generation of the future "Steinitz theory". Here's the thing.

Austro-German chess school, dominated mainly by players of the sharply attacking (Old Italian style). The surnames of the best are Falkbeer, Allgayer, Gampe ... these surnames are found exclusively in monographs on the sharpest gambits.

Having moved from Vienna to London, Steinitz discovered a calmer and more orderly play of English chess players ... that is, noticed a completely alternative path to victories, so to speak, without unnecessary "noise effects".

He found it interesting to study the best games played in both styles. Those. set for myself the task of finding my optimal path based on the best of all ... somehow describe it for myself and formulate it.

Moreover, Morphy intrigued him. All the same, he beat Andersen very confidently. At the same time, he played not like the prudent Englishmen, and not like Anderesen ...
This approach to playing Morphy, seemed to him the best. He appreciated that Morphy did not go on the attack at any cost, and did not mind endgames if his POSITIONAL advantage was significant in them.

Another very important point, starting with Steinitz, we can say that the art of defense, and the belief in the possibility of defense, were put on an equal footing with the ability to attack !!!

Analyzing the games of the Morphy - Andersen match, he thought that even though Morphy is a "magician and wizard of chess", he was losing! And this means that it is possible to set conditions under which "wizards" like Andersen or Morphine cannot lose. Just don't lose!

In a word, all this was not in two days, but in the period from 1862 to 1866 (the match against Andersen) - Steinitz was already confident that the chess game was subject to certain laws, and that some signs became decisive in the position.
Such dominant over the rest of the signs allow us to sharply narrow down the consideration of the minor in the party in order to develop the most powerful plan of action.

The match in 1866 against Adolf Andersen was unusually tough and interesting! Out of 14 games, none ended in a draw !!! At the same time, the course of the fight was dramatic and sporting and spectacular.

Interestingly, this was the first match in which the game was played with a time limit!
There was no traditional chess clock yet, but the judge kept track of the norm - 2 hours for 20 moves ...

Here is his brief chronology of this match-by-party match:

1) Andersen started the match with his signature Evans gambit and opened the score 1-0

2) In his return white game, Steinitz played Salvio's no less daring gambit
(1.e4 e5 2.f4 e: f4 3.Kf3 g5 4.Cc4 g4 5.Ke5 Qh4 + 6.Kpf1 Kh6 7.d4), and the score became equal-1: 1

3) It is not known what kind of problems Andersen was experiencing at that moment (maybe the statement before the start of the match that Steinitz would not win a single game was pressuring), but he frankly “floated”. He lost twice in Evans' gambit with white, and once again in Salvio's gambit. The score was by a serious margin for the 30-year-old Steinitz - 4: 1!

3) In the 6th game, Andersen resorted to the Sicilian defense with black and achieved a difficult and protracted victory - 2: 4

4) Apparently on the wave of this success, after this victory, Adolf wins in 3 more games in a row !!! Twice white in Evans and once (finally!) Black in Salvio. And again comes forward! 4: 5! Many fans at that moment considered that Steinitz, as an opponent, was killed psychologically, but here and in subsequent matches the Steinitz factor affected - he played the endings of the matches perfectly!

5) The next two games are won again by Steinitz (in both gambits), and in the 12th game Andersen reapplies the Sicilian Defense and, winning, equalizes the score!
6: 6! The most stubborn struggle in the match up to 8 wins, without taking into account the draws ...

And so the next thirteenth game became a turning point, not only in the match, but possibly in the concept of Steinitz's play in general!

Having lost this game, which was unusual for himself, Andersen was at a loss and after it he lost the 14th game as well. In the thirteenth, he saw a fundamentally different, much stronger opponent than the one with whom he had previously played 12 games here and two at the 1862 tournament ...

Before this game, Steinitz really played like Andersen himself, in this game he not only did not give his opponent a chance for success with black, but also demonstrated an unprecedented rationality and progressiveness in the game.

It is this part of Steinitz's "transitional" that I would like to present to you today!

Andersen - Steinitz
(1866, match / 13 game, London)

Spanish Party.

