I have the honor to propose to you the following conditions in regard to a match for the championship of the world between ourselves. If the conditions meet with your approval, or if you have to propose any alterations or additions, kindly let me know at your earliest opportunity: also inform me of the date when you will be prepared to sign articles.

First—The match to be for a stake of $2,250 a side, the whole amount of the stakes, $4,500, to go to the winner.

Second—Winner to be who first sores ten games, drawn games not counting.

Third—Time limit to be fifteen moves per hour.

Fourth—The match to be played either in clubs or in a public hall, where entrance fee shall be charged. The clubs of Montreal, Philadelphia, and San Francisco have asked that a portion of the match shall be played under their auspices, shall be first considered. If a portion of the match is to be played in a public hall at the expense of the players, it shall be in the city of New York.

Fifth—The match to commence no later than the second Monday in March, 1894. One week before the commencement of the match the stakes shall be deposited with the stakeholder. No later than three weeks before the commencement of the match each player shall deposit a forfeit of $250 with the stakeholder. If a player fails to deposit the balance of $2,000 to complete his stake at the time stated, he shall forfeit his deposit of $250 to his opponent.

Sixth—There shall be no less than three and no more than four days of play per week, and the duration of play on each day no more than six hours. The days of play to be determined before the commencement of each portion of the match by Mr. Steinitz and the committee of the club under whose auspices the portion of the match is to take place.

Seventh—If a game is finished within the hours fixed for play, there shall be no more play on such day. If a game is adjourned at the end of a day's play, it shall be resumed on the following day, irrespective of the appointed days of play. After the adjourned game is finished, no other game shall be commenced that day.

Eighth—Absentation from play can be secured by each player three times during the match by either player giving two hours' notice in writing before the time fixed for commencing a new game both to his opponent and to the official in charge of the match. This rule, however, shall not apply to adjourned games.

Ninth—Property right in the records of all games played in the match shall inure to each player, who shall have the separate right of publishing any or all the games during the match, and a collection of the games after the match; and that W. Steinitz and Emanuel Lasker may obtain a copyright for the games and his own notes both in America and England, or elsewhere, but that neither shall have any commercial claim on his opponent's published games or collection thereof.

Tenth—Referee to be the President of the club at which the concluding part of the match is played. The referee to be the stakeholder at the same time.

Eleventh—Each player shall nominate an umpire at each place where the match is to be played, prior to the commencement of each portion of the match. The umpire nominations shall be a member of the club under whose auspices that portion of the match is to be played, and his election shall be approved of by his opponent. Should either party, however, reject two men thus named, the committee of the club may be appealed to by the opponent for the purpose of electing another umpire, whose appointment shall be final. If a portion of the match is to take place in a public hall at New York, the umpires shall be chosen in the same manner, and in case of disagreements the referee may be appealed to for the purpose of electing another umpire, whose appointment shall be final.

Twelfth—The minor rules Nos. 2, 3, 4, up to and including 16 of the match Steinitz vs. Gunsberg, as published in the International Chess Magazine, November, 1890, shall be adopted. Rule No. 17 to be replaced by the following rule: "The entire correspondence between the two players shall be taken into consideration by the referee for the purpose of interpreting the conditions of the match."

New York, March 15, 1894. The great chess match between W. Steinitz and Emanuel Lasker of Berlin, for the championship of the world and stakes of $2000 a side, began today at 3 P.M. at the Union Square Hotel.

The leading conditions of the match are: Winner of the first 10 games to take the match, time limit 15 moves per hour; the games to be played in New York, Philadelphia and Montreal—three sections.

Lasker's umpire was successful in the toss for first move, and the Teuton opened with 1 P-K4. The game soon assuming the well known Ruy Lopez opening, Steinitz adopted his favorite 3 P-Q3 defence. At the sixth move Lasker adopted a novelty of doubtful value, whereupon Steinitz cleared his position from immediate attack. At the 12th move Lasker initiated a strong attack, which, however, Steinitz parried in a series of elegant defensive tactics.

The game continued about even until about the 41st move Lasker won a pawn, and at the adjourned position wins the exchange, but appears to allow Steinitz a very strong attack.

The game will be resumed tomorrow at 3 P.M. [...]

New York, March 16, 1894. A large gathering of chess enthusiasts was present today at the Union Square to witness the finishing of the game between Steinitz and Lasker.

The position at adjournment yesterday was a most interesting one. Lasker being left with the advantage of exchange, one of his rooks being very badly blocked. By an ingenious sacrifice of pawns, Lasker released the rook, forming a passed pawn, which he pushed with the utmost accuracy to the seventh row; and, avoiding a number of traps laid by Steinitz, who fought bravely, Lasker won on the 60th move. [...]

The next game will be commenced Saturday at 3 P.M.

New York, March 18 [sic], 1894. The second game in the chess match for the world's championship between Steinitz and Lasker was won by Steinitz in brilliant style after 42 moves.

Steinitz had the first move, and it was an open question among the experts whether he would play the Ruy Lopez or 1 P-Q4, as these are his favorite methods of starting play. He chose the former, and in reply Lasker selected the well known Berlin defence, 3 Kt-KB3.

