|15th DSB Kongress (Nuremberg) (1906)|
Nuremberg, German Empire, 23 July – 12 August 1906
<Triumph for Marshall at Nuremberg>
1 Marshall X 1 = = = 1 1 1 = = = 1 = 1 1 1 1 12.5
2 Duras 0 X = = 0 = 1 1 = = 1 1 1 1 1 1 = 11.0
3 Schlechter = = X 1 = = = = 1 = = 1 1 1 = 0 1 10.5
4 Forgacs = = 0 X 1 1 0 = = = 1 1 = 1 = 1 1 10.5
5 Chigorin = 1 = 0 X 0 0 0 1 = 1 1 = 1 1 1 1 10.0
6 Salwe 0 = = 0 1 X = 0 1 1 = = 1 = 1 = 1 9.5
7 Wolf 0 0 = 1 1 = X 1 1 = = = 1 1 = = 0 9.5
8 Cohn 0 0 = = 1 1 0 X 0 = = 1 0 = = 1 1 8.0
9 Znosko-Borovsky = = 0 = 0 0 0 1 X 0 = 1 1 = 0 1 1 7.5
10 Tarrasch = = = = = 0 = = 1 X 0 0 = 0 = 1 1 7.5
11 Vidmar = 0 = 0 0 = = = = 1 X 0 0 1 = 1 1 7.5
12 Spielmann 0 0 0 0 0 = = 0 0 1 1 X 1 1 1 0 1 7.0
13 Swiderski = 0 0 = = 0 0 1 0 = 1 0 X 0 0 1 1 6.0
14 Fahrni 0 0 0 0 0 = 0 = = 1 0 0 1 X 1 1 0 5.5
15 Leonhardt 0 0 = = 0 0 = = 1 = = 0 1 0 X 0 = 5.5
16 Janowski 0 0 1 0 0 = = 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 X 0 4.0
17 Przepiorka 0 = 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 = 1 X 4.0
At a time when it was least expected of him, in view of the fatiguing ordeal at Ostend, Frank J. Marshall once again astounded the chess world at large and overjoyed his friends at home by carrying off highest honors in the international masters tournament during the fifteenth congress of the German Chess Association begun at the Hotel Luitpold, Nuremberg, on July 23. He accomplished this without the loss of a single game and, having in mind his victory at Cambridge Springs in 1904, the remark of Mr. Napier that “history repeats itself,’ is very apropos. To fully realize the significance of his performance it is merely necessary to recite the fact that Marshall drew his games with Tarrasch, Chigorin, Schlechter, Fleischmann, Znosko-Borowsky, Swiderski and Vidmar, winning the other nine games outright. He had a narrow escape with Znosko-Borowsky, to whom he lost a piece for two Pawns under an hallucination. Only a few of Marshall’s games have reached here, as it is the intention of Dr. Tarrasch to publish the full collection in the congress book. Wolf’s defeat by Marshall is classical in its beautiful conception. The young master’s success was the more gratifying from the fact that it occurred on the scene of his match with Dr. Tarrasch, which must now be regarded more in the light of a fiasco. Marshall returned home immediately after the conclusion of the tournament, arriving here on August 28. He expressed himself as ready to engage in a competition for the United States championship whenever such an event might be arranged.
