HISTORICAL CHESS CORRECTIONS & LITTLE KNOWN OR UNKNOWN FACTS by: The CHESS CHAMP Steinitz was not the first champ since 1866 but since 1872. In 1886 Steinitz played a rematch ag. Zukertort. It must be known as it really was, lost in the canals of history... True, Anderssen lost to Steinitz in 1866 but you must remember that at that time Zuky was a little bit stronger... You see I have all those games from that time... And a very interesting thing is that Anderssen won again in the upcoming years and in 1866 Zukertort was stronger for a while but not until 1872 Zukertort was really stronger. In 1866 before he played that match with Steinitz he lost to Anderssen. History needs to be corrected. Just because something is popular and known it does not mean it's correct or if let's say the whole world thinks somebody is that and that or guilty of something based on something that is popular or accepted... That does not mean it's correct. It is possible that the whole world could be wrong and one person, only one person right... Take for example the middle ages or Salem witch trials and all that superstition witch-craft, the majority believed in... Look now how rediculous they are in our modern eyes. In 1921 Lasker defeated Capa big time but keep in mind Lasker resigned his title to him in 1920... however a big money purse was on the table and he agreed to the match... Of course. So Zukertort was also a world champ like Anderssen but Steinitz was 1872-1894. Lasker 1894-1920. Capablanca - 1920 - 1927. I can't believe Rubinstein never had a chance at the title, he was THE MAN. Keres got screwed by the commies... He was also THE MAN. In 1910 Schlechter drew that match with Lasker but I can't believe he agreed to play on such idiotic terms... meaning if he wins by a point Lasker is still the champ... It just goes to show you how much chess did not change over time. The bad chess (individual) politics... We had the same crap in 1993. And as I said it many times in the past... The top GM's have too many demands, they demand too much money and they just dont play for honor anymore. They play for greed and self interest. (Not to mention keeping the title to themselves as long as possible...) The "players" plays only for their own greed and gain. And that's where the beauty of chess disappears. However, there is so much more negative crap in chess I dont know where to start at... It's a shame people like Rubinstein, Pillsubury, Keres and others never had a real chance and a shot at the title. Kortchnois had a fair chance at the title but he was under Soviet pressure. The government was fully behind their 'Russian boy' Karpov. They were better or just as good as the champions in their respective careers at one point of time or another. Bronstein in 1951 should have been named the co-champion with Botvinnik, I can not see any evidence that Botvinnik was better. There can only be one champ and I agree but in some cases they should just share that honor with somebody who deserves it, especially if a match is tied. ( Same with NBA's MVP's ) In other words... for example.... The year 1951... Botvinnik was #1, Bronstein was #1-2. Not first but not second place in the world - as well. ---------------------- KGB Involvement in chess: (from the book: Mitrokhin Archive in Europe & West) It talks about the Karpov-Korchnoi match of 1978 where it says: "The KGB headquarters, Centre, assembled a tem of 18 FCD operations officers to try and ensure Korchnoi's defeat" (unfortunately Mitrokhin did not copy the names down) The book mentions the tactic of Karpov being a pig and not shaking hands with Korchnoi before game 8 and the parapsychologist they placed in audience (dumb asses) were all part of this plan. I think Korchnoi had parapsychologists of his own. Shortly when Russkis invaded Chechoslovakia, GM Pachman was arrested. Pachman made secret radio broadcasts agaisnt the Soviets and a KGB agent called Yuri Linev gained his trust which allowed the commie authorities to arrest Pachman and others involved in the broadcast. Talk about the freedom of speech, actually there is none over here, most likely even some of the stuff I write here are given to some spying bastards. On a similar topic of conquering smaller nations... I understand Chechyan people, they deserve independence, they have been suppressed for way too long. Moral of the story: HAVE A GOOD BACKUP PLAN, DONT GET CAUGHT IN THE FIRST PLACE !!! (You will thank me) ---------------------- More Historical Interesting Facts: Adolf Zytogorski was a Polish player who moved to England seeking politcal asylum in the 1830's . He was a contemporary of Szen, Staunton, Walker, etc. One story has it that the very year Staunton beat Saint-Amant, 1843, Staunton played a 6 game match with Zytogorski giving him P+2 odds. Zytogorski won all six. Staunton stifled the results and they only resurfaced when R.B.Brien replaced Staunton as editor of the Chess Player's Chronicle. (Zytogorski might have been better than Staunton) -Another story says Brien fabricated the rresults and that Staunton had won +2-1. -Zytogorski was also known for his endgamee studies. Prior to Steinitz, whoever might be considered as 'World Champion' was based on public opinion more than on any official means. So, there was no "objective" champion but i'm sure there were one or more "subjective" champions in any period. I would think Staunton was one such subjective