The 6th Deutscher Schachkongress took place in Breslau in 1889. It included the 6th Meisterturnier (master's tournament) organized by the Deutscher Schachbund (DSB) since its first in Leipzig (1879).
As in the previous four editions the round robin tournament was an international event, pitting German masters against the best of Europe at the time. Germany was represented by its usual field of strong masters, including Louis Paulsen, Siegbert Tarrasch, Alexander Fritz, Max Harmonist, Johannes Metger, Jacques Mieses, Emil Schallopp, Curt von Bardeleben, Johannes von Minckwitz, and Johann Bauer who had won his spot by winning the Frankfurt Hauptturnier (1887) master title. The German masters were joined from Great Britain by Joseph Henry Blackburne, who was the winner of DSB's 2nd Meisterturnier in Berlin (1881), Amos Burn, George Hatfeild Gossip, Isidor Gunsberg, and James Mason. The field was completed by Semion Alapin and Emmanuel Schiffers from Russia, and Johann Berger from Austria. The eighteen masters participated in one of the strongest international events of 1889 (and many would make their way over to the United States to participate in the New York international tournament later in the year). The event was significant in signalling the arrival of Tarrasch as one of the top players.
Breslau (Wroclaw), German Empire (Silesia), 15-26 July 1889
Tarrasch won clear first, undefeated with +9 at the final, a whole point and half ahead of second place Burn. Tarrasch's play was soon considered a school of thought that would antagonize both the methods of Wilhelm Steinitz as well as the school of chess thought represented later by the play of Emanuel Lasker. Here, Tarrasch dominated with his so-called 'correct play', and he won international tournaments of merit up through the turn of the century. It was the first of three Meisterturniers he would win at the Deutscher Schachkongress, a feat only to be matched by Carl Schlechter later.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 Tarrasch * ½ 1 ½ ½ ½ 1 1 1 1 1 ½ ½ ½ 1 1 ½ 1 13
2 Burn ½ * 1 1 ½ 1 ½ ½ ½ ½ 1 ½ 1 1 0 ½ 1 ½ 11½
3 Mieses 0 0 * ½ ½ 1 ½ 1 0 ½ 0 1 1 1 1 1 ½ 1 10½
=4 von Bardeleben ½ 0 ½ * 1 0 ½ 1 1 ½ 0 ½ 1 1 1 1 0 ½ 10
=4 Bauer ½ ½ ½ 0 * ½ ½ ½ 1 ½ 1 1 ½ 1 ½ 0 ½ 1 10
=4 Paulsen ½ 0 0 1 ½ * 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 10
=4 Gunsberg 0 ½ ½ ½ ½ 0 * ½ ½ 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 10
=8 Mason 0 ½ 0 0 ½ 1 ½ * 1 1 ½ 0 ½ 0 1 1 ½ 1 9
=8 Blackburne 0 ½ 1 0 0 0 ½ 0 * 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 9
10 Berger 0 ½ ½ ½ ½ 1 0 0 0 * 1 1 ½ 1 ½ ½ ½ ½ 8½
11 Schallopp 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 ½ 1 0 * 0 ½ 0 1 1 1 1 8
12 Metger ½ ½ 0 ½ 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 * ½ ½ 0 ½ ½ 1 7½
=13 Fritz ½ 0 0 0 ½ 0 0 ½ 1 ½ ½ ½ * 0 1 ½ 1 ½ 7
=13 von Minckwitz ½ 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 ½ 1 * 1 0 1 1 7
=15 Alapin 0 1 0 0 ½ 1 1 0 0 ½ 0 1 0 0 * 1 0 ½ 6½
=15 Harmonist 0 ½ 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 ½ 0 ½ ½ 1 0 * 1 ½ 6½
17 Schiffers ½ 0 ½ 1 ½ 0 0 ½ 0 ½ 0 ½ 0 0 1 0 * 1 6
18 Gossip 0 ½ 0 ½ 0 0 0 0 0 ½ 0 0 ½ 0 ½ ½ 0 * 3
The Breslau Hauptturnier (1889) was won by Emanuel Lasker.