Showy or brilliant moves marked Steinitz's opening play, but he prepared for an early attack upon the adverse king, which had sought shelter upon the king's side by castling. Lasker relied upon a counter attack, through the queen's file, but Steinitz, disdaining this, promptly advanced his entire force of pawns on the king's side, having at this 12th move placed a Kt in a commanding position at his fifth square.

On the 15th move Lasker endeavored to dislodge this troublesome piece, but Steinitz boldly offered battle, leaving it enprise for several moves. Had Lasker take it his game was lost in a few moves.

At last Steinitz retired with this Kt, only to offer up his other Kt on the 21st move, in a position where Lasker was practically forced to accepted the sacrifice. Lasker, two moves later, was compelled to return the piece to avoid immediate loss.

At the adjournment at 6 o'clock Lasker sealed his 25th move. Although he was a pawn ahead, his position was very bad. On his 26th move he made a blunder which practically settled the game, although he struggled on until obliged to reply to Steintiz' [sic] 42d move, when he tipped his king in token of defeat.

Even had Lasker not made this error he would probably have lost as Steinitz had a very commanding position.

The closing moves were played by Steinitz with his accustomed accuracy after he once gets a grip on his opponent.

The third game will be commenced Wednesday at 3 P.M. [...]

New York, March 21, 1894. The third game in the great chess match between Steinitz and Lasker was adjourned at 11 o'clock on the 45th move.

It was Lasker's first move today, and the experts were not surprised to see the same form of Ruy Lopez attack and defence as was adopted in the first game. With a slight alteration in the sixth and seventh moves, the game up to Steinitz's 10th move was precisely as in the first game. Steinitz here adopted a different course, and instead of P-QB3 played B-K3. Lasker promptly advanced P-KB4 and assumed the aggressive.

Steinitz on his 17th move left a "hole" at K6 by advancing his KBP to its third square, and Lasker planted a Kt on that square four moves later which would not be dislodged. Steinitz had castled upon the queen side, and through the open QR file Lasker succeeded in winning a clear pawn, and, two moves later, a clear piece.

The position, however, was such that Steinitz obtained a strong counter attack upon Lasker's king, which had not had time to castle. Steinitz's 26th move, offering up a rook, which, if taken, would have allowed a draw by perpetual check, was very fine, and Lasker was obliged to play with extreme caution in order not to lose, albeit he was a piece ahead.

Steinitz played the latter part of the game most ingeniously, and with an opponent of less strength would have easily won. The game was so critical that at the 45th move both players had less than five minutes to spare.

Lasker sealed his 46th move, and the game will be completed tomorrow at 3 o'clock. Lasker will probably win, and the fourth game will then be begun on Saturday. [...]

New York, March 22, 1894. The third game in the Steinitz-Lasker chess match was, as predicted in this morning's HERALD, a victory for Lasker.

Steinitz fought the ending as long as any hope remained, although he might have prolonged the fight with good drawing chances but for his 51st move, in which he overlooked a move of Lasker's knight. [...]

The fourth game will be commenced Saturday, at 3 P.M.

New York, March 27, 1894. The fifth game in the chess match between Emanuel Lasker and William Steinitz was commenced today at 3 P.M. and adjourned at 11 P.M., to be finished tomorrow.

Lasker again formed the Ruy Lopez opening, and the game was the same as the third game up to Steinitz's ninth move. Steinitz here adopted B-K3 instead of 9 Kt-K4. The strength of the move became apparent after a few moves, as he was enabled to bring his king into safe quarters on the king's side, and, barring the weakness of his QP, was perfectly safe.

At his 16th move Steinitz commenced a counterattack with his QRP, and a few moves later deployed his queen on that side. His 22d move, however, was an error of judgement which should have cost a clear pawn.

Lasker at once attacked the QRP, which Steinitz was unable to defend. He therefore instituted a counter attack in the centre, which Lasker evidently overestimated, as he did not accept this pawn but took on in the centre. Lasker's 27th, 28th and 29th moves were made under pressure of time limit, and were part of a misjudged plan, which resulted in Steinitz regaining ground. Lasker was obliged to offer the exchange of queens as the only method to avoid loss.

Steinitz retained his pawn in the melee and remained with a strong position for the end game. Lasker, however, played the ending with consummate skill, and at the adjourned position a draw is clearly indicated. [...]

New York, March 28, 1894. When Steinitz and Lasker met today at 3 o'clock, at the Union Square Hotel, it was mutually agreed to call the game drawn. The sealed move was 50 P-R7.

The sixth game will commence tomorrow at 3 P.M. The score now stands: Lasker, 2; Steinitz, 2; drawn, 1.

New York, March 29, 1894. The sixth meeting between Steinitz and Lasker brought out a most instructive game, full of deep play. At 11 P.M. it was adjourned until 3 o'clock tomorrow, in a most interesting position. The players had been at the tables for six hours.