Probably few tournaments can boast as many surprises as the Nuremberg congress of 1906. In the first place, another “dark horse” made its appearance in the person of O. Duras, of Prague, the Bohemian problem composer, who succeeded in finishing second, ahead of Carl Schlechter, recent winner of the Ostend tournament. Schlechter, though he lost but one game, to Janowski, had to be content to divide third and fourth prizes with Fleischmann, representative of the Forgacs Chess Club of Budapest. It is indeed gratifying to find the veteran Tschigorin again placed high in the list, after his recent poor showing. Most astonishing of all is the performance of Dr. Tarrasch, who, in tying for ninth, tenth and eleventh places, was credited with the most unsuccessful effort of his long career. Of sixteen games, he won only three. Deutsche Wochenschach advances physical indisposition as the cause, and it is also reported that the German champion tarried at Carlsbad for a spell prior to the Nuremberg meeting. Be this as it may, it is more likely that the time limit regulation, which permitted the contestants to practically play under a go-as-you-please schedule, and the further fact that he was more or less involved in the management of the congress, had much to do with the surprising failure scored by him. The position of Janowski at the end of the list is also something quite unheard of, but it is conceivable that the absence of a time limit and the consequent license allowed to all players of a dallying disposition had its full effect upon his nerves. The tournament, the outcome of which has furnished Americans genuine pleasure, affords plenty of scope for explanations and it stands to reason that the advent of the congress book will be awaited with unusual impatience – American Chess Bulletin, September 1906.
Based on an original collection by User: TheFocus.
| page 1 of 6; games 1-25 of 136
|1. Chigorin vs Schlechter
|| ||½-½||41||1906||15th DSB Kongress (Nuremberg)||C36 King's Gambit Accepted, Abbazia Defense|
|2. Vidmar vs Swiderski
|| ||0-1||46||1906||15th DSB Kongress (Nuremberg)||D63 Queen's Gambit Declined, Orthodox Defense|
|3. L Forgacs vs Fahrni
|| ||1-0||36||1906||15th DSB Kongress (Nuremberg)||D10 Queen's Gambit Declined Slav|
|4. Duras vs Marshall
||0-1||55||1906||15th DSB Kongress (Nuremberg)||C62 Ruy Lopez, Old Steinitz Defense|
|5. Leonhardt vs Znosko-Borovsky
||1-0||45||1906||15th DSB Kongress (Nuremberg)||D32 Queen's Gambit Declined, Tarrasch|
|6. E Cohn vs Salwe
|| ||1-0||26||1906||15th DSB Kongress (Nuremberg)||C87 Ruy Lopez|
|7. Spielmann vs Przepiorka
||1-0||26||1906||15th DSB Kongress (Nuremberg)||C20 King's Pawn Game|
|8. Tarrasch vs H Wolf
|| ||½-½||49||1906||15th DSB Kongress (Nuremberg)||D27 Queen's Gambit Accepted, Classical|
|9. Salwe vs Tarrasch
||1-0||43||1906||15th DSB Kongress (Nuremberg)||D40 Queen's Gambit Declined, Semi-Tarrasch|
|10. Marshall vs E Cohn
||1-0||28||1906||15th DSB Kongress (Nuremberg)||D32 Queen's Gambit Declined, Tarrasch|
|11. H Wolf vs Chigorin
||1-0||56||1906||15th DSB Kongress (Nuremberg)||C46 Three Knights|
|12. Swiderski vs Znosko-Borovsky
||0-1||23||1906||15th DSB Kongress (Nuremberg)||D02 Queen's Pawn Game|
|13. Fahrni vs Spielmann
||0-1||47||1906||15th DSB Kongress (Nuremberg)||D40 Queen's Gambit Declined, Semi-Tarrasch|
|14. Janowski vs Leonhardt
|| ||1-0||77||1906||15th DSB Kongress (Nuremberg)||C49 Four Knights|
|15. Vidmar vs Duras
||0-1||22||1906||15th DSB Kongress (Nuremberg)||D31 Queen's Gambit Declined|
|16. Schlechter vs L Forgacs
|| ||1-0||37||1906||15th DSB Kongress (Nuremberg)||D32 Queen's Gambit Declined, Tarrasch|
|17. E Cohn vs Vidmar
|| ||½-½||37||1906||15th DSB Kongress (Nuremberg)||D55 Queen's Gambit Declined|
|18. Leonhardt vs Przepiorka
|| ||½-½||32||1906||15th DSB Kongress (Nuremberg)||C23 Bishop's Opening|
|19. Tarrasch vs Marshall
||½-½||37||1906||15th DSB Kongress (Nuremberg)||C48 Four Knights|
|20. Spielmann vs Schlechter
||0-1||71||1906||15th DSB Kongress (Nuremberg)||C24 Bishop's Opening|
|21. L Forgacs vs H Wolf
|| ||0-1||39||1906||15th DSB Kongress (Nuremberg)||C66 Ruy Lopez|
|22. Chigorin vs Salwe
||0-1||32||1906||15th DSB Kongress (Nuremberg)||C22 Center Game|
|23. Duras vs Swiderski
||1-0||47||1906||15th DSB Kongress (Nuremberg)||A07 King's Indian Attack|
|24. Znosko-Borovsky vs Janowski
||1-0||52||1906||15th DSB Kongress (Nuremberg)||D04 Queen's Pawn Game|
|25. Vidmar vs Tarrasch
||1-0||38||1906||15th DSB Kongress (Nuremberg)||D32 Queen's Gambit Declined, Tarrasch|
| page 1 of 6; games 1-25 of 136
TIP: You can make the above ads go away by registering a free account!
