Aryeh Davidoff: Lev Khariton's greatest masterpiece, second to none in
its in-depth psychological insight, controversial and humane.

ChessPress
April - 2004

WITH LOVE AND BITTERNESS
By Lev Khariton
(This article was was published in 1998 at www.chesscafe.com Now it
has been taken off from that site.)

It would not be enough to say that I have always worshipped
grandmaster David Bronstein. He was the hero of my generation and
those who were a bit older. Frankly speaking, my first acquaintance
with chess was inspired by his name. In 1951 when I was only six years
old, Bronstein was playing his famous match with Mikhail Botvinnik.
Why did Bronstein lose the 23rd game? How did it happen that the
iron-clad Botvinnik lost the 21st and 22nd games? Why did the 24th
game that was to clinch the match turn out to be a bloodless draw? And
one more, now hypothetical, question: how would things have shaped for
Bronstein if he had won the match?

And that 24th game is always associated in my memory with one episode.
My father and my elder brother had one ticket to see this game in the
Tchaikovsky Hall where the match was played. Finally, after some
quarrel and a "drawing of lots", it was my brother Boris who went to
see the game. However, when he entered the hall, he saw only the last
two moves and the peaceful handshake followed by a storm of applause.
Either greeting the exploit of Botvinnik who maintained his title, or
in appreciation of Bronstein's heroic struggle with the all-mighty
champion.

Many years later I had the chance to get acquainted with Bronstein
personally. First I met him when he, from time to time, visited our
lessons in the junior chess school conducted by Alexander
Konstantinopolsky. Later I was lucky to see him on numerous occasions
during chess competitions, and even mo I visited him in his small
apartment in Moscow! Remembering these unforgettable meetings, I even
wrote a series of articles on Bronstein in my chess column in the
Parisian newspaper "La Pensйe Russe".

Grandmaster Bronstein has always been reputed for his originality, for
his creative attitude to chess. The attitude that yielded good
concrete results. It was owing to him that arbiters in chess
competitions began to register the time spent by chess players on each
move, which permits to understand that a game of chess is a
complicated creative and psychological process. And today's "active"
or "rapid" tournaments? It was also Bronstein's idea! After the
publication of Bronstein's classic - his book on the Zurich tournament
- chess players understood how games should be annotated.


But originality is good and even necessary when it helps to broaden
the horizons and change the reality. However, existing by itself,
originality may be detrimental and even dangerous. Reading Bronstein's
interview "The Non-conformist's Confessions" published in the magazine
"Chess in Russia", I understood that the grandmaster possibly without
being aware of it, went beyond the limits of objectivity. It so
happened that just before I read Bronstein's interview in the Russian
magazine, I had bought the book "The Sorcerer's Apprentice" written by
Bronstein and a Belgian journalist Tom Fьrstenberg. A wonderful
book with the biography and photographs of the grandmaster ( many
facts and photographs I had never known about ), his games -
well-known and recently played, even with computers. However, some
points in this book had obviously tuned me to the
critical perception of the interview in "Chess in Russia".

For many years Mikhail Botvinnik was Bronstein's 'bкte noire'. I
noticed a long time ago that whatever problem you are discussing with
Bronstein, finally everything boils down to Botvinnik and that match
played almost half a century ago.What irony! The match that actually
proved Bronstein's creative superiority became the tragic counterpoint
of his life. And even after the death of the 6th World Champion
Bronstein writes: "In one of his books Botvinnik says that Goldberg
helped him in the second half of his match with Salo Flohr which
started disastrously (Flohr +2) but ended in a draw: +2-2=8. Flohr who
used to lose on average one game a year suddenly lost two in one week!
There must have been a reason for this and there was! Goldberg's help
was instrumental in finding a shop where Flohr could 'buy' a beautiful
coat very cheaply!" We can certainly argue with Bronstein: for
example, Petrosian's losses were even less frequent than Flohr's, but
playing against Fischer, Tigran lost four games in a row! But is there
any point in arguing? Who can prove anything now that Botvinnik, Flohr
and Goldberg are gone? However, it should be only regretted that
Bronstein writes about his chess colleagues in such a self-humiliating
fashion!

