[what is this?]

[what is this?]

<< previous | page 10 of 21 | next >>

Munich Chess Olympiad 1936: Pt. 2, Rounds 11-21 [A continuation of: Game Collection: Munich Chess Olympiad 1936: Pt. 1, Rounds 1-10 ] <Round 11 (Sunday, August 23, 1936)> Round 11 was played the same day as round 10, and was a repeat in many ways. A leading team (Yugoslavia) got a bye, and Hungary won another match over a contender by toppling Latvia. Poland went back into the lead with Germany 1/2-point behind, while Hungary had now moved into a third-place tie with Yugoslavia. Czechoslovakia and Lativa remained in the hunt. table[ Brazil 2.5 Lithuania 5.5 Bulgaria 3.0 Netherlands 5.0 Czechoslovakia 6.0 Switzerland 2.0 Estonia 3.5 Denmark 4.5 Finland 5.5 Iceland 2.5 Hungary 5.5 Latvia 2.5 Italy 2.0 Germany 6.0 Norway 2.5 Austria 5.5 Romania 2.0 Poland 6.0 Sweden 6.5 France 1.5 Bye: Yugoslavia ]table <STANDINGS AFTER ROUND 11> (an asterisk (*) indicates the team has had a bye) <61.0>: Poland; <60.5>: Germany; <55.0>: Hungary*, Yugoslavia*; <54.5>: Czechoslovakia*; <54.0>: Latvia; <52.0>: Austria*; <49.5>: Sweden; <48.0>: Denmark*; <44.5>: Estonia; <41.0>: Lithuania*; <36.0>: Finland*, Romania*; <35.5>: Brazil; <34.5>: Switzerland; <34.0>: Netherlands*; <33.5>: Iceland; <30.0>: Norway; <27.5>: Italy*; <19.0>: Bulgaria, France* <Round 12 (Monday, August 24, 1936)> Poland added to their lead with an important win over Czechoslovakia, while Germany had some trouble with Romania (especially in the game P Bohosiewicz vs L Roedl, 1936). Hungary won their 11th match in a row to move into third place, and had still played one match less than the teams above them. Latvia's draw with lowly Italy hurt their chances. Meanwhile, down at the foot of the class, winless France won decisively over winless Bulgaria. table[ Austria 4.0 Estonia 4.0 Denmark 5.0 Brazil 3.0 France 5.5 Bulgaria 2.5 Germany 4.5 Romania 3.5 Iceland 1.5 Hungary 6.5 Latvia 4.0 Italy 4.0 Lithuania 3.5 Finland 4.5 Netherlands 5.5 Norway 2.5 Poland 5.0 Czechoslovakia 3.0 Yugoslavia 5.5 Sweden 2.5 Bye: Switzerland ]table <STANDINGS AFTER ROUND 12> (an asterisk (*) indicates the team has had a bye) <66.0>: Poland; <65.0>: Germany; <61.5>: Hungary*; <60.5>: Yugoslavia*; <58.0>: Latvia; <57.5>: Czechoslovakia*; <56.0>: Austria*; <53.0>: Denmark*; <52.0>: Sweden; <48.5>: Estonia; <44.5>: Lithuania*; <40.5>: Finland*; <39.5>: Netherlands*, Romania*; <38.5>: Brazil; <35.0>: Iceland; <34.5>: Switzerland*; <32.5>: Norway; <31.5>: Italy*; <24.5>: France*; <21.5>: Bulgaria <Round 13 (Tuesday, August 25, 1936)> The teams were well into the second half of the tournament now, and needed to start taking things seriously. Yugoslavia, Latvia, Austria and Denmark all scored crushing wins to stay in contention. An important match between Germany and Czechslovakia was drawn, allowing Poland to lengthen their lead slightly despite a weaker than expected win over Switzerland. Hungary also had trouble with Lithuania, but hung on for their twelfth straight match win. table[ Brazil 1.0 Austria 7.0 Bulgaria 1.0 Yugoslavia 7.0 Czechoslovakia 4.0 Germany 4.0 Estonia 5.5 Netherlands 2.5 Finland 1.0 Denmark 7.0 Hungary 5.0 Lithuania 3.0 Italy 6.0 Iceland 2.0 Norway 7.0 France 1.0 Romania 1.0 Latvia 7.0 Switzerland 2.5 Poland 5.5 Bye: Sweden ]table <STANDINGS AFTER ROUND 13> (an asterisk (*) indicates the team has had a bye) <71.5>: Poland; <69.0>: Germany; <67.5>: Yugoslavia*; <66.5>: Hungary*; <65.0>: Latvia; <63.0>: Austria*; <61.5>: Czechoslovakia*; <60.0>: Denmark*; <54.0>: Estonia; <52.0>: Sweden*; <47.5>: Lithuania*; <42.0>: Netherlands*; <41.5>: Finland*; <40.5>: Romania*; <39.5>: Brazil, Norway; <37.5>: Italy*; <37.0>: Switzerland*, Iceland; <25.5>: France*; <22.5>: Bulgaria <Round 14 (Wednesday, August 26, 1936)> Poland's bye this round led to a shake-up at the top; Germany and Hungary passed them, while Yugoslavia missed a chance after a disappointing draw with Norway. Latvia stayed in contention with a useful win over Czechoslovakia. Meanwhile, Bulgaria was mathematically eliminated from the race for gold. table[ Austria 4.0 Finland 4.0 Denmark 2.5 Hungary 5.5 France 2.5 Estonia 5.5 Germany 7.0 Switzerland 1.0 Iceland 3.5 Romania 4.5 Latvia 5.5 Czechoslovakia 2.5 Lithuania 6.0 Italy 2.0 Netherlands 4.5 Brazil 3.5 Sweden 6.5 Bulgaria 1.5 Yugoslavia 4.0 Norway 4.0 Bye: Poland ]table <STANDINGS AFTER ROUND 14> (an asterisk (*) indicates the team has had a bye) <76.0>: Germany; <72.0>: Hungary*; <71.5>: Poland*, Yugoslavia*; <70.5>: Latvia; <67.0>: Austria*; <64.0>: Czechoslovakia*; <62.5>: Denmark*; <59.5>: Estonia; <58.5>: Sweden*; <53.5>: Lithuania*; <46.5>: Netherlands*; <45.5>: Finland*; <45.0>: Romania*; <43.5>: Norway; <43.0>: Brazil; <40.5>: Iceland; <39.5>: Italy*; <38.0>: Switzerland*; <28.0>: France*; <24.0>: Bulgaria At the two-thirds mark, Germany's lead was by no means secure as they had not yet had a bye. Hungary, Poland and Yugoslavia were well within striking distance, with an extra match to play. Latvia would have some difficulties, being behind several teams and also having a bye left. Austria was a bit further back, but had a chance to make up ground with matches against Hungary, Poland, Germany, and Czechoslovakia to play. Other important matches to come were Germany v. Poland and Latvia, Hungary v. Yugoslavia, Poland v. Latvia, and Yugoslavia v. Czechoslovakia. On the other end of the scale, Hungary had yet to play tailenders France and Bulgaria. <Round 15 (Friday, August 28, 1936)> The most important match of the round saw Poland edge Germany. While