Steinitz's 20/23/25 wins in a row; how many was it?

[Offramp]

Steinitz and Fischer share an amazing record - winning 20+ top-level
(full time control) wins in a row - no draws or losses. Fischer's
achievement was I think the more impressive. Beating Larsen 6-zip was
a huge achievement and the standard of play of Fischer was sky-high
and even his opponents' play was high.

Fischer's 20 in a row was over two years, and the real curiosity about
Steinitz's is that it was spread over the years 1873 to 1882.
There is a list of them at this link: http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chesscollection?cid=1006842
Wikipedia says 25 - that list has 23 ( I think )... How many was it?
And who were they against?

[Taylor Kingston]

The chessgames.com list shows 25 games.

> How many was it?
> And who were they against?

The chessgames.com list names them all:

1. Rosenthal gradually outplayed
S Rosenthal vs Steinitz, 1873
(C46) Three Knights, 38 moves, 0-1

2. Rosenthal bites the dust
Steinitz vs S Rosenthal, 1873
(A20) English, 39 moves, 1-0

3. Paulsen collapses
Paulsen vs Steinitz, 1873
(C25) Vienna, 45 moves, 0-1

4. Steinitz settles Paulsen's hash
Steinitz vs Paulsen, 1873
(A41) Queen's Pawn Game (with ...d6), 47 moves, 1-0

5. The great Anderssen snuffed out
Steinitz vs Anderssen, 1873
(D55) Queen's Gambit Declined, 26 moves, 1-0

6. Adolph eradicated
Anderssen vs Steinitz, 1873
(C77) Ruy Lopez, 45 moves, 0-1

7. Schwartz is wasted
Steinitz vs A Schwarz, 1873
(A28) English, 32 moves, 1-0

8. Steinitz eliminates Schwartz
A Schwarz vs Steinitz, 1873
(C50) Giuoco Piano, 32 moves, 0-1

9. Gelbfuhs gets fooed
Steinitz vs Gelbfuhs, 1873
(A13) English, 34 moves, 1-0

10. Gelbfuhs terminated
Gelbfuhs vs Steinitz, 1873
(C80) Ruy Lopez, Open, 45 moves, 0-1

11. Bird is bumped off
Steinitz vs Bird, 1873
(C35) King's Gambit Accepted, Cunningham, 36 moves, 1-0

12. Bird sent to the abbatoire
Bird vs Steinitz, 1873
(C80) Ruy Lopez, Open, 50 moves, 0-1

13. Heral keels over
Steinitz vs J Heral, 1873
(B45) Sicilian, Taimanov, 48 moves, 1-0

14. Heral's massive eboulement
J Heral vs Steinitz, 1873
(A13) English, 21 moves, 0-1

15. Blackburne's Big Sleep
Blackburne vs Steinitz, 1873
(C77) Ruy Lopez, 33 moves, 0-1

16. Blackburne tastes cold steel.
Steinitz vs Blackburne, 1873
(A00) Uncommon Opening, 39 moves, 1-0

17. Blackburne deleted
Steinitz vs Blackburne, 1876
(C77) Ruy Lopez, 34 moves, 1-0

18. Blackburne stymied
Blackburne vs Steinitz, 1876
(C45) Scotch Game, 67 moves, 0-1

19. Blackburne executed
Steinitz vs Blackburne, 1876
(C39) King's Gambit Accepted, 55 moves, 1-0

20. Blackburne slain
Blackburne vs Steinitz, 1876
(C45) Scotch Game, 51 moves, 0-1

21. Blackburne trussed up
Steinitz vs Blackburne, 1876
(C29) Vienna Gambit, 53 moves, 1-0

22. Blackburne despatched
Blackburne vs Steinitz, 1876
(C45) Scotch Game, 66 moves, 0-1

23. Blackburne slaughtered
Steinitz vs Blackburne, 1876
(C25) Vienna, 37 moves, 1-0

24. Blackburne liquidated
Steinitz vs Blackburne, 1882
(C29) Vienna Gambit, 56 moves, 1-0

25. Noa kicked off - and that's the lot.
Steinitz vs J Noa, 1882
(C30) King's Gambit Declined, 50 moves, 1-0

[Taylor Kingston]

