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 website for the historical context and logistics behind this tournament, and player information. (1) See also contemporary reports at Zan Chess, (2) and in London Field. (3)
Baden-Baden, Grand Duchy of Baden, 18 July - 4 August 1870
Stern played only four games, of which two were lost on time. His 14 forfeited games counted in the final standings. "-" represents loss by forfeit (19 games). Three games are missing (per 5 Jan 2016): De Vere - Anderssen 0-1, Minckwitz - Anderssen 0-1, and Blackburne - Winawer 1-0.
01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 Prizes
1 Anderssen ** 11 00 1˝ 11 1˝ 10 10 11 11 13.0 3000 f
2 Steinitz 00 ** 11 0˝ 11 11 11 ˝1 ˝0 11 12.5 600 f
=3 Neumann 11 00 ** 1˝ 01 01 11 0˝ 11 11 12.0 200 f
=3 Blackburne 0˝ 1˝ 0˝ ** 10 11 1˝ ˝˝ 11 11 12.0 200 f
5 Paulsen 00 00 10 01 ** 10 1˝ 1˝ ˝1 11 9.5
=6 De Vere 0˝ 00 10 00 01 ** 01 11 01 11 8.5
=6 Winawer 01 00 00 0˝ 0˝ 10 ** 1˝ 11 11 8.5
=8 Rosenthal 01 ˝0 1˝ ˝˝ 0˝ -- 0˝ ** -- 11 7.0
=8 Minckwitz 00 ˝1 00 00 ˝- 10 00 11 ** 11 7.0
10 Stern -- 00 -- -- -- -- -- -- 00 ** 0.0
Minckwitz / Neumann / Paulsen vs Blackburne / Steinitz / De Vere, 1870 was played as a consultation game at the event.
(1) http://www.endgame.nl/bad1870.htm. (2) https://zanchess.wordpress.com/2015... (3) http://www.chessarch.com/excavation...
Original collection: Game Collection: Baden-Baden 1870, by User: suenteus po 147.
| page 1 of 3; games 1-25 of 68
|1. De Vere vs Winawer
||0-1||22||1870||Baden-Baden||C65 Ruy Lopez, Berlin Defense|
|2. G Neumann vs Paulsen
||0-1||53||1870||Baden-Baden||A85 Dutch, with c4 & Nc3|
|3. S Rosenthal vs Anderssen
||0-1||33||1870||Baden-Baden||C44 King's Pawn Game|
|4. J Minckwitz vs Adolf Stern
||1-0||48||1870||Baden-Baden||C66 Ruy Lopez|
|5. Steinitz vs Blackburne
||0-1||31||1870||Baden-Baden||C30 King's Gambit Declined|
|6. Blackburne vs Steinitz
||½-½||30||1870||Baden-Baden||C51 Evans Gambit|
|7. Paulsen vs G Neumann
||0-1||43||1870||Baden-Baden||C60 Ruy Lopez|
|8. Winawer vs De Vere
||0-1||16||1870||Baden-Baden||C15 French, Winawer|
|9. Adolf Stern vs J Minckwitz
||0-1||19||1870||Baden-Baden||C80 Ruy Lopez, Open|
|10. Anderssen vs S Rosenthal
||0-1||34||1870||Baden-Baden||C51 Evans Gambit|
|11. Paulsen vs De Vere
||1-0||28||1870||Baden-Baden||C01 French, Exchange|
|12. Winawer vs S Rosenthal
||1-0||27||1870||Baden-Baden||C51 Evans Gambit|
|13. Adolf Stern vs Steinitz
||0-1||37||1870||Baden-Baden||C60 Ruy Lopez|
|14. Anderssen vs J Minckwitz
||1-0||46||1870||Baden-Baden||C51 Evans Gambit|
|15. G Neumann vs Blackburne
||1-0||31||1870||Baden-Baden||D35 Queen's Gambit Declined|
|16. S Rosenthal vs Winawer
|| ||½-½||37||1870||Baden-Baden||C80 Ruy Lopez, Open|
|17. Blackburne vs G Neumann
||½-½||51||1870||Baden-Baden||C60 Ruy Lopez|
|18. Steinitz vs Adolf Stern
||1-0||26||1870||Baden-Baden||B45 Sicilian, Taimanov|
|19. De Vere vs Paulsen
||1-0||21||1870||Baden-Baden||C77 Ruy Lopez|
|20. J Minckwitz vs Winawer
||0-1||45||1870||Baden-Baden||E48 Nimzo-Indian, 4.e3 O-O 5.Bd3 d5|
|21. Anderssen vs Steinitz
||1-0||37||1870||Baden-Baden||C51 Evans Gambit|
|22. Paulsen vs S Rosenthal
|| ||1-0||24||1870||Baden-Baden||C65 Ruy Lopez, Berlin Defense|
|23. Blackburne vs De Vere
|| ||1-0||40||1870||Baden-Baden||B23 Sicilian, Closed|
|24. De Vere vs Blackburne
||0-1||36||1870||Baden-Baden||C60 Ruy Lopez|
