< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 229 OF 229 ·
|Apr-17-14|| ||zanzibar: As far as fakes go -
there should be some propagation down to the PGN file as well. A notice on the game page isn't quite enough.
One idea is the 0-move with comment.
Another would be a "Are you sure?" kind of double click action to be sure you're aware that you're downloading a bogus game. Maybe even for playing it over. (I'm not saying it's the best idea, or even a good idea, but it is an idea).
On the other hand, <CG> has to be all things to all people, so I don't think you can just delete games that achieve this level of notoriety.
|Apr-17-14|| ||zanzibar: <RE: Hastings Intl Congress 1961/62>|
I admit I could only "bracket" the playing dates. But I can also offer this:
Tournament President: P. J. Morran
Tournament Director: Frank Rhodan
Is this info useful?
And for how this was determined (and the Finest Climate in Britian):
(And the Right Worshipful Mayor of Hastings? Cecil Barfoot
|Apr-17-14|| ||zanzibar: A few interesting tidbits from the President's page:|
<Another occasion on which he [Morran] felt it right to express his opinion came at the prizegiving for the 1956-57 Congress. A newspaper seems to have stated that the tournament director, Frank Rhoden, had claimed to have built up the Congress from nothing in four years. Rhoden in fact denied saying this and Morren chose to refer to the Congress organisers of the past declaring that Hastings had had a long procession of very important and hard-working people.
Rhoden had managed to attract Russian grandmasters to the congress and Morren invited the Russian ambassador J Malik to open the 1955-56 Congress. Morren even persuaded Malik to visit his firm's factory in South Wales and an exchange of visits between groups of English and Russian watchmakers followed.
Early in 1954 Morren found that he had a problem with the Spanish Chess Federation. Rhoden admitted that he had cancelled the invitation of the Spanish master, Roman Bordell when the Russians had decided to play at Hastings. The Hastings and St Leonards Observer of 23.1.1954 reported a statement allegedly made by a Russian that the Russians would not participate in tournaments in which there were 'Fascist entrants'. The Spanish Chess Federation went so far as to break off relations with the British Chess Federation but according to the Sussex Daily News of 8.2.1954 G Wheatcroft, the president of the BCF, maintained that his organisation had nothing to do with the cancellation of Bordell's invitation. The article also reported that Morren wrote to the Spanish Chess Federation expressing 'profound regret' that there should have been cause for misunderstanding. He stated that certain terms had been offered to Bordell, but his acceptance was not received before the ten players in the section were completed. The article also stated that at no time was the Congress Committee concerned as to whether the Rusians would play against Bordell.>
|Apr-18-14|| ||zanzibar: <Tabanus> I looked at 1962 Stockholm about the missing Gligoric-Benko game.|
A bit more info would help, i.e. what were the order of the pairings?
Here a quote from you:
<But one game is missing! Limburgsch Dagblad 16 March says Gligoric and Benkö played a draw on Thursday 15 March, but that the game was irrelevant for the final result.>
I think it is rather more likely that this game was not played as Gligoric had no chance to qualify after the 1st game loss to Benko.
It's curious that Stein was entered into the playoff, given that FIDE rules precluded him qualifying for the playoffs (given the quota of 3 Soviets already being full).
Does this make sense? (It's late, and my last post...)
|Apr-18-14|| ||Tabanus: <zanzibar> I'm waiting for BCM's report, and am ready to rewrite the last sentence in the playoff collection. Limburgsch Dagblad just says "the game was a draw", BCM perhaps says "unplayed draw". I agree that just "unplayed" is most likely. The order of the pairings you can see now in the collection, Benkö should have black in the 6th game.|
<It's curious that Stein was entered into the playoff, given that FIDE rules precluded him qualifying for the playoffs>
The Times says he would be Soviet's reserve if he won (which he did). What would happen if he had not won I don't know - one would think he'd be the reserve anyway, since he was shared 6th in the interzonal.
|Apr-18-14|| ||Tabanus: Game Collection: Stockholm Interzonal Playoff 1962:|
Hmm, no he had to beat Gligoric in the playoff, else Gligoric would have been the "reserve" player. Imagine if Gligoric had won the 5th game and then also won the 6th game vs Benkö. Then they all would have had 2 points.
|Apr-18-14|| ||WCC Editing Project: <TheFocus>
Thank you for such a detailed reply!
So the whole intro was the entirety of the article. Apologies for mistaking the (231) as a page number.
I thought that the text up to (231) was <W. Ritson Morry>, and that you had written the rest of it, and sourced that with footnotes.
