lichess.org

Two positional masterpieces by Steinitz. Including punishing a bad bishop in french.

Steinitz and also Lasker thought that the Berlin 3...Nf6 or 3...d6 developing is stronger than 3...a6 losing a tempo and also that in the French 4 e5 is stronger than 4 Bg5. He considered Bg5 to be nearly always wrong.
Steinitz had some more interesting ideas. He accepted all gambits and he did so against fierce attacking players like Anderssen, Zukertort, Chigorin. In the Scotch as black he went for 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 d4 exd4 4 Nxd4 Qh4 which wins a pawn by force, but leads to a strong white attack. Steinitz also believed in the power of the king and was not afraid to be deprived of castling and end up with his king on e2: 1 e4 e5 2 Nc3 Nc6 3 f4 exf4 4 d4 Qh4+ 5 Ke2

Wasnt it Steinitz who has infamously said: "Best way to refute a gambit is to accept it!" ?

I did not know his approach to Scotch, thank you for the info. But ive heard of Steinitz Gambit.

Here is an example of King power :)

lichess.org/study/50fv2T4h/5KGdJw6S#15

@Tasshaq i thought it was fischer when he refuted the kings gambit. Steinitz i thought was against accepting sacrifices recklessl.

@Tasshaq you stumled on something great. If you look at barrypopik, soe stributed to him, but there are not contemporary citations. He invented the unromantic way, whywould he say that?

Its like having a time machine and traveling to the first agadmator.

#3
Yes, it was Steinitz who taught to accept gambits to refute them. Steinitz took all pawns he could get as black in the Evans Gambit, as white in the Two Knights, and as black in the Scotch. Capablanca and Fischer later adopted this. Like Capablanca refuting the very first Marshall attack - he felt honour bound to accept the pawn" and Fischer publishing his refutation of the King's Gambit. Fischer even went further accepting gambits of a wing pawn, like the Najdorf Poisoned Pawn Qb6-Qxb2. This whole idea found a later echo in materialistic engine play.

Well, i did some research. Some sources attribute the quote to Steinitz.

However Kasparov attributes it to Capablanca (Check out the commentary of Game 4: Anderssen - Dufresne in On my great predecessors 1 by Kasparov)

On the other hand, there was almost an ethical code about accepting sacrifices during romantic era. Unless there was an immediate loss or mate follow-up, they almost always accepted. Accepting sacrifices were a sign of good manner and good taste in romantic era. It was not a real rule like in draughts but it was like an unspoken rule like Karpov has said it. You can find info about this also in Kasparovs book.

Reconnecting