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
| page 1 of 3; games 1-25 of 68
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 4 OF 4 ·
|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. ;-)
|Jan-05-16|| ||thomastonk: As reported today in the Bistro, I checked last year the first 22 games chronogically and wrote two correction slips. Here is additional information about three games from my private notes.|
Blackburne vs Steinitz, 1870
There are three versions of this game. The longest version appeared in 'Schachzeitung' (DSZ) 1870, p 348: 28. ♕h6+ ♔g8 29. ♕g6+ ♔f8 30. h6+ ♔g8 31. ♕g6+ ♔f8 32. ♘h6 ♖g7 33. ♕f5+ ♔e7 34. ♕e6+ ♔f8 35. ♕f5+ ♔e7. The current cg version appeared in 'Neue Berliner Schachzeitung' (NBS) 1870, p 246-247. One more move is missing in the 'Westminster Papers' (WP) 1870, p 58.
Winawer vs De Vere, 1870
There are two versions, one with 16 moves as here in cg and DSZ 1870, p 314-315, and one with 17 moves (17. ♗d2 ♕e2#) in NBS 1870, p 256 and WP 1870, p 58.
Blackburne vs G Neumann, 1870
There er three versions of this game, one with 51 moves here at cg and DSZ 1870, p 357-358, one with 53 moves (44. ♔b3 ♔b7 45. ♔b4 ♔c6, but problems with the numbering) in NBS 1870, p 338, and finally one with 54 moves (44. ♔b3 ♔c7 45. ♔b3 ♔b7 46. ♔b4 ♔c6 inserted) at WP 1870, p 108.
That's it. Have fun!
|Jan-05-16|| ||Tabanus: I just found the link to DSZ at <Zanzibar>'s site (https://docs.google.com/document/d/...) and was happy to that the crosstable there gives the same number of points to the players.|
And I just updated the CG standings. Is there something in the introduction now that is outright wrong? Or with the game results? Anything else I can do?
|Jan-05-16|| ||Dr. Overlord: This tournament was named after Lord Baden-Baden Powell Powell, founder of the Scout movement.|
Jolly good, chaps! Jolly good.
|Jan-05-16|| ||Sally Simpson: And from the Scouts came the opening advice...
"Always Be Prepared."
|Jan-05-16|| ||Sally Simpson: Hi DR.O.
Just found out you can actually get a scout chess badge.
a.The name of each chess piece
b.How to set up a chessboard
c.How each chess piece moves, including castling and en passant captures
4.Do the following:
a.Demonstrate scorekeeping using the algebraic system of chess notation.
b.Discuss the differences between the opening, the middle game, and the endgame.
c.Explain four opening principles.
d.Explain the four rules for castling.
e.On a chessboard, demonstrate a "scholar's mate" and a "fool's mate."
f.Demonstrate on a chessboard four ways a chess game can end in a draw.
(I'm stuck on 'F' no badge for me.)
|Jan-06-16|| ||Dr. Overlord: Dear Sally, good heavens, a scout chess badge? Absolutely spiffing, old chap!|
That would be something to tell my grandchildren one day. Unfortunately, I find myself stuck at 4a.
Strictly descriptive notation for me, I will have none of this modern algebraic poppycock. No, Sir!
"P. to K's 4th" and the like, now THAT is the right way, as it should be for any true Englishman of the Crown!
|Jan-06-16|| ||Sally Simpson: Hi Dr. O.
You can get a girl guide chess badge as well.
I bet Susie Polgar does not have one of those.
I want a boy scouts chess badge. (do you think I'll be able to buy one?)
I'll sow it on my denim jacket and help old ladies cross the road whilst singing 'Ging Gang Goolie.'
|Jan-06-16|| ||thomastonk: <Tabanus: Is there something in the introduction now that is outright wrong?> The current introduction is garbage.|
I've posted many things above which could be of some use. Since then I have found one nice statement of Steinitz that he made decades later: he recalled this tournament because of the very fast time limit (twice as fast as London 1862, if I remember correctly). If needed, I will try to find it again.
|Jan-08-16|| ||Tabanus: <thomastonk> It sucks. |
Let me see if I get the inspiration within a year or three. Meanwhile: you are German, you have already studied the event, etc. It does not have to be very long, just covering the "basics".
|Jan-13-16|| ||thomastonk: <Tabanus: It sucks.> It?|
|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:|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 4 OF 4 ·
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 |
World Chess Championships |
Opening Explorer |
Guess the Move |
Game Collections |
ChessBookie Game |
Chessgames Challenge |
privacy notice |
Copyright 2001-2017, Chessgames Services LLC