I will change my vote straight away.
|Apr-18-14|| ||TheFocus: <Tabanus> BCM, May 1962, pg. 134: <Readers will remember from last month that there was a triple tie for the sixth qualifying place in the Interzonal at Stockholm between Benko, Gligoric, and Stein. These three met in a play-off immediately after the tournament and first prize went to Stein 3, Benko 2 and Gligoric 0. Players met each other twice, with the exception that the last game between Benko and Gligoric was not played once it became apparent that the hapless Gligoric was doomed to bottom place. Stein's victory will not give him a position in the Candidates' Tournament since the Soviet Union already have their full quota of players in that event. However should one of three who did qualify (Petrosian, Geller, and Korchnoi) fail to participate then Stein can take his place. Meanwhile Benko has won the right to play once more in the Candidates' Tournament though few will expect him to come higher than he did in the 1959 event.>|
This is from the <News from Overseas> column, edited by Harry Golembek.
|Apr-18-14|| ||TheFocus: Oops. Golombek.|
|Apr-18-14|| ||Petrosianic: As it happens, Benko did a LOT better than in 1959. Astoundingly well, in fact.|
|Apr-18-14|| ||zanzibar: <WCC> <RE: Round numbers> - good detective work finding the notice in the comments. |
I hope the good work of the biographers here finds its way back into RUSbase when warranted.
|Apr-18-14|| ||Tabanus: <TheFocus> Thanks! So not "unplayed draw" but just "not played". The Limburgsch Dagblad is the only newspaper to report a "draw" on March 15, I suppose they were just wrongly informed or sloppy reporting.|
|Apr-18-14|| ||zanzibar: <Tabanus>, <TheFocus> <RE: '62 Candidate's Playoff Stockholm>|
Seems to explain the situation nicely - and makes a good side story for the tournament.
The FIDE quota system was a headache with all the special cases. Stein was the leading reserve, but could only serve if a Soviet dropped out.
Now, <Tabanus>, I think you should write a letter of complaint to <Limburgsch Dagblad>.
Gheesh, contemporaneous sources! Can't trust 'em farther than ya kin throw 'em!
|Apr-18-14|| ||Tabanus: Game Collection: Stockholm Interzonal Playoff 1962: Good enough? Bad English?|
If acceptable I'll write to CG and ask them to withdraw the 5 games from the interzonal. (The playoff crosstable can still be retained there.) Then I'll nominate the playoff. NB! I cannot change the round numbers yet, not before the games are out. Good plan?
|Apr-18-14|| ||Tabanus: Well, I have the impression CG thinks it's a good idea to separate the playoffs from the main events, so I asked them in their forum.|
And Korchnoi-Polu semifinal 1980 is up for Game Collection Voting.
|Apr-18-14|| ||Tabanus: CG approved the idea, and the playoff is also nominated.|
|Apr-18-14|| ||Phony Benoni: Well, the good news is that I finally have the home computer back (with the chess program working better than before!), so I can get back to work. Which means Game Collection: A. Albin vs. Showalter 1894.|
I've been checking all the copies of the scores, and have run into something my old, tired eye can't decide on. It occurs in Game 21, in this position with White to play:
click for larger view
The game continued:
58. R-?4 R-QN2
59. R-QR4 draw agreed
I'm finding the uppercase letters "B", "R", and sometimes "K" very hard to distinguish. These are the three sources I've looked at thus far:
"New York Daily Tribune", 12/21/1894: http://www.chessarch.com/excavation...
"New York Sun", 12/21/1894:
"New York Recorder", 12/25/1894: http://www.chessarch.com/excavation...
Normally, I think I'd call it <58.R-R4>, but that's ambiguous and would make distinguishing with 59.R-QR4 unnecessary. <58.R-B4> would also be ambiguous, though again the meaning is obvious. "The Recorder" might even be <58.R-K4>, which would make the most sense notationally, but it's hard to imagine a "K" in the other two papers.
Any thoughts? I'm not seeing additional version of the score in Fulton, Chronicling America, New York Clipper, New York Times, and the Brooklyyn Daily Eagle provided almost no coverage of the match. (By the way, the BDE is moving to a different site, so if you use it often you'll want to check things out.)
|Apr-18-14|| ||zanzibar: Try this:
[Event "Albin -- Showalter Match (1894)"]
[Site "Manhattan CC, NY, USA"]
[White "Albin, Adolf"]
[Black "Showalter, Jackson"]
[Sources "As listed by <Phony>, all used in bits and pieces"
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nf6 4.d4 exd4 5.O-O Be7 6.e5 Ne4 7.Nxd4 O-O
8.Nf5 d5 9.Bxc6 bxc6 10.Nxe7+ Qxe7 11.Qd4 f6 12.exf6 Rxf6 13.f3 Ba6
14.Re1 Qf7 15.c4 Bxc4 16.Nd2 Nd6 17.Nxc4 Nxc4 18.b3 Nd6 19.Bb2 Rg6
20.Kh1 Nf5 21.Qf2 a5 22.Re2 h5 23.Rae1 h4 24.Re5 Rd8 25.Qc2 Rg5 26.
Qxc6 Kh7 27.Qc2 Qg6 28.R1e2 d4 29.Qe4 c5 30.Re6 Qf7 31.Kg1 g6 32.Bc1
Rh5 33.Qf4 Rd7 34.Bd2 d3 35.R2e5 Kg7 36.Qe4 Rh8 37.Rxc5 Rhd8 38.Bc3+
Kg8 39.Rcc6 d2 40.Rxg6+ Ng7 41.Bxd2 Rxd2 42.h3 Rd1+ 43.Kh2 R1d4 44.