1.e4 e5 2.Kf3 Kc6 3.Cb5 Kf6 4.d3 d6

Diagram # 1

The last move of black is underlined restraint and a stake in the game on a solid formation, which guarantees the absence of a crisis in the opening.

5.C: c6 ?! b: c6 6.h3

Diagram # 2

Here is an interesting quote from Em. Lasker about Andersen's h3 move:
“White spends his tempo on defending against Cg4 (Andersen wrongly believes that the knight is stronger than the bishop), and, as we will see further, weakens his pawn phalanx. Perhaps the course of this game prompted Steinitz's thoughts, which later formed the basis of the doctrine of the pawn phalanx. "

6… g6 !?
This interesting move and plan, connected with the pawn assault on the kingside that followed in the game, became the prototype of black's method of playing in modern King's Indian or English Opening schemes.

The bishop develops exactly on g7, where a not quite traditional function for bishops is intended for it. I'll tell you a little about it, tk. it really needs to be understood.

Having placed the bishop on g7 in a seemingly closed position, black intends to use it for improved observation of the center, which White will try to open with the move d3-d4, and at the same time that he would replace the pawns and cover the black king ... a real pawn assault on the weakened move h2-h3 is planned castling of white - by advancing the g and f pawns. And on occasion, the third pawn h will also join. Such risky flanking operations are only possible with a very stable and preferably closed center.
The bishop on g7 is called upon to fight against the opening of the center by White.

7.Kc3 Cg7 8.0-0 0-0 9.Cg5?!

Diagram # 3

Again, not the strongest approach to position.

White should not at all "provoke" Black to the move h7-h6, which is useful for the advance of the kingside pawns. Better was 9.Be3

9… h6 10.Ce3 c5

Diagram # 4

Black is interested in a complete freeze of activity in the center. Complete stability. Under these conditions, the pawn assault will take place without risking its own king.

11.Rb1 Ke8
Diagram 5

It cannot be said that Andersen sat idly by in this game and paid for it justly. No. He is preparing the advance of the b-pawn, which is important for obtaining counterplay, in order to open the queenside line and remove the c5-pawn from control over the d4-square.

It's just that Black has a higher chance of success due to a stronger plan. Now Steinitz is preparing to carry out f7-f5 and the pawn offensive on the kingside will begin. Black pieces will follow the pawns ...

The nearest game is being built by the opponents exactly in this vein.

12.b4 c: b4 13.R: b4 c5!
Diagram 6

Note! All moves starting from 6… g7-g6 by Steinitz are inscribed in a single strategic plan. He intends to use the weakening h2-h3 with a pawn assault, for its implementation he is fighting against the most important objection of the opponent - an explosion in the center! Therefore, he does not consider the weakening of the d5-square, it is more important for him to keep the center "locked".

14.La4
The rook's dangerous journey. Much better was - 14.Rb2 f5 15.Kd5 Kf6

14… Bd7 15.Ra3 f5
Diagram 7

"Black's pawn phalanx began to move" (Em. Lasker)

16. Qb1 Kph8 ?!
Diagram # 8

On the one hand, the move is formally correct. Black, moving his king into the corner, insures himself against possible threats to his king along the b1-h7 diagonal, and the g8-square for the rook can also be used in the future.
However, at the moment the winning of the pawn 16… f: e4 17.d: e4 C: h3 looked good

Well, and such a prophylaxis was much stronger - 16 ... Nc7 and it is impossible to attack the a7-pawn with 17.Qb7? because of 17 ... Rb8 18.Q: a7 La8

17. Qb7 a5 18.Rb1 a4
Diagram # 9

Now Andersen could soberly assess - the exchange of queens is a way out of difficulties, but Andersen…. he is Andersen :-)). Instead of offering to exchange queens (19.Qb6), he wanted to “blow a temporary retreat”.
Also, analyzes have shown that the move 19.Nd5 left good prospects for the equation.

19.Qd5 ?! Qc8 20.Rb6 La7
Diagram # 10

With such a side move, the black rook not only escapes from under the d5 attack, which untied the hands of the black queen and bishop (they aimed at the h3 point), but also prepares to transfer to the f7, g7 squares to support the assault column of black pawns from behind.

