Members · Prefs · Collections · Openings · Endgames · Sacrifices · History · Search Kibitzing · Kibitzer's Café · Chessforums · Tournament Index · Players · Kibitzing

Baden-Baden Tournament

Adolf Anderssen11/16(+10 -4 =2)[view games]
Wilhelm Steinitz10.5/16(+9 -4 =3)[view games]
Gustav Richard Neumann10/16(+9 -5 =2)[view games]
Joseph Henry Blackburne10/16(+7 -3 =6)[view games]
Louis Paulsen7.5/16(+6 -7 =3)[view games]
Samuel Rosenthal7/16(+2 -4 =10)[view games]
Cecil Valentine De Vere6.5/16(+6 -9 =1)[view games]
Simon Winawer6.5/16(+5 -8 =3)[view games]
Johannes von Minckwitz5/16(+4 -10 =2)[view games]
Adolf Stern1.5/4(+1 -2 =1)[view games]
* Chess Event Description
Baden-Baden (1870)
The games were hard fought in Baden-Baden 1870. Draws were rare. Anderssen led most of the tournament with uncompromising chess. Steinitz had a disastrous start and a great finish. Rosenthal wanted to score at least a draw against the strongest players and called it a duel scar or ‘Schmitzel’. But he forfeited his four games against De Vere and Minckwitz.(1)

Be sure to see Jan van Reek's stupendous website for the historical context and logistics behind this tournament, player information, the crosstable, and final standings (1).

Ten games decided by forfeit have been excluded from this collection.

Baden-Baden 18 July - 4 Aug

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 Adolf Anderssen ** 11 00 1½ 11 1½ 10 10 11 11.0 3000 francs 2 Wilhelm Steinitz 00 ** 11 0½ 11 11 11 ½1 ½0 10.5 600 francs 3 Gustav Richard Neumann 11 00 ** 1½ 01 01 11 0½ 11 10.0 200 francs 4 Joseph Henry Blackburne 0½ 1½ 0½ ** 10 11 1½ ½½ 11 10.0 200 francs 5 Louis Paulsen 00 00 10 01 ** 10 1½ 1½ ½1 7.5 6 Cecil De Vere 0½ 00 10 00 01 ** 01 ++ 01 6.5 7 Simon Winawer 01 00 00 0½ 0½ 10 ** 1½ 11 6.5 8 Samuel Rosenthal 01 ½0 1½ ½½ 0½ -- 0½ ** -- 5.0 9 Johannes von Minckwitz 00 ½1 00 00 ½0 10 00 ++ ** 5.0 10 Adolf Stern ½0 10

"+" and "-" represent wins and losses by forfeit.

References: (1), (2) Minckwitz / Neumann / Paulsen vs Blackburne / Steinitz / De Vere, 1870 was played as a consultation game at the event, (3) Original collection: Game Collection: Baden-Baden 1870, by User: suenteus po 147