I checked this list against "The Games of Wilhelm Steinitz" (Pickard
& Son, 1995), and it matches the book. The first 14 games are from the
Vienna 1873 tournament, games 15 and 16 are from a playoff match to
determine 1st place in that event, games 17-23 are from an 1876 match
with Blackburne, and 24 and 25 are from Vienna 1882.
The games just before and after the 25-game win streak were a draw
with Meitner at Vienna 1873, and a draw with Mackenzie at Vienna 1882.
Altogether it was an undefeated streak of 32 games. Between losing to
Blackburne at Vienna 1873 and to Zukertort at Vienna 1882, Steinitz
scored +27 -0 =5.
However, Steinitz lost a total of 8 games at Vienna 1882 (+18 -8
=8), the most for him in a single tournament except for his last
tournament, London 1899 (+7 -12 =7).

[The Master]

On Feb 3, 7:41 am, Offramp <alaneobr...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Steinitz and Fischer share an amazing record - winning 20+ top-level
> (full time control) wins in a row - no draws or losses.

The record is held alone by Steinitz.

[Taylor Kingston]

But not by Fischer, "more or less"?

[The Master]

The overwhelming desire of certain rgc posters to attribute to Bobby
Fischer --even now-- a share in the accomplishments of others, reveals
much to the insightful observer about the person or persons in which
those desires reside. Of course, it tells us nothing about those who
suffer from *other* serious psychological disorders.
Enough said.

[Taylor Kingston]

Whoosh! Right over the flat-top. I was just trying to apply your own
standards of numerical accuracy, Greg. Since, in your opinion, four
years is "a decade, more or less," I thought perhaps that you might
consider Fischer's 20 straight wins "more or less" equal to Steinitz's
25.

[None]

On Feb 5, 12:08 pm, Taylor Kingston <ttk5...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>   Whoosh! Right over the flat-top. I was just trying to apply your own
> standards of numerical accuracy, Greg. Since, in your opinion, four
> years is "a decade, more or less," I thought perhaps that you might
> consider Fischer's 20 straight wins "more or less" equal to Steinitz's

> 25.-

No one said a decade was four years more or less. I ask rhetorically,
must you put such a blatant spin on all of your rhetoric?

[Taylor Kingston]

On Feb 5, 9:46 am, None <joeschm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> No one said a decade was four years more or less. I ask rhetorically,
> must you put such a blatant spin on all of your rhetoric?

Stan, your memory fails you. In the thread "IVANCHUCK SHOULD BE
BANNED" ON 21 January 2012, Greg "The Master" Kennedy wrote:

"A mere decade (more or less) after his demise, even the most stalwart
of formerly fanatical supporters (read: rabid attackers of critics) of
Bobby Fischer cannot even recall how to spell the man's name!"

Since Fischer died on 17 January 2008, the period which Kennedy
called a "decade (more or less)" had been just 4 years and 4 days. I'm
surprised you don't remember this, since you posted a comment on it
yourself.

[None]

Go back and read what you wrote- he said a decade , more or less. that
means- I think it was a decade perhaps more perhaps less. That is what
more or less means. If I say you ate a hundred chicken wings, more or
less, that means I don't know exactly how many wings you ate but I
think it was around a hundred. translate -more or less- to
approximately. For you to spin this into some sort of outright lie
meant to deceive people, well, it makes me wonder about your state of
mental health.

[Taylor Kingston]

Stan, come off it. I'm not saying Kennedy was trying to deceive
anyone. I'm saying he was sloppy. He's sloppy quite often, but he
never admits it, instead pretending to precision and infallibility.
Another posted pointed out that it had been only four years, not
ten, since Fischer died. You, for reasons unknown, defended Kennedy's
sloppiness, with reasoning that renders language utterly meaningless.
I thought this was ridiculous.

IIRC, you're an accountant, aren't you, Stan? Is this the level of
accuracy you practice in your profession? Would a client accept you
saying "There's more or less a million dollars in your account" when
there's actually only $400,000? That's the level of inaccuracy you're
defending.