Latvia and Czechoslovakia took advantage with solid wins, Hungary could get only a minimal win over Austria while Yugoslavia drew with Estonia. table[ Brazil 6.0 France 2.0 Czechoslovakia 6.0 Iceland 2.0 Estonia 4.0 Yugoslavia 4.0 Finland 3.5 Netherlands 4.5 Hungary 4.5 Austria 3.5 Italy 1.0 Denmark 7.0 Norway 3.5 Sweden 4.5 Poland 4.5 Germany 3.5 Romania 4.0 Lithuania 4.0 Switzerland 2.5 Latvia 5.5 Bye: Bulgaria ]table <STANDINGS AFTER ROUND 15> (an asterisk (*) indicates the team has had a bye) <79.5>: Germany; <76.5>: Hungary*; <76.0>: Poland*, Latvia; <75.5>: Yugoslavia*; <70.5>: Austria*; <70.0>: Czechslovakia*; <69.5>: Denmark*; <63.5>: Estonia; <63.0>: Sweden*; <57.5>: Lithuania*; <51.0>: Netherlands*; <49.0>: Finland*, Brazil, Romania*; <47.0>: Norway; <42.5>: Iceland; <40.5>: Switzerland*, Italy*; <30.0>: France*; <24.0>: Bulgaria* <Round 16 (Friday, August 28, 1936)> Germany received their bye this round, and fell into a tie for 4th-5th with Poland. Hungary got their usual 5.5 points to take the lead, 1/2-point ahead of the Yugoslavs. The upcoming match between these two, scheduled for round 18, would obviously be a big one. Latvia held third for the moment, but still had a bye to come. Austria still had a chance to improve their placing, only three points from a medal and with three matches still to come against contenders. table[ Austria 7.0 Italy 1.0 Bulgaria 3.0 Norway 5.0 Denmark 4.5 Romania 3.5 France 2.0 Finland 6.0 Iceland 5.0 Switzerland 3.0 Latvia 4.5 Poland 3.5 Lithuania 4.0 Czechoslovakia 4.0 Netherlands 2.5 Hungary 5.5 Sweden 4.5 Estonia 3.5 Yugoslavia 6.0 Brazil 2.0 Bye: Germany ]table <STANDINGS AFTER ROUND 16> (an asterisk (*) indicates the team has had a bye) <82.0>: Hungary*; <81.5>: Yugoslavia*; <80.5>: Latvia; <79.5>: Germany*, Poland*; <77.5>: Austria*; <74.0>: Denmark*, Czechoslovakia*; <67.5>: Sweden*; <67.0>: Estonia; <61.5>: Lithuania*; <55.0>: Finland*; <53.5>: Netherlands*; <52.5>: Romania*; <52.0>: Norway; <51.0>: Brazil; <47.5>: Iceland; <43.5>: Switzerland*; <41.5>: Italy*; <32.0>: France*; <27.0>: Bulgaria* <Round 17 (Saturday, August 29, 1936)> As the end neared, the top teams began to pour it on. Hungary had their best round so far with a 7-1 drubbing of France, stretching their lead to two points as Yugoslavia had to face the tougher Finnish team. Germany destroyed any hopes Latvia might have had with a 6.5-1.5 drubbing, Poland duplicating that score against Iceland. Czechoslovakia and Austria also won, but were unable to match the margins of the other contenders. table[ Brazil 2.0 Sweden 6.0 Czechoslovakia 5.0 Denmark 3.0 Estonia 6.0 Bulgaria 2.0 Finland 2.5 Yugoslavia 5.5 Germany 6.5 Latvia 1.5 Hungary 7.0 France 1.0 Italy 3.5 Netherlands 4.5 Poland 6.5 Iceland 1.5 Romania 3.5 Austria 4.5 Switzerland 5.0 Lithuania 3.0 Bye: Norway ]table <STANDINGS AFTER ROUND 17> (an asterisk (*) indicates the team has had a bye) <89.0>: Hungary*; <87.0>: Yugoslavia*; <86.0>: Germany*, Poland*; <82.0>: Austria*, Latvia; <79.0>: Czechoslovakia*; <77.0>: Denmark*; <73.5>: Sweden*; <73.0>: Estonia; <64.5>: Lithuania*; <58.0>: Netherlands*; <57.5>: Finland*; <56.0>: Romania*; <53.0>: Brazil; <52.0>: Norway*; <49.0>: Iceland; <48.5>: Switzerland*; <45.0>: Italy*; <33.0>: France*; <29.0>: Bulgaria* <Round 18 (Saturday, August 29, 1936)> This round saw 1st place Hungary take on 2nd place Yugoslavia and score yet another small match victory. They weren't doing it in spectacular fashion, but 17 match wins in a row were piling up the game points. Poland jumped into second with a crushing win over a tough Lithuanian team, while Germany had to be dissatisfied with their win over Iceland. The Yugoslavs remained in the medal hunt, but any chance Austria still had was demolished by Czechoslovakia. Elsewhere, the big news was that Bulgaria, after losing 16 matches in a row, picked up a draw against Brazil. table[ Austria 1.0 Czechoslovakia 7.0 Bulgaria 4.0 Brazil 4.0 Denmark 5.5 Switzerland 2.5 France 4.0 Italy 4.0 Iceland 2.5 Germany 5.5 Lithuania 1.0 Poland 7.0 Netherlands 5.0 Romania 3.0 Norway 1.5 Estonia 6.5 Sweden 4.0 Finland 4.0 Yugoslavia 3.0 Hungary 5.0 Bye: Latvia ]table <STANDINGS AFTER ROUND 18> (an asterisk (*) indicates the team has had a bye) <94.0>: Hungary*; <93.0>: Poland*; <91.5>: Germany*; <90.0>: Yugoslavia*; <86.0>: Czechoslovakia*; <83.0>: Austria*; <82.5>: Denmark*; <82.0>: Latvia*; <79.5>: Estonia; <77.5>: Sweden*; <65.5>: Lithuania*; <63.0>: Netherlands*; <61.5>: Finland*; <59.0>: Romania*; <57.0>: Brazil; <53.5>: Norway*; <51.5>: Iceland; <51.0>: Switzerland*; <49.0>: Italy*; <37.0>: France*; <33.0>: Bulgaria* <Round 19 (Sunday, August 30, 1936)> The top five teams remained unchanged. Hungary squeaked out another win, but Poland, Germany and Yugoslavia could not do much better. Czechoslovakia made up some ground, but were probably too far behind to medal. There are too many games in these collections to make a lot of recommendations, but I would point out P Hage vs K Makarczyk, 1936. table[ Brazil 4.5 Norway 3.5 Czechoslovakia 6.5 Netherlands 1.5 Finland 5.5 Bulgaria 2.5 Germany 4.5 Lithuania 3.5 Hungary 4.5 Sweden 3.5 Italy 3.0 Yugoslavia 5.0 Latvia 5.5 Iceland 2.5 Poland 5.0 Denmark 3.0 Romania 6.0 France 2.0 Switzerland 2.5 Austria 5.5 Bye: Estonia ]table <STANDINGS AFTER ROUND 19> (an asterisk (*) indicates the team has had a bye) <98.5>: Hungary*; <98.0>: Poland*; <96.0>: Germany*; <95.0>: Yugoslavia*; <92.5>: Czechoslovakia*; <88.5>: Austria*; <87.5>: Latvia*; <85.5>: Denmark*; <81.0>: Sweden*; <79.5>: Estonia*; <69.0>: Lithuania*; <67.0>: Finland; <65.0>: Romania*: <64.5>: Netherlands*; <61.5>: Brazil; <57.0>: Norway*; <54.0>: Iceland; <53.5>: Switzerland*; <52.0>: Italy*; <39.0>: France*; <35.5>: Bulgaria* Hungary led by only a half-point, but had by far the easier schedule left with Norway and last-place Bulgaria to play. Poland still had Austria and the Netherlands, Germany was facing Austria and Denmark, Yugoslavia would play Czechoslovakia and Romania, while the Czechs would also take on France. <Round 20 (Monday, August 31, 1936)> Hungary showed how a champion treats a tailender by demolishing Bulgaria. This gave them a four-point lead with one round to go, as Poland could only draw a tough Austrian team while Germany had some troubles with Denmark. Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia had strong results, but were due to meet in the last round and were likely to knock each other out of medal contention. table[ Austria 4.0 Poland 4.0 Bulgaria 0.5 Hungary 7.5 Denmark 3.0 Germany 5.0 Estonia 6.5 Brazil 1.5 France 1.5 Czechoslovakia 6.5 Lithuania 4.0 Latvia 4.0 Netherlands 5.0 Switzerland 3.0 Norway 4.0 Finland 4.0 Sweden 6.5 Italy 1.5 Yugoslavia 6.5 Romania 1.5 Bye: Iceland ]table <STANDINGS AFTER ROUND 20> (an asterisk (*) indicates the team has had a bye) <106.0>: Hungary*; <102.0>: Poland*; <101.5>: Yugoslavia*; <101.0>: Germany*; <99.0>: Czechoslovakia*; <92.5>: Austria*; <91.5>: Latvia*; <88.5>: Denmark*; <87.5>: Sweden*; <86.0>: Estonia*; <73.0>: Lithuania*; <71.0>: Finland*; <69.5>: Netherlands*; <66.5>: Romania*; <63.0>: Brazil; <61.0>: Norway*; <56.5>: Switzerland*; <54.0>: Iceland*; <53.5>: Italy*; <40.5>: France*; <36.0>: Bulgaria* Given their perfect match record, Hungary needed only 4.0 in the last round against Norway to clinch gold. The race for second and third remained wide open. <Round 21 (Tuesday, September 1, 1936)> No surprises. Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia took themselves out of medal contention; Hungary, Poland and Germany did just enough to win. table[ Czechoslovakia 5.0 Yugoslavia 3.0 Finland 4.0 Estonia 4.0 Germany 5.5 Austria 2.5 Hungary 4.5 Norway 3.5 Iceland 3.5 Lithuania 4.5 Italy 5.5 Bulgaria 2.5 Latvia 5.0 Denmark 3.0 Poland 6.0 Netherlands 2.0 Romania 1.5 Sweden 6.5 Switzerland 5.0 France 3.0 Bye: Brazil ]table <Final standings> table[ Hun Pol Ger Yug Cze Lat Aut Swi Den Est Lit Fin Net Rom Nor Bra Swi Ita Ice Fra Bul 1 Hungary XXX 5.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 5.5 4.5 4.5 5.5 5.0 5.0 6.5 5.5 5.5 4.5 6.5 6.0 5.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 110.5 2 Poland 3.0 XXX 4.5 4.5 5.0 3.5 4.0 5.5 5.0 4.5 7.0 5.5 6.0 6.0 3.5 6.5 5.5 6.5 6.5 7.5 8.0 108.0 3 Germany 3.5 3.5 XXX 4.0 4.0 6.5 5.5 4.5 5.0 6.0 4.5 4.5 5.5 4.5 6.5 6.5 7.0 6.0 5.5 7.0 6.5 106.5 4 Yugoslavia 3.0 3.5 4.0 XXX 3.0 6.0 4.5 5.5 5.5 4.0 4.5 5.5 5.5 6.5 4.0 6.0 7.0 5.0 7.5 7.0 7.0 104.5 5 Czechoslovakia 2.5 3.0 4.0 5.0 XXX 2.5 7.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 6.0 6.5 6.0 6.5 5.0 6.0 6.5 6.0 6.5 8.0 104.0 6 Latvia 2.5 4.5 1.5 2.0 5.5 XXX 3.5 4.5 5.0 6.0 4.0 5.0 6.5 7.0 6.5 5.5 5.5 4.0 5.5 5.0 7.0 96.5 7 Austria 3.5 4.0 2.5 3.5 1.0 4.5 XXX 4.5 5.0 4.0 5.5 4.0 5.5 4.5 5.5 7.0 5.5 7.0 5.5 6.5 6.0 95.0 8 Sweden 3.5 2.5 3.5 2.5 4.0 3.5 3.5 XXX 5.5 4.5 4.0 4.0 5.0 6.5 4.5 6.0 5.5 6.5 6.0 6.5 6.5 94.0 9 Denmark 2.5 3.0 3.0 2.5 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.5 XXX 4.5 6.5 7.0 5.5 4.5 5.0 5.0 5.5 7.0 5.0 6.5 7.0 91.5 10 Estonia 3.0 3.5 2.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 3.5 3.5 XXX 3.5 4.0 5.5 4.5 6.5 6.5 6.0 6.0 6.5 5.5 6.0 90.0 11 Lithuania 3.0 1.0 3.5 3.5 4.0 4.0 2.5 4.0 1.5 4.5 XXX 3.5 3.0 4.0 4.5 5.5 3.0 6.0 4.5 5.5 6.5 77.5 12 Finland 1.5 2.5 3.5 2.5 2.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 1.0 4.0 4.5 XXX 3.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.5 4.5 5.5 6.0 5.5 75.0 13 Netherlands 2.5 2.0 2.5 2.5 1.5 1.5 2.5 3.0 2.5 2.5 5.0 4.5 XXX 5.0 5.5 4.5 5.0 4.5 4.5 5.0 5.0 71.5 14 Romania 2.5 2.0 3.5 1.5 2.0 1.0 3.5 1.5 3.5 3.5 4.0 4.0 3.0 XXX 5.5 3.5 4.0 4.0 4.5 6.0 5.0 68.0 15 Norway 3.5 4.5 1.5 4.0 1.5 1.5 2.5 3.5 3.0 1.5 3.5 4.0 2.5 2.5 XXX 3.5 3.5 3.5 2.5 7.0 5.0 64.5 16 Brazil 1.5 1.5 1.5 2.0 3.0 2.5 1.0 2.0 3.0 1.5 2.5 4.0 3.5 4.5 4.5 XXX 4.0 5.5 5.0 6.0 4.0 63.0 17 Switzerland 2.0 2.5 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.0 5.0 2.5 3.0 4.0 4.5 4.0 XXX 5.0 3.0 5.0 5.0 61.5 18 Italy 3.0 1.5 2.0 3.0 1.5 4.0 1.0 1.5 1.0 2.0 2.0 3.5 3.5 4.0 4.5 2.5 3.0 XXX 6.0 4.0 5.5 59.0 19 Iceland 1.5 1.5 2.5 0.5 2.0 2.5 2.5 2.0 3.0 1.5 3.5 2.5 3.5 3.5 5.5 3.0 5.0 2.0 XXX 4.5 5.0 57.5 20 France 1.0 0.5 1.0 1.0 1.5 3.0 1.5 1.5 1.5 2.5 2.5 2.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 3.5 XXX 5.5 43.5 21 Bulgaria 0.5 0.0 1.5 1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 1.5 1.0 2.0 1.5 2.5 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 2.5 3.0 2.5 XXX 38.5 ]table For individual statistics and more information, see the Olimpbase site at http://www.olimpbase.org/1936x/1936... 