 page 1 of 3; games 1-25 of 67  PGN Download
Game  ResultMoves Year Event/LocaleOpening
1. J Minckwitz vs A Stern 1-048 1870 Baden-BadenC66 Ruy Lopez
2. Steinitz vs Blackburne 0-131 1870 Baden-BadenC30 King's Gambit Declined
3. De Vere vs Winawer 0-122 1870 Baden-BadenC65 Ruy Lopez, Berlin Defense
4. G Neumann vs Paulsen 0-153 1870 Baden-BadenA85 Dutch, with c4 & Nc3
5. S Rosenthal vs Anderssen 0-133 1870 Baden-BadenC44 King's Pawn Game
6. Blackburne vs Steinitz ½-½30 1870 Baden-BadenC51 Evans Gambit
7. Paulsen vs G Neumann 0-143 1870 Baden-BadenC60 Ruy Lopez
8. Anderssen vs S Rosenthal 0-134 1870 Baden-BadenC51 Evans Gambit
9. Winawer vs De Vere 0-116 1870 Baden-BadenC15 French, Winawer
10. A Stern vs J Minckwitz 1-031 1870 Baden-BadenC80 Ruy Lopez, Open
11. Paulsen vs De Vere 1-028 1870 Baden-BadenC01 French, Exchange
12. Anderssen vs J Minckwitz 1-046 1870 Baden-BadenC51 Evans Gambit
13. A Stern vs Steinitz ½-½54 1870 Baden-BadenC60 Ruy Lopez
14. Winawer vs S Rosenthal 1-027 1870 Baden-BadenC51 Evans Gambit
15. G Neumann vs Blackburne 1-031 1870 Baden-BadenD35 Queen's Gambit Declined
16. Blackburne vs G Neumann ½-½51 1870 Baden-BadenC60 Ruy Lopez
17. Steinitz vs A Stern 1-026 1870 Baden-BadenB54 Sicilian
18. De Vere vs Paulsen 1-021 1870 Baden-BadenC77 Ruy Lopez
19. S Rosenthal vs Winawer  ½-½37 1870 Baden-BadenC80 Ruy Lopez, Open
20. Anderssen vs Steinitz 1-037 1870 Baden-BadenC51 Evans Gambit
21. Paulsen vs S Rosenthal  1-024 1870 Baden-BadenC65 Ruy Lopez, Berlin Defense
22. J Minckwitz vs Winawer 0-145 1870 Baden-BadenE48 Nimzo-Indian, 4.e3 O-O 5.Bd3 d5
23. Blackburne vs De Vere  1-040 1870 Baden-BadenB23 Sicilian, Closed
24. Winawer vs J Minckwitz  1-025 1870 Baden-BadenC48 Four Knights
25. De Vere vs Blackburne 0-136 1870 Baden-BadenC60 Ruy Lopez
 page 1 of 3; games 1-25 of 67  PGN Download
  REFINE SEARCH:   White wins (1-0) | Black wins (0-1) | Draws (1/2-1/2)  

Kibitzer's Corner
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·  Later Kibitzing>
Aug-02-15  thomastonk: <zanzibar> First of all: the second part of the final sentence of my posting to A Stern vs Steinitz, 1870 of Dec-08-13 is simply wrong. Nobody is perfect.

<Stern vs Steinitz, 1870 seems to contradict the view that Stern's game were kept. But it seems that the Stern--Steinitz game leaves little doubt that his games were nullified.>

I have to object! Please read the comment of move 38 in DSZ 1870, page 360: "Mit diesem Zug überschritt Weiss die festgesetzte Zeit; die Partie zählte daher für ihn als verloren." (At this move White exceeded the time; the game counted as a loss for him.) So, the game itself shows no contradiction.

Then, please, read DSZ 1870, page 254: "Stern figurirt daher im Turnier nur noch nominell und ist in Folge dessen ein von den Concurrenten sehr gesuchter und sehr beliebter Gegner."

I guess, automated translation fails. ;-) I give it a try as follows: "So, Stern is still only pro forma in the tournament, and hence his rivals enjoy playing him."


<z: So again, I advocate dropping his games from the "official" tournament, and moving them to the adjunct collection (i.e. Baden-Baden+).>

None of my writings so far was related to this point. I tried and try only to increase our understanding of what happened.

I don't even have an opinion here, because I don't know the concept of adjunct collections (maybe you like to enlighten me), and so I don't know how it is used here at cg usually.

Nevertheless, there is one reason mentioned already at least two times, which did not convince me, and that is 'modern day practice would have nullified Stern'. You know that I like principles, and one of my pet principles is: the work of a historian is to describe and tell the past as best as possible (and not to rewrite it).

Aug-02-15  zanzibar: The automatic translation may or may not have failed, it's just that I didn't go through each and each game in Schachzeitung looking for contradictions.

This is really getting into the details... which I don't mind, but some patience is required as I "come up to speed".

(And, given the potential for confusion, <CG> clearly records the official treatment in the intro)

If all of Sterns' games, before his withdrawal, were loses and weren't nullified - then one can make the argument to keep them in the official collection.

It necessitates adding the extra forfeits, only, to keep me happy. It seems to be in accordance with the official score-keeping, which does indeed list Stern as having losses across the board.

But we have to get the correct results for the two games on <CG>.

