chessgames.com
 
Kibitzer's Cafe
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 233 OF 233 ·  Later Kibitzing>
Apr-24-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  WCC Editing Project: <zanzibar>

Thanks so much for that digging!

You know I'm going to stick with calling the event an "Alekhine Memorial."

It was also the 1st Moscow Central Chess Club international tournament, which is not mutually exclusive with it also being an "Alekhine Memorial."

The fact that a contemporaneous 1959 publication- http://www.chesslund.com/detail.asp...- calls it an "Alekhine Memorial," along with the fact that all of the <Rusbase> downloaded games have "Alekhine Memorial" in the header is enough for me to leave that title in.

The Edward Winter source is:

<Winter, Edward ed. "World Chess Champions" Pergamon Press, 1981>

He includes only the year (1959), site (Moscow), event name (1st Central Chess Club Championship), and Smyslov's rank and score (shared 1st, with +3 -0 =8). No crosstable or further description.

Anyways thanks so much for helping!

Apr-24-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  WCC Editing Project: <Tab>

Thanks for that additional source. I'm not sure that proves the event wasn't also considered an "Alekhine Memorial."

This source here is also contemporaneous and may be Russian as well? It doesn't say where it was published, just where it had been auctioned (Sweden): http://www.chesslund.com/detail.asp...

hmm what would <Tab> do.

Would you call it an <Alekhine Memorial>? Maybe I should play it safe and call it <1st Moscow Central Chess Club Championship 1959>, and add a note, with a source, that suggests it may also have been an <Alekhine Memorial>.

All sources agree the event was played in the Moscow Central Chess Club.

<Larsen's> account seems to accord rather precisely with the title <Winter> gives the event.

Actually that sounds better to me. That's what I will do. Then I don't have to be "guessing."

Apr-24-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  Tabanus: <WCCEP> Probably Alekhine Memorial, even if Larsen does not mention it. "Chess Club Championship" sounds like a club ch, I would avoid that.

What about the book <MOSCOW 1956, Russ. bull (18), Alekhine Memorial Tourney won by Botvinnik & Smyslov ifo Taimanov ,Gligoric, Bronstein,... Keres,..Notes to selected games plus many Alekhine historical tidbits in separate articles throughout the text. h, exc, very nicely bd, $65.>

Apr-24-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  Tabanus: <WCCEP> It seems Tim Harding uses the term "Alekhine Memorial" here: http://www.chesscafe.com/text/kibit...

so why not.

Apr-24-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  Tabanus: <WCCEP> There are probably several Alekhine memorials in one year. In 1956 at least two, Moscow in October-November and Budapest in March. How would you name each of them, esp. if also other tournaments in Moscow and/or Budapest in 1956?
Apr-24-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  WCC Editing Project: <Tab> Thank you sir for further digging and valued opinions.

Thanks to your latest information, and the previous information, I decided to go with <Moscow Central Chess Club International> for the whole series. I have <Smyslov> playing in four of these so far and that title seems to avoid the "Chess Club Championship" misleading information.

They were all international tournaments and they were all played at the Moscow Central Chess Club.

I will note that the <Moscow Central Chess Club International 1959> Game Collection: Moscow 1959 is called an <Alekhine Memorial> by some, although <John Barleycorn> kind of put me off <Harding> a bit when he pointed out a few howlers from his recent "Victorian Chess Masters" biography, such as the story that <Captain Evans> "probably knew" Black Jack Silver or Lord Nelson. Ok he didn't say Black Jack Silver but he did say Lord Nelson.

I'm pretty psyched today because my first of three new <Di Felice> volumes shipped in, and I'm also anticipating the arrival of the mysterious, and very cheaply priced, Árpád Földeák's "Chess Olympiads 1927–1968."

It will be interesting to find out how his information and sources match, or don't match, the trusty, yet perhaps dodgy, <Olimbase>.

Apr-24-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  WCC Editing Project: <Tab>

<There are probably several Alekhine memorials in one year. In 1956 at least two, Moscow in October-November and Budapest in March. How would you name each of them, esp. if also other tournaments in Moscow and/or Budapest in 1956?>

That's an interesting question. I haven't run into this dilemma on Game Collection: Smyslov's Tournaments and Matches 1935-1979 research so far, but I wonder if the "Alekhine Memorial" part was sometimes considered more or less important than at other times, especially in the USSR or Communist Bloc countries?

Maybe part of the problem is that organizers might have feared being shot or something if they publicized the "Alekhine" angle too much.

Maybe they all remembered what happened to <Krylenko> and others.

Less tritely, I think that if you know for sure- absolutely for sure- that an event really was an <Alekhine Memorial>, that should be first in the title? Followed by the city and year.

I would say <Alekhine Memorial Moscow 1956> and <Alekhine Memorial Budapest 1956> if I were listing them.

Apr-24-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  Tabanus: Or "Alekhine Memorial (Moscow) 1956", or "Moscow (Alekhine Memorial) 1956" similar to "Buenos Aires (Konex) 1978".

We could need a plan :)

Apr-24-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  WCC Editing Project: <a plan>

Is it time to man/woman up like we were discussing?

I see you meant the promoted tournament titles for our <cg.com> database.

I'm up for it if you are.

Apr-24-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  Tabanus: Not really... Hmm. What about dividing into continents? You take Russia, another one South America etc.

I can do Antarctica ;)

Apr-24-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  WCC Editing Project: Ok I'll do Russia then.

I'll start with <Smyslov>. When I finish his list (in 20 years or so) I'll go on to the next Russian player.

Apr-24-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  Tabanus: I'll take it as it comes. Right now I'm drowned in Riga 1979 and Buenos Aires (Clarin) 1979. For Netherlands I have only

"IBM Amsterdam"
"Tata Steel" for 2011-2014
"Corus" for 2000-2010
"Hoogovens" for 1938-1999 (Site: Beverwijk or Wijk aan Zee)

Apr-24-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  zanzibar: <Tabanus> <RE: Hoogoven vs Hoogovens>

Sorry, I have to remember to be more explicit - but this is one of those "deep trivial" questons. And I'm not the only one to notice this:

<A description of the participants and visitors to the Tata Steel Chess Tournament, but according to Alexander Münninghoff was in 1939 already for what was then the Blast Furnace Tournament (still without intermediate s) named. Münninghoff wrote fifteen years ago with Lex Jongsma a nice anniversary over sixty years Hoogovens Tournament (now with between-s)

<Een omschrijving voor de deelnemers en bezoekers aan het Tata Steel Chess Tournament, maar volgens Alexander Münninghoff ging die in 1939 ook al op voor wat toen het Hoogoventoernooi (nog zonder tussen-s) heette. Münninghoff schreef vijftien jaar geleden samen met Lex Jongsma een mooi jubileumboek over zestig jaar Hoogovenstoernooi (inmiddels met tussen-s).>>

http://schaaksite.nl/page.php?al=ou...

So...

Q- Is <"Blast Furnance"> with, or without, the <"s">? And why?

(Inquiring minds want to know!)

Apr-24-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  zanzibar: <Tabanus> Interesting, and practical, viewpoint:

<Dates: the point is not so much the date itself, but to show that you have read at least some details about the tournament. It's a quality stamp (unless you fake the dates).>

Of course, knowing what order a series of tournaments occur during a given year is of high importance.

For instance, if the tournament dates conflict, preventing a player from being in both. Or for tracking the spread or invention of a TN (opening improvement/technical novelty).

By the way, I agree with most of your sorting comments, but will have a post on that by itself.

As for dates - the PGN is lacking, since it really should allow a chain of day/time/duration to track actual play through all the sessions.

But we have [Date ""] tag for doing the game, and [EventDate ""] for tournament bracket.