298 games, 1936 Netherlands Championship 1997 table[ Dutch Championship 1997 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 1 Timman,Jan 2630 +34 * ½ 1 ½ ½ ½ 1 ½ 1 1 0 1 7.5/11 39.00 2 Nikolic,Predrag 2655 +7 ½ * ½ ½ ½ 1 ½ ½ 1 ½ 1 1 7.5/11 37.25 3 Van der Wiel,John 2555 +79 0 ½ * ½ ½ ½ 1 1 1 1 ½ ½ 7.0/11 35.25 4 Sokolov,Ivan 2615 +13 ½ ½ ½ * 1 ½ 0 ½ 1 1 ½ 1 7.0/11 35.25 5 Sosonko,Gennadi 2515 +87 ½ ½ ½ 0 * ½ ½ ½ 1 1 ½ 1 6.5/11 6 Nijboer,Friso 2555 +11 ½ 0 ½ ½ ½ * ½ ½ 1 0 1 1 6.0/11 7 Piket,Jeroen 2640 -115 0 ½ 0 1 ½ ½ * ½ 0 ½ 1 1 5.5/11 8 Van der Sterren,Paul 2515 -12 ½ ½ 0 ½ ½ ½ ½ * ½ 0 1 ½ 5.0/11 9 Van den Doel,Erik 2430 +47 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 ½ * 1 1 1 4.5/11 10 Riemersma,Liafbern 2435 +7 0 ½ 0 0 0 1 ½ 1 0 * 0 1 4.0/11 11 Cifuentes Parada,Roberto 2515 -117 1 0 ½ ½ ½ 0 0 0 0 1 * 0 3.5/11 12 Van der Weide,Karel 2355 -77 0 0 ½ 0 0 0 0 ½ 0 0 1 * 2.0/11 Average elo: 2534 <=> Category: 12 gm = 6.60 m = 4.40 ]table 66 games, 1997 New York 1913 (Quadrangular) Quadrangular Tournament Progressive Chess Club New York, NY August 27-September 12, 1913 <"Frank J. Marshall, O. Duras, O. Chajes and C. Jaffe started last night the quadrangular masters tournament arranged by the Progressive Chess Club of Manhattan at the Café Monopol. The pairing for the first round brought together Marshall and Duras, the latter having the white side of queen's gambit declined. The Bohemian master was at his best and outplayed the United States champion, winning after 31 moves. In the other game, Jaffe played a queen's pawn's game against Chajes, a draw being recorded after 55 moves. "The time limit agreed upon was 30 moves in the first two hours and 15 moves an hour therafter. Richard Warburg was chosen as referee."> (Brooklyn Daily Eagle, August 28, 1913). That first round win gave Duras the lead for the first half of the tournament, but Marshall caught him by winning the return match in round 4. Chajes upset Duras in round 6, so Marshall won the tournament by winning his last five games. Jaffe didn't score again after the round 1 draw, which means you should be able to figure out the crosstable and progressive scores by yourself. However, that won't stop me from showing them to you anyway. table[ 1 Frank James Marshall ** 01 11 11 5.0 2 Oldrich Duras 10 ** 10 11 4.0 3 Oscar Chajes 00 01 ** ½1 2.5 4 Charles Jaffe 00 00 ½0 ** 0.5 ]table table[ Marshall 0 1 2 3 4 5 Duras 1 2 3 3 3 4 Chajes ½ ½ ½ 1½ 2½ 2½ Jaffe ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ]table (For the record, Round 6 was played at the Rice Chess Club in Newark, New Jersey. 12 games, 1913 New York 1915 (Masters' Tournament) The <Brooklyn Daily Eagle> for April 15, 1915 gave some details four days before game time. The original list of players included Jose Raul Capablanca, Frank James Marshall, Albert Hodges, Jackson Whipps Showalter, Edward Lasker, Oscar Chajes, Abraham Kupchik, and Dr. G. E. Adair. Showalter, however, did not show up, nor did Adair play; they were replaced by Jacob Bernstein and Einar Michelsen. A place had been reserved for Newell William Banks of Detroit, but he dropped out at the last minute due to business pressure. Kupchik, who had refused an earlier invitation due to his own business affairs but had been able to make arrangements after all, replaced him. Hours of play were to be 2:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. and from 8:30 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. on Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, Friday, and Sunday; adjournments would be played off on Wednesdays and Saturdays. The time limit was fifteen moves an hour; this becomes important. Schedule: 1 April 19 Manhattan Chess Club 2 April 20 Hotel Grenoble 3 April 22 Hotel Grenoble 4 April 23 Manhattan Chess Club 5 April 25 Manhattan Chess Club 6 April 26 The S.I. Club 7 April 27 Hotel Grenoble 8 April 29 Hotel Grenoble 9 April 30 Hotel Grenoble 10 May 2 Manhattan Chess Club 11 May 3 Hotel Grenoble 12 May 4 Brooklyn Chess Club 13 May 6 Hotel Grenoble 14 May 7 Manhattan Chess Club Picture from Round 1; thanks to User: Tabanus for pointing this out: http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/... Front row of players: Capablanca v. Edward Lasker, Jacob Bernstein v. Frank James Marshall. Back row of players: Abraham Kupchik (almost obscured, as usual) v. Oscar Chajes, Albert Hodges v. Einar Michelsen. From the beginning it turned into a race between Capablanca and Marshall, with none of the other players able to score over 50%. Capa was totally ruthless against anybody not named Marshall, and won by a point. Probably the most famous incident from the tournament occurred when Capablanca didn't show for his round 8 game with Lasker. After about 50 minutes, the desperate Lasker (who really <was> the kind of guy who didn't want to win a game like that) called Capablanca's hotel room to warn him, Capablanca replying rather testily that he was on his way and that Lasker should not have called since that wasted a minute. See Capablanca vs Ed Lasker, 1915 for further details. On a more tragic note, Abraham Kupchik finished the tournament even after receiving word of his father's death during his second round game with Hodges. That game was adjourned, and Kuphchik left the tournament for several days. His first game back was E Michelsen vs Kupchik, 1915, which is not a Typical Kupchik Game. You have to wonder what was going through his mind. Round 1 (Monday, April 19) 1 Lasker 0 Capablanca 2 Marshall 1 Bernstein 3 Kupchik 1 Chajes 4 Hodges 0 Michelsen <1.0>: Capablanca, Kupchik, Marshall, Michelsen <0.0>: Bernstein, Chajes, Hodges, Lasker Round 2 (Tuesday, April 20) 5 Capablanca 1/2 Marshall 6 Chajes 1/2 Lasker 7 Hodges 0 Kupchik 8 Bernstein 1 Michelsen* <2.0>: Kupchik <1.5>: Capablanca, Marshall <1.0>: Bernstein, Michelsen <0.5>: Chajes, Lasker <0.0>: Hodges Round 3 (Thursday, April 22) 9 Bernstein 0 Capablanca 10 Marshall 1 Chajes 11 Michelsen 0 Kupchik 12 Lasker 1/2 Hodges* <3.0>: Kupchik <2.5>: Capablanca, Marshall <1.0>: Bernstein, Lasker, Michelsen <0,5>: Chajes, Hodges Round 