< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 640 OF 640 ·
|May-28-17|| ||zanzibar: <R> I tried to send you two emails - but both got bounced as spam:|
<bosimpinc12 rejected your message to the following email addresses>
our message couldn't be delivered because the recipient's email server (outside Office 365) suspected that your message was spam.>
I've never seen such a message before.
Do you have a generic email address on gmail or hotmail we could bootstrap off of?
|May-28-17|| ||Tabanus: Is it a priority also for CG to have all the (kibitzable) games of Vienna 1899, and other tournaments?|
|May-28-17|| ||Retireborn: <z> LOL you awful spammer :)|
The 365 rd numbers are the same as CB - indeed I'd bet that's where they got the games from - so maybe just use those.
|May-28-17|| ||zanzibar: <rb> you not giving up that easily are you?!|
I stripped down the message, and tried again.
You're very likely right about <365> being "swiped" from <CB>, but it's also possible that they weren't.
If they came from an independent source, then I can check <365> against <CB> for an ε˛-quality check.
So, I'd still like to get the <CB> games, and your offer remains the easiest way (assuming the email exchange doesn't take that much more effort).
The best daily coverage I've found so far is in the Chicago Tribune. It correlates (with a minor exception) the schedule given
<Is played daily, except
Sundays and Thursdays, from ˝ 2 to ˝ 6 and from ˝ 7 to ˝ 11
o'clock. The time to think Is 2 hours for the first 30 trains and 1
hour for more each 15 trains.>
DSZ v54-55 N11 (Nov 1899) p347
Here is my RD structure:
1 : "1899.12.18", # Mon
2 : "1899.12.19", # Tue
3 : "1899.12.20", # Wed (Thu adj)
4 : "1899.12.22", # Fri
5 : "1899.12.23", # Sat
6 : "1899.12.26", # Tue
7 : "1899.12.27", # Wed (Thu adj)
8 : "1899.12.29", # Fri
9 : "1899.12.30", # Sat
10 : "1900.01.01", # Mon (Tue adj)
11 : "1900.01.03" # Wed (Thu adj)
The schedule worked around both Christmas and New Years.
|May-28-17|| ||zanzibar: BTW - O'Keefe's Chicago Tribune coverage seems incomplete. |
Not every round was reported, though I saw one article indicate the coverage was daily.
The Tribune archive is now online, so if I get a chance I'll try to doublecheck Jack's work.
|May-28-17|| ||Retireborn: <z> Try emailing firstname.lastname@example.org|
|May-28-17|| ||zanzibar: Oh, that's a scream!|
|May-28-17|| ||Retireborn: It's my rank, in the Army of Darkness.|
|May-28-17|| ||Paarhufer: <z> You try to cover Vienna 1899 by means of the Chicago Tribune?|
|May-28-17|| ||zanzibar: <Paarhufer> Well, as far as the round dates, and confirmation of pairings, the Chicago Tribune is the best.|
Do you have a better source?
(My German is virtually nonexistent, and the Vienna newspapers, though available online, my experience is that they usually have scant coverage - and aren't even searchable via OCR.)
I have, however, found some games in BCM, DSZ, and WSZ. But my impression is that the coverage of games is incomplete, though I haven't tediously gone through each source to catalog what they have or don't have.
As concerns the round dates, the playing schedule was announced in both DSZ and WSZ (M-W, Th adj, F-Sat, Sun off). The Trib data confirms, save for one round they gave as Sun, but I think was Sat.
As concerns the games... that's harder.
One might expect WSZ to have all the games, but looking at 1899/1900 volumes it appears that the coverage only goes up to R4!
I'm doing a "lazy" pass anyways - I just want to present a PGN and "first look" level of coverage. So, I'm fine just being "as good" as CB, or even 365.
(Though, with <rb>'s help, we'll do better than both(*) - unless, of course,, they're actually both the same.
(*) Cavaet - if I find a difference I can truly only be better if a contemporaneous score is available - though "chess sense" can be applied if said source is missing - which can catch simple typos, etc. .)
I'd like to know where Gillam got all his games from, yes I would.
But I'm 100% sure of the RR xtab and prizes, >95% (maybe even 99%) sure of the round dates, >90% of the pairings (trusting the online database).
Besides Gillam, there's really no one covering this tournament, other than EDOchess, afaik. So I'll be able to claim to be the best online by default.
|May-28-17|| ||TheFocus: Have you tried THE FIELD? I don't have 1899, but they usually had good coverage.|
|May-28-17|| ||zanzibar: <Focus> I really wish we had much more coverage of the British newspapers.|
But I don't have access to the BPL archive (it's behind a paywall for me, i.e. non-British citizen), and so have to rely on O'Keefe's/Pope's coverage.
So, no Field coverage over that time slice.
* * * * *
PS- <retireborn> was correct, <365> matches exactly <CB>.
So, this is only an ε-level quality tournament.