No less upsetting is the following 'revelation' from Bronstein's book:
"During the Budapest Candidates' Tournament Boleslavsky and I had
discussed the chances of the next challenger and my friend who had
lost seven games to Botvinnik without winning a single one, was of the
opinion that a fight against Botvinnik was hopeless. Once he had had a
chance to checkmate Botvinnik in a few moves but missed the
opportunity. Of course I had a completely different opinion. I argued
that Botvinnik was very strong but one could still play against him
successfully. I was sure that I could demonstrate that his strategy
was far from perfect. Boleslavsky was leading in the Candidates'
Tournament, but after a talk he had had with Boris Vainstein he
decided to slow down to allow me to tie for first place with him.
Vainstein would try to arrange a tournament with Botvinnik,
Boleslavsky and myself for the World Championship. Alas, it did not
come about and we had to meet in a play-off for the right to challenge
Botvinnik".
3
How naпve we were having been carried away by the dramatic and
exciting end of the Budapest Candidates'! In the last round Bronstein
wins a game from Keres catching up with Boleslavsky. And what a game
it was! Playing with fantastic imagination, Bronstein, in the
well-known variation of the Ruy Lopez, sacrificed a pawn to his
formidable opponent, and the finishing touch of this unforgettable
game was Bronstein's irresistible threat to sacrifice his queen on h7!
So, all this was just a well-prepared performance with the kind
collaboration of Keres: in this tournament he had nothing to lose, and
quite understandably, he did not nourish any sympathies towards
Botvinnik.But if such confessions are made by Bronstein, the man whose
sincerity cannot be put to doubt, what can we expect from the
champions and challengers who played for the chess crown later? And
why was Bronstein keeping silence all these years hiding away the
truth? And is it really the truth? I should say - the unwanted truth!

Following this 'logic', may be, the whole match between Bronstein and
Boleslavsky, including a two-game play-off with the score standing
equal (6:6), was just a splendid show? Who knows?

Both in the interview and in the book Bronstein says that he was not
interested in winning the World Title. Moreover, in the book he points
out that he would feel ashamed of being the World Champion in a
society where people, living in poverty and misery, had just gone
through the most devastating war, GULAG etc. Quite a noble position,
isn't it? But why then did he play in the USSR Championships in 1948
and 1949, winning both times the title of the Soviet Champion?
According to what he is saying now, he should have avoided winning the
championship of such a miserable country. Why did he play in the
interzonal and candidates' tournaments? Why did he agree to play with
Botvinnik? Bronstein's views are very 'original', but is there
anything shameful if someone is doing something that he loves and
achieves the well-deserved superiority in this field? Such a person, I
believe, should be praised because demonstrating his art, in our case
- chess, he distracts people from their daily routine and problems.
Supposing Bronstein had won the match against Botvinnik, would his
'theory' have appeared?

"I should have never squeezed anything out of the World Champion's
Title", - says Bronstein. Absolutely right! The grandmaster is too
noble by his character and nature to 'squeeze' any profit from
anything. But did Botvinnik squeeze anything from his title? To quote
Bronstein, "since 1928 Botvinnik had been aiming at the chess crown".
All his life Botvinnik was working as an engineer, first devoting his
life to electroengineering and later to chess computers. Incidentally,
Bronstein who adores chess computers, constantly participating in
competitions with computers, forgets to mention that it was Botvinnik
who was the first to speak in the USSR about chess computers. In the
60s Bronstein was one of the many who were sceptical about Botvinnik's
idea that the machine one day would play against man.
..
As far as financial renumerations are concerned, Bronstein knows
perfectly well that World Championship matches before the "Fischer
era" brought nothing but the glory. The literary work to which
Botvinnik devoted some time was badly paid. In those days, as distinct
from today, even outstanding authors did not publish their books in
foreign languages abroad just to be paid in hard currency! For many
years I have been watching relatively unknown Russian chess players (
very far from Botvinnik's calibre! ) earning good money in French
'opens', and I always remember that Botvinnik and challengers were
getting nothing out of chess.