champion, as - going backwards- was Bourdonnais, Deschapelles, Philidor, Greco, Paolo Boi, Leonardo de Cutri, Ruy Lopez, maybe Lucena but I don't think he traveled enough for that sobriquet. Whether any of them have a real claim to the title is another story too. But, I dont think Steinitz should be considered the first World Chess Champion. William Lewis managed to beat Deschapelles in 1821 when given odds of "pawn and the move" and then only +1=2. Lewis declined the 21 games match Deschapelles proposed at greater stakes. John Cochrane beat Deschapelles even. But with odds of having to win only a third of the games. In 1825, this same Lewis lost to Bourdonnais when they played 2 short matches (+1-1 and +1-4, Bourdonnais' favor). When London played Edinburgh in their famous correspondence match, Cochrane and Lewis were both on the London team, but Cochrane received an assignment in India and had to leave (with London having the slight avantage in the Scotch gambit). Lewis managed to lose the game and eventualy the match itself. Lewis' contributions to chess were in his writings, his teaching of amateurs, his chess book with George Walker, and most especially for his association with Alexander McDonnell, (a far better player than Lewis but still not equal to Bourdonnais) After Bourdonnais, making a case for Saint-Amant would be difficult at best. The match between Saint-Amant and Staunton never seemed to be a "world championship" in anyone's minds but rather a nationalistic rivalry vying England against France. It's doesn't seem to me that it's a given who was the strongest player in England and in France in 1843. In fact, it's these uncertainties that make chess history so unfulfilling, puzzling, interesting. Howard Staunton is a case in point. During his lifetime he was probably one of the most overstated players due to his own publicity machinations & popularity but at the same time he was historically understated due to the appearance of Morphy. (He did everything in his powers to avoid the long awaited match with Morhman). Early 19th century chess is often hard to decipher. There were no governing chess federations, no set rules & guidelines, the lack of standards and organization, the common practice of playing at odds, the lack of recording games and many other reasons. Some facts are known but even then we don't know if we have all the facts so everything amounts to guesswork in the end. The champion demanded whatever he seened fit and the best to his interest, keeping the title for as long as he wanted. Even to this day nothing much has changed. Kasparov & Karpov in 1993 and now Kramnik. There is no doubt Karpov was the best player in 1994. Linares 1994, 2900 performance. Defending every four, five years. That's unacceptable. Here are some little known facts from around 1843, the time of the two Staunton/Staint-Amant matches: In 1841 Adolf Zytogorski played Staunton. Staunton gave odds of "pawn and 2" and Zytogorski devastated Staunton +6 -0 =1 It is very well possible Zytogorski was a better player. In 1842 John Cochrane decisively beat Saint-Amant +6 -4 =1. In 1843 Staunton played John Cochrane in a series of games at different odds. It is obvious Staunton played at odds because if he lost he could always excuse himself, point out why he lost. Staunton giving "pawn and 1" broke even at +12 =7 -12. Staunton giving "pawn and 1" again, broke even at +3 -3 BUT playing even, Staunton lost -3 +1 =2. So John Cochrane was a better player and a world champion. Therefore the Saint Amant - Staunton 1843 match can not be considered as the Unofficial World Championship, because Cochrane was a better player and therefore Staunton was never a world champion. Only England's champ. In 1843 Lasa played a short match with Buckle winning +2 -1. In 1843 Buckle (who had lost to Lasa) crushing Staunton +6 -0 =1 with Staunton giving odds of "pawn and 1". It is very well possible Buckle was a much better player than Staunton. In 1844 Lasa played Staunton in a series of games and, according to the Oxford Companion to Chess, Lasa won the majority. So that makes Lasa the better player. Then again, while Staunton may or may not have been the best player in the world, which history did not accurately record, in part thanks to Staunton's mechanics and access to major newspapers, where he was able to write his chess columns and praise himself, I think he certainly represented England better than any other English player might have. There were other players of reputation from around the world who were never really tested on par to the English and French. For instance there was Vincent Grimm originally from Budapest but who moved to Syria/Turkey in 1848 and Alexander Petroff from Russia adding to these uncertainties. I do not understand why they were not invited to the 1851 London Tournament ?!? But I strongly doubt either Grimm or Petroff could have defeated Anderssen. They would get close, at best. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Where did chess come from ? Chess Origins In medieval Arabia, any set of chess pieces included al-fil, the elephant. It moved by leaping a short distance of 2 squares along any of its diagonals. As it moved, al-fin could leap over any piece in its path, capturing enemy pieces as it leapt (or trampled?) over them. In Europe al-fil was translated as ‘aufin’, and its original meaning was soon forgotten, if it had ever been known. Each country eventually substituted a name of its own for this piece. In England it became the bishop; in France, 'le fou' (fool); and in Germany, 'Laufer' (runner). These names do not appear to have been derived from al-fin. In Russia, however, the piece is still called 'slon', or elephant. As the name changed, so did its powers. By the end of the 15th century, it no longer captured pieces over which it moved—in fact it no longer moved over pieces at all—and it was no longer limited to moving a distance of two squares. Its powers as we know them today seem to have been borrowed from a piece called the courier, which was used to play a chess-like game also called courier. The modern bishop may perhaps be regarded as a thoroughly European innovation, a hybrid between the now defunct aufin and the now defunct courier. Like the bishop, the knight has gone by different names throughout Europe. Because the Knight has always represented the cavalry, most of its names (though not all of them) have obvious links to the cavalry. Throughout its history, the knight’s moves have remained the same. The name of the rook derives from the Sanskrit ratha, a chariot, through the Persian and Arabic rukh. Europeans mistakenly identified rukh with the Italian rocco, meaning tower. Except for castling, a recent innovation in the history of chess, the powers of the rook appear to have remained unchanged throughout its history. In conclusion, the origins of these pieces have little to do with wandering towers, or the mythical roc, and the notion of a chariot drawn by elephants is just wrong, and would be especially unpleasant, depending on what the elephant had eaten :). Chess is derived from the Indian game chaturanga (Sanskrit--having four limbs), and the traditional Sanskrit makeup of an army included infantry, chariots, elephants, and horseback riders. See more interesting links: Geocities.com/chesschampby2k/Chesname.txt Players' Chess Names Geocities.com/chesschampby2k/Chessmix.txt Chess (computers too) Injustice If I had to make a definitive statement, I would say that Anderssen is the most rational choice to have claim to being the WC through the 1860s. I mentioned Lasa because his results demonstrate what a shakey thing the idea of WC is. The strongest player isn't always the WC. One could argue that Kasparov is stronger than Kramnik. There have been very few WC who had shown complete dominance over his competition. Morphy and perhaps Botvinnik. I would add Capablanca if he hadn't have been so drawish and Alekhine if he had had the courage to play Capablanca in a rematch (showing that he himself perhaps wasn't so confident of his ability). Fischer could have been there, but he self-destructed. Going backwards from Morphy, Deschapelles, the player everyone tends to overlook, may have been the greatest gamesman ever. People who try to compare Morphy to Fischer or Kasparov fail to see they are comparing apples to oranges. These players must each be evaluated and appreciated within their environments and within their respective eras. In considering WC, one must also consider other things. Was it by consensus, as were most "unofficial" champions (btw, Lawsen made several convincing arguments why Morphy should be considered the first "official" champion), was it by tournament play, was it by match play and if so, how was the challenger selected? Many players, such as Blackburn, had poor match results but slendid tournament results while others excelled in match play. So, anyway, my point is that the title "world champion" doesn't necessarily mean what it purports to mean and by placing too much emphasis on this one little gem of a title, one might overlook some diamonds lying in the rough. Giving the Lowly Draw its Due ? You won't find many drawn games on lists of the greatest games of all time. You won't find many great players boasting about (or lamenting overmuch) their past draws. I don't believe a brilliancy prize has ever been awarded to a drawn game (though if this has occasionally been done, these are probably the rare exceptions that prove the rule). But I find that I learn about as much from studying well-played drawn games as I do from studying games with a victor. If we were to compile a list of games that contain the fewest errors in Chess history, a disproportionate number of those games would almost certainly be draws. And a great many games played by the strongest players at their very peak on their best days are drawn games. To be sure, some drawn games are plodding and dull (as are some won games), some are played by overcautious GM's who just want to get back to their hotel rooms, and some seem to deliberately shun inventiveness. But there are also examples of brilliant Chessplaying artistry among drawn games. There are stunning errors and brilliant recoveries from them. There is often excitement, genius, daring and even beauty. There is a mindset that one rarely finds among Chessplayers that one sometimes finds among players of the ancient game Go. It is almost a forgetfullness of the competition, a loss of the sense of contest, a quiet, Zen-fascination with the patterns that weave themselves on the Go board, that intertwine as the roots of trees intertwine. Go just happens, to these people. Both players are spectators, though they are participants, too. And when in this attitude, there's an admiration for beautifully played draw as much as for any game.