|Oct-12-13|| ||thomastonk: The introduction mentions certain time limit regulations which are not explained in detail. The DSZ 1906, p 159 describes them as follows.|
If the game is finished within the first session (usually 9 am until 2 pm), then no time violation has happened; if the game is continued, then the tournament director will decide after the end of the game whether some player exceeded the time limit. A small exceedance - say 5 minutes - has no implications; a considerable exceedance causes a penalty of 1 M (Mark) per minute. A player, who disturbs the tournament by playing too slow (i.e., an exceedance of 30 minutes), will also get a warning. Three warnings cause the elimination from the tournament, and the player will not be invited again.
Wow, das ist deutsche Gründlichkeit!
In another source I found descriptions of many strange games caused by these rules. E.g., some players, who spend too much time in the early phases of a drawn game added meaningless moves at the end to avoid a penalty or warning. Moreover, after a few rounds the players had to pay already more than 1000 M penalties. Is this true?
What else is known to have happened?
|Jun-27-17|| ||zanzibar: <thomastonk> yes, essential to mention the bizarre (retro-?) time controls - or, rather, apparent attempt to subvert time controls.|
Spraggett (kiddie-warning) deals with the topic:
|Mar-14-18|| ||zanzibar: fwiw ...
<das ist deutsche Gründlichkeit> =
<that is German thoroughness>
|Mar-14-18|| ||zanzibar: While I generally approve, nay, heartily endorse, quoting contemporaneous sources for learning about tournaments - the <CG> intro could use a little framing to help the reader.|
First, an introductory sentence to indicate that ACB is being quote would help orient the reader.
Otherwise, one could begin reading, under the false premise that a contemporary <CG> editor wrote the material, and then come to this pothole:
<Only a few of Marshall’s games have reached here, as it is the intention of Dr. Tarrasch to publish the full collection in the congress book. Wolf’s defeat by Marshall is classical in its beautiful conception.>
And then, even after realizing the material comes from a ACB excerpt, the above needs to reframed in contemporary terms, e.g. note that <CG> has all the tournament games, and that a TB was published (presumably - a link would be useful!).
Another point to mention is that the above intro is nice, as said, but omits some essential info - like the controversial time controls, the prizes awarded, the fact that Berger dropped out (note the odd number of entrants), and maybe a link to the TB?
|Mar-14-18|| ||zanzibar: RE: time control aberrations only alluded to in the intro:|
<Our correspondent writes that "the Nuremberg tournament was indeed a failure, as you say,
and this entirely owing to the ill-considered experiment of abolishing the time limit. Personal
frictions and unnecessary quarrels, which had to be settled by the committee, were the order of
the day. One of the players availed himself systematically of the 'time condition' to such an
extent that the matter was brought before the committee and a jury of all the players, in which
the expulsion of the player in question was considered. The verdict was given in his favor, but
only to avoid further trouble, as others would have been affected by a different decision."> ACB v3 (1906) p207
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