Did Botvinnik want to make any political capital out of his title?
Just like the present-day champions? Never in his life! Botvinnik
never entered any FIDE leading body, he never chaired any Soviet
governmental organisation, like Karpov's Peace Fund, or any other
prestigious and profitable political institution. In May 1948, right
after winning the World Title, Botvinnik wrote a letter in which he
expressed his joy and satisfaction with the Soviet support of the
creation of the State of Israel. Certainly, the idea to vote for the
foundation of the Jewish state in Palestine was just one of Stalin's
cunning manoeuvres to annihilate the Soviet Jewry and all those who,
like Botvinnik, did not hide their enthusiasm over the decision of the
Soviet government were immediately persecuted and their letters filled
the KGB files. This is what exactly happened to Botvinnik's letter.
Let us not forget that the campaign against the 'cosmopolits' was
already in full swing and let us put tribute to Botvinnik's courageous
step. Bronstein, who was born in Belaya Tserkov, which is only some
100 km away from Babyi Yar ( the place of the mass extermination of
Soviet Jews during the Second World War ), whose father was a prisoner
of GULAG, should have appreciated the noble position of his chess
colleague. Botvinnik, as distinct from other Jewish celebrities in the
USSR, never tried to cash in on the priviledges endowed on him by the
Soviet authorities. A man of great sincerity, he never let himself in
for a compromise. As a case in point, he turned down the 'honour' to
join the Soviet Anti-zionist Committee, a fascist organisation which
recruited many outstanding Soviet Jews, for example Maya Plisetskaya,
the world-famous ballerina. She was an active member of the
anti-Jewish movement in the Soviet Union. Now living in the West she
tells 'stories' how she hated the life in the USSR, how she was
discriminated as a Jew, how she was thwarted in her foreign tours. But
even during the liberal years of 'perestroika', interviewed on Soviet
television, she denied that she had had any problems as a Jew!
Botvinnik was always averse to such hypocrisy.


In 1976 Botvinnik and Bronstein ( as if celebrating the 25th
anniversary of their match!) were practically the only Soviet
grandmasters who did not sign the 'collective' letter against the
'traitor' Viktor Korchnoi. In a totalitarian society those, who do not
know the word 'fear', deserve admiration! For many years Botvinnik
called himself 'primainter pares' (first among equals). I think that
he meant not only his chess strength and the creative potential of his
rivals. First of all, he had the same rights, no more, no less, than
other grandmasters. It is not by chance that in 1952 the members of
the Soviet team voted against Botvinnik's participation in the Chess
Olympiad, and the World Champion did not go to Helsinki! After
Botvinnik's loss in the Title Match to Petrosian in 1963 the FIDE
called off the return matches- undoubtedly, an unfair decision towards
Botvinnik, who had twice won the 'returns', thus showing his fantastic
moral and chess strength. So, what privileges did Botvinnik achieve in
Soviet society and in the chess world?

To tell the truth, it was owing to Botvinnik that a consistently
democratic system of world championship selection was created. The
basic advantage of the system was that each time, as a result of a
series of competitions, the best challenger emerged to play the Title
Match. Bronstein, Smyslov, Tal, Petrosian, Spassky, Fischer were
definitely the world's top chess players in their prime years when
they won candidates' tournaments and matches. In his interview
Bronstein declares that "no one except Botvinnik had this idea of
winning the title of the World Champion - so great was our respect for
the talent and games of Capablanca, Alekhine, Lasker". This is really
Bronstein's 'interpretation' of chess history!

