Chigorin Speaks out

from my notes, here are some of Tschigorin's thoughts when interviewed by  Moisei Samoilovich. Evenson.
(more by Evenson and Tschigorin here:  https://www.chess.com/blog/batgirl/tschigorin-at-the-kiev-tournament-of-1903)

Tschigorin of Steinitz:

     “He is, undoubtedly, a brilliant chess player and, what I respect most of all in him, he highly esteemed chess as an art. But at the same time he personally, when sitting down at a board or writing about chess, is diverted to its scientific treatment. He himself accepts this duality, explaining it by the fact that any art should have a scientific foundation.  Well, perhaps, he is right and that’s it, but in fact if a chess player appearing in competitions, is constantly distracted by thoughts about these foundations then when exactly will he give the same knowledge? The struggles with him across the chessboard forced me endure minutes of the greatest enjoyment, and periods of depression, Steinitz is, undoubtedly, one of greatest chess players who has appeared until now; but I personally do not like his exaggerated dogmatism.  I wanted to demonstrate in my struggles against him that it is possible to oppose his exaggeratedly solid positions with elements more characteristic of art: the personal treatment of a position, intuition,-fantasy, ultimately. This did not succeed for me, at least, it did not succeed completely. Our three matches gave Steinitz 20 points against my 16. But is the whole matter really about points? I consider that Steinitz and I represent simply two different directions in our art. And if it did not sound like an exaggeration, I would have said that he reminds me of Salieri, whereas I would like to be Mozart.”




 Tschigorin on Tarrasch:
Tarrasch – He is a follower of Steinitz, however he is more flexible, less persisting in the once-and-for-all mastered dogmas. And he is therefore a more dangerous opponent in practical play. Janowski is closer to me: he is more often guided by intuition. I rate Janowski very highly and I am enraptured by many of his games. His talent is luminous, brilliant, but, unfortunately, his play sometimes, as if suddenly, becomes colourless and grows dim… Perhaps it is simply fatigue or weakness of nerves... However, as far as Lasker is concerned, he, in my opinion, represents a third direction: he considers chess mainly as a fight. And his weapons are diverse. Lasker will still be a terror for the most talented opponents for a long time. Here Tarrasch, who does not care for Lasker, found the time somehow to calculate how many games he [Lasker] had won which were "presented" to him by his opponents. At one Nuremberg tournament, by Tarrasch’s calculation, Lasker was obliged to "Luck" for no more and no less than five whole points! True, from these five won games he really stood to lose in three of them. In particular, I had a won game against Lasker, which I spoiled, after moving my queen away out of play. But who, besides Lasker, could have planned a dangerous attack on my kingside with such small means as remained at his disposal? … No, all this is nonsense. Neither luck nor hypnotism explain Lasker’s strength. He has the temperament of a champion and enormous talent. Steinitz wants to make from chess a science, I – an art,  Lasker – a fight or, if you like, a sport...”
     Then the conversation passed to the participants in the tournament. We wanted to know M.I.’s  opinion of the Russian chess players present. Tschigorin expressed himself in very flattering terms about Rubinstein. He briefly spoke about Bernstein, that he promised much. About Yurevich he answered that as a chess player he undoubtedly had talent, but "I sense from him”, said M. I.,  “that he will not love chess".
     He especially noted Duz-Chotimirsky as a talented, but still unbalanced chess player, from whom much could be developed, "if he does not go crazy"...

Very lucid reflections. About Steinitz, this reminds me a bit of Bronstein's comments on his match vs. Botvinnik. Duz-Chotimirsky went finally crazy, didn't he?

Nah... that was Steinitz.  Duz died relatively sane.

But he must have been quite a character.

Well, he loved Tschigorin and hated Prince Dadian.

Just googled him. Wow. But I heard Duz once made a takeback vs. Bronstein and just asked him it he had any issue with it. And that he played someone dressed like a clown.

Sorry, that was Bernard de Bruycker playing Limbos.

Something more from Duz-Chotimirsky: http://www.edochess.ca/batgirl/Dadian/Duz-Chotimirsky.html

Let's face it. All of us are crazy.

 Steinitz and Chigorin have many contrasts, Steinitz being more sober in his approach to chess, what he wanted was control and a clear plan but Chigorin in his wild nature wanted it chaotic and unclear, that is why their games are so interesting and exciting.