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
"+" and "-" represent wins and losses by forfeit.
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
References: (1) http://www.endgame.nl/bad1870.htm, (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
| page 1 of 3; games 1-25 of 67
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
|Jul-30-15|| ||zanzibar: <<thomastonk> If you have questions and you assume that the answer could be found in Haas' book, I offer my help, of course. You see where I begun on Dec-11-13: checking game lengths and dates. There is still a lot to do, I guess.>|
Yes, thanks in advance for the offer of help. I certainly will be asking a few questions more....
* * * * *
<<How do we integrate/update the intro ?> Hmm, I wonder why this question should be raised by my posts. I thought every cg editor can change any tournament introduction.>
Your posts in the forum does raise this question, exactly because the information you added should have been incorporated into the intro.
One example is the tournament treatment of Stern. Another example is your discovery of a missing game - which should have reduced the count of missing games in the intro from 10 to 9.
(I haven't checked my notes on this - since I'm writing from the top of my head - but I think this count is correct.)
* * * * *
After a tournament gets voted in to the Tournament Index by biographers, I'm not sure who is able to update it at that point.
All editors? No editors?
And even if every editor were allowed to update - I'm not sure what the protocols are?
Are changes vetted in the Bistro before updating?
Are changes tracked anywhere?
|Jul-30-15|| ||thomastonk: <zanzibar> I assume that every cg editor can make changes at any point without voting, at least I can. I never used it so far, but there was a superfluous '*' before 'Ten games ...', and I just deleted it successfully. The process is the same as with the biographies on the player pages, where I have used it more often, of course.|
<Are changes tracked anywhere?> I remember that the answer is yes, because there was a posting by chessgames.com in the Bistro. But I don't remember details.
|Jul-30-15|| ||zanzibar: <thomastonk> Ah, so changes are that easy. Great, perhaps we can get a few minimum updates done. |
Let me work on it a bit more, and post some suggestions for your review.
Starting with the actual games that are missing... they should be enumerated. And if truly forfeits the xtab (crosstable) should be updated, with the source footnoted.
|Jul-30-15|| ||thomastonk: <zanzibar: Great, perhaps we can get a few minimum updates done.> That's fine with me. I am looking forward to your suggestions, and I will be back tomorrow.|
|Jul-30-15|| ||zanzibar: One more point while I'm here...
<Btw, Baden-Baden's name in 1870 was only Baden.>
Is this correct?
While <Westminster CC Papers v3 (May 2, 1870) p4> does list the name as a solitary Baden...
...<Schachzeitung v25 (Sept 1870)> uses Baden-Baden throughout, e.g. p257
<Der grosse internationale Schachcongress zu Baden-Baden>, etc.
|Jul-30-15|| ||thomastonk: <z> From the German Wikipedia by (semi-)automatic translation:|
Since the Middle Ages the city name was simply Baden. In order to distinguish it better from other cities (Baden bei Wien and Baden in Switzerland, also Badenweiler in altbadischen Oberland im Breisgau, originally called only Baden, too) it was called mostly 'Baden in Baden'. In the 19th century many visitors described the city unofficially as Baden-Baden. In 1931, the double name was officially introduced.
|Jul-30-15|| ||zanzibar: As for the colors, each pairing's first color was apparently decided by lots at the beginning of the tournament - according to <Westminster Chess Club Papers v3 (Aug 1870) p49>|
|Jul-30-15|| ||zanzibar: <Westminster CC Papers v3 (Sep 1870) p72> gives the RR2 xtab, explicitly ordering game 1 and 2 results.|
It also has this cryptic note:
<» We congratulate our contemporaries—the Illustrated, Era- and Field—on tho information thev have given about the Tourney ;
viz.: 1. Five games, stolen from us.>
The "five games stolen from us" matches the count of missing games, if we don't include the 4 known Rosenthal forfeits.
Perhaps these 5 games weren't forfeits?
(I've yet to go through the German periodicals)
|Jul-31-15|| ||thomastonk: <z: Five games, stolen from us.> Such statements appear in those years here and there, also in the two German periodicals. I think, such accusations do not refer to missing games. On the contrary: 'stolen' means here probably copied and re-published (without reference). I will check this particular case in detail later.|
|Jul-31-15|| ||thomastonk: <z> The 'Westminster papers' published in their issue of 1 August 1870 five games from Baden. On page 51 a consultation game "German vs England",
see Minckwitz / Neumann / Paulsen vs Blackburne / Steinitz / De Vere, 1870, and on page 58 four games of the congress. So, these are the games that could be copied and 'stolen' before the accusation appeared in the issue of 1 September 1870.|
The 'Illustrated London News' of 13 August 1870 published the consultation game, and 'The Era' of the following day two of the four games. No other games from Baden were published in these papers in August.