4 (Friday, April 23) 13 Capablanca 1 Michelsen* 14 Hodges 0 Marshall 15 Chajes 1 Bernstein 16 Kupchik 0 Lasker* <3.5>: Capablanca, Marshall <3.0>: Kupchik <2.0>: Lasker <1.5>: Chajes <1.0>: Bernstein, Michelsen <0.5>: Hodges Round 5 (Sunday, April 25) 17 Capablanca 1 Chajes 18 Marshall 1 Kupchik 19 Bernsteiin 1 Hodges* 20 Michelsen 1/2 Lasker <4.5>: Capablanca, Lasker <3.0>: Kupchik <2.5>: Lasker <2.0>: Bernstein <1.5>: Chajes, Michelsen <0.5>: Hodges Round 6 (Monday, April 26) 21 Hodges 0 Capablanca* 22 Lasker 1/2 Marshall 23 Kupchik 1 Bernstein* 24 Chajes 1 Michelsen <5.5>: Capablanca <5.0>: Marshall <4.0>: Kupchik <3.0>: Lasker <2.5>: Chajes <2.0>: Bernstein <1.5>: Michelsen <0.5>: Hodges Round 7 (Tuesday, April 27) 25 Bernstein 1/2 Lasker* 26 Capablanca 1 Kupchik 27 Chajes 1 Hodges 28 Michelsen 0 Marshall <6.5>: Capablanca <6.0>: Marshall <4.0>: Kupchik <3.5>: Chajes, Lasker <2.5>: Bernstein <1.5>: Michelsen <0.5>: Hodges Round 8 (Thursday, April 29) 29 Capablanca 1 Lasker 30 Bernstein 0 Marshall 31 Chajes 1 Kupchik 32 Michelsen 0 Hodges <7.5>: Capablanca <7.0>: Marshall <4.5>: Chajes <4.0>: Kupchik <3.5>: Lasker <2.5>: Bernstein <1.5>: Hodges, Michelsen Round 9 (Friday, April 30) 33 Marshall 1/2 Capablanca 34 Kupchik 1 Hodges* 35 Michelsen 1/2 Bernstein 36 Lasker 1 Chajes <8.0>: Capablanca <7.5>: Marshall <5.0>: Kupchik <4.5>: Chajes, Lasker <3.0>: Bernstein <2.0>: Michelsen <1.5>: Hodges Round 10 (Sunday, May 2) 37 Capablanca 1 Bernstein 38 Chajes 1/2 Marshall 39 Hodges 1/2 Lasker* 40 Kupchik 1 Michelsen* <9.0>: Capablanca <8.0>: Marshall <6.0>: Kupchik <5.0>: Chajes, Lasker <3.0>: Bernstein <2.0>: Hodges, Michelsen Round 11 (Monday, May 3) 41 Michelsen 0 Capablanca* 42 Marshall 1 Hodges 43 Bernstein 1 Chajes 44 Lasker 0 Kupchik* <10.0>: Capablanca <9.0>: Marshall <7.0>: Kupchik <5.0>: Chajes, Lasker <4.0>: Bernstein <2.0>: Hodges, Michelsen Round 12 (Tuesday, May 4) 45 Kupchik 0 Marshall 46 Hodges 0 Bernstein* 47 Chajes 0 Capablanca 48 Lasker 1 Michelsen* <11.0>: Capablanca <10.0>: Marshall <7.0>: Kupchik <6.0>: Lasker <5.0> Bernstein, Chajes <2.0>: Hodges, Michelsen Round 13 (Thursday, May 6) 49 Marshall 1 Lasker 50 Capablanca 1 Hodges 51 Bernstein 1 Kupchik* 52 Michelsen 0 Chajes <12.0>: Capablanca <11.0>: Marshall <7.0>: Kupchik <6.0>: Bernstein, Chajes, Lasker <2.0>: Hodges, Michelsen Round 14 (Friday, May 7) 53 Marshall 1 Michelsen 54 Kupchik 0 Capablanca* 55 Lasker 1/2 Bernstein* 56 Hodges 0 Chajes table[ 1 Capablanca ** == 11 11 11 11 11 11 13.0 2 Marshall == ** 1= 11 =1 11 11 11 12.0 3 Chajes 00 0= ** 01 =0 10 11 11 7.0 4 Kupchik 00 00 10 ** 01 10 11 11 7.0 5 Lasker 00 =0 =1 10 ** == =1 == 6.5 6 Bernstein 00 00 01 01 == ** 1= 11 6.5 7 Michelsen 00 00 00 00 =0 0= ** 10 2.0 8 Hodges 00 00 00 00 == 00 01 ** 2.0 ]table 56 games, 1915 New York 1916 (Rice Memorial) In late 1915, Isaac Rice began planning the Rice Jubilee Tournament to celebrate the twentieth anniversary of his discovery of the Rice Gambit. His death on November 2, 1915 came as a blow to American chess. Aside from his eccentric support of the gambit, he was a generous promoter and benefactor of the game in many areas, and his passing was sincerely mourned. However, in keeping with his wishes, his widow donated the funds necessary for the operation of the tournament, which was renamed the Rice Memorial in his honor. Rice's original idea had been to invite primarily American masters and leading European players who might be able to compete despite the war. Invitations were sent to Alekhine, Capablanca, Marshall, Showalter, Kostic, Edward Lasker, Chajes, Kupchik, and Norman T. Whitaker. No reply was received from Alekhine, which given the conditions of the time surprised nobody. Marshall refused to compete after a dispute over a retaining fee, and neither Edward Lasker nor Whitaker chose to play. However, David Janowski was able to travel over from France to add some international flavor. The rest of the field consisted of chess masters chiefly from New York and a checkers player from Detroit, as listed in the <American Chess Bulletin> of February, 1916: Jose Raul Capablanca of Havana; David Janowski of Paris; Borislav Kostic of Budapest; Albert Fox of Washington; Newell Williams Banks of Detroit (American champion at checkers); Albert Hodges of Staten Island; Abraham Kupchik and Jacob Rosenthal of the Manhattan Chess Club; Oscar Chajes, Jacob Bernstein and Edward Tenenwurzel, of the Isaac L. Rice Progressive Chess Club; Roy Black, Frank Kendall Perkins Alfred Schroeder of the Brooklyn Chess Club. The rounds rotated between various clubs in New York City, with one reserved for the campus of Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut. Other conditions were also outlined in the ACB: <"RICE MEMORIAL MASTERS' TOURNAMENT "With a full complement of fourteen players, comprising an unusually strong field and including several foreign experts whose participation lends an international flavor to the competition, the Rice Memorial Masters' Tournament got under way on schedule at the rooms of the Brooklyn Chess Club on Monday, January 17, at 3 P.M. the fourteen who answered to the call of time were the following: These players and the managers (the publishers of the American Chess Bulletin), together with the officials of the Congress, namely, Harold Phillips, president; George S. Freisinger, vice-president, and William DeVisser, the referee, held a preliminary meeting at the apartments of Mrs. Isaac L. Rice in the Hotel Ansonia on the afternoon of January 16, at which time the pairings for the tournament were made. It was decided to play one complete round robin tournament and that the players with the four highest scores shoucl play a supplementary tournament for four of the five prizes, the fifth going to the one finishing immediately below those leaders in the score. It was agreed to play five rounds a week, excepting Wednesdays and Saturdays, and to preserve Wednesdays and Saturdays for adjourned games, with the exception of January 29> [Saturday], <which date was reserved for the tenth round, to be played at New Haven under the auspices of the Yale Chess Association. Except in the case of special provision made for the accommodation of certain clubs, the playing hours are from 3 to 7 P.M., and from 8 to 10 P.M. The time limit agreed upon was thirty moves in the first two hours and fifteen moves an hour thereafter."