Your insistence on resolving this matter is commendable, and I agree with it - reserving double-checking the individual results.

I was working under the impression that some of Stern's original results were nullified by the Committee of 1870, in fairness to the players, to record them as losses.

Then, as I argued before, keeping Stern in the crosstables would have been perfunctory - the modern treatment would be to just drop the player (provided they withdrew before completing 1/2 of their schedule).

One of the purposes of the tournament was to codify the rules... and in this case we should preserve the Stern games (again, if the results of the played games stand officially).

But, there are several true experts reporting different treatments of Stern, as Rod Edwards' EDOchess reports:

Rereading the description there is only now clear to me (despite <PaintMyDragon>'s earlier tip), after having dived head first into the deep end of it (e.g. Gaige dropped Stern, and he's usually extremely reliable).

Aug-02-15  zanzibar: Adjunct collections - these are games associated with the tournament, but not part of the official main tournament results.

Examples are nullified dropout games, ( e.g. Fischer's games from <Sousse (1967)>). Other examples might be casual games, or consultation games played during the tournament, but non-scoring in the official results.

An important further example, are tie-break playoff games. These enter the official record, but should be keep out of the main tournament results.

For the non-scoring category, 365chess and chessbase, both use the "+" notation. Thus, those games can be found by just appending a "+" to the PGN Event tag.

(Because they have a different Event tag they don't interfere with chess database software - e.g. making xtabs)

The playoffs are generally treated similarly by 365chess and chessbase - this time by appending "playoff" to the Event tag.

It all makes sense to me, and I strongly advocate that <CG> adopt these practical measures.

Aug-02-15  thomastonk: <z: The automatic translation may or may not have failed, it's just that I didn't go through each and each game in Schachzeitung looking for contradictions.> You remember one of first postings here: I think someone should check all the games; maybe not every move, but game lengths at least. I can help with the language etc., but I don't have time for this, sorry.

<z: But we have to get the correct results for the two games on <CG>.> Yes, the results and the game scores. I think the unoffical continuations should be mentioned in a PGN comment.

<Your insistence on resolving this matter is commendable, and I agree with it - reserving double-checking the individual results.> We are on a good way, I would say. At the end it will be the best description of the tournament one can get - at least in English! ;-)

PS: The next days I will visit the city archives of a major German city in order to study a long running chess column. I don't know whether or how long I will be on-line.

Aug-03-15  zanzibar: <thomastonk> OK, good luck with your project.

I'm working on excerpting the major periodicals' coverage of Baden-Baden.

The earlier <Schachzeitung> link will soon go away as I update the edit.

I'll post a page with all the links on my blog - and that link won't go away (and I'll be free to update the links from there).

The google scanning and OCR is pretty good, but does miss entire phrases at times. So all of the documents I post will need proofing.

(I can't guarantee that I'll have enough interest to do it all myself - so beware. Help is always welcome, however - just drop a comment on the blog.)

Aug-03-15  thomastonk: <z: <thomastonk> OK, good luck with your project.> Many thanks! I had to shift the trip by one week (sudden accomodiation problems this morning).

<I can't guarantee that I'll have enough interest to do it all myself - so beware.> I'll motivate you! :-) It would be extremely sad, if you spend so much time and energy, and there would be no commensurate outcome.

I've just found your blog - that's unknown territory for me. I'll probably need a trigger.

Aug-03-15  zanzibar: Here's a preliminary version with just the Westminster Paper extracts:

If someone could have a quick look just to make sure the gdocs are accessible to the public, I'd be obliged!

Aug-03-15  Retireborn: <z> Your gdocs are all working for me.
Aug-03-15  zanzibar: Thanks <RB>, good news.
Aug-08-15  thomastonk: I compared the games scores of DSZ (until Feb 1871) with the games scores we have here.

Steinitz vs Paulsen, 1870 endet in DSZ after 33.cxd5 (1870, p 301).

Steinitz vs Winawer, 1870 : probably incomplete according to DSZ 1870, p 311.

Blackburne vs De Vere, 1870 : probably incomplete according to DSZ 1870, p 312.

