10/12/2024 – In 1875 Walter Grimshaw, a composer of chess problems who was not far off master strength as a player, played at least one casual game against Steinitz at Simpson’s Divan, and supposedly won in 17 moves. But was this “summary demolishment” actually played? Steinitz called the game, which was published in the International Chess Magazine, "a deliberately bogus manufactured forgery." You can read about Grimshaw and this controversial encounter courtesy of Neil Hickman in CHESS Magazine, October 2024.
Winning starts with what you know
The new version 18 offers completely new possibilities for chess training and analysis: playing style analysis, search for strategic themes, access to 6 billion Lichess games, player preparation by matching Lichess games, download Chess.com games with built-in API, built-in cloud engine and much more.
Winning starts with what you know The new version 18 offers completely new possibilities for chess training and analysis: playing style analysis, search for strategic themes, access to 6 billion Lichess games, player preparation by matching Lichess games, download Chess.com games with built-in API, built-in cloud engine and much more.
Unlock the secrets of one of the most resilient and strategic openings in chess with our comprehensive video course, “The Caro-Kann Defence.”
€36.90
If someone defeats a world champion brilliantly, even in a casual game, it’s worthy of note. Thus I included in Memorable Games of British Chess the off-hand game which Bird won against Lasker in 1892 (Game 14), and the 1908 game (Game 19) in which one Donald Murray beat Lasker with one of the earliest examples of the Dragon exchange sacrifice. And if it were genuine, this little game, supposedly Grimshaw-Steinitz, described by Wellmuth in The Golden Treasury of Chess (Horowitz & Harkness, 1943) as “the most summary demolishment(sic) of Steinitz on record” would perhaps deserve to join them. But is it genuine? Andy Soltis, in David vs Goliath Chess (Batsford, 2016) was confident that it was, as was Grimshaw’s obituarist in the British Chess Magazine.
Tim Harding, in his magnificent Steinitz in London (McFarland, 2020), dismisses the game as spurious. And for reasons I shall seek to explain, I am quite sure that Harding is right, though I’m not convinced by his blaming Grimshaw himself for its appearance.
New ...
New Game
Edit Game
Setup Position
Open...
PGN
FEN
Share...
Share Board (.png)
Share Board (configure)
Share playable board
Share game as GIF
Notation (PGN)
QR Code
Layout...
Use splitters
Swipe notation/lists
Reading mode
Flip Board
Settings
Move
N
Result
Elo
Players
Replay and check the LiveBook here
Please, wait...
1.e4e52.Nf3Nc63.d4exd44.Nxd4Qh4This was a favourite Steinitz line; he used it in all three games with Black in his 1876 obliteration of Blackburne, though his success had nothing to do with his choice of opening. Steinitz first used it against Kolisch at Paris in 1867 (Game 259 in Harding's book), only drawing.5.Nb5Kolisch himself had essayed 4...Qh4 against Maczuski at Paris in 1863, suffering the following débâcle:5.Nc3Bb46.Qd3Nf67.Nxc6dxc68.Bd2Bxc39.Bxc3Nxe410.Qd4Qe711.0-0-0Qg5+??12.f4‼presumably he was expecting12.Kb1Nxc3+13.Qxc30-0, when Black is fine12...Qxf4+13.Bd2Qg414.Qd8+‼Kxd815.Bg5+Ke816.Rd8#1-0.5...Qxe4+Black can quite safely play5...Bb4+first when all three games against Blackburne (and the correspondence match London-Vienna 1874, in which Steinitz, together with Potter and others, played Black) continued6.Bd2Qxe4+7.Be2Kd8.6.Be3Bb4+This is a blunder, but Wellmuth allowed it to pass without comment.7.Nd2!Now, of course, the bishop is overloaded - if the pin on the d2-knight is released, Black's queen falls.Bxd2+8.Qxd2Kd89.0-0-0Qe6When the game surfaced in the 'Illustrated London News' in 1880 as played between Grimshaw and "a Divan player", the annotator criticised this move and suggested9...a6, but White then has10.Nxc7Kxc711.Qd6+Kd8(thus far Bird-Roberts, Philadelphia 1876; 1-0, 38)12.Re1!, winning out of hand.9...d6resigns "would have been the shortest loss by a world champion", exclaims Soltis. Well, apart from calling to mind the vulgarism that if my auntie had balls she'd be my uncle, the observation is factually wrong, as we shall see.10.Bf4!d611.Bxd6!Although after Black's 12th move White is threatened with mate in one, Black, with his king stuck on the open d-file with the queen and rook bearing down, is doomed.cxd612.Nxd6Qxa2Some annotators give this a "?";but12...Kc713.Bc4is hopeless too.13.Nb5+Ke814.Nc7+Kf815.Qd6+Nge716.Qd8+Nxd817.Rxd8#1–0
So who was Grimshaw, and why is he remembered? Walter Grimshaw (1832-1890) was a composer of chess problems, and introduced the idea of the ‘Grimshaw theme’, in which two defending pieces with different ways of moving mutually interfere with one another. This problem, published in the Illustrated London News of 24th August 1850, shows an early example.