> Not mentioned was that scores carried over from the preliminary to the final section. In the round-by-round summary that follows, I have separated the top four players (plus ties) to indicate qualifiers for the supplementary tournament. ----- <Prelim, Round 1 (Monday, January 17, Brooklyn Chess Club)> 1 Capablanca 1 Black 2 Janowski 1 Tennenwurzel 3 Banks 1/2 Perkins 4 Chajes 1/2 Kostic 5 Fox 0 Schroeder 6 Kupchik 1 Rosenthal 7 Bernstein 1 Hodges <1.0>: Bernstein, Capablanca, Janowski, Kupchik, Schroeder <0.5>: Banks, Chajes, Kostic, Perkins; <0.0>: Black, Fox, Hodges, Rosenthal, Tennenwurzel ----- <Prelim, Round 2 (Tuesday, January 18, Manhattan Chess Club)> 8 Banks 0 Capablanca 9 Janowski 1 Black 10 Chajes 1 Tennenwurzel 11 Fox 0 Perkins 12 Kupchik 0 Kostic 13 Bernstein 1/2 Schroeder* 14 Hodges 0 Rosenthal* <2.0>: Capablanca, Janowski; <1.5>: Bernstein, Chajes, Kostic, Perkins, Schroeder <1.0>: Kupchik, Rosenthal; <0.5>: Banks; <0.0>: Black, Fox, Hodges, Tennenwurzel ----- <Prelim, Round 3 (Thursday, January 20, Hotel Ansonia)> 15 Capablanca 1 Janowski 16 Rosenthal 1/2 Bernstein 17 Schroeder 0 Kupchik 18 Kostic 0 Fox 19 Perkins 0 Chajes 20 Tennenwurzel 1 Banks 21 Black 1/2 Hodges <3.0>: Capablanca; <2.5>: Chajes; <2.0>: Bernstein, Janowski, Kupchik <1.5>: Kostic, Perkins, Rosenthal, Schroeder; <1.0>: Fox, Tennenwurzel; <0.5>: Banks, Black, Hodges The confrontation between Capablanca and Janowski was an exhausting affair which required two adjournments, and was finally resinged by Janowski in what was later found to be a drawn position. But an interesting possibility exists. We know from contemporary reports in the <New York Sun> and the <Brooklyn Daily Eagle> that the game was adjourned after 82 moves, but I have been unable to find an indication of who sealed. Most available scores end with Capablanca playing <83.Kd5> and Janowski resigning. However, in the <American Chess Bulletin> for February 1916, p.34, the last move given is <83...Be7> by Black. That could indicate that Janowski sealed <83...Be7>, discovered during adjournment analysis that he was indeed lost after that move, and resigned without resuming. That would not be surprising, as he had two other adjournments to be played off on the same day. Since the sealed move was never actually played, it didn't wind up in most game scores. However, this is all speculation, and I know of no other evidence or testimony to support the point. ----- <Prelim, Round 4 (Friday, January 21, Manhattan Chess Club)> 22 Capablanca 1 Chajes 23 Janowski 1/2 Banks 24 Schroeder 0 Hodges 25 Kostic 0 Bernstein 26 Perkins 0 Kupchik 27 Tennenwurzel 0 Fox 28 Black 0 Rosenthal <4.0>: Capablanca; <3.0>: Bernstein, Kupchik; <2.5>: Chajes, Janowski, Rosenthal <2.0>: Fox; <1.5>: Hodges, Kostic, Perkins, Schroeder; <1.0>: Banks, Tennenwurzel; <0.5>: Black ----- <Prelim, Round 5 (Sunday, January 23, Rice Progressive Chess Club)> 29 Fox 0 Capablanca 30 Chajes 1/2 Janowski 31 Kupchik 1 Tennenwurzel 32 Bernstein 1 Perkins 33 Hodges 0 Kostic 34 Rosenthal 1 Schroeder 35 Banks 0 Black <5.0>: Capablanca; <4.0>: Bernstein, Kupchik; <3.5>: Rosenthal <3.0>: Chajes, Janowski; <2.5>: Kostic; <2.0>: Fox; <1.5>: Black, Hodges, Perkins, Schroeder; <1.0>: Banks, Tennenwurzel ----- <Prelim, Round 6 (Monday, January 24, Manhattan Chess Club)> 36 Capablanca 1 Kupchik 37 Janowski 1/2 Fox 38 Kostic 1 Rosenthal 39 Perkins 0 Hodges 40 Tennenwurzel 0 Bernstein 41 Banks 0 Chajes 42 Black 0 Schroeder <6.0>: Capablanca; <5.0>: Bernstein; <4.0>: Chajes, Kupchik <3.5>: Janowski, Kostic, Rosenthal; <2.5>: Fox, Hodges, Schroeder; <1.5>: Black, Perkins; <1.0>: Banks, Tennenwurzel ----- <Prelim, Round 7 (Tuesday, January 25, Empire City Chess Club)> 43 Bernstein 0 Capablanca 44 Kupchik 1 Janowski 45 Fox 1 Banks 46 Hodges 0 Tennenwurzel 47 Rosenthal 1/2 Perkins 48 Schroeder 0 Kostic 49 Chajes 1 Black <7.0>: Capablanca; <5.0>: Bernstein, Chajes, Kupchik <4.5>: Kostic; <4.0>: Rosenthal; <3.5>: Fox, Janowski; <2.5>: Hodges, Schroeder; <2.0>: Perkins, Tennenwurzel; <1.5>: Black; <1.0>: Banks ----- Quick interlude reported in the <New York Sun>, January 30, 1916: <"Listen, Capablanca', said manager of the Rice Memorial Tournament to the Cuban matador at the Manhattan Chess Club on Wednesday afternoon, "If you insist upon scoring game after game and it is found that at the conclusion of the thirteenth and final round of the preliminary contest you are so many points ahead as to make quite sure the winning of the first prize regardless of the results of the games you will have to play in the supplementary tourney, you will simply be fired out of the competition and the next four men will have to compete in the supplementary contest only." "You will not do anything of the kind", answered Capablanca. "You forget that there are two brilliancy prizes, and, moreover, I want to establish a new world's record. In 1893 Champion Lasker established a world's record by winning thirteen straight games in the impromptu tourney, played in this city, and in 1913 I made an equal record. Now, however, I want to beat my own record by placing sixteen games straight to my credit. If I can possibly accomplish that feat, and you can rest assured that I have both my eyes on the two brilliancy prizes: so your little scheme would not act at all. I shall play in all the sixteen rounds and do my very best to carry out my little counter scheme."