Is there anything bad, shameful or even vicious, if a man, feeling his
strength, wants to achieve the best in his particular field of
endeavour? In so doing he only contributes to the popularity and
development of his art. Does Bronstein mean that all chess players
were supposed to bend down like dead statues in front of the famous
champions of the past? After all, Alekhine, Lasker, Capablanca were
jusl humans made of flesh and blood, like everyone else! They also
wanted to be champions, they also made mistakes... And, finally, they
were surpassed by the new generations of chess players. Bronstein says
that in the 30s Botvinnik alone had the priviledge of being sent to
foreign tournaments - Nottingham, AVRO-tournament...But was there any
other Soviet chess palyer who deserved more than Botvinnik to
participate in these tournaments? And he really proved his strength
almost always winning the chess events. After the Nottingham
tournament Alekhine called Botvinnik the most likely candidate for the
World Title. If Bronstein has so much respect for Alekhine, let us ask
him this question: did anybody force Alekhine to make such a forecast?
Certainly, not. The great champion felt that he had already been
surpassed. So, why should Botvinnik have abstained from his
well-grounded ambition to win the World Championship?

I had the great luck and honour to know Botvinnik personally, when in
1974 I was asked to help him with his English. Botvinnik was to go to
the USA and Canada to meet specialists in computer programming.
Probably, never before had the 'teacher' had so much respect for his
'pupil'! I was sitting next to the living legend! Asking Botvinnik to
repeat the forms of the irregular English verbs, I felt that the
diagrams of his most famous games were just jumping in my head! I was
especially impressed by his modesty - in his way of life, in his
apartment there was nothing that gave even the slightest hint of the
presence of the great
man; when I told one well-known grandmaster how much I was amazed by
Botvinnik's simplicity and modesty, he answered: "There is no wonder -
he is Botvinnik!"

In the interview to the Russian magazine Bronstein was asked to name
the best chess players of all time. The grandmaster made quite a
standard choice citing the well-known names. However, he stressed that
he preferred them because they had possessed special personal and
human qualities. In other words, according to Bronstein, they were
'personalities'. Is the grandmaster blind, or does he pretend to be
blind?


Let us start with Alekhine who was undoubtedly the greatest chess
genius who ever lived on Earth. Undoubtedly, he was an outstanding
anti-semite as testified by his articles published in "Pariser
Zeitung" in 1941. How can Bronstein like the personality' of the 4th
World Champion? "Are the Jews as a race capable for chess?" - asks
Alekhine. And he gives the 'answer': "So far there has never been a
genuine Jewish chess artist". Well, the question and the answer need
no comment! There are no explanations or justifications for Alekhine's
beastly hatred of the Jews. The mental, spiritual degradation, the
senility of the 'chess genius' are obvious and disgusting. More than
that, he betrays all those - Lasker, Rubinstein, Nimzovich - for whom,
as he had claimed before, he had so much admiration and respect. Those
great chess players who are so dear to Bronstein!.. "Steinitz, the
greatest jester in chess history". Dear grandmaster, do you like this
'profound thought' of Alekhine?

Incidentally, Steinitz is not among the chess players whom Bronstein
considers as the greatest. May be, he is not a 'personality'? But if
we follow Bronstein's logic, Steinitz, who never tried to get any
profit from chess, should appeal to Bronstein. Steinitz did not want
to play a World Championship Match with Zukertort while the great
Morphy was alive, and only two years after Morphy's death, in 1986,
the first World Title match was played. Steinitz showed the best
example of sportsmanship and ethic principles, which is easy to admire
but difficult to follow. He did not need the chess crown for the
crown's sake, as, for example, Karpov almost 100 years later!

