Paris, the French capital, was host to a world's fair exhibition in the summer of 1867 ... [more]
Player: Eugene Rousseau
| page 1 of 1; 22 games
| page 1 of 1; 22 games
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
|Dec-15-13|| ||martin moller: I might have some information on M.S.From the dane who attented the paris 1867 tournament. He only went because he had some other buisness to attent to in Paris.|
|Dec-15-13|| ||thomastonk: <martin moller> That sounds great! I have already collected similar information on other players, and I would very much appreciate to see your information, too.|
|Dec-16-13|| ||martin moller: Invitations to the Paris 1867 tournament was sent through Von der Lasa - Who was living in Copenhagen at the time - to Chairman of Copenhagen chess Club M.S.From, and he was only able to participate because he as Governor of prison, was able to inspect prisons in Paris at the same time, but he could not stay as long as the tournament lastet. According to a Danish biography on M.S.From (Skakspilleren Severin From 1828 - 95 af Claus Olsen)|
|Dec-16-13|| ||thomastonk: <martin moller> Thank you very much. |
If you have read my earlier posts, then you have seen that there is a problem with invitations. The first article of the official announcement of the tournament describes this tournament (and other events) as open for all chess players of all nations. So, is Olsen's biography speaking of a personal invitation, or could it also be the general announcement?
|Dec-30-13|| ||martin moller: My source is the Danish periodical : "Illustrerede tidende 1867.03.31".
It seems like a general announcement.|
|Dec-30-13|| ||thomastonk: Thank you again, <martin moller>!|
|Dec-16-14|| ||suenteus po 147: This just goes to show how difficult and important research and source citation are to recording historical events. If I had known I was going to be published and come under such scholarly scrutiny, I might have skipped the introductions all together!|
|Dec-16-14|| ||kia0708: None of them played Queen's Gambit Declined ! Amazing.|
|Mar-25-15|| ||Raisin Death Ray: Why wasn't Paris Hilton in this tournament?|
|Apr-07-15|| ||zanzibar: <suenteus po 147: This just goes to show how difficult and important research and source citation are to recording historical events. If I had known I was going to be published and come under such scholarly scrutiny, I might have skipped the introductions all together!>|
I sympathize with <sp> here - his introductions were really private collections that were promoted outside the critical review we have in place today (afaik). In that sense they are really beyond criticism.
Except for the fact that here we are, with his intro as an "official" bio intro to an important tournament.
Having <thomastonk>'s notes is important, and the knowledgeable reader will want to peruse the forum comments to get the full, and correct, story.
<But the question now really goes to the <CG> biographers - how are we to update and revise the intro to this important tournament>>
How are we to mark it as needing revision vs. for instance, a <Tab> approved writeup fully voted in via the "modern" protocol?
BTW- I know that the situation in 2005 could have been drastically different than today. Many of the "primary" sources, i.e. the contemporaneous chess periodicals, are now available via google books (typically from the collections of American Universities, like Harvard, Princeton, etc.).
So trying to get a reasonably accurate view is much easier today - especially if vetted on the Bistro.
It would be nice if <thomastonk> had a blog page where he collected and collated all his corrections in the above into its own intro.
|Aug-18-15|| ||Nosnibor: The original tournament book was compiled by Neumann and de-Riviere and according to Hindle and Jones in their excellent book published in 2001 of the chess career of Cecil De Vere all of the twenty games so omitted were by default which would of course explain why From conceded eight due to his local employment. It does not explain why Rosenthal defaulted the same amount of games. They also state that De Vere received no prize.Finally there was a big hoo-ha following the late admission of Kolisch to the event.Much to the chagrin of Steinitz he was allowed to enter three days after the tournament started and Steinitz had already drawn with Czarnowski which due to the rules meant a zero point. He and others eventually withdrew their protest excepting De Vere. Winawer could have tied for first place but for a careless loss to the tail-ender Rousseau.|
|Feb-09-16|| ||zanzibar: Some chess hardware from the Paris 1867 Exhibition:
Fetching, in more ways than one.
|Feb-10-16|| ||offramp: <zanzibar: Some chess hardware from the Paris 1867 Exhibition:
Fetching, in more ways than one.>
A wonderful board and set. It sold for just under two million pounds. Unlike some exhibition chess sets (Star Wars, Lord of the Rings) this one looks usable, playable, as the pieces are very similar to Staunton-style pieces.
I would imagine that the French would be slightly chagrined that the ensemble was fabriqué in Birmingham.
|Feb-10-16|| ||zanzibar: <offramp> as long as it's spelled <fabriqué> I don't think they mind so much!|
|Feb-10-16|| ||zanzibar: I would like to know, from <Nosnibor>'s post, on what basis <Hindle and Jones> make their assertion that all 20 missing games were defaults?|
Paris (1867) (kibitz #21)
I starting to investigate this, as I'd like to make a complete PGN image of the tournament with stubs.