Original Collection: Game Collection: Breslau 1889, by User: suenteus po 147.
| page 1 of 7; games 1-25 of 153
| page 1 of 7; games 1-25 of 153
TIP: You can make the above ads go away by registering a free account!
|Dec-13-12|| ||sneaky pete: The tournament table makes it clear there was only one BIG player in Breslau. All the others were midgets.|
|Dec-13-12|| ||perfidious: Isidor Gunsberg a midget? All the man did was play a match for the title the following year (Steinitz-Gunsberg World Championship Match (1890)).|
|Dec-13-12|| ||WannaBe: Well, I guess George Hatfeild Gossip was too busy yakkin' to take this tournament seriously, I mean look at where he ended up!|
|Dec-13-12|| ||nok: <perfidious> That was for all but the most extremist Steinitz supporters, a Candidate match to play Tchigorin.|
|Dec-14-12|| ||perfidious: <WannaBe> When even a ballet dancer finishes ahead of a Gossip.......|
|Dec-15-12|| ||perfidious: <nok> You exhort others to deal in facts elsewhere, then come up with suppositions unsupported by evidence....|
|Apr-06-15|| ||taekut: This is my first message and, therefore, first apologize for my poor English.
There is a question I don't understand: the game between Von Bardeleben-Schiffers (No. 101 of the collection) appears with a score of 0-1, but in the crosstable appears victory from Von Bardeleben, where the error is, on the outcome of the game or on the table? Because if the error is on the table, Von Bardeleben don't finish in 3rd place, but tied for 4th and, therefore, the 3rd would Mieses and have to rebuild that table.|
|Apr-06-15|| ||Phony Benoni: <taekut> Thank you for noticing the error.|
The comments to the game Von Bardeleben vs Schiffers, 1889 make it clear that the game had to wrong result (1-0 instead of 0-1) when it was added to the database. Apparently, this incorrect information was used in compiling the crosstable.
I have corrected it.
|Apr-07-15|| ||taekut: Thank you very much, Phony Benoni.|
|May-16-16|| ||zanzibar: Another minor mistake - in the intro there is...
<he eighteen masters participated in one of the strongest international events of 1889 (and many would make their way over to the United States to participate in the New York international tournament later in the year). >
The trouble is that the <NY (1889)> tournament, aka 6th American Chess Congress, which must be the tournament referred to, had already finished before the start of the German tournament.
|Jun-17-17|| ||MissScarlett: The Northern Whig, August 22nd 1889, p.7:
<Blackburne speaks highly of the manner in which the Committee conducted the affairs of the Association at Breslau, with one exception. They called upon him to play out his final game with Bardeleben on Sunday, and, as the Englishman declined to play on that day, the game was scored to his opponent. Blackburne's refusal cost him the chance of a prize, and just secured a prize for Bardeleben.> Von Bardeleben vs Blackburne, 1889
A small mystery is that Blackburne's final game is dated here to July 26th, a Friday, when the 16th and 17th rounds were scheduled. So why couldn't it resume on the Saturday?
Whilst it was an unwritten rule that chess wasn't played on Sundays in British tournaments until after WW2, it was common practice on the Continent, to which Blackburne was a regular visitor. Did he never play on a Sunday on principle? Maybe Harding has something on this...
|Jun-17-17|| ||zanzibar: < played on Sundays ... it was common practice on the Continent, to which Blackburne was a regular visitor.>|
Are you sure?
I have a recollection that Sunday play was rare during the early tournament history of chess.
See, for example, Zanchess or other sources.
|Jun-17-17|| ||MissScarlett: Well, upon reflection, maybe it wasn't common until later. It's only recently I've been delving more into 19th century chess, a time when everyone was called Mister.|
|Jun-17-17|| ||zanzibar: Reflection is indeed a virtuous quality.|
|Jun-17-17|| ||MissScarlett: Once upon a time, I used to be called Mister. Things were simpler then.|
|Jun-18-17|| ||keypusher: < zanzibar: Another minor mistake - in the intro there is...