|25. Winawer vs J Minckwitz
|| ||1-0||25||1870||Baden-Baden||C48 Four Knights|
| page 1 of 3; games 1-25 of 68
TIP: You can make the above ads go away by registering a free account!
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 5 OF 5 ·
|Jan-13-16|| ||Tabanus: <thomastonk> The introduction. But I have neither time nor energy for it. I also doubt my "historical context" would be any good. I'm considering to give a try on Dundee 1867 later, but not now.|
|Jan-13-16|| ||thomastonk: <Tabanus: The introduction.> I see. |
Several months ago this tournament was possibly a first-rate occasion to achieve or sustain a good reputation and to have a sense of achievement at the same time, too. Now, with all the kibitzing above, it is rather a thankless task, and unfortunately it is not the only one like this. I regret that I contributed to the situation, but I thought z intended to crown his efforts.
|Jan-13-16|| ||Tabanus: <tt> What can I say. I doubt he'll ever write a CG tournament intro. Anyway it's never too late IMO. Who cares about the kibitzing? As regards the thankfulness, there is little to but put "Introduction written by User: tt" behind "Original collection: Game Collection: Baden-Baden 1870, by User: suenteus po 147" and voila! But it's more "fun" to write intro to one's own collection.|
|Jan-15-16|| ||zanzibar: <<thomastonk> I regret that I contributed to the situation, but I thought z intended to crown his efforts.>|
More white picket fence painting?
I'm not sure what exactly you mean by "crown" in this context.
Rewrite the intro, given our efforts?
I can't even remember how I entered into the Baden-Baden discussion, other than hoping to contribute to some discrepancy noted in the forum posts, etc.
I believe I was attempting, back in the summer, to get complete and correct PGN for historical tournaments. The goal being to obtain the correct xtab and leaderboards from a PGN download.
At the time I remember doing a lot of work on this tournament. I also was hoping to set an biographical standard, at least for myself, and put a lot of work into reviewing the original sources.
The idea was to collect all contemporaneous source material into one streamlined source, and to have OCR'ed versioned of the material to allow text searching.
I think I did as well as could be expected, given I don't speak German. I know my blog gets a tremendous amount of traffic from Norway for this tournament.
I wish a German speaker would help me redo the translations - since I find google translations rather lacking. Even if German-to-English is one of the better pathways (as you noted), it's simply not good enough for the clarity our work requires.
Nonetheless, I think it a good example which should be followed. One which complements the O'Keefe/Pope approach (which is chronological rather than topical).
|Jan-15-16|| ||zanzibar: Now, I'd a little distressed at this statement:
<I regret that I contributed to the situation>
Firstly, what situation?
As far as I'm concerned we had a good exchange of info/ideas/research on these pages.
To have to go back and review the material with a pessimistic viewpoint is something I'd be loath to do. It strikes me as a waste of time, defending some vague negative sentiment.
I always approach my writings as trying to contribute clarity, and aim to be informative.
(Or entertaining - like on the Cafe)
And so, why regret?