And I'd like the stubs to accurately state when a game is missing due to being a default vs. missing due to a lost scoresheet.
So far, I only know for certain that From's 8 games were forfeited when he withdrew early from the tournament (which caused some controversy, as mention in the tournament book, about how to score the unplayed and played games of his).
|Feb-10-16|| ||zanzibar: Speaking of tournament books, there are two versions available on google (both from the same original, but different scans from different libraries).|
(Caveat Emptor - I may have the two mixed-up, don't think so, but...?)
Don't use the Harvard edition, afaict the OCR is utterly useless from it.
Inside, use the NYPL version, which was must better OCR'ed.
|Feb-10-16|| ||zanzibar: Dang nab shame I can't list this simple table out properly....|
This is using the <CG> games for the tournament, with the draws treated as nulls (i.e. scoring 0 points):
Total wins ... nulls ... losses ... and total games:
Kolisch 18 2 2 22
Neumann 17 4 3 24
Winawer 17 1 4 22
Steinitz 16 3 3 22
De Vere 12 1 9 22
De Riviere 9 1 10 20
Golmayo 8 0 14 22
Czarnowski 7 2 11 20
Loyd 6 1 17 24
Rosenthal 6 4 6 16
From 5 0 11 16
Rousseau 3 0 19 22
D'Andre 2 1 17 20
What isn't counted here, and presumably affects the order are the forfeit scores. Only two players, Loyd and Neumann, had scores without any forfeit wins or losses.
This table should match that given on p LXXIX of the tournament book, and I believe does.
* * * * *
As for the "missing" games, after reading the tournament book (I read a little French, but used google translate to be sure), I agree with the previous poster:
<There are no missing games for this tournament>
All the games which <CG> doesn't have are forfeits, with known results (not entirely sure about the color pairing).
A complete, and accurate, version of this tournament is just a few stubs away.
|Feb-10-16|| ||zanzibar: A quick rundown of forfeits:
<From (-8)>, played 16 games, but exited the tournament before anyone else. If he's involved in a missing game, he's the one with the forfeit (see, esp, v Rosenthal).
<Rosenthal (-8)> also only played 16 games. His missing games all score as games forfeits (*).
<Czarnowski (+2 -2)> forfeited two against <de Riviere>, and picked up two against <Rosenthal>.
<de Riviere (+2 -2)> won forfeits from <Czarnowski>, but lost two forfeits against Winawer.
(*) Note the table on page LXXIV is ambiguous about the scoring of the forfeits for <Czarnowski--Rosenthal>. The table shows each picking up +2 from the forfeits. The above assumes that the placement of the player's row in the table is accurate. If so, then Czarnowski's placing higher than Rosenthal implies the forfeits score as Rosenthal losses.
* * * * *
Of the top four finishers, only Neumann did not pick up points from forfeited games.
All others (Kolisch, Winawer, and Steinitz) picked up +2 points "for free".
This might explain why Neumann offered défi's to each of the other three contestants who placed higher than he in the final rankings.
Quoting from p268 of Zavatarelli's book on Kolisch:
<Shortly after the Paris Tournament a paragraph appeared in ... La Stratégie (1867,p192), to the effect that the final position ... in the conflict was not accepted by all of them as a true measure of their skills. As proof of this ... Neumann had challenged each ... to a set match.>
There's more to the story, but c'est suffit, for now at least.
|Feb-10-16|| ||zanzibar: The long song and dance just above can be summarized simply... it agrees with the xtab shown in the intro.|
|Feb-10-16|| ||zanzibar: FWIW - the tournament book shows a pseudo-Swiss listing on page LXXVI, using dates instead of round numbers.|
There it can be seen that <From> last played on June 20th, while <Rosenthal>'s play ended on July 2th.
(Several of the French players seem to have taken a "mini-vacation" during the last week in June.)
The entire tournament stretched from June 4th to July 11th, with 33 days of play.
I decided to add all forfeits to July 12th, with R34.n, n = 1,2 - with White always winning the first encounter of the day by forfeit. A comment notifies the user that the game is a forfeit as does a Stub PGN tag.
|Feb-10-16|| ||zanzibar: I think it worth noting that Kolisch scored a very impressive 11/11 (100%) when playing Black, and a not quite so impressive 7/11 (64%) as White.|
|Feb-11-16|| ||zanzibar: In de Riviere's tournament book there's a nice section giving all the color pairings played on a given day, with opening and number of moves plus results, from pages <lxiii/73> to <lxxv/85>.|
(Note- the ordinary number is the page number in the pdf)
Most unfortunately, the results given are often incorrect. Best to use the summary table given on <p lxxvi/86> for that.
* * * * *
I want to emphasis that draws were scored as 0, the same as "-", actual losses (and forfeits). The only points gained were wins (or wins from forfeits), and these were marked with "|" in the tournament book tables.