Yes, Steinitz did not exploit his title. And this is the most
important difference between him and Lasker. Therefore it is difficult
to share Bronstein's admiration for Lasker. The 2nd World Champion
demanded high appearance fees, chose wealthy and relatively weak
opponents for the Title Matches. There were long periods when Lasker
avoided playing chess, and in this way he was maintaining his title.
After the First World War he was absolutely bankrupt, and that is why
in 1921 he went to Havana to play against Capablanca. Actually, he
knew that he stood no chance of resisting to Capablanca in Cuba, but
he also knew that he was actually 'selling' the chess crown!

It should be noted that chess historians had done a lot to create a
romantic image of Emanuel Lasker. Lasker as a great philosopher, a
great psychologist, even a great mathematician... But first of all, he
was extremely pragmatic and, frankly speaking, knowing Bronstein as I
do, I cannot imagine how Lasker, the pragmatist to the marrow of his
bone, can appeal to such an unpractical man as Bronstein. To
understand Lasker's character more profoundly, we must get a glimpse
of what he was writing in "British Chess Magazine" as far back as
1915: "The shrewd English merchant has grasped the meaning of
possessions and their power in the world; but he has missed the true
inwardness of things, and the rapid evolution of modern times has left
him far behind. He is an egoist towards his fellow countrymen. He will
not give the masses a share in higher things, as he wants to keep them
under his sway as slaves. The Universities of Cambridge and Oxford are
reserved for the sons of the rich. He views with suspicion our people,
teeming with ideas, eager in pursuit of science, and ready to make any
sacrifice. Who among us is not a philosopher? I know not a single
German who does not carry in his bosom something of the spirit of
Faust. The morale of the Germans is not mere theory. Mother, wife,
sweetheart, have bidden their men go forth to battle. It is the genius
of Humanity that speaks for this nation".

I ask myself: when Lasker was fleeing from fascist Germany, did he
remember these naпve, if not stupid, words written by him during
the First World War? Or, probably, Lasker was just a hypocrite
disguised as the greatest truth-seeker... Certainly, his chess career
is unique, but why does Bronstein glorify his personality? In this
connection, I have made an interesting observation. Both Botvinnik and
Bronstein, people so different in nature and in character, always
admired Lasker. Botvinnik even called Lasker, and not without
admiration, a 'man without illusions'. Such is the effect of the
complete paralysis of human conscience! Even more mysterious is the
image of Philidor, one of Bronstein's idols. But what do we know about
Philidor except for two or three games played with extremely weak
players and his aphorism that 'the pawn is the soul of the game'? What
was so astounding and breath-taking in his personality? Bronstein
could have enjoyed equally well the inventor of chatrang!
Nevertheless, he calls the enigmatic Philidor a 'great head' whereas
Botvinnik, with whom Bronstein played the match of his life, began in
chess as a 'quick-minded boy'!

Bronstein dwells on the idea of setting up an international
organisation 'Green Chess'. "People will meet to analyse interesting
games, talk about chess. Chess on 100 or 1000 squares, chess without
two pieces, may be without bishops or knights! They will not play in
tournaments...Now there is an electronic line connecting the whole
world..." I think that if Bronstein's dream comes true, it will be
very sad. Chess in their present-day form will disappear, the game
that has been so much enriched by Bronstein's artistry! It will be sad
if every patzer manipulating an expensive computer will consider
himself to be a chess player.

And why 'Green Chess'? Most likely, in similarity to the political
parties existing in the West. The organisations fighting for the
ecological protection of nature, and under this pretext, trying to
purify the population ethnically, as is the case of France today.
Those people who are well-balanced and alert of the danger are afraid
of such extreme politicians.