I assume your approach is similar to mine, that we both are trying to be constructive and accurate. Of course, given the diffuse structure of <CG>, the results won't match expectations.
But we knew that then, the same as we know it now.
|Jan-15-16|| ||zanzibar: <Tab> Anyway it's never too late IMO. Who cares about the kibitzing?|
I do, and you should too.
Some of the best information on <CG> is contained in the kibitzing. Period.
<What can I say. I doubt he'll ever write a CG tournament intro. Anyway it's never too late IMO.>
<Tab> you're the main intro writer. You know that, and you get 100% of the <CG> credit for that.
I've offered to write one that I remember you took over from me, by mutual agreement. I thought it good at the time, given you were doing all the other izt's - it made the write-up more consistent.
My main goal was trying to get the tournaments and PGN into workable form. That was a lot of work which people seem to have forgotten.
It was the kind of work which few seemed to realize was needed at the time, as well. Which meant even more work educating those who ultimately did the bulk of the hard work fixing the problems.
I think we've made some progress. I'm disappointed we haven't made more on this front.
My point of view remains that wikipedia does as good a job on the intros to tournaments as we do. And to tell the truth, I think it has better formatting.
(Try making that knockout graphic on <CG>)
The main goal for me remains the data - that's been the case from the very beginning.
We still don't have bulk processing - nor do we have Event/Site searching - nor do we have consistent treatment of playoffs - nor do we have stubs - nor do we even have FIDE-style names in the PGN, etc. etc.
|Jan-15-16|| ||zanzibar: <Bismarck and Pope Pius IX trying to checkmate each other>|
From Carolus' <Baden-Baden (1870)> page:
|Jan-17-16|| ||Tabanus: <<Tab> you're the main intro writer.>|
I was perhaps, for the last year. Which goes to show how bad the situation is for CG. They should think about how to recruit more.
|Jan-17-16|| ||thomastonk: <Tabanus: "Introduction written by User: tt"> I've made <my> tournament some time ago, and that's the end of the story. The same applies to biographies. But I think you knew that.|
<z>: you wrote to <Tab> that some of the best information is in the kibitzing, and of course that's correct. But my regret meant something different, and I will try to explain it with more words. This tournament is still in a bad state, in particular the introduction. In my opinion the above 4 pages of kibitzing reduce the likelihood that another volunteer will write a better introduction and check the game scores. This opinion is independent of the quality of the kibitzing; it depends only on the experience, which also <Tab> mentioned: it is more fun to begin from scratch.
|Jan-18-16|| ||Tabanus: <thomastonk> That's ok. I'll end my stories here too then.|
|May-21-17|| ||zanzibar: Tartajubow has recently added a post about the tournament:|
|Dec-15-17|| ||JimNorCal: <thomastonk> No kibitzing in a year? Hope all is well, old comrade.|
|Dec-15-17|| ||perfidious: <JimNorCal: <thomastonk> No kibitzing in a year? Hope all is well, old comrade.>|
|Jan-19-18|| ||offramp: This tournament began on 18th July 1870.
A possible subject of conversation among the players on that first day might have been that fact that on 16th July 1870, the French parliament had voted to declare war on the German Kingdom of Prussia.
On the 19th July 1870 the war began.
It is over now, though.
|Jan-19-18|| ||WorstPlayerEver: Yeah, the war was desastrous for France. The usual. Now they try it the sneaky way with the EUSSR. Which will -you guessed it- also hopelessly fail.|
|Jan-19-18|| ||keypusher: <WorstPlayerEver: Yeah, the war was desastrous for France. The usual. Now they try it the sneaky way with the EUSSR. Which will -you guessed it- also hopelessly fail.>|
I remember seeing French impressionist paintings from the 1870s and thinking people looked pretty happy. In 1940 France was defeated in six weeks and got through the war with very little damage, especially compared to Germany. In 1914-1918 France fought for four years, won the war and lost millions of young men.
|Jan-19-18|| ||WorstPlayerEver: <keypusher>
Impressionists? You mean guys who took pictures and 'translated' them into paintings?