Draws were marked with actual "0" to distinguish them from losses.
In SCID, I mark draws with "*".
|Feb-11-16|| ||zanzibar: The best discussion of the actual Paris Exhibition (1867) that I've found is here:|
There's no better demonstration of how the cercle got put in the <Cercle International> than the panorama at the beginning of the above article.
|Feb-11-16|| ||zanzibar: < There was no formal organization to international events at the time, so beyond the matches and time controls being set, players seemingly encountered one another during the tournament according to availability and inclination. >|
and other matters from the intro.
I have extracted the relevant passages from the tournament book concerning the rules and regulations. And while the seemingly laissez-faire scheduling might suggest the above, here are the rules:
< Art. 11. - A special committee will be appointed Commission spoke
to adjust the order of play, judging disputes between players and put
out of competition, if necessary, anyone would harm the progress of
the Tournament in Pool Handicap.
Art. 12. - The advantage of the line between two players will be
determined the fate for the first part; it will be for all alternative
Art. 13. - Ten shots at least on both sides, will be played per
hour. However, additional time will be granted under the provided you
pay twenty francs per quarter hour or fraction of quarter hour.
Art. 14. - Each player will play at least five games week.
Art. 15. - Any game played must, on pain of nullity, be delivery
within three days by the winner to the Secretary, Commission, which
shall have the sole right to publish, or authorize the publication.
It's a google translate from the French original, and though I could tweak the translation, it's fairly easy to decipher the meaning. There was a schedule, maybe not published in a form like we have today, and certainly not according to a strict starting time or date. Nonetheless, the play was determined, as was a minimal pace (5 games/week).
Hopefully, I can make all my notes available via my blog for easier access.
|Feb-11-16|| ||zanzibar: Comparing <CG> to 365chess.com finds these games with differences:|
1867.06.08 C52 32 (R5 ) 1-0 Kolisch -- Rousseau
1867.06.13 C38 40 (R10) 0-1 Steinitz -- Kolisch
1867.06.20 C31 32 (R16) 1-0 Steinitz -- From
1867.06.21 C65 40 (R17) 0-1 Neumann -- Kolisch
1867.07.01 C52 26 (R24) 1-0 Kolisch -- Loyd
All checked against the tournament book, and with one exception 365chess agrees, whereas <CG> is at odds.
The one game, is the <Steinitz--From> game, where the tournament book appears to have some uncertainty itself. <CG> matches the move count of 61 plies, whereas <365chess> truncates the game just before the score starts to go awry.
31. F pr. F, échec. | 31. T pr. F. (31. BxB+ RxB 32. RxN)
32. T pr. C.
Et les Noirs abondonnent.
From tb p158/260 Game #80.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Spot an error? Please suggest your correction and help us eliminate database mistakes!
NOTE: You need to pick a username and password to post a reply.
Getting your account takes less than a minute, is 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
Please observe our posting guidelines:
- No obscene, racist, sexist, profane, raunchy, or disgusting language.
- No spamming, advertising, duplicate or nonsense posts.
- No malicious personal attacks, including cyber stalking, systematic antagonism, or gratuitous name-calling of any member Iincludinfgall Admin and Owners or any of their family, friends, associates, or business interests. If you think someone is an idiot, then provide evidence that their reasoning is invalid and/or idiotic, instead of just calling them an idiot. It's a subtle but important distinction, even in political discussions.
- Nothing in violation of United States law.
- No malicious posting of or linking to personal, private, and/or negative information (aka "doxing" or "doxxing") about any member, (including all Admin and Owners) or any of their family, friends, associates, or business interests. This includes all media: text, images, video, audio, or otherwise. Such actions will result in severe sanctions for any violators.
- NO TROLLING. Admin and Owners know it when they see it, and sanctions for any trolls will be significant.
- Any off-topic posts which distract from the primary topic of discussion are subject to removal.
- The use of "sock puppet" accounts to circumvent disciplinary action taken by Moderators is expressly prohibited.
- The use of "sock puppet" accounts in an attempt to undermine any side of a debate—or to create a false impression of consensus or support—is prohibited.
- All decisions with respect to deleting posts, and any subsequent discipline, are final, and occur at the sole discretion of the Moderators, Admin, and Owners.
- Please try to maintain a semblance of civility at all times.
NOTE: Keep all discussion on the topic of this page.
This forum is for this specific tournament and nothing else. If you want to discuss chess in general, or
this site, 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 at the sole discretion of the Admin and Owners—who will strive to act fairly and consistently at all times.
your profile |
Premium Membership |
Kibitzer's Café |
Biographer's Bistro |
new kibitzing |
Tournament Index |
Player Directory |
Notable Games |
World Chess Championships |
Opening Explorer |
Guess the Move |
Game Collections |
ChessBookie Game |
Chessgames Challenge |
privacy notice |
Copyright 2001-2019, Chessgames Services LLC