S Rosenthal vs Anderssen, 1870 has 33 (instead of 29) moves in DSZ 1870, p 345.

Steinitz vs Blackburne, 1870 differs beginning at move 28.♖hb2, see DSZ 1870, p 347.

Blackburne vs Steinitz, 1870 has 5 pairs of additional moves in DSZ 1870, p 348.

Winawer vs Paulsen, 1870 : probably incomplete according to DSZ 1871, p 42.

Paulsen vs De Vere, 1870 : "and White mates in five" according to DSZ 1871, p 44. But which moves were played?

Blackburne vs S Rosenthal, 1870 has 8 pairs of additional moves in DSZ 1871, p 47-48.


Another loss by exceeding the time limit was Paulsen vs Steinitz, 1870.

Aug-08-15  zanzibar: Inspired somewhat by <thomastonk>'s additional work, here's the original literature link page again:

With the <Neue Berliner Schachzeitung> coverage added (but not the games).

Aug-08-15  zanzibar: For the record, and to correct the wiki page:

(at least the English-language version)...

The primary coverage of the tournament was in a periodical simply entitled:


and not <Schachzeitung der Berliner Schachgesellschaft>.

Some confusion may be due to the subtitle, which was <Gegründet von der Berliner Schachgesellschaft> which translates to <founded by the Berlin Schachgesellschaft>.

It wasn't until 1872 that it was published under the name:

<Deutsche Schachzeitung>

Of course, listing it as DSZ in the working notes is OK, like using WCCP.

But just keep this note in mind when doing the proper final citations and references.

Aug-09-15  thomastonk: <zanzibar: Schachzeitung der Berliner Schachgesellschaft, Deutsche Schachzeitung> Of course, you are right, and I knew this.

Using only a dominant name for the same newspaper or magazine is not necessary a sign of sloppiness. It has also practical purposes, e.g., in a catalogue, say or

Scientific historic texts in German have often a special register called 'Siglenverzeichnis'. A 'Sigel' is a special name for such an abbreviation, say 'DSZ'. The register explains which source is meant, and this can be time-dependent, say before/after 1872. The name has Latin roots, and is known in many other languages, too, but I don't know of an Englisch counterpart. Quite recently I had to use a book with 900+ references, making extensive use of 'Siglen', but it had no 'Siglenverzeichnis'! What a disaster!

Aug-09-15  thomastonk: And speaking of disaster ...

This time I compared the game scores here with those in 'NBS' (it seems they were all published in 1870).

Steinitz vs Blackburne, 1870 has 31 moves in NBS, 1870, p 245-6. The moves 28-36 in cg's game score are an analysis in comment e).

Steinitz vs Winawer, 1870 has 3 more moves for each player, see NBS 1870, p 251.

G Neumann vs Blackburne, 1870 ended already at White's 25th. But 'und gewinnt' should mean, that some moves were omitted. NBS 1870, p 252.

Winawer vs De Vere, 1870 has one more pair of moves in NBS 1870, p 256.

Steinitz vs S Rosenthal, 1870 : same lenghts, but possibly incomplete, see NBS 1870, p 267.

Paulsen vs De Vere, 1870 : according to NBS 1870, p 268, Black resigned after 25.♗c6, i.e., three moves earlier.

De Vere vs J Minckwitz, 1870 : the end of cg's game score is again an analysis in a comment, see NBS 1870, p 272-3.

S Rosenthal vs Anderssen, 1870 : same lenghts, but possibly incomplete, see NBS 1870, p 308.

Anderssen vs S Rosenthal, 1870 : same lenghts, but possibly incomplete, see NBS 1870, p 310.

S Rosenthal vs Blackburne, 1870 : the last 6 or 7 pairs of moves, respectively, differ, see NBS 1870, p 310.

G Neumann vs Anderssen, 1870 : same lenghts, but possibly incomplete, see NBS 1870, p 334. In this case the incompleteness is supported by a line of additional moves, which is introduced by "Es folgte etwa". This means two things: additional moves were played, but the given moves give only an impression thereof.

Blackburne vs G Neumann, 1870 : three more pairs of moves in NBS 1870, p 339.

S Rosenthal vs G Neumann, 1870 : additional four moves of each player in NBS, and probably still incomplete: see NBS 1870, p 340.

S Rosenthal vs Steinitz, 1870 : the last three moves are missing in NBS 1870, p 342.

Blackburne vs De Vere, 1870 : additional eight moves of each player in NBS 1870, p 348.


No differences in Blackburne vs Steinitz, 1870, Steinitz vs Paulsen, 1870 which differed compared to DSZ.

Aug-10-15  Barococo Prosopoeia: In his novel <Summer in Baden-Baden> Leonid Tsypkin expressed his strong feeling of what now appears to be a universal human need: to be a fan of In someone or something. But he was cursed by fate. He lived in a place and at a time when there was no one to worship but God yet God was itself banned as a matter of state policy and there were no rock stars, actors, great athletes, football teams or anything one could substitute for God.

Tsypkin was born in 1926 in Minsk. His parents were Russian jews. He was a young boy when the Stalinist purges, the Great Terror, started. His father, his father's two sisters and a brother were arrested. His father tried to commit suicide while in prison but survived and later got out. His father's aforementioned three siblings all perished. When Minsk was captured by the Germans in 1941 it was the turn of Tsypkin's grandmother, another aunt and two little cousins to die, murdered in a ghetto. He and his father, however, managed to escape from Minsk with the help of his father's former patient. Later, Tsypkin himself became a doctor like his parents.He married and had a son, Mikhail.

He had always loved literature and the arts and at some time toyed with the idea of writing full time or becoming a film director. But he was afraid he may not be able to support his family with any of these careers. So he stuck with being a doctor, devoting much of his time on research.

He did manage to write some poems, two novellas and this one, his longest. But none of these was ever published in Russia during his lifetime.

His son Mikhail and the latter's wife were granted exit visas in 1977 and they migrated to the United States. Two years after, Tsypkin himself, his wife and mother applied for exit visas but were denied. The emigration of his son to the United States had caused him a lot of trouble: his salary (the only source of livelihood for the family) was cut by 75% and he was treated as a pariah in the research institute ran by the government where he worked. He was trappped.

It was at this period (1977 to 1980) that he wrote this novel. After it was finished, and with no prospect of having it published in the country, he managed to smuggle a copy of the manuscript out through the help of a journalist friend who had managed to leave early in 1981. In September that year, he, his wife and his mother re-applied for exit visas. The following month his mother died, aged 86. A week later the denial of their application came.

In early March 1982 he was told by the head of the Moscow visa office that he will never be allowed to emigrate anywhere. Days later, his son Mikhail, who was then studying in Harvard, told him that this novel will be published, on installment, at a Russian-emigre weekly based in New York. The first of these installments appeared on 13 March 1982. A week later, or on 20 March 1982, Tsypkin died of a heart attack. It was his 56th birthday. He never got to see any of his work in print or came to know of the readers' reaction to any of his literary output. How would he have reacted to Susan Sontag's introduction here where she gushed that she would include this novel "among the most beautiful, exalting, and original achievements of a century's worth of fiction and para-fiction" we will never know.

Aug-10-15  Barococo Prosopoeia: This is a part-historical, part-imaginary and part-autobiographical fan blog written long before the age of the internet and using, not a laptop, but a World War II-vintage Erika typewriter. The object of Tsypkin's fanboyism was the only type of idol the KGB then will not suspect you of hatching a plot to destabilize the regime: a Russian author dead for about a century with an apolitical body of work: Fyodor Dostoevsky.

A true fan he was, for only a true fan would do what Tsypkin did before actually wiriting this novel amidst the hopelessness and tribulations of his sorry life. First, he scoured the libraries and archives to do research on Dostoevsky. Then, camera in hand, he went to Leningrad to take photos of places which had a part in Dostoevsky's life AND that of the characters in his novels. That is why in between paragraphs of this novel the reader will be occasionally confronted with images of streets, buildings, walls, holes, stairways, rooms and the like all without any human beings in them as if even in these images of places Tsypkin did not want anyone but Dostoevsky and his characters to magically appear and re-enact the incidents of their lives.