Chess today, at the close of the 20th century, is going through a
special phase of development. On the one hand, the unprecedented
popularity of the ancient game. Big and small tournaments; a
never-ending chain of tournaments. More than that, chess is
penetrating more and more into the system of the primary school
education. Chess shops are full of books and magazines. Almost every
chess player has a computer equipped with the brand-new software and
the newest database. On the other hand, the world is going through an
enormous economic recession: the economic slump, unemployment are not
the monsters born out of human imagination, but the realities of
everyday life. The people insecure of their future have to fasten
their belts. In such conditions chess, instead of being a game
perfecting and developing the human intellect, becomes a luxury
product. The 'product' which, according to Kasparov, should be
lucratively sold. This is what Bronstein should be fighting against!

But Bronstein, the great chess player and writer, does not praise
chess. On the contrary, he says the following: "Chess is, generally
speaking, a primitive game..." A primitive game?! Stop! Aren't we a
bit delirious? But let us quote the grandmaster again: "There is
certainly no sense in the movement of chess pieces. It is just the
confrontation of two personalities, sitting and thinking over the same
position, that matters..." Well, we'd better leave this reading aside!
And what shall we do with
Bronstein's idea when these 'personalities' are on the same electronic
curcuit, one, let's say, in Melbourne and the other in Norilsk? What
about their 'confrontation'? Why is the grandmaster sure that only
"personalities are playing chess? As we have
pointed out before, chess is played brilliantly even by people, who,
whom with all the benefit of the doubt, are morally not up to the
mark! Undoubtedly, chess by itself, cannot save from moral
degradation. Equally true is that a bad man can become a good chess
player. The only panacea in this case is the competent and careful
word of an outstanding expert such as Bronstein or some other
remarkable player. But what Bronstein is saying today is only to the
detriment of chess. Any layman reading him now will never send his son
to a chess school!

How will chess enter the 21st century? As a worthwhile occupation not
inferior to any other art, or will chess players play, as today, in
the parks next to domino players? Will there be special chess columns
in big newspapers, or will chess articles be placed near marriage and
funeral ads? All this depends on chess players and chess journalists!

Let us return, however to the book "The sorcerer's Apprentice". On
almost 300 pages of the book there is not a single mention of
Alexander Konstantinopolsky who played a ground-breaking role in
Bronstein's chess career. Konstantinopolsky was David's teacher and
friend. He was the most knowledgeable expert on chess, I'd rather say,
an academician of chess, if such a title existed. At the same time he
was an extremely modest and kind man. This is not only my opinion. I
am sure that hundreds and hundreds of chess players who knew
Konstantinopolsky will support me. And I really do not understand why
Bronstein seems to have forgotten the name of his great and noble
chess teacher.

Konstantinopolsky was far from political games, as distinct from Boris
Vainstein to whom Bronstein is greatful even today. No doubt,
Vainstein did a lot for the young master in his difficult years. But I
am sure, knowing the high-ranking position of Vainstein, that it was
not difficult for him to help Bronstein. No more difficult was for
Vainstein to help Botvinnik settle down in Moscow. Political and
administrative power gives many possibilities. The chess and human
sympathies of Vainstein were evidently on the side of David. However,
the awards for the work in the KGB were not given for nothing, and it
is not by chance that Beriya, the most awful monster in Stalin's
state, once said to Vainstein: "You, Vainstein, are working
very well. But if you had spent five or six years in GULAG, you would
have worked much better!"

Bronstein recalls how Vainstein at a meeting of the Soviet Chess
Section in 1945 said to Botvinnik: "I don't understand how you will
shake Alekhine's hand, all in blood of Auschwitz and Maidanek". Today
Alekhine's anti-Semitism is no longer a secret, but at that time
Vainstein's shot was a typical political stunt. He put the trump card
of a KGB agent on the table! Even Bronstein who was present at the
meeting did not like Vainstein's words. Vainstein knew that he was
hitting right into the target: Botvinnik with his honesty and firm
principles would have never agreed to take Alekhine's crown without
playing a match!