Now Andersen's prophylaxis on the next move was condemned by commentators, but little was offered in return ... Here is the best possible (suggested by Garry Kasparov)
21.Фс4 !? f4 22.Bd2 - without fearing 22… C: h3 !? 23.g: h3 Q: h3 - after 24.Ne1 f3 25.Kd3 - the great champion does not see more than a draw for black (see diagram no. 11)

Diagram 11 (possible option in a batch)

21.Kph2 ?! f4 22.Bd2 g5 23.Qc4 Qd8 24.Rb1?
Diagram 12

But this is a mistake. Black's attack develops without obstacles. Better was 24.Kd5

24… Kf6 ?!

Now, as Garry Kasparov pointed out, Black should have made only the last preparatory move 24… Kc7! , taking control of the b5-square and White would be helpless against the pawn assault on the kingside.

25.Kpg1 ?! Kh7(defending the g5-pawn to push the pawn to h5 and then g5-g4)
26.Kpf1
Diagram 13

Should have played 26.Kb5 !? Qb8 27.Nc3

26… h5 27.Kg1?
Diagram No. 14

Decisive miss. “After 27.Nb5 La6 28.Kc7 La7 29.Ke6 - nothing fatal for White is visible” (G.Kasparov)

27… g4 28.h: g4 h: g4 29.f3
Diagram 15

It only contributes to White's attack.

29… Qh4 30.Kd1 Kg5
Diagram # 16

As played by Wilhelm Steinitz, we are now witnessing a typical scenario of a successful pawn assault from the position of our own castling:

Pushed pawns allow their pieces to regroup behind the chain, so that the subsequent opening of the lines and diagonals would be fatal for the defender.
White, having less space and physical space for his pieces, perishes.

31.Be1 Qh7 32.d4
Diagram 17

A desperate attempt by a German to knock Steinitz off the beaten track, to create chaos ... does not help.

32… g: f3 33.g: f3 Kh3!?
Diagram no. 18

33… c: d4 led to the goal much easier

34.Cf2 K: g1 35.d: c5 Qh3 + 36.Kpe1
Diagram # 19

It was quite bad instead of 36.Kpe1 was 36.Kp:g1 because of 36… Rg8

36… K: f3 + 37.R: f3 Q: f3
Diagram # 20

Here, without a rook and under attack, one could easily surrender, but discouraged Andersen did this only after 5 moves.

At the time when Morphy and Andersen were sorting out the relationship between themselves in Paris, in the Vienna cafe "Partridge" a twenty-two-year-old student of the Vienna Polytechnic Institute, a native of the city of Prague Wilhelm Steinitz (1836-1900), earned his living by playing chess.

Students did not receive any scholarships at that time. Everyone had to provide for themselves.

He was the thirteenth child in the family, he knew the hopeless need in childhood, poverty in his youth and, if not for the dedication of his loved ones, he could hardly count on something that would ever break out into people.

He saw the first chess in his life in a shop window. The father explained what it was, said that it was a very ancient game and that wise people were playing it.

Wilhelm made his first chess set out of cardboard (there was no money to buy real ones). And he begged his father to teach him.

This is how chess imperiously entered the life of the future world champion. True, only in the years of study did he really get carried away with them: he began to visit the Vienna City Chess Club, to participate in club tournaments. And very soon it became a threat for local amateurs. So, in the club championship in 1861, he scored thirty points out of thirty-one possible!

If at first his victories were met without much enthusiasm, then over time they got used to them and the attitude towards the young master changed.

When the club received an invitation to send the strongest Austrian chess player to the Second International Tournament in London, it was decided to send Steinitz.

Best of the day

Who opposed him in London in 1862? The best chess players in Europe. But Steinitz was not afraid of this. He set himself up only to win. But he was examined by Adolph Andersen, Ludwig Paulsen, Serafino Dubois ,. Johann Leventhal, John Owen, Thomas Barnes, young but promising Joseph Blackburn and others - eleven in all.

Alas, the performance passed without the expected success: only sixth place and the prize for the most beautiful game in the tournament

But he was counting on more!

The win of the match against the fifth prize-winner of the Italian S. Dubois - 5.5: 3.5 - somewhat cheered up.

On reflection, Steinitz made a responsible decision: to leave the institute, settle in London, choosing the path (a very thorny path) of a professional chess player.

The immediate goal is the title of world champion!

It is unlikely that this made his family and friends happy. But the decision has been made and is not subject to appeal.

Over the next year, Steinitz dealt with all the leading English chess players: D. Blackburn - 8: 2, Deacon - 5: 1, A. Mongredien - 7: 0, R. Green - 8: 1, takes first prizes in two club tournaments.

Refuses to match with him I. Leventhal, in no hurry to cross weapons Ludwig Paulsen and the Hungarian master Ignaz Kolis, who recently ended the match in a draw with Paulsen and only one point lost in the match to Andersen.

Since there are no more hunters, the management of the English clubs turns directly to Andersen: does he consider it possible for himself to meet with the new English champion?

Andersen never refused to play and was never afraid of anyone. Of course, he remembered that he had won a good game against Steinitz four years ago. But that was four years ago. During this time, Steinitz gained strength. Well, the more interesting the fight will be.

Andersen comes to London and ... loses with a score - 6: 8.

Now it seems that the main goal has been achieved; Steinitz can be called the strongest chess player in the world. However, can they?

After all, a whole group of talented craftsmen apply for this title. Among them are Andersen's student Johann Zukertort, experienced Ludwig Paulsen and Henry Bird, young Joseph Blackburn - in recent years he has learned a lot ...

Only by defeating each of them could it be proved that he, Steinitz, was the strongest. And Steinitz beats in a tough fight first G. Byrd - 9.5: 7.5, then D. Blackburn - 5.5: 0.5 and I. Zukertort - 9: 3.

But ... performances in international tournaments set up a different mood: Paris, 1867, third place (ahead of I. Kolisch and Polish master S. Vinaver), Dundee, 1867 - second result (ahead of German master G. Neumann), Baden -Baden, 1870-second again (ahead of A. Andersen).

In addition, Andersen loses (after all, he is already over fifty!) The match to Zukertort, and then to Paulsen.

But a lofty goal has been set, and one must go towards it without turning. Steinitz has enough perseverance, he is not going anywhere, but he intends to critically review his game. And not only his own, but also his contemporaries and predecessors too.

And here are some important conclusions he comes to: the combination game, generally recognized thanks to the victories of Morphy and Andersen, does not always guarantee lasting success. Without abandoning combinations, Steinitz puts forward the concept of a justified attack and an attack that is premature, incorrect. Before proceeding to the offensive, it is necessary to achieve a whole, a number of small advantages, then the attack can bring success.

What are these "minor" benefits?

Development advantage. Capture the center. The unfortunate position of the enemy king. Weak fields in the enemy camp. Best pawn location. Ownership of open lines. The advantage of two bishops over two knights or bishop and knight.

Some of these types of advantages are temporary, others (pawn positions, kings, two bishops) are more stable.

Steinitz did not disregard the role of the king in the process of a chess game. In some cases, the king can become a strong figure and, by his active actions, decisively influence the outcome of the game.

Defense is no less formidable weapon than attack, he proclaimed.

This is not to say that Steinitz's conclusions were met with universal approval. But Steinitz was stubborn and believed he was right. Decades passed before others believed it. Today his teaching is an immutable truth.

So, the laws are defined. Now it remains to test them in practice.

Vienna, 1873 - first place; match with D. Blackburn, 1876 - 7: 0; Vein,

1882 - first or second place; London, 1883 - second place (I. Zukertort was the first); duel with American master D. Mackenzie, 1883 - 4: 2; finally, the decisive match with I. Zukertort for the title of world champion, 1886 - 12.5: 7.5.

From that moment on, Steinitz is the world champion. He then defended his title three times: in 1889 and 1892, playing with the champion of Russia Mikhail Chigorin, in 1890 - with the strong English chess player Isidor Gunsberg.

But in 1894 he lost to Emanuel Lasker ...