(Reminder- to get an ε˛-level quality tournament one must have two independent sources transcribing a contemporaneous score - and then compare the two transcriptions looking for errors/typos/etc.)
|May-28-17|| ||Paarhufer: <z: But I'm ... >95% (maybe even 99%) sure of the round dates> I would like to bet against these dates. Please, give me the odds!|
|May-28-17|| ||zanzibar: BTW- when I say WSZ's coverage only goes to R4, I mean detailed coverage, i.e. publishing individual games.|
They of course give the final xtab and prizes.
But it seems that they lost interest in covering the games.
Iirc, they did the same with another big Vienna tournament. But in that case eventually published all the games, but after an extraordinary long delay - making it very hard to find.
(Some knowledgeable person had to point out the extended coverage to me, again, iirc)
|May-28-17|| ||Tabanus: I'd try http://anno.onb.ac.at/anno-suche#se...|
|May-28-17|| ||zanzibar: Yes, <Tab>, that looks like the best coverage, albeit harder to scan through for a non-German speaker.|
Thanks for the link. I'll double-check my RD.
(These versions are OCR'ed, unlike O'Keefe, which is very helpful.)
The only real question I have is whether R5 was on Sat or Sun, and because of the delay for Christmas, I think the uncertainty still remains.
Since I don't think it matters much, let's still with the published schedule, and say Sat until definitive evidence says otherwise.
The bigger, and more important, question remains - what is the primary source of the game scores?
The ANNO source doesn't seem to have any, or did I miss it?
|May-28-17|| ||zanzibar: Looks like R10 was on 1900.01.02 and not 1900.01.01.|
OK, New Years Day was a holiday.
So, a useful correction, thanks.
|May-28-17|| ||zanzibar: One more note in passing...
<rb>'s CB listing has this tag:
whereas Gillam's yellow book is (c) 2008:
So, Gillam wasn't necessarily first on the scores, this time.
|May-28-17|| ||zanzibar: Looks like the WSZ stoppage is confirmed:
<(Šachové listy 1900, 15)
"Abychom nabídli dokonalý obrázek Kolischova turnaje (1899), přinese Wiener
Schachzeitung všechny partie téhož po kolech" - psal v únorovém čísle WS 1900 Georg
Marco. Ale jako obvykle (pro nával látky aktuálnější) svůj slib nesplnil a ve WS se objevilo
pouze 21 partií z prvních 4 kol! Ostatní jsme převzali z jiných pramenů, jako jsou Deutsche
Schachzeitung, Deutsches Wochenschach, Šachové listy, šachová rubrika Zlaté Prahy a
((Šachové listy 1900, 15)
(Chess Sheets 1900, 15)
"In order to offer the perfect picture of Kolisch's tournament (1899), Wiener will bring
Schachzeitung all the bets the same on the wheels "- wrote in February issue WS 1900 Georg
Marco. But as usual, he did not meet his promise and appeared in the WS
Only 21 games from the first 4 rounds! Others have taken over from other sources, such as Deutsche
Schachzeitung, Deutsches Wochenschach, Šachové listy, chess section of Golden Prague and Svetozor (newspapers?), etc.
I was think <Deutsches Wochenschach> might carry a goody number, but the relevant issues aren't online.
But it does seem pretty much catch as catch can - we're lucky to have all 66 games.
|May-28-17|| ||zanzibar: And yes, perhaps the Chicago coverage isn't quite as good as the Vienna coverage - but it's awfully close (and it's in English, a benefit for me).|
I found 4 missing days from O'Keefe:
These should be forwarded to <jnpope> for updating.
Some of these are a little hard to spot, but the 1900.01.04 is a bit surprising, as it contained a couple of games from the contemporary Marshall--Johnston match.
|May-29-17|| ||Paarhufer: <z: Looks like R10 was on 1900.01.02 and not 1900.01.01.> Yep, that's one mistake in your original list. And my very brief search of yesterday suggested a second one.|
But I do not want to be too involved here ... the issue follows familiar patterns.
|May-29-17|| ||Tabanus: "Do not give what is holy to the dogs; nor cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you in pieces."|
- Matthew 7:6
|May-29-17|| ||Paarhufer: <Tabanus> Nay. If I like, I read what is going on here and there, and occasionally I make a comment. That's all.|
|May-29-17|| ||Tabanus: <Paarhufer> That's Ok, but it does not really help the situation here. I wonder what it would take to make people do "historical" CG tournaments (of decent quality). Perhaps an editable template to be filled out would be best after all. With one field for trivia, of course ;)|
|May-29-17|| ||Tabanus: AFAICS, some think that "no, my contribution won't be good enough, now that it requires sources, footnotes and all that". Others think the opposite, that "no, the quality here in CG is too low, I won't waste my time here, casting pearls for swines". The result: zero.|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 640 OF 640 ·
A free online guide presented by Chessgames.com