“This little man,” said Adolf Schwarz, “taught us all to play chess”.
Steinitz started as a dashing attacking player, in the style common at the time, and claimed the World Championship after defeating Anderssen in a match (although the official beginning of the lineal championship began with his match with Zukertort many years later). By the time he played Zukertort, he was playing in a completely different style, and in the development of Steinitz’ style we can see the beginnings of modern chess.
How did he teach? Steinitz didn’t write books, but he wrote articles, and edited magazines, and wrestled the chess world into a different appreciation of chess. He had a fluent and pungent pen, and, for all his dogmatism on some subjects, he was right more often than he was wrong.
To search for lessons from Steinitz is not a long job: many of his games pioneered and/or showed in clear form so many of the ideas of positional play — weak pawns, weak squares, the minority attack, and so on. So the examples below could be multiplied many times over.
Opening
Several of the games under Middlegame and Endgame have lessons for the Opening, but let’s focus just on that phase first. As a starter, the dangers of castling into an attack when the centre is closed. I always welcome propaganda against Old Stodge…
And a great example of ‘castle because you will or you must, but never because you can’ (Pillsbury). Delayed castling allows an early Knight journey, a thrust by the h-pawn, and only later, long castling.
Middlegame
Here’s Bobby Fischer on Steinitz:
“He is the so-called father of the modern school of chess; before him, the King was considered a weak piece and players set out to attack the King directly. Steinitz claimed that the King was well able to take care of itself, and ought not to be attacked until one had some other positional advantage. He understood more about the use of squares than Morphy and contributed a great deal more to chess theory.”
So, here is Steinitz’ King looking after itself, and Steinitz showing a weak IQP is no basis for an attack on the King, Steinitz defending while being stubborn about concessions, then Steinitz accumulating other positional advantages.
A dramatic finish next, but it was all decided beforehand.
“If Zukertort has a plan in mind, he is a match for Steinitz, possibly even his peer. … Every move of Zukertort’s pointed towards a vigorous cooperation the pieces united to attack the King. This is the old Italian plan; Zukertort found it ready made, and in the tactics of execution he was a great master. Steinitz, however, discovered sound and successful plans over the board.” LASKER
“It will be remembered that the capture of the c-Pawn was formerly held disadvantageous” – STEINITZ
“a system, imperfect though it may be, is preferable to move to move improvisation such as Zukertort resorted to in this game” – KONIG’
There’s is more on Steinitz’ theories on this website: here and here.
Endgame
Steinitz is not known for his endgame play, but try this one, a positional theme (two Bishops), evolving into an accompanying space advantage, and then a better King in the endgame. Some endgame niftiness: White’s outside passed h-pawn is no help against such an active King.
And an unbalanced endgame, arising from Steinitz’ appetite for sacrificed pawns: