|
Player: Adolf Schwarz
| page 2 of 2; games 26-29 of 29 |
     |
 |
|
| page 2 of 2; games 26-29 of 29 |
|
|
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Apr-07-16 | | zanzibar: Sometimes I'm a bit thick...
What would be a natural place to look for good coverage of this tournament? Chess-Monthly - edited by Hoffer and Zukertort.
Z also being a player, it would be a natural first stop. Unfortunately for me, the relevant issue isn't available on google books, so I don't have the PDF. It was only after stumbling through the other sources, and not finding a game, that I found this: http://hdl.handle.net/2027/njp.3210...
It's a shame that google books doesn't have it, as it comes from Princeton library, and they have many other issues. I think this one volume got damaged(?). I haven't systematically looked through it, but it's coverage appears to be the best. |
|
| Apr-09-16 | | zanzibar: Sadly for me, I forgot this info. It was refound in some deleted (ok, hidden) forum: <There was no contemporary tournament book and, with such a huge number of games, only a small percentage appeared promptly in chess magazines. Hermann Lehner (co-editor of the 1873 Vienna congress book) had access to the original game score manuscripts in the Vienna Chess Club archives and he was editor of a literary magazine entitled the <<Oesterreichische Lesehalle>> "Austrian reading room") which devoted considerable space to chess each month. Lehner transcribed and published the game scores, continuing until 1887, though sometimes truncating the finishes. His magazine, together with reports in the <<Wiener Allgemeine Zeitung>> were the foundation for Christian Bijl's <<Das II. Internationale Schachmeisterturnier Wien 1882>>, which appeared in 1984 as part of the Tschaturanga series from the Zürich publishing house Olms—a true labor of love by both Lehner and Bijl. This book (subsequently referred to as "Bijl") also includes notes from other contemporary journals and annotations to about 40 games by Dutch IM Corvan Wijgerden> Harding - Blackburne p177
https://books.google.com/books?id=E... * * * * *
Hermann Lehner seems to not have a <CG> page. Pity that. |
|
| Apr-09-16 | | zanzibar: Lehner's obit in ACM v1 (1897) p23:
https://books.google.com/books?id=i... . |
|
| Apr-13-16 | | zanzibar: BTW- In the intro, I would have written the drop-outs in chronological order, starting with Noa. Maybe even explicitly mentioned that he missed the entire 2nd half of the tournament. I'd also explicitly mention that Bird forfeited his games (after all, they could have been rescheduled). Finally, a list of the other forfeits might be useful, even if only relegated to a footnote. BTW- I tried to reconstruct the playing schedule from <DSZ v37 (1882) p234/252>, but only ended up being confused. It took me awhile to notice one problem, that the pairing <Hruby--Schwarz> shows up twice. This is indicative of non-sense, from which only confusion can result. So, despite DSZ looking like it had a helpful layout, it seems that only Lehner can be used. |
|
| Apr-13-16 | | zanzibar: Oh, and did I mention that DSZ skips from R29 (06.15) to R31 (06.17), completely omitting R30 (06.16)? |
|
| Apr-13-16 | | zanzibar: The second half scheduling is confusing, as the Committee rearranged pairings for some reason. This lead to Fleissig having a double-forfeit in R33, which can cause confusion (as is guaranteed by altering the schedule in the first place). There is also a strange episode with the Chigorin--Wittek (R32) forfeit win by Chigorin: <NR. Mit Bezugnahme auf § 2 der „Zusatzbestimmungen"
(Oesterr. Lesehalle 1882, Seite 146) ordnete das Turnier-Comite
an, dass die für den 34. Gang ausgelosten Partien bereits im 32. Gang
und vice versa die für den 32. Gang ausgelosten erst am Schluss
des Turniers an die Reihe kommen. Die Partie Tschigorin-Wittek
wurde verschollen, da Tschigorin keine Kenntniss von obigem Beschluss
hatte; Dr. Meitner bekam gegen Bird (gichtleidend), Paulsen
und Zukertort gegen zurückgetretene Partner je 1 Zähler gut
geschrieben.>
If a German-speaker could explain exactly why Chigorin scored the win, I'm be much obliged. |
|
| Apr-13-16 | | zanzibar: There is also this missing game:
<Schwarz--Ware (0-1)> I'm not sure what the story is, or even when it was scheduled. |
|
| Apr-13-16 | | mike1: Hi Zanzibar
The German text does not explain why Chigorin won; it says that the complete pairings for rounds 32 & 34 are played in reverse order and that The game Chigorin- Wittek is postponed (verschollen would be : missing but I think the text would read: verschoben, hence my translation as postponed), because Chigorin does not have any knowledge of that reversal.
As you said: lots od confusion! |
|
| Apr-13-16 | | zanzibar: <mike1> Thank you. That's what google translate suggested. I think maybe Chigorin got confused, not knowing German, during the schedule change, and that the game did get delayed. But Wittek probably just forfeited it as a courtesy to the foreign visitor. |
|
| Apr-13-16 | | zanzibar: Even the <BCM> suggested a double forfeit by Fleissig in R33, <BCM v6 (28 Jun 1882) p301/314>. Of course, this would require some other player to have a double entry for the "missing" Fleissig round. With a little sweat, blood, and tears, I put the <Schwarz--Ware> forfeit in R29, and got some semblance of a workable schedule (9 games/round, etc.). One has to wonder if this much effort is worth it, but at least one can accurately follow the BCM round-by-round synopses. The take-home lesson is, don't reschedule in the middle of a tournament unless absolutely necessary! |
|
| Apr-14-16 | | zanzibar: I think the xtab is wrong... what was the source?