It was not easy for me to write all these bitter words about the man
whom I adore since my childhood. And I shall never change my opinion
of Bronstein as a chess genius and a remarkable and honest man.
Recently while on my regular weekly visit to the chess shop
'VARIANTES' in Paris, I lost again a blitz-game to the computer
program 'Chess Genius'. I was not too much upset by this loss: I feel
that I cannot come to grips with the program. Suddenly I asked the
shop's manager if there were any players winning against the program.
"No , - he answered, - this devil is beating everyone!" And then as if
remembering something, he added: "Oh no, when Bronstein comes to Paris
and drops in at the shop, he wins against the machine!" I thought if
the grandmaster plays so well today, how he played, say, in 1950!

In the book "The Sorcerer's Apprentice" Tatyana Boleslavskaya, the
daughter of Isaak and David's wife, wrote a very interesting chapter.
I cannot help quoting the final words of this chapter: "When I think
about Devik I realise that the majority of people are just increasing
the population in quantity. Far less those who, by their presence,
increase the quality of mankind. I sincerely believe that he belongs
in the latter category". Wonderful words!

However, although admiring profoundly this remarkable man, I would not
like to forget the main point. Since times immemorial we have been
taught to believe in the singularity of the truth and diversity of
lies. It may seem paradoxical, but in the long run, lies are easily
recognizable because of the lack of real diversity. But the truth,
when something important is at stake, can change - not in the sense of
concrete facts, but as regards our attitude to them. And if we neglect
the truth, we run all possible risks. But juggling with the facts is
absolutely impermissible.

"Aryeh Davidoff" wrote in message
m...
Aryeh Davidoff: Lev Khariton's greatest masterpiece, second to none in
its in-depth psychological insight, controversial and humane.

ChessPress
April - 2004

WITH LOVE AND BITTERNESS
By Lev Khariton
(This article was was published in 1998 at www.chesscafe.com Now it
has been taken off from that site.)

Why it has been taken off that site? It's best article published on that
site, ever.

Goran Tomic

Aryeh Davidoff wrote:

WITH LOVE AND BITTERNESS
By Lev Khariton
(This article was was published in 1998 ...

... Steinitz ... never tried to get any
profit from chess ...

_
"Steinitz ... was the ... winner ...
of the $2,000 stake money against
Zukertort ... Steinitz had been the
first man to make a living from his
tournament and match victories"
- William R. Hartston (1985)

"He became a professional ... He
edited chess columns in the London
Figaro ...; New York Herald ...;
[and] The Field ... He was proprietor
and editor of the International Chess
Magazine ... He wrote a book of the
New York International tournament of
1889, ... Part I of his Modern Chess
Instructor ..., [and] Part II section
1" - Oxford Companion to Chess (1992)


... Steinitz did not want to play a World
Championship Match with Zukertort while the
great Morphy was alive, and only two years
after Morphy's death, in [1886], the first
World Title match was played.

_
I know of no report of Steinitz turning down an
opportunity to play a world championship match
while Morphy was alive, and it seems unlikely
that he would have turned down such an opportunity
if there had been one. About a decade before
Morphy's death, Steinitz was already willing to
argue that he deserved the title.

"After Vienna 1873, Steinitz wrote of himself
in The Field in the third person 'probably
little difference exists between several
first-class players .... Steinitz, who has
not yet lost any set match on even terms and
who has come out victorious in the last two
international tournaments, London 1872 and
Vienna 1873, could claim the title of
champion.'" - Larry Parr (2002-02-08 18:47:19
PST)

(The Steinitz quote can also be found in the Oxford
Companion.)

_
I have never seen any real evidence that the timing of
the 1886 match was due to the death of Morphy (in 1884),
and it seems to me that the available evidence is
against the idea. By 1875, it was well known that
Morphy was quite averse to playing chess.

My guess would be that the primary impetus for
the 1886 event was the success of Zukertort in the
1883 tournament. There was some degree of
disagreement over whether Steinitz or Zukertort
was the best, and the idea of holding a competition
specifically designated in advance as being for the
world championship would have been a natural one at
that point.