It seemed a historical fact that in the summer of 1867 Dostoevsky and his young wife Anna travelled across Russia to Baden-Baden (then a popular resort town). But his anti-semitism, his gambling addiction, his compulsive almsgiving, his use of swimming as a metaphor for the sex act--were these still facts or were they just imagined by Tyspkin? (sorry, but I read my Dostoevsky more than 30 years ago).The scenes here go from Dostoevsky's time to Tyspkin's own time in the 1970s as if the century which separates these times had been compressed to make the past and the present happen simultaneously through the medium of this novel. Tyspkin was like an Elvis Presley impersonator dressing up like him and singing his songs to relive what had long been gone.

This is one desperate longing expressed through prose.

Aug-10-15  zanzibar: < <zanzibar: Schachzeitung der Berliner Schachgesellschaft, Deutsche Schachzeitung> Of course, you are right, and I knew this.

Using only a dominant name for the same newspaper or magazine is not necessary a sign of sloppiness. It has also practical purposes, e.g., in a catalogue, say>

Yes, I completely assumed you knew this, but was being rather explicit (and a bit pedantic) for the benefit of the general reader.

Not being a library scientist, I'm not sure it we have such a useful phrase in English. I assume we utilize the concept nonetheless.

<Quite recently I had to use a book with 900+ references, making extensive use of 'Siglen', but it had no 'Siglenverzeichnis'! What a disaster!>

I was having quite a bit of difficulty myself with the old German text - given it's fondness for abbreviations. At least until I got a fairly good English-German dictionary the local library was throwing out:

<New Cassell's German Dictionary LCCN 58-7924>

Aug-10-15  zanzibar: <thomastonk> I haven't looked in depth at the game problems you posted yet (or at <Barococo Prosopoeia>'s prose either).

But again, to be explicit, it appears you are just looking at game length differences and not actually playing through each and every game. Correct?

* * * * *

Also, I updated the <Org Lit> link page to include <DSZ> coverage:

This probably broke the old links. But I prefer people use the blog post - it allows me more flexibility by introducing a layer of indirection, and I get stats on usage.

I intend to work a little more on Baden-Baden again this week, having neglected it a little these past few days.

(That is, after I look for some of Harrington's games)

Aug-11-15  thomastonk: <z: But again, to be explicit, it appears you are just looking at game length differences and not actually playing through each and every game. Correct?> Yes, that's correct. Each time I had one hour or two, and then I gave it a try.

Compared, for example, to Manila 1991, the percentage of differing games is really quite high, and checking every move is desirable. But who is willing to spend the time? (There is a reason why Haas needed years for his books!)

At the moment I have no plans for further steps, but maybe ...

Aug-11-15  zanzibar: <thomastonk> well, we do what we can 'round here, strictly volunteer work you know.

I'll look a little into it as well.

* * * * *

I truly think it might be more efficient to just reenter all the moves into a program from the text, and then compare the resulting PGN files.

That way allows one to just focus on the game at hand too, instead of cross-checking each move.

Ideally, if we were truly systematic about it - and starting from scratch - I'd have the games divided up into batches (~20-50 games/person). Then each batch would get reentered from the original literature (with source noted in PGN).

To get the absolute best reliability, I use <epsilon**2 methodology>, by which I mean having each batch independently entered.

Then, by comparing the two batches against each other an error rate of epsilon would theoretically be reduced to epsilon**2.

It might seem like a waste of resources, but consider the amount of time needed to check the games for each tournament that we have to do now.

In the long run, the epsilon**2 approach actually would save time.

Or so I claim (at the moment).

Aug-11-15  zanzibar: Here's an interesting passage from <DSZ v63 (1908) p38>

<Briefwechsel mit Allen für Alle.