> ----- <Prelim, Round 8 (Thursday, January 27, Manhattan Chess Club)> 50 Capablanca 1 Hodges 51 Janowski 1/2 Bernstein 52 Perkins 0 Schroeder 53 Tennenwurzel 1/2 Rosenthal 54 Banks 0 Kupchik 55 Chajes 1 Fox 56 Black 1/2 Kostic <8.0>: Capablanca; <6.0>: Chajes, Kupchik; <5.5>: Bernstein <5.0>: Kostic; <4.5>: Rosenthal; <4.0>: Janowski; <3.5>: Fox, Schroeder; <2.5>: Hodges, Tennenwurzel; <2.0>: Black, Perkins; <1.0>: Banks Er, Capablanca was joking, wasn't he? Meanwhile, Kostic was climbing back into contention after a slow start, while Janowski was stuck at 50% and seemingly out of it. ----- <Prelim, Round 9 (Friday, January 28, Empire City Chess Club)> 57 Rosenthal 1/2 Capablanca 58 Hodges 0 Janowski 59 Kupchik 0 Chajes 60 Bernstein 1/2 Banks 61 Schroeder 1/2 Tennenwurzel 62 Kostic 1 Perkins 63 Fox 1 Black <8.5>: Capablanca; <7.0>: Chajes; <6.0>: Bernstein, Kostic, Kupchik <5.0>: Janowski, Rosenthal; <4.5>: Fox; <4.0>: Schroeder; <3.0>: Tennenwurzel; <2.5>: Hodges; <2.0>: Black, Perkins; <1.5>: Banks ----- <Prelim, Round 10 (Saturday, January 29, New Haven, Connecticut)> 64 Capablanca 1 Schroeder 65 Janowski 1 Rosenthal 66 Tennenwurzel 0 Kostic 67 Banks 0 Hodges 68 Chajes 1/2 Bernstein 69 Black 1 Perkins 70 Fox + Kupchik <9.5>: Capablanca; <7.5>: Chajes; <7.0>: Kostic; <6.5>: Bernstein <6.0>: Janowski, Kupchik; <5.5>: Fox; <5.0>: Rosenthal; <4.0>: Schroeder; <3.5>: Hodges; <3.0>: Black, Tennenwurzel; <2.0>: Perkins; <1.5>: Banks "The absentee was A. Kupchik, the New York State Champion, who missed connections. His game with Fox, therefore, was not played, and will be scheduled for tomorrow in New York instead. Play started shortly before 3 o'clock in the Varsity campus. A large crowd of students was on hand to greet the visitors and watch the novel spectacle." <Brooklyn Daily Eagle>, Sunday, January 30, 1916. The Fox vs. Kupchik game was never played, and scored as a forfeit win for Fox. This could haven been costly for Kupchik, who dropped out of the qualifiying spots. Meanwhile, Bernstein was fading and Janowski was coming on strong. ----- <Prelim, Round 11 (Monday, January 31, Manhattan Chess Club)> 71 Kostic 1/2 Capablanca 72 Schroeder 0 Janowski 73 Bernstein 0 Fox 74 Rosenthal 1 Banks 75 Perkins 1/2 Tennenwurzel 76 Kupchik 1/2 Black 77 Hodges 1 Chajes <10.0>: Capablanca; <7.5>: Chajes, Kostic; <7.0>: Janowski <6.5>: Bernstein, Fox, Kupchik; <6.0>: Rosenthal; <4.5>: Hodges; <4.0>: Schroeder; <3.5>: Black, Tennenwurzel; <2.5>: Perkins; <1.5>: Banks ----- <Prelim, Round 12 (Tuesday, February 1, Manhattan Chess Club)> 78 Capablanca 1 Perkins 79 Janowski 1 Kostic 80 Fox 1/2 Hodges 81 Chajes 1/2 Rosenthal 82 Banks 1/2 Schroeder 83 Kupchik 1 Bernstein 84 Black 1 Tennenwurzel <11.0>: Capablanca; <8.0>: Chajes, Janowski; <7.5>: Kostic, Kupchik <7.0>: Fox; <6.5>: Bernstein, Rosenthal; <5.0>: Hodges; <4.5>: Black, Schroeder; <3.5>: Tennenwurzel; <2.5>: Perkins; <2.0>: Banks Janowski's fourth win in a row left him in good position, while Kupchik clawed his way back into contention with an important win over Bernstein. ----- <Prelim, Round 13 (Thursday, February 3, Cafe Boulevard)> 85 Tennenwurzel 0 Capablanca 86 Perkins 1/2 Janowski 87 Hodges 0 Kupchik 88 Rosenthal 1 Fox 89 Kostic 1 Banks 90 Bernstein 1/2 Black 91 Schroeder 1 Chajes <Crosstable (Prelim)> table[ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 1 Capablanca * 1 = 1 1 = 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 12.0 2 Janowski 0 * 1 0 = 1 = = 1 1 1 1 = = 8.5 3 Kostic = 0 * 1 = 1 0 0 1 1 = 1 1 1 8.5 4 Kupchik 0 1 0 * 0 1 0 1 1 1 = 1 1 1 8.5 5 Chajes 0 = = 1 * = 1 = 0 0 1 1 1 1 8.0 6 Rosenthal = 0 0 0 = * 1 = 1 1 1 = = 1 7.5 7 Fox 0 = 1 1 0 0 * 1 0 = 1 1 0 1 7.0 8 Bernstein 0 = 1 0 = = 0 * = 1 = 1 1 = 7.0 9 Schroeder 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 = * 0 1 = 1 = 5.5 10 Hodges 0 0 0 0 1 0 = 0 1 * = 0 1 1 5.0 11 Black 0 0 = = 0 0 0 = 0 = * 1 1 1 5.0 12 Tennenwurzel 0 0 0 0 0 = 0 0 = 1 0 * = 1 3.5 13 Perkins 0 = 0 0 0 = 1 0 0 0 0 = * = 3.0 14 Banks 0 = 0 0 0 0 0 = = 0 0 0 = * 2.0 ]table ----- Tough luck for Chajes, but that's not the end of the story. Before the final stage began, there was a change in the program. This report, from the <Brooklyn Daily Eagle> of Sunday, February 6, 1916, describes a decision made to include a fifth player: <"Five players, instead of four, will compete in the final state of the Rice Memorial chess masters tournament as the result of action taken at a meetin of the players and managers, with W. M. de Visser, the referee, in the chair, held at the rooms of the Manhattan Chess Club yesterday afternoon. Jose R. Capablanca, with 12 points; D. Janowski, B. Kostic and A. Kupchik, each with 8 1/2, had qualified for the finals, but Oscar Chajes, the fifth prize winner, was added to the list as a result of the action. Chajes, it appears, after having a draw offered to him in his last game with Schroeder in the thirteenth round, played on in an effort to win, under the impression that only by so doing he would be considered for the finals. In this he was mistaken, but the players yesterday all agreed to let him in with eight points and to play the extra rounds necessary to give him a chance for the higher prizes."