Walter Grimshaw, Illustrated London News 1850,
White to play and mate in 5
1 Bc8! Bxc8 2 Qf6 Re6. The reciprocal interference by 2...Be6 by which the bishop obstructs the rook’s defence of e5, results in immediate mate, of course: 3 Qe5#. However, now the rook obstructs the bishop’s defence of f5, allowing: 3 Qd4+ Kxd4 4 Nf5+ Kd5 5 c4# 1-0.
That was fairly crude; by 1930 Lev Loshinsky (Tijdschrift vs NSB 1930) was managing to get three Grimshaws into a single, wonderfully economical, problem.
Lev Loshinsky, Tijdschrift vs NSB 1930
White to play and mate in 2
The key is the waiting move 1 Bb3!. Now, almost any move by Black runs into a Grimshaw interference: on b7, with 1...Rb7 2 Rc6# or 1...Bb7 2 Re7#; on g7, with 1...Rg7 2 Qe5 or 1...Bg7 2 Qxf7#; or, a bishop and pawn Grimshaw rather than bishop and rook, on f6, with 1...f6 2 Qe4# or 1...Bf6 2 Qg4#.
Learn about one of the greatest geniuses in the history of chess! Paul Morphy's career (1837-1884) lasted only a few years and yet he managed to defeat the best chess players of his time.
Grimshaw’s obituary in the British Chess Magazine, after he tragically took his own life in 1890, suggested that he was not far off master strength as a player, and it is not in dispute that he played one casual game against Wilhelm Steinitz at Simpson’s Divan, and won. But was that game the 17-move “summary demolishment”?
British Chess Magazine describes it as “fully authenticated”, it would seem on the basis of a claim made by the Reverend MacDonnell (the loser of Game 6 in Memorable Games) that Grimshaw, who was a complete stranger to him, tapped him on the shoulder and invited him to come and see “how I have got the great man”. Steinitz, who expressed himself furiously and at considerable length on the subject in the pages of the International Chess Magazine, suggested that it was absurd that a complete stranger should single out MacDonnell, and also pointed out that on another occasion MacDonnell claimed to have seen the game played.
Steinitz acknowledged that he had lost a game to Grimshaw, and added “I am not ashamed to own that I have lost games against much weaker players than Mr Grimshaw, nor should I be ashamed of losing in fifteen moves (sic), for shorter games of mine have been published where I left a piece en prise or overlooked a mate on the move [Indeed, one very short game which Steinitz lost appears at the end of this piece]. But I cannot let an attempt at imposition and fraud on the public pass unnoticed if I am sure of it [...] Nor have I any doubt that the game as published is a deliberately bogus manufactured forgery.”
