Kieseritzky, although not by birth a Frenchman, was one of the ablest successors whom De la Bourdonnais, with his instinctive prescience of genius, raised up during his life, as worthy at a future time to maintain the excellence of Chess in France, and with it of Chess throughout the whole of Europe.
In the present article we propose instituting a brief comparison between these great masters of combination. De la Bourdonnais was gifted with moral and physical qualities of a higher order than those which were possessed by Kieseritzky. Not in the furnace of the Chalybes was tempered truer steel than that around the breast of the lion-hearted hero. His master-spirit knew not fear. It was through his unshrinking courage that his boundless resources perished not by an untimely blight, but were brought to their full maturity. It was this that enabled him to compete successfully with players of every style, from every country. Through this he was more than a match for the depth of Des Chapelles, the subtlety of Szen, the accuracy of Popert, the judgement of Slous, and the uniformity of Walker. Without this the French Hannibal could not have encountered, far less have obtained the victory over, generals inspired by genius and boldness not inferior to his own - the fiery and impassioned Cochrane, the sword - the undaunted and persevering McDonnel, the shield - of English Chess.
Kieseritzky was deficient in nerve. His constitutional timidity, that suffered many a conquest to be torn from him, debarred him from retrieving a defeat. This was the evil eye that bewitched him, that rendered him powerless for playing matches. He laboured under constant depression. The removal of his armour gave him no relief. His whole career justifies us in applying to Chess the criticism of one of the greatest masters of the human heart that the world has ever seen, when pronouncing judgement on a subject of far higher importance.
"The art of the orator," says Demostenes, "lies firstly, secondly and entirely, in delivery." So it is with Chess-player. Without the power of expression, knowledge, however acquired, is fruitless, genius unavailing. But Kieseritzky atoned for his timid bearing by his modesty. In him we saw the genuine diffidence of a plain and unassuming man, not the pitiful cowardice of a vain-glorious boaster, who is conscious that if brought to the test he will be stripped of his borrowed plumes. He never displayed arrogance; he was not
"A monster filled with insolence and fear-
In tongue a lion, but in heart a deer."
De la Bourdonnais had other qualifications that gave him the superiority over Kieseritzky. A little deeper, he was entirely free from crotchets of every kind. Nothing could be finer than his play - nothing, at the same time, could be more practical. Prone to the carelessness of genius, he was never the spoiled creature of self-will. The combinations of other great player have been equally profound, but there is a difference in their elements. They are elaborate - De la Bourdonnais is distinguished for his simplicity. From moves of the most ordinary character, he discloses the most beautiful and unlooked for positions - with other player the first move is the key of the combinations. There is, notwithstanding, an intimate connection between his premises and their conclusions. Conceived in the highest spirit of poetry, his games will bear the examination of logical acuteness and mathematical precision.
Kieseritzky was a crotchetty player. With the obstinacy, but without the compensating boldness, of McDonnell, he would cling to untenable defences of openings, and pronounce the indestructible. In spite of this, we must, strange to say, declare him superior to his illustrious master in theoretical knowledge. The Pawns he played, if not with the vehemence with which De la Bourdonnais brought them up to assail his adversaries' entrenchments, with more unerring certainty in the endgames. What, however, was this in practical play, when compared with his favourite but weak defences to the Evans' and K. Bishop's Gambits? Thus theory is self-destroying. He who loves that which he himself has either invented or adopted, will succumb to the lover of what is true and practical.
In blindfold play both of them were distinguished, and far surpassed the legendary prowess of Philidor. Perhaps the most wonderful feature in De la Bourdonnais play is the brilliancy in his blindfold parties. Many a player can conduct a game without the board coolly and steadily, but who, save De la Bourdonnais, under such circumstances, invented attacks profound in conception, brilliant in execution, and enduring upon analysis? Who but the Chess Grand-Master could have contested a game without a board against a player like Boncourt, with the remotest chance of success?
Kieseritzky was, in games played without the board, inferior to De la Bourdonnais alone. In point of fact, his blindfold games appear to occupy the same relative position to those of De la Bourdonnais, that his best games over the board do to the immortal victories gained by his master over McDonnell.
As writers, these admirable players do not deserve the highest praise. Kieseritzky, if his invention of problems be thrown into the scale, may fairly be allowed the pre-eminence in this department of Chess. In the days of De la Bourdonnais, the periodical literature of Chess was not established on a firm footing - it was in its infancy. It was not sufficient to stimulate the powerful genius of the illustrious Frenchman. Great as he was, had he seriously directed his attention to the study, have obtained as much celebrity in the analytical as he has in the practical history of our game.
Signed: "B"
"The Chess Player's Chronicle" 1854, p. 323-325.