I don't have access to 'The Field', but I expect that the missing two 'steals' can be found there.
On 3 September 1870 the 'ILN' published another game and introduced it with: "The committee of the Baden International Chess Congress have obligingly placed at our disposal a number of the games played in the grand prize tourney."
|Jul-31-15|| ||jnpope: I can check The Field this weekend|
|Jul-31-15|| ||thomastonk: <jnpope: I can check The Field this weekend> Thank you in advance. According to Haas, the game Winawer vs S Rosenthal, 1870 is published there on 3 September 1870. This game was neither published in the 'Schachzeitung', nor in the 'Neue Berliner Schachzeitung', nor in the 'Westminster papers'. So, a careful look could be interesting.|
|Jul-31-15|| ||thomastonk: The missing games according to Haas' book are the following <four>:|
Minckwitz vs Anderssen (21 July)
Winawer vs Steinitz (25 July)
de Vere vs Anderssen (26 July) and
Blackburne vs Winawer (31 July).
And <five> forfeited games:
Minckwitz vs Rosenthal (26 July)
Rosenthal vs Minckwitz (27 July)
Rosenthal vs de Vere (2 August)
de Vere vs Rosenthal (2 August) and
Minckwitz vs Paulsen (4 August).
|Jul-31-15|| ||zanzibar: It's nice that Haas agrees with all the stubs I found utilizing <Schachzeitung>.|
By the way, is the German word <verzichtete> strictly meaning forfeit?
So that <Minckwitz verzichtete gegen Paulsen> has a unique meaning? Would it ever be said differently?
* * * * *
One note - I believe, however, that only one forfeit of <Rosenthal // de Vere> was specified, and that there is some uncertainty in dating the other.
Having two players both have two games on Aug 2 poses problems for the PGN (1) - if both games are placed in the same rounds.
(1) Or rather, for programs like SCID and ChessBase, whose Swiss xtabs will omit one or the other game from the table.
* * * * *
I do have another question concerning the <Paulsen // de Vere> pairings and dates.
We know the first encounter was nullified after Paulsen ran out of time in a winning position (de Vere declining to accept the win(?), and the Committee ruling the game to be replayed(?)).
See some comments here:
Paulsen vs De Vere, 1870 (kibitz #2) (and below)
But I have the following games and dates:
@g 1255397 1870.07.20 C01 28 (R3) 1-0 Paulsen--de Vere
@g 1255398 1870.07.21 C77 21 (R4) 1-0 de Vere--Paulsen
The early part (up to R9 or 10) of the tournament was very well behaved - one day one pairing, which was reversed on the next day.
With such a tight schedule, it is very unlikely that the first Paulsen--deVere encounter was replayed on the same day. Moreover, the committee had to convene to decide (after Blackburnes protests(?)).
So, I think the nullified game was played on the 20th, and am uncertain when the actual R3 game of note was actually played.
Does Haas mention any of this?
|Jul-31-15|| ||Absentee: <zanzibar: By the way, is the German word <verzichtete> strictly meaning forfeit?|
So that <Minckwitz verzichtete gegen Paulsen> has a unique meaning? Would it ever be said differently?>
It's not strictly chessical, if that's what you mean. Verzichten generally means to renounce or give up something. In this context however it means to forfeit (as opposed to losing an actually played game) - "Minckwitz forfeited against Paulsen".
|Jul-31-15|| ||thomastonk: Hi, <zanzibar>!
<It's nice that Haas agrees ...> As I said: it is a very, very good book. ;-)
The verb <verzichten> means forfeit in this context.
Haas on Paulsen/de Vere:
first game 20/07
second game 21/07
third game 21/07
I think this confirms what you think and gives a date for the third game.
In his foreword Haas mentioned that the chronoligical sequence of the games was the most difficult problem. Moreover, he mentioned some unsolved cases, and he promised to explain this in an appendix. There is a text of one and a half pages, which is ... difficult! It seems to me that only the order of the games in three pairings is finally in doubt. Paulsen/de Vere is not among them.
One of the sources he used to determine the sequence is the 'Badeblatt' from Baden(-Baden), which published the pairings in such a way that he could decide who had White first. This seemed to be necessary, because in some cases the order of 'Schachzeitung' and 'Neue Berliner Schachzeitung' gave different views. That's probably bad news for on-line researches.