(And people must be aware that tournament date span can be wider than round date span).

Apr-24-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  Tabanus: Hoogovens with s I suppose, but <Stonehenge> would know, he is Dutch.

Perhaps CG should create a "RoundDate" tag for all games? I can't imagine how to sort a year by round numbers.

Apr-24-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  zanzibar: <Tabanus: Hoogovens with s I suppose, but <Stonehenge> would know, he is Dutch.>

Possibly, but the quote in my last post was from a native Dutch speaker - and he didn't know why it went from Hoogoven to Hoogovens either!

There are also rules of compounding the words which I'm unfamilar with as well. But I learned to search for <Hoogoventoernooi> as well as <Hoogovenstoernooi>, as well as <Hoogovens toernooi> etc.

* * * *

What is the deal with "RoundDate" sorting? Are you trying to sort games within one tournament, or sort tournaments chronologically or what?

I don't understand what exactly is going on.

Apr-24-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  Tabanus: Hehe, hmm the problem is to sort games by round date when some games are postponed! If just sorted by game date, a postponed game will end up away from the other games in that round. Never mind.
Apr-24-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  zanzibar: <Tabanus> OK, I'll think "Round" whenever you say you want to sort by "RoundDate"!

Consider a collection of games from several tournaments, where some of the tournaments overlap (so they were simultaneously both running at some point in time). And suppose you wanted to list games hierarchically, first by tournament start date, for the tournaments, then by round for games within a given tournament.

A simple, and logically idea I think. And one which is possible with SCID 4.4, and very easy with SCID 4.5.

Apr-24-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  WCC Editing Project: <zanzibar>

Just in case I misunderstood (again) something in your recent posts- and apologies in advance (again) if I did-

The Start-finish date of a tournament should be given as the day the first game was played in the event, and the day the last game was played-finished in the date. The Start-finish date shouldn't be given from the "opening to the closing ceremonies."

<Tab> and I have been doing (trying to do) it that way, and correcting older events that way.

<Golombek> always gives the start-finish dates that way.

Apr-24-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  zanzibar: <WCC> Well, I raised the question.

My inclination is to include all the formal non-playing days. Generally the players attend (typically being bribed with a free meal), and we do want to use the date info to locate the players.

I think the tournament book/reports/extras(*) generally use this wider dating, and if so, biographers should follow suit. The game playing dates should then be reflected in the data/reporting about the actual games/rounds, typically in the [Date ""] PGN tags.

So, you and <Tab> have been doing it differently. And you have powerful company if <Golombek> adopts that convention.

But I wonder if this is really the case?

Let's explore a few of the examples I have data on, in the future.

PS- When using contemporaneous sources to date a tournament, they are far more likely to report the dates of the games (if you're lucky) then the date of an opening ceremony, or closing dinner. So, the narrower definition would apply in practice.

Of course there's examples of using contemporaneous sources to date a tournament which, I believe, use the wider definition (again, more on that later).

Apr-24-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  WCC Editing Project: <zanzibar>

The best biographers (the ones who actually write down the date and venue and adjournment move of each and every single game) such as <Golombek> employ the "first to last game" method.

I directly asked <Tabanus> this question a few months ago so I could make a decision on putting the start-finish dates into this list here- Game Collection: Smyslov's Tournaments and Matches 1935-1979.

<Tabanus> directly responded that he regarded it better to date the event range from first and last game played, not from opening ceremony to closing ceremony.

<TheFocus> has also been doing it this way.

So you'll need to get a consensus from <Tabanus> and <TheFocus> in order for us to change practice here.

<PS- When using contemporaneous sources to date a tournament, they are far more likely to report the dates of the games (if you're lucky) then the date of an opening ceremony, or closing dinner. So, the narrower definition would apply in practice.>

Isn't that an argument in favor of using first-last game dates for the Tournament range dates?

