The fourth international master chess tournament to be held in the spa resort of Karlsbad, Czechoslovakia in 1929 was a round robin event involving 22 of the best chess masters in the world. Of the top players, only world champion ... [more]
Player: Frank James Marshall
| page 1 of 1; 21 games
| page 1 of 1; 21 games
TIP: You can make the above ads go away by registering a free account!
|Dec-21-12|| ||Conrad93: An amazing win by Nimzowitsch in a competition full of the world's best.|
|Dec-21-12|| ||Sneaky: It's a tough crowd when names like Maroczy, Tartakower, Saemisch, Yates, and Marshall all end up in the bottom half.|
Perhaps Nimzowitsch's finest hour.
|Feb-18-13|| ||capanegra: Yes, great tournament by Nimzowitsch. Surely it must have been his finest hour. He was also very lucky in two games: |
He won a full point from a hopeless position in
Nimzowitsch vs Euwe, 1929
And Capa lost a full point due to a rare blunder in
Saemisch vs Capablanca, 1929
|Mar-14-13|| ||ughaibu: Capablanca didn't lose a full point, by that blunder, did he?|
|Mar-09-14|| ||RedShield: Alekhine covered this event for the <New York Times> and continued the critical appraisal/bitchslapping of Capablanca's play that he'd begun in the 1927 New York tournament book. All quotes from Winter's Capablanca book. |
<Will that very superior technician Capablanca turn the trick? His victory would, at least, mean a great gain for chess, for nobody can reach the top in such a world tournament with only drawn games to his credit. He would have to abandon his morbid theories.>
<It is the quality of Capablanca's games, however, that suggests comment. He shows a fighting spirit and a wealth of ideas all right, but one is compelled to note a certain tactical insecurity. In Moscow , for instance, Capablanca did not take pains to win against strong opponents, he rather contented himself with tedious, symmetrical variations of the Queen's Gambit. In Carlsbad on the other hand he was determined to win against Rubinstein and Bogoljubow; he combined, even exposed himself to certain risks, and yet did not succeed. Against Thomas he even drifted into a very tight corner; Thomas might have won.>
<Spielmann, in contradistinction to Marshall, has adapted his style of play to the present-day demands and this explains his success. After the fashion of Jose Capablanca of Cuba, he now follows the tendency of avoiding complications, but compared to the Cuban grandmaster, with whom he shares the same technique of simplification, he has the advantage of livelier imagination and greater accuracy.>
<It is true that the Cuban has succeeded - but not without some lucky incidents - to carry through his obvious intention to draw his games against dangerous opponents and "swallow all the small fish" by means of his superior technique.>
<While such a mistake [Capa's blunder of a piece vs Samsich] never has happened to masters of a less high class, such as A. Nimzowitsch of Denmark and Dr. Vidmar of Yugoslavia, in their long careers, such negligence with Capablanca is sporadical and nearly typical. Just remember the 1914 St. Petersburg game with Tarrasch, the 1916 New York test with Chajes, the London match [sic] with Morrison, the Moscow test of 1925 against Verlinsky, the twelfth game at Buenos Aires 1927 and the Kissingen match [sic] of the same year [sic] against Spielmann.
This short statistical outline, which easily could be continued, shows sufficiently that the former world's champion lacks an important component of chess playing strength, namely an imperturbable attention which separates the player absolutely from the outside world. Therefore, with him, such mistakes as in the Samisch game cannot be counted as a crash incident.
Regarding the sporting point of view, however, Capablanca's defeat has a positive value in that it prevents a new legend of his invioability, which this tournament would more than have justified, because he twice before was clearly exposed to defeat and only had to thank the carelessness of his opponent for his rescue.>
|Mar-09-14|| ||perfidious: Given the animus which existed between those great masters, difficult to tell where Alekhine's objectivity ends and criticism, for its own sake, begins.|
|Mar-09-14|| ||Howard: Apparently, Alekhine believed that Capablanca was the "only" elite player to make these kinds of amateurish mistakes.|
Ahhhh.....didn't Alekhine once hang his queen in a 1930's game ?!? The reason a lot of people don't know that is because his opponent (don't recall who it was) OVERLOOKED it. Thus, Alekhine was able to rectify his mistake.
|Jan-03-15|| ||Severin: 2 wins and 17 losses for Menchik. That's a pretty rough debut....|
|Mar-13-16|| ||TheFocus: The following special prizes were awarded:
Prize for the best played game - divided between Nimzowitsch and Euwe for their games with Bogoljubow and Sir G.A. Thomas, respectively.
Brilliancy prizes: First to F. Saemisch for his game with Gruenfeld; second and third to Maroczy and Dr. Vidmar for their games against Canal and Dr. Euwe, respectively; fourth and fifth to F.J. Marshall and P. Johner for their games against Sir G.A. Thomas and Colle, respectively; sixth, to Rubinstein for his game against Miss Menchik; seventh, to Canal for his game against Johner.
Prizes for the most games won: First, to Spielmann, eleven victories; second and third, divided between Capablanca and Nimzowitsch, each with ten victories - <American Chess Bulletin>, September-October 1929, pg. 151.
|Feb-02-17|| ||zanzibar: I just got all of Alekhine's articles from the NYT's. One would assume they are out of copyright, being from 1929, so perhaps I'll post them. |
But I would recommend reading the entire series from the start - Alekhine frames the tournament with these headings in his first article:
DR. ALEKHINE GIVES VIEWS AT CARLSBAD
World's Chess Champion Sees Two Schools in Conflict With Each Other.
* * * * * *
TEST FOR THE REFORMISTS
* * * * * *
Says They Will Be Opposed to Those Who Place the "How" Over the "What"
* * * * *
MANY STARS ON BOTH SIDES
* * * * *
Capablanca Leads Side Rating Victory All-Important, While Bogoljubow Heads the "Artists".
On Capa's side are Maroczy, Vidmar, Euwe and Gruenfeld.
Capa's group is labeled "reformists", and adds this:
<To just such a deadening level the reformist school, these pseudo-scientists, would reduce the noble game of chess, but fortunately there prevails a strong oppositional force which first asserted itself in the play of Breyer and Reti, whose premature deaaths were a distinct loss to the chess world.>
The "artist" group includes Bojo, Nimzowitch, Tartakower, Canel, Saemisch and Colle.
OK, that's enough for now, and that's just the first part of the first article!
(NYT 1929-08-01 - p21)
|Feb-25-17|| ||Allanur: was Alekhine not sent an invitation or did he reject to attend? if so, why? Is there any info about that?|
|Feb-25-17|| ||Retireborn: It would have been too close to the Bogoljubow match, I expect.|
|Feb-25-17|| ||Paarhufer: In order to participate at this tournament Alekhine tried to postpone the start of the WC match from 6 to 25 September, but the organizers in Wiesbaden rejected. He was present in Karlsbad during the whole tournament and wrote articles for American newspapers (tournament book).|
See also http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/...
|Feb-25-17|| ||tamar: <Only eight days after the conclusion of the Carlsbad tourney I shall be called upon to defend my title. The challenger is no less a person than Bogoljubow, victor of the Moscow and Kissingen tourneys. Consideration for himself apparently did not prevent this grand master from entering the lists at Carlsbad, and in this connection the following must be taken into account: a challenger has much less to risk than the defender of the title.>|
Alekhines 1st article on Carlsbad
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 2001-2017, Chessgames Services LLC