Also, it's difficult to reference, lacking the needed index numbers on the first column and on the top row. |
|
| Apr-15-16 | | suenteus po 147: <zanzibar> I used http://www.endgame.nl/wien.htm for the crosstable. I think I also cross checked it against another site (don't currently have the link to that one) and found no discrepancies. |
|
| Apr-15-16 | | suenteus po 147: <zanzibar> If I were you I would bookmark Van Reek's website (especially on historical tournaments) for your ongoing verification/correction of tournament pages based on my game collections. I assembled quite a few (without crediting Van Reek) before I got in the habit of giving credit to sources. He was always my main resource since he often included some kind of narrative context in addition to xtabs and dates. |
|
| Apr-15-16 | | zanzibar: Thanks <suenteus po 147>. I'm familiar with Van Reek, and use him for, er.., "color". Partly because he's very selective in what games he hosts in PGN downloads, and partly because of the occasional missing detail. In this case I think the double-forfeit game <Noa--Fleissig> was scored 1/2-1/2 by the "Committee". Which makes sense since both had withdrawn - either score it 0-0 or 1/2-1/2. My go-to source for standings, where I first caught the discrepancy, is Reichhelm's <Fifty Tournaments>: https://books.google.com/books?id=L... or my version:
https://zanchess.wordpress.com/2016... Where you can see me as I work through the list (bold-facing the tournaments as they get processed). OK, thanks again. |
|
| Apr-15-16 | | zanzibar: Compelled to mention, another example of the utility of stubs... (not Complied... gheesh, too many typos tonight!) |
|
| Apr-15-16 | | zanzibar: Excluding Noa (dropped out after R17), Fleissig (after R20), and Bird (ill R29-R33), here are the other defaults I have: <
1882.06.19 A00 0 (R32) 1-0 Chigorin -- Wittek1882.06.21 A00 0 (R34) 0-1 Schwarz -- Chigorin 1882.06.15 A00 0 (R29) 0-1 Schwarz -- Ware > |
|
| Apr-15-16 | | zanzibar: BTW- I reread van Reek's page on the tournament, and it's pretty good: http://www.endgame.nl/wien.htm
His xtab has index row/column, but doesn't split the point for <Noa--Fleissig (R27)>. |
|
| Aug-20-16 | | ughaibu: So, which game won the brilliancy prize? |
|
| Aug-21-16 | | sneaky pete: <ughaibu> No game did, since there was no brilliancy prize (you shouldn't believe everything you read in the introductions here). There was, however, a special prize for the player (finishing 4th or lower) with the best result against the top three finishers. A win against number one counted for 2 points, against number two for 1.5 points and against number three for 1 point, and draws against the top three had half this value. Zukertort won this special prize. |
|
| Aug-21-16 | | ughaibu: I see. Thanks. |
|
Oct-06-19
 | | Fusilli: This marathon tournament lasted from May 10th to June 24th. How did people afford this kind of tournament? There were prizes only for the first six, and a brilliancy prize. Did the organizers pay for the trip and the stay? Who were the rich sponsors? Or did players take on the expense? |
|
Oct-06-19
 | | Telemus: From the introduction: <The tournament itself would later be heralded as the strongest of the 19th century, if not all time.> Compare this with this sentence from the introduction of Hastings (1895) <In 1895 the club organized a tournament (1) that was the strongest ever held up to that time.> Here (1) points to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasti... . |
|
Oct-06-19
| | Fusilli: <Fusilli> OK, correcting myself. Not brilliancy prize but the special prize described by <sneaky pete> below. But I still wonder how they financed this. |
|
| Oct-06-19 | | SChesshevsky: < Fusilli: This marathon tournament lasted from May 10th to June 24th. How did people afford this kind of tournament?> Speaking in generalities because I don't know for certain on any of these players and based on U.S. chess through the 70's anyway, I'm guessing many weren't full time professional chess players. Meaning that they had regular jobs to support themselves but taking time off for play. The full time players probably scrounged money from sponsors, including family, and exhibitions and maybe some chess related writing. Only a top few well known players might be able to negotiate some sort of guarantee from the organizers for expenses in turn for a commitment. Great question. It be interesting to hear any specifics on any of these guys. |
|
Mar-02-20
 | | MissScarlett: <I thought I saw something about <Vienna (1882)> being first - perhaps the first RR2 where draws counted as 1/2? But Baden-Baden (1870) seems to predate it on all counts.> Vienna (1882) (kibitz #8) Harding (again) says it was the first major double round-robin event that saw two cycles of games (with opposite colours) with the opponents played in the same order. The earlier events involved two (or best-of-three) games between opponents played consecutively. |
|
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
|
|
|
NOTE: Create an account today
to post replies and access other powerful features which are available only to registered users.
Becoming a member is free, anonymous, and takes less than 1 minute! If you already have a username,
then simply login login under your username now to join the discussion.
|
Please observe our posting guidelines:
- No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.
- No spamming, advertising, duplicate, or gibberish posts.
- No vitriolic or systematic personal attacks against other members.
- Nothing in violation of United States law.
- No cyberstalking or malicious posting of negative or private information (doxing/doxxing) of members.
- No trolling.
- The use of "sock puppet" accounts to circumvent disciplinary action taken by moderators, create a false impression of consensus or support, or stage conversations, is prohibited.
- Do not degrade Chessgames or any of it's staff/volunteers.
Please try to maintain a semblance of civility at all times.
NOTE: Please keep all discussion on-topic.
This forum is for this specific tournament only. To discuss chess or this site in general,
visit the Kibitzer's Café.
|
Messages posted by Chessgames members
do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors.
All moderator actions taken are ultimately at the sole discretion of the administration. |
Spot an error? Please suggest your correction and help us eliminate database mistakes!
Copyright 2001-2025, Chessgames Services LLC
|
Kibitzing