Why was Steinitz so certain? Well, a few weeks after the actual game Grimshaw-Steinitz was played, Grimshaw wrote to Steinitz enclosing a few moves of the game with a request that Steinitz add the rest, which Grimshaw had forgotten, saying that he wished to keep the game “merely for the joke”. Now, suppose you had flattened the world champion in 19 moves, and suppose also that the first few moves were known ‘book’ and the last few a forced mating sequence including a queen sacrifice. Would you have forgotten the game?
The request from Grimshaw makes complete sense, however, if, as Steinitz consistently claimed, he had been invited to play a casual game for the then customary shilling stake and, after a few moves, “began to think I had caught a tartar, for my opponent played awfully slow and seemed determine to play a match game for one shilling [...] I had a dead won game for a long time, but at last, losing patience, I made a slip, and, as far as I remember, my opponent then played fairly well and won at last in good style a game which I believe extended to over 50 moves.”
Grimshaw had then showed Steinitz a fine two-move problem, over which he pondered for some fifteen minutes. “The stranger then lifted the veil of his incognito and divulged himself as the composer of the problem, and as Mr Grimshaw. He also made some apology for not having introduced himself before on the ground that he only wanted to play me without my knowing him, ‘as a joke’”. I note in passing that McDonnell’s claim to have been invited to see how Grimshaw “had got the great man” would make more sense if Steinitz was puzzling over a problem composed by Grimshaw, rather than lengthily contemplating a position in which he had been mated.
Steinitz dated his encounter with Grimshaw to about 1875. The game first appeared in the Illustrated London News of 23rd October 1880, stated to be between Grimshaw and “a Divan player” (with Steinitz not named as the player of the black pieces). Steinitz doesn’t appear to have been named as the loser until the game was republished in the Irish Sportsman in 1884.
Many of his contemporaries respected Steinitz, and the tribute Lasker paid to him after defeating him to win the world championship was touching. He had many strong and lasting friendships among the chess-playing community. But he had a gift for the cutting phrase. Of the Reverend MacDonnell, he remarked: “He evidently has an extraordinary good memory, for he always makes the same mistakes”. However, although Steinitz could be undiplomatic to a fault, he appears to have been fiercely honest about acknowledging his defeats. Thus this little game, no.486 in Harding’s book, in which Steinitz was beaten in fine style by the lawyer Edwyn Anthony (1843-1932):
1.e4e52.Nf3Nc63.Bc4Bc54.b4Bxb45.c3Ba56.d4exd47.0-0dxc3The aptly named 'Compromised Defence'. Black takes his life in his hands; but it is still occasionally ventured with success even today.8.Qb3Qf69.Bg5Qg610.Nxc3Bxc311.Qxc3h6?after11...Nge712.Ne5Nxe513.Qxe5,f6would fork queen and bishop12.Bh4Nge7
Playable on move 11, this move now loses.13.Ne5!Nxe514.Qxe5f615.Qxc7Qxe4?16.Rfe1!Qxh417.Rxe7+!Kxe718.Re1+Kf819.Qd8#1–0
The game was initially published from move 11 onwards, with Black not named; Steinitz in his own magazine admitted that he was the loser and gave the full score. He added that he had asked Anthony to publish the game giving his name.
And MacDonnell, writing about Steinitz in 1894, acknowledged “To himself, to his Walter Grimshaw was a pawnbroker in Whitby, as well as a noted early composer. October 2024 opponent, to chess, he is ever faithful [...] chess is to him a temple wherein he worships with the keenest ardour and most profound reverence”. Henry Bird also acknowledged Steinitz’s skill, but pointedly distinguished between what he termed Business Chess (at which he acknowledged Steinitz to be pre-eminent), and Recreationary and Amusement Chess.
Writing on chessgames.com, Geoff Chandler has pointed out that the story of Steinitz being, in effect, ambushed by Grimshaw “needed a punchline”. And a game played by Bird himself offered just such a punchline. Bird-Roberts, Philadelphia 1876, involved a black defence which Steinitz himself played. A little analysis suggested a possible improvement for Black, met by an elegant refutation. And so, years after the alleged event, the “punchline” surfaced.