Steinitz had the move, and the players proceeded with the same line of Giuoco piano opening as was played on last Saturday in the fourth game. Lasker at the eighth move adopted a different play, retreating his attacked bishop to Kt's 3d, instead of to K2. He obtained a very strong position early in the game, and it looked bad for Steinitz.

The latter studied 35 minutes over his 21st move, and two moves later sacrificed the exchange, winning two pawns later on, and remaining with two passed pawns in the centre, to counterbalance which Lasker had one on QB5.

Steinitz was obliged to double his pawns on the queen's file a few moves later, and to adopt defensive measures to prevent the advance of the adverse pawn.

Lasker was much pressed for time during the third hour, and had 11 moves to make in 15 minutes. He succeeded in doing so, however, without error, and sealed his 46th move after some reflection. The game will be concluded tomorrow. [...]

New York, March 30, 1894. The sixth game between Steinitz and Lasker, which was adjourned last night, was finished this afternoon, ending in a drawn battle after a total of 71 moves had been recorded. The seventh game will be commenced tomorrow at 3 P.M.

The score now is: Lasker, 2; Steinitz, 2; drawn, 2. [...]

New York, April 3, 1894. Another Ruy Lopez was the expectation of the chess players who thronged to the Steinitz-Lasker match today, and they were not disappointed.

Lasker, however, altered his course of attack against Steinitz's favorite 3. P-Q3, and at the sixth move chose a more developing move, B-K3, and, following with Q-Q2, castled upon the queen's side.

Steinitz soon castled upon the king's side, and Lasker began at once to advance the K Kt pawn upon his adversary. He neglected, however, to strengthen his centre by P-KB3, and Steinitz planned a deep trap, into which he drew his opponent and won two pawns.

Lasker made the best of a bad bargain, however, and succeeded in instituting a strong attack, which should have come to nought [sic; naught]. Steinitz played to win Lasker's remaining minor piece, however, and in so doing needlessly imperilled his own king.

Lasker promptly took advantage of his opponent's error in taking the piece, and instituted an attack which Steinitz, albeit he was a piece to the good, could not parry, and he was obliged on the 43d move to lose his queen, and three moves later resigned the game. [...]

New York, April 5, 1894. Steinitz and Lasker met today at 3 o'clock and commenced the eighth and final game of the New York series.

Steinitz promptly advanced P-K4, and Lasker, after some reflection, adopted the well known "French defence"—P-K3. Lasker chose for his third and fourth moves a line of play invented and practised by several of the leading Philadelphia amateurs.

A very slow and cautious development of forces followed, and at the 33d move nothing was missing from the board except two pawns from each side, the play having been up to this point a series of marches and countermarches, without any active fighting.

From this point, however, the play became very interesting. Steinitz had obtained a slight advantage during the opening moves—viz., a majority of three pawns to two upon the queen's side—and the question now was whether he could break in. At his 35th move he failed to take advantage of his opportunity of so doing, and his 39th move was very weak, as it left his pawn position on the king's side, full of "holes."

On Lasker's 40th move he seemed bound to win one of Steinitz's pawns on the queen's side. Steinitz, however, being much pressed for time, got his remaining minor piece, a knight, into trouble, and was obliged to surrender it for two pawns.

The position was adjourned at 3 P.M. Lasker will probably score this game, and go to Philadelphia with a lead of two games. [...]

New York, April 6, 1894. The eighth game of the chess match between Steinitz and Lasker was completed this afternoon, and resulted, as predicted in this morning's HERALD, in a victory for Lasker, Steinitz resigning after 30 moves had been made, making a total of 76 moves.

Lasker missed a direct win on his 47th move, and Steinitz was enabled to make quite a struggle. Lasker forced the exchange of the rooks and remained with queen and bishop against bishop, Steinitz having three pawns against his two, however.

Lasker played the end game accurately, and scored on his 76th move. [...]

Philadelphia, Pa., April 14, 1894. Lasker kept up his winning streak today by winning the first game of the Philadelphia series, after 49 moves.

The Ruy Lopez was again the opening, Lasker having the move. He changed his tactics on his fourth move, but did not appear to gain ground by it. In the contrary, Steinitz, after forcing the exchange of queens and two minor pieces, appeared to have at least an equal game. His attack, initiated by 12 Kt-K4, was, however, faulty, and led him into difficulties.

Lasker utilized the advantage obtained by himself to the utmost, and, by very fine play, succeeded in winning a pawn, in exchange for one of the remaining rooks.

Steinitz played most ingeniously, and the issue was doubtful for a long time, but Lasker, by fine movements of his king, won a second pawn, and, although Steinitz formed a strong passed pawn on his KR file, Lasker succeeded in stopping it, after the remaining rooks had been exchanged, and advancing his own pawn toward queening. As it could not be stopped, Steinitz resigned on his 49th move. [...]

Philadelphia, Pa., April 19, 1894. The 10th game of the Lasker-Steinitz match was played today. Steinitz had the move, and opened with 1 P-Q4, and the game soon assumed the phase of the queen's gambit declined.