|Jan-19-18|| ||Magpye: I never thought of Norman Rockwell as an Impressionist.|
|Jan-19-18|| ||WorstPlayerEver: Well, I obviously was thinking about Monet.|
|Jan-19-18|| ||Magpye: Did you know that in addition to being a fine painter, his contemporary Manet, invented Mannaize? And the sandwich world has benefitted ever since.|
|Jan-19-18|| ||Nerwal: <In 1940 France was defeated in six weeks and got through the war with very little damage,>|
After the defeat 1,8 million soliders were held prisoners in Germany and most of them were not released til the end of the war. Overall more french people were killed than Americans during this war. Vichy regime paid Germany 400 millions francs a day as compensation. In 1944 Allies heavily bombed the cities of France, mainly the western ones like Le Havre which was entirely destroyed, causing lots of material destruction. There were ration stamps in France til the end of 1949.
|Jan-19-18|| ||keypusher: < Nerwal: <In 1940 France was defeated in six weeks and got through the war with very little damage,>
After the defeat 1,8 million soliders were held prisoners in Germany and most of them were not released til the end of the war. Overall more french people were killed than Americans during this war. Vichy regime paid Germany 400 millions francs a day as compensation. In 1944 Allies heavily bombed the cities of France, mainly the western ones like Le Havre which was entirely destroyed, causing lots of material destruction. There were ration stamps in France til the end of 1949.>|
I should not have said <very little damage> though I think <comparatively little damage> would have been fair, whether the comparison is to France in the First War or Germany in either. Below is a table of deaths (military and total) in WWII. France had 567,600 compared to 6,600,000-8,800,000 for Germany. I'm not going to look up tons of bombs dropped on Germany versus France, but the disparity is vast. I'm sure there were a lot more buildings standing in France in May 1945 than there were in Germany. The UK had rationing into the 1950s, I believe.
Compared to the European countries, the United States got off lightly in both wars. Both England and France lost far fewer people in the Second War than the First. The Robert Schumann center gives total deaths for France in WWI as 1.7 million (compared to 2.5 million for Germany, about 1 million for Great Britain (colonies excluded) and 117,000 for the USA). In WW2 the UK suffered about 450,000 deaths and the USA about 420,000.
The methodology for the two sites must differ a lot, since Schumann gives 100,000 British civilian deaths in WW1 and the other site gives about 67,000 in WW2, though aerial bombardment of British civilians in WW1 was relatively insignificant and World War II saw the Blitz.
|Jan-19-18|| ||MissScarlett: <Schumann gives 100,000 British civilian deaths in WW1 and the other site gives about 67,000 in WW2, though aerial bombardment of British civilians in WW1 was relatively insignificant and World War II saw the Blitz.>|
They must also be counting deaths at sea. The WW1 U-Boat campaign against merchant shipping was pretty extensive, with upward of 15,000 civilian casualties. But, yes, the 100,000 figure is too high for deaths connected with enemy action.
|Jan-19-18|| ||Nerwal: <I should not have said <very little damage> though I think <comparatively little damage> would have been fair, whether the comparison is to France in the First War or Germany in either.>|
Of course France didn't get wiped off like Germany, neither suffered massive civilian losses similar to China or USSR, but the implied idea that France quickly folded then enjoyed a peaceful and comfortable life til the end of war had to be dispelled. Some destructions were avoided only because some people started to use common sense again, like when Von Choltitz in view of unavoidable defeat prefered to bargain the non-destruction of Paris rather than follow the instructions he was given.
|Mar-26-18|| ||offramp: <offramp: This tournament began on 18th July 1870...On the 19th July 1870 the war began.>|
IN A.D. 1870
WAR WAS BEGINNING.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 5 OF 5 ·
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, 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, or profane language.
- No spamming, advertising, or duplicating posts.
- No personal attacks against other members.
- Nothing in violation of United States law.
- No posting personal information of members.
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.
posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors.|
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 2001-2018, Chessgames Services LLC