I don't know why the 'Badeblatt' didn't provide the solution in the three remaining cases.
|Jul-31-15|| ||zanzibar: Besides the <England vs Germany> consultation game, noted in the intro above, |
Minckwitz / Neumann / Paulsen vs Blackburne / Steinitz / De Vere, 1870
there was also a <Poland vs Germany> consultation game which deserves mention (say, in a footnote):
Rosenthal / Winawer vs Anderssen / Stern, 1870
|Aug-01-15|| ||jnpope: I just posted The Field for July through December, 1870:|
|Aug-01-15|| ||thomastonk: <jnpope> Thank you very much!|
<z> 'Steals' 4 and 5 can be found on 6 and 13 August 1870. The game published on 27 August 1870 was not among the games which were published in the 'WP' in August.
|Aug-01-15|| ||zanzibar: <Jnpope> indeed many thanks...|
I just made a first pass through the batch from 1870.07.16 - 1870.10.08 (at which point coverage of automaton's seems to replace Baden-Baden).
I had actually hoped for a little more, but it was worth going through. Although, I was surprised to see no mention of the war being made (did I miss it?).
|Aug-01-15|| ||zanzibar: Here is a link to the German <Schachzeitung v25 (1870)> coverage of the tournament:|
It's in a format that we can all utilize, I hope, and may serve as a model for future collaboration.
Yes, it takes a lot of work to assemble, but it's a focused document that allows cut-and-pasting of the text while preserving historical accuracy.
For example, the actual xtab-scans have be copied in, and most of the formatting kept.
Part of the reason I put so much effort in, is because I believe the <Schachzeitung>'s coverage is the most complete.
Moreover, I think I need help translating some of the subtle and difficult passages to capture the meaning of the original German. So, this format allows me easy access to the original text...
|Aug-01-15|| ||jnpope: The Field has Baden-Baden material as late as 24 December 1870. I didn't see anything in January 1871 so I stopped, but I'll check a little more as time permits.|
|Aug-01-15|| ||zanzibar: Yes - it seems the issue of 12.03 has the most in-depth coverage (some four months after the close of the tournament!):|
It's nice to have another source of course.
|Aug-02-15|| ||thomastonk: About Stern' games: MINKWITZ IS TO BLAME!
In 'DSZ' 1870, page 254, Minckwitz wrote: <[...] derselbe [Stern] hat aber nur mit Minckwitz und Steinitz gespielt, und nachdem er von diesen je eine Partie gewinnen konnte, freiwillig aufgegeben, [...]>.
Minckwitz claims here that Stern won one game against Minckwitz and one game against Steinitz. This is nonsense.
In the first round, Stern lost as Black against Minckwitz.
In the second round, Stern lost as White against Minckwitz by exceeding the time limit at move 20.
In the third round, Stern lost as White against Steinitz by exceeding the time limit in move 38.
In the fourth round, Stern lost as Black against Steinitz.
So, Stern's official score was 0-4, and then he left the tournament for known reasons.
But why could Minckwitz claim that Stern won <two> games? Well, the two games, which Stern lost by exceeding the time limit were continued, but this had no official meaning. Stern won the game with Minckwitz (see 'DSZ' 1870, p 313) and drew with Steinitz (see 'DSZ' 1870, p 360), so Minckwitz' claim is still unclear.
I think a comment at White' 30th move (page 360) explains Minckwitz' bizarr view: at this moment White could win - according to Minckwitz - a piece or force mate, and so - in Minckwitz' eyes - Steinitz was the <moral loser>. So, Minckwitz counted Stern's game with Steinitz a win for Stern, only because he had a won position at some moment, and that's nonsense.
|Aug-02-15|| ||thomastonk: <z> You wrote in A Stern vs J Minckwitz, 1870: <The time control was 20 moves in 2 hours, and was one of the first major tournaments to utilize clocks (perhaps was the first to actually enforce time control forfeits - or try to, see the Paulsen -- de Vere game(?)).>|
I think the time limit was only 1 hour for 20 moves (see DSZ 1870, p 236).
In London 1862 there was a time limit of 2 hours for 20 moves, and the time was measured by sand glasses. In the case of exceeding the time, the game was forfeited (see Löwenthal's tournament book, page lii.)
So, I think the main reason for cases like Paulsen vs de Vere, Stern vs Minckwitz and Stern vs Steinitz is the increased playing pace.
In addition, clocks (without flags) have advantages and disadvantages compared to sand glasses. If a lot of time is left, the exact amount is easier to see on a clock. But, if the time is almost over, a clock can be misleading, if it is watched from a certian angle. The latter is given as explanation for the incident in Paulsen vs de Vere (see DSZ 1871, pages 43-44).
< 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, 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.
- Don't post 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 |
World Chess Championships |
Opening Explorer |
Guess the Move |
Game Collections |
ChessBookie Game |
Chessgames Challenge |
privacy notice |
Copyright 2001-2015, Chessgames Services LLC
Web design & database development by