<he eighteen masters participated in one of the strongest international events of 1889 (and many would make their way over to the United States to participate in the New York international tournament later in the year). >|
The trouble is that the <NY (1889)> tournament, aka 6th American Chess Congress, which must be the tournament referred to, had already finished before the start of the German tournament.>
I also don't quite follow the sense of <Tarrasch's play was soon considered a school of thought that would antagonize both the methods of Wilhelm Steinitz as well as the school of chess thought represented later by the play of Emanuel Lasker.>
<perfidious: Isidor Gunsberg a midget? All the man did was play a match for the title the following year (Steinitz-Gunsberg World Championship Match (1890)).>
Isidor Gunsberg a midget? Judge for yourself. He's third from the right in the back row.
|Jun-18-17|| ||Nosnibor: <MissScarlett> From what I have established with the aid of Tim Harding Blackburne had no problem with playing on a Sunday after all he had played and beaten Minkwitz on the 20th July being a Sunday.The problem was that he wanted to depart to England on the Sunday and it was not possible to play off his adjourned game against Bardeleben on the Saturday because Bardeleben himself had two earlier adjourned games to play off against Alapin and Minkwitz on the Saturdy.He therefore decided to resign his unfinished game against Bardeleben which was probably lost anyway. Apparently 41 g3 was sealed by Bardeleben who claimed a win on analysis.|
|Jun-19-17|| ||offramp: When he said midgets he obviously meant MENTAL midgets. People with the IQ of a fencepost.|
|Jun-19-17|| ||MissScarlett: <<MissScarlett> From what I have established with the aid of Tim Harding Blackburne had no problem with playing on a Sunday after all he had played and beaten Minkwitz on the 20th July being a Sunday.>|
Compelling and immediately destroying my argument. Except for one thing - July 20th was a Saturday. There was no round scheduled on the middle Sunday.
<The problem was that he wanted to depart to England on the Sunday and it was not possible to play off his adjourned game against Bardeleben on the Saturday because Bardeleben himself had two earlier adjourned games to play off against Alapin and Minkwitz on the Saturdy.He therefore decided to resign his unfinished game against Bardeleben which was probably lost anyway.>
Yes, this would cast another light on events. So what do you/Harding adduce for it?
Of course, that Blackburne had a train/boat to catch wouldn't necessarily refute that Blackburne also held a principled objection to playing on Sundays. A study of his other tournaments and exhibitions would have to be made.
|Jun-19-17|| ||MissScarlett: <See, for example, Zanchess>|
And be spied upon? Don't think your sinister aside went unnoticed.
From Big Data to little hen-houses, this is my cri de coeur:
|Jun-19-17|| ||Nosnibor: <MissScarlett> Yes I agree that I got the date wrong reference the game against Minkwitz but there is no evidence to prove that Blackburne had any problem or known religious belief against playing chess on a Sunday. It is a known fact that in Victorian times chess events held in England and indeed sometimes abroad kept Sunday as a free day. However I will now quote you two games that Blackburne played on a Sunday and there are more. Game1 played Sunday 6 August 1875 between Steinitz,Zukertort and Burn v.Blackburne, Bird and MacDonnell,Glasgow. Game 2 Played Sunday 26 July 1896 at the Nuremberg Congress between Blackburne and Pillsbury v. Steinitz and Schiffers.|
|Jun-20-17|| ||zanzibar: <<Missy> <See, for example, Zanchess>
And be spied upon? Don't think your sinister aside went unnoticed.|
From Big Data to little hen-houses, this is my cri de coeur:
Yes indeedy! McKern is the absolute best #2.
I love <The Prisoner>, and have the DVD collection:
* * * * *
But as far as big/little data - that battle was over about as long ago as when The Prisoner first came out.
Ever hear of Canivore or Prism?
Plus, what the heck, you're on <CG>, and Zanchess is just small potatoes compared to that.
"All your database belong to us"
* * * * *
And speaking of sinister asides, do you think I wasn't going to comment after your effrontery?
You had the audacity, sly fox that you really are, to sneak repeatedly into selfsame henhouse to devour a chicken, or two, or three... and then afterwards get up on your soapbox and loudly proclaim to anyone within earshot that those same chickens didn't taste good enough to eat.
All the while sputtering chicken feathers into the air!
* * * * *
Anyways, it not like Wordpress really tracks each individual user. But it does provide useful feedback, listing posts which get visited, with a nice visual map of the world showing where the visitors are coming from.
Now, do you really think I needed to look for UK as the source of who visited the following page fifty times or so?
No, I didn't think so.
|Jun-23-17|| ||Nosnibor: <MissScarlett> If Blackburne was so religiously inclined not wanting to play on a Sunday, despite what I said in my previous post his second and third marriages were both conducted in a registry office. He was still entitled to be wed in a church being a widower himself. I think it is more likely that he preferred a break rather than for any religious reason.|
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