Qe5 Qf4+ 45.Qxf4 Rxf4 46.Rc7 Rf7 47.Rc5 a4 48.bxa4 Rd2 49.Rg4 Rxf3
50.Rcg5 Rf7 51.Rxh4 Rxa2 52.Rhg4 Kh7 53.a5 Ra7 54.Rh4+ Kg8 55.Rhg4
R2xa5 56.Rg6 Ra1 57.R6g5 Rf1 58.Rh4 Rb7 59.Ra4 1/2-1/2
|Apr-18-14|| ||zanzibar: I think I had to use all three sources, sorry but I was more intent on getting the game than keeping track of what went where.|
A couple of notes - omitting the 1 for moves onto the back rank is a new twist to me.
Too bad SCID doesn't have an anachronistic mode allowing differentiation between QR and KR (or B or N). It's funny, but eventually the old scores seem to give up keeping track as well (just not as soon as I would have)!
If there was an error in the reporting, it might be a little interesting to see which 2/3 agreed/disagreed with it. Might be telling for how independent the reporting is.
Last note- I saw the engine spit out a few interesting tactics that Albin missed. Especially one around move 29 or thereabouts (Qe4 should have been played a little earlier I think).
White could have won in a rather nice fashion in a couple of different places, I think.
<Phony>, you can have the honor/fun of notating/analyzing if you want.
|Apr-18-14|| ||zanzibar: A couple of new posts on zanchess:
<RE: URS-ch51 Lvov 1984>
I show some images involving SCID's twin deletion tools that I use to find differences in the PGN.
If you never use SCID then please have a look. Click on the graphic to blow up the image.
(Later I'll post full details of my procedure - but this is a good first screenshot).
<RE: Hastings 37th Congress 1961/62>
I show some of the other pages from the Programme Guide, with a little exposition. Worth a quick look (e.g. Gligoric's record). I'd say more here, but then why did I bother to make the blog post?
|Apr-18-14|| ||zanzibar: While I'm doing a coredump...
(1)<Phony> as for the ambiguity at move 58, it's pretty clear that 58.R-R4 is the notation. It's ambiguous this time because the king is off the h-file, but earlier it was 54.R-R4ch. I think that pattern got stuck, and only at the end was it notated properly (QR4).
(2) <thomastonk> got me reading some of Morphy's annotations in <Chess Monthly> for some strange reason.
And in one game I saw, played in Italy (or using Italian rules at least), the king side castling involved the rook going to f1, and the king going to h1. Morphy notated it for both pieces, with brackets to indicate castling.
<Suppose I wanted to save or share such a game with bizarre casting rules? How is it handled in the PGN?>
|Apr-19-14|| ||Phony Benoni: <Zanzibar> Assuming 58.Rh4 is correct, we have the same score for the Showalter - Albin game., which is reassuring. |
Back in those days, pieces often came with a small mark that allowed players to distinguish "queenside" from "kingside" pieces. And Chess Editors believed in tough love; if you couldn't keep track, you obviously weren't paying enough attention to the game.
<UIRS-ch 51 LvOV 1984>
First of all,all games in the <CG> database now have the correct round number.
That is a helpful feature of SCID. ChessBase can tell me when two apparently identical games don't match, but can't get so specific.
RusBase is clearly wrong here. Moving the wrong piece to a square (rook to b8 instead of queen) is a common inputting error, and here it's masked because the piece immediately moves legally to b2. To me, what clinches it are that white's respsonses are reasonable if Black plays ...Qb8-B2, or not after ...Rb8=b2.
Of course "proving" it is another matter. Fortunately, <CG> has a mechanism to deal with this, by attaching alternate scores to game pages. An example is Romanishin vs J Klovans, 1975.
|Apr-19-14|| ||Phony Benoni: <zanzibar> In this position:|
click for larger view
<54.R-R4ch> was not considered ambiguous because it was check.
But it's true that they were not always consistent about distinguishing. A guy once pointed out to me that in this position from Morphy's famous Opera Box game:
click for larger view
White's move was often written "BxP+" instead of "BxNP+".
|Apr-19-14|| ||zanzibar: <Phony> thanks for ref, I'll have a look.|
Since RUSbase references ChessBase, I wonder if the latest MegaBase has the same moves?
PS - I was just here to post a retraction about Albin -- Showalter, but I realize I just got the wrong move.
It's after 37...Rh8? where White has a nice x-ray attack on the K+R with 38.Bc3. Of course 38.Rxc5+ should also be winning, but I'll stop here.
|Apr-19-14|| ||zanzibar: <Phony> yes, I thought I was making the distinction that "54.R-R4 ch" not being ambiguous caused the scribe to not realize 58.R-R4 is (ambiguous). |
We agree. (The Morphy notation is funny too). Well enough for now... bye.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 229 OF 229 ·