[None]

Level of inaccuracy, Rotflmfaoapmp. That analogy is so thin as to be
invisible. What does making an off handed remark on a newsgroup have
to do with someone's career? Now as to your surreal comparison, if I
said he had ten dollars in his account, more or less, and he only had
four bucks, would I go straight to hell?

[Taylor Kingston]

Stan, you don't know an analogy from an anagram. Look, this is a
trivial matter, and I would never have made anything of it except for
your idiotic defense of Kennedy's sloppiness. I leave you to your
confusion; you're not worth the trouble.

[None]

On Feb 6, 8:03 pm, Taylor Kingston <ttk5...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 6, 4:37 pm, None <joeschm...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>   Stan, you don't know an analogy from an anagram.

Perhaps but I know what an analogy is...

> Look, this is a
> trivial matter, and I would never have made anything of it except for
> your idiotic defense of Kennedy's sloppiness.

Right, don't admit your trivial nitpicking. Keep changing the subject.

> I leave you to your
> confusion; you're not worth the trouble

Taylor, your fragile ego is such a hoot.

[Taylor Kingston]

On Feb 6, 8:31 pm, None <joeschm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Taylor, your fragile ego is such a hoot.

Stan, you are becoming a poor man's Larry Parr. In any event, it's
obvious that neither of our egos is the least bit fragile.

[micky]

blumpkin

[The Master]

On Feb 6, 11:31 pm, None <joeschm...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Right, don't admit your trivial nitpicking. Keep changing the subject.
>
> > I leave you to your
> > confusion; you're not worth the trouble
>
> Taylor, your fragile ego is such a hoot.

Every once in awhile Mr. Kingston goes a bit nutso. I think he may
have caught some nasty bug from Mr. Innes, or vice versa.

You have to wonder about a guy who writes a letter to the editor of
Chess Life, hoping to get his opinions in print, then turns around and
writes that he had not really considered the matter before(?!!) and
has now changed his mind and wants his reversal of opinion printed to
boot! Then along comes Larry Evans quoting the first letter as
'support' for his own speculations, lacking anything better. Next we
get a denial from Mr. Kingston and a brouhaha with Larry Parr for Mr.
Kingston helping to make Mr. Evans look silly. Now I ask you,
wouldn't life be a whole lot easier if the man were to actually put a
bit of careful thought into his opinions before mailing them off to
such a widely circulated magazine in the first place? What's the word
I want... oh yeah: NUTS!!

[Taylor Kingston]

On Feb 8, 2:43 pm, The Master <colossalblun...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 6, 11:31 pm, None <joeschm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Right, don't admit your trivial nitpicking. Keep changing the subject.
>
> > > I leave you to your
> > > confusion; you're not worth the trouble
>
> > Taylor, your fragile ego is such a hoot.
>
>   Every once in awhile Mr. Kingston goes a bit nutso.  I think he may
> have caught some nasty bug from Mr. Innes, or vice versa.
>
>   You have to wonder about a guy who writes a letter to the editor of
> Chess Life, hoping to get his opinions in print, then turns around and
> writes that he had not really considered the matter before(?!!) and
> has now changed his mind and wants his reversal of opinion printed to
> boot!

Greg, when it comes to revising history, you make Orwell's Ministry
of Truth look like Toynbee.

>  Then along comes Larry Evans quoting the first letter as
> 'support' for his own speculations, lacking anything better.  Next we
> get a denial from Mr. Kingston and a brouhaha with Larry Parr for Mr.
> Kingston helping to make Mr. Evans look silly.  Now I ask you,
> wouldn't life be a whole lot easier if the man were to actually put a
> bit of careful thought into his opinions before mailing them off to
> such a widely circulated magazine in the first place?  What's the word
> I want... oh yeah: NUTS!!

Who is the better man: the one who does careful research and, if the
facts warrant it, is willing to change his mind (i.e. me)? Or the one
who never researches anything and never changes his mind even when he
is clearly wrong (i.e. you, Greg)?