Steinitz, on his fourth move, introduced a line of play which he first played against Gunsburg in the match in 1890, viz., 4 P-KB3. The line of play is highly questionable, as black always appears to get the better development of pieces. It was so today, and after queens were exchanged Steinitz remained with an isolated QBP on its third square—always a source of weakness.

Lasker developed his attack on this pawn admirably, and succeeded in winning it on his 23d move, forming thereby a most dangerous passed pawn. Steinitz had previously castled on this side, intending to guard it with his king, but as a consequence his king became greatly exposed.

Lasker played in masterly style and Steinitz was compelled to resign on the 35th move, his position being utterly untenable.

Lasker has now won four consecutive games, the score being Lasker, 6; Steinitz, 2; drawn, 2. The next game will be played Saturday at the Union League Club. [...]

Philadelphia, Pa., April 21, 1894. Lasker scored another victory in the chess match tonight. The score now stands: Lasker, won, 7; Steinitz, won, 2; drawn, 2. [...]

Montreal, Que., May 3, 1894. Lasker and Steinitz began the final series of the chess match at the Cosmopolitan Club today. Steinitz was in far better condition than at any time previously during the match.

It was ladies' day at the Cosmopolitan Club today, and one-half of the spacious parlor in which play took place was reserved for the fair guests. The honors of the occasion were done in a handsome manner by the president of the Cosmopolitan, Mr. M. Cochenthaler, assisted by Messrs. Fyfe, Bobson [sic; Babson] and other prominent members. A large corps of newspaper men and many of the prominent members of the Montreal Chess Club were present. Mr. George W. Stevens acted as umpire for Steinitz, and George W. Liddell acted in a similar capacity for Lasker.

It was Steinitz's move today, and the veteran again chose the queen's gambit declined, but on his fourth move, instead of the faulty 4 P-KB3, he chose the powerful continuation 4 B-Kt5.

It was a most interesting game, the advantage being first on one side, then on the other, and it finally terminated in a draw by repetition of moves, 2½ times, and as it was time for the 11 o'clock adjournment, Lasker offered a draw, whereupon Steinitz asked for five minutes to consider the proposition, and, after due deliberation, accepted it. [...]

Montreal, Que., May 5, 1894. Steinitz won an excellent game today. Lasker, as first player, adopted the Ruy Lopez, and Steinitz altered his defence, playing, instead of 3 P-Q3, 3 P-QR3. Lasker took Kt with bishop, something unusual and not considered as good as 4 B-QR4.

Queens were early exchanged, and Steinitz remained with a powerful combination of two bishops and four pawns against three on the queen's wing. He utilized this advantage to the utmost, and obtained a power attack by the sacrifice of a pawn. He kept the upper hand throughout, and played the ending with great skill, completely outplaying Lasker.

If Steinitz keeps on in this way he may yet pull out the match. The score to date is: Lasker, 7; Steinitz, 3; drawn, 3. [...]

Montreal, Que., May 8, 1894. Steinitz opened the 14th game of the chess match with 1 P-Q4, as in the 12th game, which resulted in a draw. Today he was more successful, Lasker adopting a line of play, viz.: 3 P-QB3—of doubtful merit, and resigning after Steinitz's 46th move.

Lasker got by far the worst of the opening, and in an attempt to force an attack seriously compromised his centre and, later on, his king's wing. His 19th move was either and error or a grave miscalculation, as it allowed Steinitz, by a combination of moves, to sacrifice the exchange for an overwhelming superiority in pawns.

After this, although Lasker made a game struggle, he was never in it, and Steinitz boldly crossed with his king into the centre. After the exchange of queens had taken place and the passed pawns which had resulted from the sacrifice of the exchange were forced up to the seventh row, Lasker not being able to prevent their queening, resigned. The score now is: Lasker, 7; Steinitz, 4; drawn, 3. [...]

Montreal, Que., May 15, 1894. A throng of enthusiastic admirers of Steinitz and Lasker today filled the commodious quarters of the Cosmopolitan Club almost to overflowing to witness the continuance of the great match for the world's championship.

The long period of rest had done much good to both contestants.

It was Lasker's move, and the Teuton for the second time chose the queen's gambit declined, and at the sixth move the position stood exactly as in one of the Philadelphia series. Lasker, however, varied from his previous play at the seventh move and early obtained a very powerful attack, to compensate for which Steinitz had isolated his queen's pawn. He played with great vigor, and at the 6 o'clock adjournment the game seemed favorable for White.

Lasker succeeded in winning a pawn at his 37th move, and still kept such a pressure on his opponent that he chose to adopt desperate measures in order to complicate the position. Lasker, however, played with entire correctness, and scored on the 44th move.

The score now stands: Lasker, 8; Steinitz, 4; drawn, 3. [...]

Montreal, Que., May 17, 1894. Lasker won today's game on the 55th move, catching Steinitz in a trap, when Steinitz had, a move earlier, a winning game.

The opening was the same as that of the 12th game, Lasker varying at the 7th move.

The play in the mid game was most exciting. Lasker getting up a fine attack, which, however, Steinitz defended with great accuracy, and the latter finally appeared to have an advantage for the end game.