All that said, when I first asked <Tab> this question, I didn't have a strong preference for one method over the other, although I thought it more accurate for us to be using first to last game.

I mainly wanted to make the method consistent in my <Smyslov> games collection.

I think we should hear from <Tab> and <TheFocus> and <Phony Benoni> and whoever else wants to weigh in with an opinion, and I think we should all decide, one way or the other.

I have no heavy intellectual or emotional investment in using either method, although I prefer the idea of "first to last game." For two months I have been using the 'first to last game' method not only for my <Smyslov> collection, but also for dating several of the events in our database.

Apr-24-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  TheFocus: I prefer "first to last game".

If I have a book in a language that I don't speak (Russian or Serbo-Croat), i might not even be aware that there was an opening ceremony.

I think it would be better to include this information in the intro sections, but if a biographer wishes to include these ceremonies in their date range, it should be a personal preference.

Apr-25-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  zanzibar: <RE: EventDate>

Well, I agree there is a good rationale for doing it "first to last".

But the wider definition has its merits as well. One of which is that it's often the dating using in tournament publications. And because of that, it's finds its way onto mementos and other materials that can be useful for the alert biographer later in life.

And besides, what about last round adjournments - they do happen (rarely). You can't guarantee your round "first->last" dates will bracket the full extent of play in the tournament.

Besides, all those 1980's tournament books I browsed didn't do round dates - they just gave the tournament extent. I don't know when exactly the play started, so I don't know what was a rest day vs. an opening ceremony day.

And so, having a general rule that the rounds occur somewhere inside the bracket would mean I wouldn't have to scrounge around a thousand pages of Dutch trying to locate dates, when I don't even speak Dutch (or Russian, or Serbo-Croat).

I mean, unless I had to...

I wonder what Di Felice does? I think I used him to confirm a few of my Wijk aan Zee dates, and they matched. Which would mean the wider definition I'm almost sure.

And what about the "losing bet" I made with <TheFocus> for one of the Hastings years? I used a tournament book guide with the official dates. And I think Golombek was involved as an organizer, or in some capacity (TD?). It would be funny for him to report a different date than on the official documentation.

Do you have any examples?

Apr-25-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  zanzibar: OK, I did some digging, learned some Dutch, and put together the first years of the Hoogovens tournament.

You can find it here:

http://zanchess.wordpress.com/2014/...

Scroll down a little and look at the table. Let me know what you think of the formating/presentation.

Tomorrow I hope to have the complete Hoogoven years done (i.e. the 20th-centry pre-Corus version).

Apr-25-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  Tabanus: On top of the crosstables I've used start of 1st round - start of last round so far.

Should I change that? a) Drawing of lots etc. is often the day before start of 1st round, and b) adjourned games played the day after start of last round is not uncommon either. But a) and b) are also often not mentioned in tournament books and newspapers.

Jump to page #   (enter # from 1 to 233)
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 233 OF 233 ·  Later Kibitzing>

A free online guide presented by Chessgames.com
NOTE: You need to pick a username and password to post a reply. Getting your account takes less than a minute, totally anonymous, and 100% free--plus, it entitles you to features otherwise unavailable. Pick your username now and join the chessgames community!
If you already have an account, you should login now.
Please observe our posting guidelines:
  1. No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.
  2. No spamming, advertising, or duplicating posts.
  3. No personal attacks against other users.
  4. Nothing in violation of United States law.
Blow the Whistle See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform an administrator.


Messages posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors.


home | about | login | logout | F.A.Q. | your profile | preferences | Premium Membership | Kibitzer's Café | Biographer's Bistro | new kibitzing | chessforums | Tournament Index | Player Directory | World Chess Championships | Opening Explorer | Guess the Move | Game Collections | ChessBookie Game | Chessgames Challenge | Little ChessPartner | privacy notice | contact us
Copyright 2001-2014, Chessgames Services LLC
Web design & database development by 20/20 Technologies