Blackburne, Steinitz, and Zukertort, our three greatest professional players, will not feel highly complimented to hear, for the first time, that their excellence arises from twenty years hard labour; and that inferentially their capacity, otherwise, is but common.  Memory, a quality not mentioned by the Reviewer or by Mr. Buckle, must be essential in the playing of chess for hours without sight of board or men; it must be also advantageous in the ordinary game, when many variations have to be worked out; or the earlier combinations might be forgotten when the latter are maturing.

Steinitz is now residing in New York, (this fact might well have been stated) and the attacks upon him in his absence, moreover, can hardly interest or gratify chess readers.  These attacks are in the worst possible taste; being calculated to lead to controversy with his friends and supporters, who are still numerous, both here and abroad.  They will arouse a well merited and just sense of indignation for despite his faults of temper and a disposition, at times, prone to be touchy and contentious, Steinitz is a true artist, a painstaking, careful, conscientious, and impartial annotator, whilst as a describer of play he is unrivalled.  Willing, at all times, to render full justice to the skill, style, and play of others, he has been frequently heard to observe that the “difference in force between the six leading chess-players is so slight, that the result of a contest between two of them would be always uncertain.”

As a chess-player he is far from lacking modesty.  No “head and shoulders” comparison or claim of superiority has ever been made by Steinitz.  He is exceedingly courteous to young aspirants, and fairly communicative to all; he is, when vexed, as likely, (or more so), to offend his best friends as strangers.  With all his shortcomings, however, it is doubtful whether any real admirer of chess from its highest aspect will feel aught but regret at the remarks applied to him; the space devoted to these attacks (exceeding that allotted to all the English players) might well have been devoted to chess in its social aspect, to its advantages and prospects, or to some more agreeable phase of it than extreme personality.  Even another page or two of chess-players’ jokes and eccentricities would have been less objectionable.

The personalities and lack of impartiality in the article cannot but be regarded as a very serious drawback; it is not written in a tone which is likely to benefit chess or advance its cause; and it is to be feared, that it will afford but little instruction or lasting interest and pleasure to its readers.

National chess. 
Chess of the nineteenth century. 
Belfast, (the most recent meeting).