At this 36th move, however, Steinitz seemed to fail to grasp the position, and his following move was an error which lost him all his advantage and left him a pawn minus. Lasker was left with three pawns to two, and had also Kt against bishop.

Steinitz could have forced the exchange of one pawn and won the passed QRP, while Lasker formed a passed pawn on the king's side, which, however, could not queen, as the white bishop could be sacrificed for it. But Steinitz seemed rattled, and missed this chance, Lasker ultimately scoring. [...]

Montreal, Que., May 19, 1894. The 17th game of the great chess contest was commenced promptly at 3 o'clock today.

It was witnessed by many ladies and gentlemen, most of whom expected it to be the final game of the match, but Steinitz fought like a tiger, and at the adjourned position has far the best of it.

It was Lasker's opening, and very quickly the first three moves of the well known Giuoco Piano were played. Some of the spectators expected four P-QKt4, forming the "Evans," but Lasker, evidently even the lead that he had, did not care to risk it.

Safe lines of play were the rule in the opening. Steinitz double his opponent's king's pawn, by the exchange of bishops, and for a long time rested his play on this point. He then advanced his queen's wing pawns, forming a strong attack, at the same time preventing any break in on the king side, where both had castled.

At the 31st move queens were exchanged, Steinitz still retaining a very strong attack on the queen wing. He pressed maters with great judgment, and at the adjourned position wins a clear pawn. Lasker has a Kt against bishop, and each has two rooks, with 7 pawns each.

The game will be concluded Monday at 3 P.M. [...]

Montreal, Que., May 21, 1894. Steinitz scored today's game by merely making his sealed move, as Lasker, realizing that his position was untenable, resigned at once. This make the score: Lasker, 9; Steinitz, 5, drawn, 3. [...]

Montreal, Que., May 22, 1894. The 18th game of the chess match was opened on similar lines of the queen's gambit declined as the 16th game, but at the seventh move Steinitz adopted a far stronger continuation than in the previous game, and played R-B followed by B-Q3.

Lasker exchanged his queen's pawn for the white QBP, and then filled in the square at Q4 with his Kt.

Steinitz, at the 11th move, advanced his KP somewhat prematurely, and made dangerous "holes" on his king's side by advancing 12 P-KKt3. As a consequence, Lasker obtained, by advancing 19 P-QB4, a very commanding position.

Steinitz defended with the utmost accuracy his weakened position, and when Lasker at move 25 made a risky advance of his KB, obtained some counter attack.

The battle was entirely in the centre and queen's wing, and was nobly fought on both sides. Gradually pieces were exchanged and the adjourned position looks like a sure draw.

Play will be resumed on this game tomorrow, Wednesday, at 3 P.M. [...]

Montreal, Que., May 23, 1894. The 18th game of the Steinitz-Lasker match adjourned from yesterday, was completed today after an hour's play, resulting, as predicted in The Herald, in a drawn battle.

At Lasker's 40th move he missed a clear win of a pawn by 40. BxKBP, as if KtxB; 41. Kt-Kt5(ch) wins the queen; and at the 42nd move could have forced the game in the same manner by Kt-K4.

Both players were very close on the time limit during the latter part of last evening. At 10:20 neither player had made his 34th move, and each had about 20 minutes in which to make 12 moves. Otherwise the error would seem unaccountable.

Owing to Thursday being a holiday throughout the British empire—the Queen's birthday—the next game will be played Saturday. [...]

Montreal, Que., May 26, 1894. Emanuel Lasker won the chess championship of the world and the stakes of $2000 a side, today, by defeating William Steinitz in a queen's gambit declined after 52 moves.

The Teuton had the opening move, and the game proceeded on the same lines to the 12th move as the 11th game of the match. At this point Steinitz varied from the preceding game, but afterward was entirely outclassed on the ending, and lost the exchange on the 29th move. He struggled on, and but for accurate play on the part of Lasker would have drawn, but the odds of the exchange was too much, and he gracefully resigned at the 52d move, proposing three cheers for the new champion of the world. [...]

To Emanuel Lasker, Chess Champion of the World:

Having received satisfactory assurances of the support for the purpose, I have the honor of challenging you for a return match on the same conditions in the main as those which regulated our recent encounter, with the proviso that the new contest shall commence no later than the early part of December next.

Arrangements of the details would no doubt be an easy matter, and I trust to receive an early and favorable answer, which please direct to my private address at Upper Montclair, N. J.

W. Steinitz, Esq.

Dear Sir: In reply to your late favor, I beg to state that Mr. W. M. de Visser has kindly consented to act as my second.

I am not certain of the date of my return, as I intend to make a trip around the world; but I shall be at your disposal whenever I shall be back from my journey. Yours very truly, wishing you a cordial good-bye,

My Dear Mr. De Visser—Mr. Lasker has notified me that you have accepted the office of his second, and I beg to express, in the first place, my warmest approval of his selection and my fullest confidence that you will conduct negotiations on his behalf in the most honorable manner.

From Mr. Lasker's last letter to me, of which I enclose a copy, as well as from my previous correspondence with him on the subject. I can only conclude that he has given you plenary powers to make binding preparations for the contemplated match with one exception, namely, in regard to the time for the commencement of the contest, which he now desires to be extended until his return from an intended “trip round the world.” As you may be aware Mr. Lasker had already, in a previous letter to me, dated June 15, positively fixed the beginning of the match for the end of the current year, and I must strongly enter my objection against his making such a serious modification of our agreement without my consent.

However, in order to meet Mr. Lasker's wishes as much as possible, I am willing to postpone the beginning of the match until the middle of March, of 1895, at the latest.

You will no doubt understand that I cannot bind myself and my backers for an indefinite period, and that I cannot make any further concession on the point, as otherwise the match is not likely to be finished before the hot Summer season, which is utterly unsuitable for such a contest. Very truly yours,

My dear Mr. Steinitz—Begging leave to reply to your letter to me of July 2 and your subsequent remarks regarding the return chess match between yourself and Mr. Lasker, I have to state that I transmitted to Mr. Lasker the substance of your communication and conversation, including the remark that unless Mr. Lasker agreed to begin play in the match on or before March 15, 1895, you would consider that he had withdrawn his acceptance of your challenge and that you would probably claim for yourself the title of champion of the world.

I have just received a letter from Mr. Lasker, from Berlin, and in it he expressed the greatest surprise that you should claim that he has ever named a definite time when he would be ready to begin play.

In his letter to you of June 15, written unfortunately in German, Mr. Lasker stated (as nearly as I have been able to have his language interpreted) that upon his return from Europe, which was projected for the end of this year, he would be ready with pleasure to accept your invitation to a second match.

Subsequently, owing to his determination to make a tour of the world, Mr. Lasker found, that in all probability, he would not return to this country before March or April of 1895, and you will see that it is therefore impossible for me now to bind Mr. Lasker to commence play by the date you mention.

I certainly cannot construe the words of Mr. Lasker's letter to you of June 15 as having "positively fixed the beginning of the match for the end of the current year," as you claim in your letter to me, especially after receiving Mr. Lasker's assurance that such was not his intention, and can only assure you that should any change in Mr. Lasker's plans bring him to New York earlier than he he at present anticipates, he will be ready to put himself at your disposal, subject only to sufficiently reasonable time to prepare himself for play and collect his subscriptions, and further that Mr. Lasker will play no one for the championship before giving you the opportunity of regaining your lost laurels.

As to your suggested intention to claim the championship, I of course cannot prevent your doing so, if you insist upon such a course, but I trust, upon reconsideration, you will conclude that the best interests of chess can be served by accepting the delay with the best possible grace, instead of seeking to secure through a plea of default on the part of Mr. Lasker what under the circumstances would be indeed but an empty honor, and which, as far as I can see, would add nothing to your reputation or the highest respect still held for your ability by the chess world, and which might possibly be the means of disturbing the friendly relations now existing between you. Thanking you for your expressions of regard and confidence, I remain, very truly yours, Mr. Wm. Steinitz, Upper Montclair, N. J.

Mr. Dear Mr. De Visser,—Your letter of the 6th instant has caused me the greatest surprise and disappointment. Not to waste any time, however, I shall proceed at once to reply categorically.

It would have been more in accordance with the established customs of transacting such negotiations if you had forwarded to Mr. Lasker a full copy of my short letter of July 2, instead of merely "transmitting its substance." In regard to my "conversation" with you about the course which I might "probably" take in the matter eventually, it was not intended on my part that it should be communicated to Mr. Lasker, unless privately. Anyhow, neither you nor Mr. Lasker had any right to drag the subject before the public until I had positively formed my decision and given you official notice of it. More of that anon, when I come to review your reflections upon my probably course of action.

Referring to Mr. Lasker's denial "that he has ever named a definite time when he would be ready to play," I can only charitably assume either that he has never troubled himself to keep a copy of his own letter of June 15, to which he alludes, or else that he had forgotten the terms of the challenge to which he then answered. For in that challenge, dated May 31, I had offered in general to play on the same terms as those of the last match, only "with the proviso that the new contest shall commence no later than the early part of December next."

The words which you quote in translation (not exactly, by the way), could therefore bear no other meaning than, that Mr. Lasker desired an extension of about a fortnight's time beyond the six month's notice for the beginning of play. Moreover, in that same letter of June 15, Mr. Lasker announces "that he will name his second for the arrangements, and he entertains not the slightest doubt with the mutual agreements will be fixed to the satisfaction of both parties, as in the first match." The quoted passages bear no other interpretation than that he would give full instructions to his second, whom he would also invest with plenary powers, for the transaction of all business in his behalf in settling the preliminaries of the match, which, anyhow, would come off at the "end of the year," as stipulated, perhaps four or five weeks after his return from Europe, which might take place late in November. He could not, surely, have intended to appoint a second then, for the arrangement of a match which, according to his last contention, could not be organized to begin earlier than about October or November of 1895! There was, therefore, positively a time fixed in Mr. Lasker's letter of June 15, approximately, but definitely enough for the beginning of play; but, nevertheless, I have already granted an extension of three months and a half beyond the date stipulated in my original challenge.

Strange to say, Mr. Lasker's mental reservation, or afterthought, or "determination of a tour around the world," as you call it, was made known to me first in his letter of June 21, in which he nominates you as his second. Permit me to say, that in my opinion your only excuse for accepting such a post under the conditions which you now submit for Mr. Asker, is the possibility that he may yet alter his mind and begin play on or before March 15, 1895. Otherwise your office will be no more than that of his substitute in a literary sham fight. Though I fully adhere to my expressions of regard and confidence, to which you allude, I shall seriously question your good judgment if you allow your highly-respected name to be used for such purposes.

Regarding your criticism of my suggested intention to claim the championship, I have already indicated that it is out of place, and not in proper season, and I may now add that it was quite unfair for your side to start before the public with such a discussion, before I had finally decided on the steps which I might take, and before I had an opportunity to state my own reasons for my intended action. However, my case is strong enough to yield Mr. Lasker the advantage he has taken, for I feel confident that a little illustration of his latest proposition will turn the tables completely. Apart from Mr. Lasker's formal pledge to begin play at the end of the year, as shown above, his refusal or evasion of commencing the match three and a half months later than stipulated in my original challenge is based on his "determination to a tour round the world." There can be no mistake about the meaning of that. Instead of fulfilling an engagement of honor, Mr. Lasker intends to traverse the globe as champion, open to exhibition and other professional engagements, where-ever offered, holding, meanwhile, at his own pleasure, title by possession to the greater portion by far of the championship and leaving me to claim the remaining portion, until he shall be taken with a "determination" to return to this country. Now, meantime, chess masters, like Gunsberg, Tarrasch, Tschigorin and Walbrodt, who are notoriously in the field as rivals for the championship, are ruled our of the race, and may accept with the best possible grace the position of second class players. If Mr. Lasker considers such a proposition fair, or even honest, I do not, if only on the ground that those masters might justly claim that they could have beaten me at least as easily as Mr. Lasker did, if I could not play any better than in the last match.

But this matter also has another aspect. The champion can claim no other privilege than that of being entitled to a challenge on fair terms, if any one wants to play with him. Once this is done, the rivals stand on a perfectly even footing in their rights and in reputation until one is beaten. Mr. Lasker does not deny that my terms are fair, including the notice for beginning the match. However, he has formed his "determination of a tour round the world," but I can claim the same rights of circumnavigation on his return, and thus we might tour round the world forever. Mr. Lasker, with his lion's share of the championship, and I with the remainder, leaving other masters to form an admiration society of the combination, which, by mutual agreement, would thus hold the championship title in sections.

Furthermore, there is a money question in the matter which will at once bring home to ordinary understanding the point of honor involved. Mr. Lasker and his friends have won $2,000 from my backers, who, however, have at once chivalrously staked a like amount for another match. In common honor, not to say honesty, they are entitled to their revouche, and Mr. Lasker has no right to defer it to suit his own convenience, but is bound to play upon reasonable notice. My challenge is complete vindication of my defeat, and I require no excuse for myself. But, on behalf of my generous supporters, especially those of Montreal, who have backed me for the first time and lost their money, I may now plead the well-known fact that, in consequence of a series of private misfortunes, I was broken in health and spirits when I was challenged by Mr. Lasker. Moreover, as is also well known, I was much behind time with Part II of my "Modern Chess Instructor," the issue of which would have been more remunerative to me than winning the match. Nevertheless, I promptly accepted Mr. Lasker's challenge, and strained every nerve under the greatest difficulties to organize the contest. There are no such obstacles now, and all prearrangements can be easily made, and he has no excuse whatever for entering on his tour, instead of keeping a positive engagement for a match under fair conditions. It would be a bad precedent to establish that a player, having snatched a victory, can choose his own time for playing a return match.

To sum up, Mr. Lasker did distinctly accept my challenge, in his letter of June 15, and promised to begin play by the end of the year, without giving the slightest hint in that letter of any possible delay. Within six days after that he coolly withdraws his promise, and practically adjourns the match sine die. Strictly speaking, he forfeited his champion title June 22, the day when I received his "determination" of a tour round the world, I could lawfully claim the title now. Pecuniarily, this would be no great penalty, for he could amply recoup himself by an exhibition tour round the world as champion de facto. But such a fiasco forfeiture would subject him to lasting ridicule by contrast with the previous record. For I held the championship for twenty-seven years and three-quarters, while Mr. Lasker's title almost survives only as many days—from May 26 to June 22.

However, I intend to seize this favorable opportunity to give Mr. Lasker and the chess world an example of how a real chess master ought to behave on such an occasion, and I therefore offer to Mr. Lasker two months time from this date to alter his mind in respect to his projected tour round the world, or to order it so as not to interfere with his playing a return match by March 17, 1895, at the latest. In proposing this I am again making a great sacrifice, for the uncertainty in which I am now placed prevents me from entering into contracts with printers and publishers in reference to the publication of my book, and this causes me serious loss of time.