What makes this especially plausible, in my view, is what the notes to the game in the Illustrated London News carefully avoid drawing attention to. 9...a6 is suggested, but this had been blown out of the water four years previously in Bird-Roberts (even though Bird had failed to find the quickest win). I do not, however, see any basis for assuming that Grimshaw himself, as opposed to MacDonnell and Bird (two gentlemen who, as Harding recounts, were more than happy to wind Steinitz up), was involved in the concoction of the “punchline”.
The shortest loss by a world champion, by the way? In 1867 Steinitz played two short matches against the Scottish expert George Brunton Fraser (1831?-1905), the first of them at odds of pawn and move, winning 7½-1½, and the second, on level terms, winning 4-2, Fraser creditably securing a win and two draws. Game 6 of the odds match (Game 231 in Harding’s book) proceeded thus (remove Black’s f-pawn): 1.e4 e6 2.d4 Qe7 (a dubious defence, which Steinitz repeated in Game 7, eventually securing a draw) 3.Bd3 Nc6 4.Nf3 b6 5.0-0 Bb7 6.d5 Nd8 7.Bg5 Qf7??
8.Ne5! 1-0
About the author
Neil Hickman is a retired county court judge who, after living in Bedford for over 40 years and playing for Bedford (and for Bedfordshire on occasions when they got desperate) now lives near Norwich and plays for Wymondham chess club.
In Chess Notes item 12047 Edward Winter wrote regarding the above article: "Much of it reads like an uncredited boiling-down of our feature article Grimshaw v Steinitz."
The above editorial is reproduced from Chess Magazine October/2024, with kind permission.
About CHESS Magazine
CHESS Magazine was established in 1935 by B.H. Wood who ran it for over fifty years. It is published each month by the London Chess Centre and is edited by IM Richard Palliser and Matt Read.
The Executive Editor is Malcolm Pein, who organises the London Chess Classic.
Rossolimo-Moscow Powerbase 2025 is a database and contains a total of 10950 games from Mega 2025 and the Correspondence Database 2024, of which 612 are annotated.
The greater part of the material on which the Rossolimo/Moscow Powerbook 2025 is based comes from the engine room of playchess.com: 263.000 games. This imposing amount is supplemented by some 50 000 games from Mega and from Correspondence Chess.
Focus on the Sicilian: Opening videos on the Najdorf Variation with 6.h3 e5 7.Nb3 (Luis Engel) and the Taimanov Variation with 7.Qf3 (Nico Zwirs). ‘Lucky bag’ with 38 analyses by Anish Giri, Surya Ganguly, Abhijeet Gupta, Yannick Pelletier and many more.
Throughout the video course, Sasikran shows various examples from his career to explain sacrifices for initiative, an attack, a better pawn structure and much more.
In this insightful video course, Grandmaster David Navara shares practical advice on when to calculate deeply in a position — and just as importantly, when not to.
€19.90
We use cookies and comparable technologies to provide certain functions, to improve the user experience and to offer interest-oriented content. Depending on their intended use, analysis cookies and marketing cookies may be used in addition to technically required cookies. Here you can make detailed settings or revoke your consent (if necessary partially) with effect for the future. Further information can be found in our data protection declaration.
Pop-up for detailed settings
We use cookies and comparable technologies to provide certain functions, to improve the user experience and to offer interest-oriented content. Depending on their intended use, cookies may be used in addition to technically required cookies, analysis cookies and marketing cookies. You can decide which cookies to use by selecting the appropriate options below. Please note that your selection may affect the functionality of the service. Further information can be found in our privacy policy.
Technically required cookies
Technically required cookies: so that you can navigate and use the basic functions and store preferences.
Analysis Cookies
To help us determine how visitors interact with our website to improve the user experience.
Marketing-Cookies
To help us offer and evaluate relevant content and interesting and appropriate advertisement.