J.B., welcher die Nachricht aus Mannheim in die Schachzeitung aufnahm erinnerte sich der Vorkommnisse in Baden-Baden 1870 noch recht gut. Stern hatte nur mit Minckwitz und Steinitz gespielt. Obwohl er von diesen je eine Partie hätte gewinnen können,gab er doch die Partien freiwillig auf, weil er an dem Turnier nicht länger teilnehmen konnte. Er wurde als bayerischer Reservist zu den Fahnen einberufen. Schachztg. 1870, S.254. Das Streichen der Partien frühzeitig Ausgetretener war nicht vorgesehen, und Stern verhinderte durch das Aufgeben der Partien, daß seinen Konkurrenten ein Schaden erwuchs. In Partie 3030, 1870 S. 360, ist das Verlieren wegen Zeitüberschreitung, nicht das Remis, maßgebend ーEilenburg (P. G) >

Where there is some commentary submitted by a reader about Stern's games.

To demonstrate the difficulties for the non-German speaker, here is the google translation of this brief passage:

<Correspondence with Allen for all.

JB, who had received the message from Mannheim in the Schachzeitung remembered the events in Baden-Baden in 1870 still quite good. Stern had played with Minckwitz and Steinitz. Although he had a lot of this can ever win, but he gave the games voluntarily, because he was not able to participate longer in the tournament. He was called up as a reservist to the Bavarian flags. Schachztg. 1870 p.254. The strike of the early games Spilled was not provided, and Stern prevented by giving up the batches that its competitors grew damage. In section 3030, 1870 S. 360, is losing due to timeout, not the draw, prevail ー Eilenburg (P. G)>

In particular, this sentence:

<Das Streichen der Partien frühzeitig Ausgetretener war nicht vorgesehen, und Stern verhinderte durch das Aufgeben der Partien, daß seinen Konkurrenten ein Schaden erwuchs.>

and "Ausgetretener", needs some help.

(Not sure how google got "spilled"??

My dictionary doesn't have it, and gives verschuttën for spilled.

But google does give

Aus getreten er = From it came)

Aug-11-15  zanzibar: By the way, I might have mentioned this before, but Haas gives a pretty good breakdown of why it took him three years:

He didn't have the advantage of Google books making available WCCP, NBS or DSZ with just a simple web search (just one reason, of course).

Aug-11-15  zanzibar: <Sorry can not answer all the questions this book. We'll just have to be content with what has been handed down to us. In addition to some games that have not been printed at the time and are thus lost, the greatest difficulty was the implementation of the concept is to reconstruct the chronological sequence of the tournament and the actual sequence of games. Unfortunately that was not possible in some games. Attached to this problem is explained in more detail.>

Stephan Hass, as found here:

(Which does give a very readable translation via google)

Aug-11-15  zanzibar: The <Neumann--Steinitz (R10) 124 0-1> game might be mentioned as responsible for the introduction of the 3-fold repetition rule.

<Neumann commented later in the "German chess newspaper" as follows about this: "(...) so I bring, to avoid several times in Baden tournament occurred case proposes that after three repetitions of the same move from both sides of each player has the right, as cancel the match a draw. "In a slightly modified form this rule was a draw later in the tournament chess usual by repetition and is maintained until today.">

(Noted in German wiki page of Neumann as well, according to above link)

Aug-11-15  thomastonk: <z: I truly think it might be more efficient to just reenter all the moves into a program from the text, and then compare the resulting PGN files.> If the aim is to check all moves, then yes. You'll need one PGN file for every source, i.e., DZS, NBS, WP, ILN, The Era, and, thanks <jnpope>, The Field. But I cannot help producing these files, I'm sorry.

<z: To demonstrate the difficulties for the non-German speaker, here is the google translation of this brief passage> I use automatic translation all day, and between German and English it works pretty well, I would say -- at least if you compare it to other pairs of less related languages. ;-)

Jump to page #    (enter # from 1 to 3)
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·  Later Kibitzing>
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 members.
  4. Nothing in violation of United States law.
  5. Don't post personal information of members.
Blow the Whistle See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform an administrator.

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, you might try the Kibitzer's Café.
Messages posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of, its employees, or sponsors.
Spot an error? Please suggest your correction and help us eliminate database mistakes!

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 | Store | privacy notice | advertising | contact us
Copyright 2001-2015, Chessgames Services LLC
Web design & database development by 20/20 Technologies