If Mr. Lasker accepts my offer well and good. If not he will be welcome to his 365th part of a champions record. Very truly yours,

My dear Mr. Steinitz—Your letter of the 10th inst. was duly received and in reply I beg to say that I have forwarded a fully copy of the same to Mr. Lasker for his consideration of your ultimatum. Whether Mr. Lasker will act as I presume you think a real chess master should and consent to shorten or abandon his trip in order to begin play with you by the date you specify I cannot say, and it must remain with him to decide whether or not he will be content to pursue his journey with only the one-three hundred and sixty-fifth part of a champion's record as a souvenir of his late encounter with you. You will pardon me, I trust, if I do not care to reply to your reelections upon my judgment, which can have but very little connection with the not very agreeable task I have undertaken to oblige Mr. Lasker, but I must protest most decidedly against your charge of unfairness in my announcing your probable intention of claiming the championship etc., and I am sorry that your eagerness to commence another match has apparently dulled your memory to the extent of calling forth such a remark.

At the time you made your probable intention known to me I requested you to embody it in a letter to me. This you declined to do as you said you thought it unnecessary, but, upon my stating to you that I should nevertheless regard it as official, you entered no objection whatever and I considered, and do still consider that I had a prefect right to communicate it to Mr. Lasker and to refer to it in my reply to you in the manner I did.

Upon the above facts my recollection is quite clear and I can only repeat that your charge of unfairness seems entirely gratuitous and uncalled for. Very truly yours, Mr. William Steinitz, Upper Montclair.

W. Steinitz, Esq.

Dear Sir: In reply to your letter of Aug. 10 I beg to repeat what I said in June, viz., that I shall be very pleased to play a return match with you. I did not mention any date in my letter, but I will do so now, and fix Oct. 1, 1895, for the beginning of the match. Chess and other engagements that I have entered into do not allow me to play sooner. If this does not suit you I am very sorry.

I do not reply to your other, in my opinion, irrelevant remarks: besides, I do not claim to be a match for you in a newspaper fight, but I am, until beaten on the checkered board, the chess champion of the world.

Kindly send communications to Mr. de Visser as heretofore, as he will always know my address. Yours very truly,

My Dear Mr. Steinitz: I have to-day received a letter from Mr. Lasker from London, enclosing a personal reply to you of your letter to me of Aug. 10, which I herewith beg to hand you.

Inasmuch as you have announced your intention of claiming the championship unless Mr. Lasker agreed to begin play in the return match by March 17, 1895, and as this Mr. Lasker plainly declines to do, I presume there can be at present no further need of my services to the latter as his second: and as much as I regret to forego the pleasure of further correspondence with you. I must request that should you have any communications to make to Mr. Lasker you will address him personally and directly.

I have no doubt Mr. Lasker will keep me posted as to his whereabouts, and I shall be happy at any time to give you his address if you require it.

Regretting exceedingly that the chess world has for the present at least lost the expected opportunity of witnessing another contest between two such masters of the royal game, I remain, with kind regards, very truly yours.

Dear Sir: Your letter dated the 26th ult. reached me yesterday, having been transmitted to me by your second, Mr. De Visser, who also announced to me his resignation of the post of honor which you had assigned to him. Considering that this gentleman under your instructions opened "the literary sham fight," as I called it, his retirement is significant enough and forms a sufficient answer to your final fling about "the newspaper fight" wherewith you endeavor to cover your own retreat from an untenable position. It is quite obvious that Mr. De Visser never intended to accept the post of an intermediator for the arrangement of a match which was to commence fifteen months after his acceptance of the office.

Nor did I intend for my part to enter negotiations for such a contest at such a remote date, and it is a mere pretentious quibble to try to fix the date absolutely for the beginning of the match twelve months or even six months ahead before all other conditions are settled. Though you may again call the matter "irrelevant," I beg to repeat that in reply to my challenge for a match to being "in the early part of December at the latest," you fixed the date nearly, but clearly enough, for "the end of the year," 1894 (not 1895).

No doubt you could retain the champion title and prevent your ever being "beaten on the checkered board" if the precedent were to be established that the champion would, quite alone, choose his own time for playing again, and could, moreover, break a positive agreement for a match, first, on the plea of "a tour round the world" and, next, of "chess and other engagements," which it was his pleasure to enter into subsequently instead of making preparations to fulfill his previous promise. But the general public will probably allow that I, as well as my backers, may hold a different opinion on the subject, and I shall therefore take the fullest responsibility of reclaiming the champion title, which you have forfeited by your letter of June 22, after the expiration of the time of grace which I gave you for reconsideration.

In regard to new negotiations for another match, the precedent has already been established that such contests can be arranged by challenges addressed to both parties from a renowned club. My matches with Mr. Tschigorin were thus organized by the Havana Chess Club, and likewise my match with Mr. Gunsberg was in the same way arranged by the Manhattan Chess Club, of New-York. A similar course will, no doubt, be taken at reasonable notice by some distinguished chess club whenever a clear prospect presents itself of organizing a meeting between us, and I, for my part shall offer no objections to such an initiation of new negotiations, though I have the honor to subscribe myself in the mean while, your very truly,