> That decision would have some effect on the results of the tournament. It would have a major effect on one of chess history's most treasured pieces of trivia. Another possible reason for the chivalrous attitude was that it allowed a theoretical possiblity that Capablanca could be caught. With a four-player final, nobody could overtake his 3 1/2-point lead; with four games to play... Oh, come on. That can't possibly happen. ----- <Final, Round 1 (Sunday, February 6, Cafe Boulevard)> 92 Capablanca 1/2 Kostic 93 Janowski 1 Chajes Kupchik - Bye Capablanca: 12.5 (12.0 + 0.5) Janowski: 9.5 (8.5 + 1.0) Kostic: 9.0 (8.5 + 0.5) Kupchik: 8.5 (8.5 + 0.0) Chajes: 8.0 (8.0 + 0.0) <Final, Round 2 (Monday, February 7, Cafe Boulevard)> 94 Chajes 1 Capablanca 95 Kostic 1/2 Kupchik Janowski - Bye Capablanca: 12.5 (12.0 + 0.5) Kostic: 10.0 (8.5 + 1.5) Janowski: 9.5 (8.5 + 1.0) Chajes: 9.0 (8.0 + 1.0) Kupchik: 9.0 (8.5 + 0.5) Wait a minute--suddenly Janowski sees a glimmer of hope! He has three games left to Capablanca's two, and one is with the Cuban. If he can beat Capablanca in their game, perhaps Capa will be demoralized enough to lose to Kupchik in his last game and Janowski can still tie for first! And there was precedent for such a dream. When Capablanaca lost the famous game to Lasker at St. Petersburg, 1914, he lost his next game to Tarrasch. Can lighting strike twice? <Final, Round 3 (Tuesday, February 8, Cafe Boulevard)> 96 Chajes 1/2 Kupchik 97 Janowski 0 Capablanca Kostic - Bye Capablanca: 13.5 (12.0 + 1.5) Kostic: 10.0 (8.5 + 1.5) Chajes: 9.5 (8.0 + 1.5) Janowski: 9.5 (8.5 + 1.0) Kupchik: 9.5 (8.5 + 1.0) Well, that takes care of that. Capablanca didn't just beat Janowski; he wheeled out one of his greatest games to do it. Some demoralization. <Final, Round 4 (Wednesday, February 9, Cafe Boulevard)> 98 Kostic 1/2 Janowski 99 Kupchik 1/2 Capablanca Chajes - Bye Capablanca: 14.0 (12.0 + 2.0) Kostic: 10.5 (8.5 + 2.0) Janowski: 10.0 (8.5 + 1.5) Kupchik 10.0 (8.5 + 1.5) Chajes: 9.5 (8.0 + 1.5) <Final, Round 5 (Friday, February 11, Cafe Boulevard)> 100 Janowski 1 Kupchik 101 Kostic 0 Chajes Capablanca - Bye <Results of Final Section> table[ 1 2 3 4 5 1 Janowski * 1 0 1 = 2.5 2 Chajes 0 * 1 = 1 2.5 3 Capablanca 1 0 * = = 2.0 4 Kupchik 0 = = * = 1.5 5 Kostic = 0 = = * 1.5 <Total> 1 Capablanca 14.0 (12.0 + 2.0) 2 Janowski 11.0 ( 8.5 + 2.5) 3 Chajes 10.5 ( 8.0 + 2.5) 4 Kostic 10.0 ( 8.5 + 1.5) 5 Kupchik 10.0 ( 8.5 + 1.5) ]table ----- Which brings us to that piece of chess trivia I mentioned earlier. Everybody knows that, after the lost to Chajes, Capablanca didn't lose a tournament or match game again for another eight years. If Chajes hadn't been admitted to the final, Capablanca's unbeaten streak would have stretched back to Capablanca vs Tarrasch, 1914, a total of ninety games over ten years. Just doesn't pay to be a nice guy. ----- <Sources:> <American Chess Bulletin>, issues of February through April, 1916. <Brooklyn Daily Eagle>, column edited by Hermann Helms. Various issues of January and February 1916. <The Rice Memorial Chess Tournament, New York 1916> / edited by Philip W. Sergeant. 100 games, 1916 New York 1996 (Chess-in-the-Schools Festival) This Category 13 event was held in New York from March 21-April 2, 1996, as part of the Chess-in-the-Schools Festival. The players were: Michael Adams, Maurice Ashley, Joel Benjamin, Nick de Firmian, Roman Dzindzichashvili, Viktor Korchnoi, Jaime Sunye Neto, Valery Salov, Grigory Serper, Ivan Sokolov, Joshua Waitzkin, Patrick Wolff. It proved a victory for alphabetical order, as Adams won in round 1 and never fell behind thereafter. By round 7 he was a full point ahead of Benjamin and Korchnoi, whereupon victories over them in the next two rounds allowed him to coast home. table[ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 1 Adams X ½ ½ 1 1 1 1 1 ½ ½ ½ 1 8.5 2 Sokolov ½ X ½ ½ ½ 1 0 ½ ½ 1 1 1 7.0 3 Salov ½ ½ X ½ ½ 0 1 1 1 ½ ½ ½ 6.5 4 Benjamin 0 ½ ½ X 1 1 ½ ½ ½ ½ 1 ½ 6.5 5 Wolff 0 ½ ½ 0 X 1 1 1 ½ ½ ½ 1 6.5 6 Korchnoi 0 0 1 0 0 X 1 1 ½ 1 1 1 6.5 7 Serper 0 1 0 ½ 0 0 X ½ ½ ½ 1 1 5.0 8 DeFirmian 0 ½ 0 ½ 0 0 ½ X ½ 1 1 1 5.0 9 Dzindzichashvili ½ ½ 0 ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ X 0 ½ ½ 4.5 10 Neto ½ 0 ½ ½ ½ 0 ½ 0 1 X 1 0 4.5 11 Ashley ½ 0 ½ 0 ½ 0 0 0 ½ 0 X 1 3.0 12 Waitzkin 0 0 ½ ½ 0 0 0 0 ½ 1 0 X 2.5 ]table My favorite game from this tournament is Serper vs Korchnoi, 1996, but then I'm a sucker for sexagenarian mating attacks. 66 games, 1996 New York International,1931 Compiled in support of <crawfb5>'s collection of the tournaement. zThanks to <sachistu> for providing a file containing the missing games. The round-by-round breakdown is based on reports in the "New York times". <Round 1 (Saturday, April 18)> 1 Kupchik 1/2 Dake 2 Kevitz 1 Marshall 3 Capablanca 1 Horowitz 4 Steiner 0 Lasker 5 Fox 0 Santasiere 6 Turover 1/2 Kashdan <Round 2 (Sunday, April 19)> 7 Santasiere 1 Kupchik 8 Lasker 0 Kashdan 9 Horowitz 1 Turove 10 Marshall 1 Fox 11 Dake 1/2 Steine 12 Kevitz 0 Capablanca <Round 3 (Tuesday, April 21)> 13 Kupchik 1/2 Steiner 14 Fox 0 Capablanca 15 Turover 1/2 Kevitz 16 Kashdan 1/2 Dake 17 Santasiere 1 Marshall 18 Lasker 1 Horowitz <Round 4 (Wednesday, April 22)> 19 Kupchik 0 Kevitz 20 Capablanca 1 Dake 21 Steiner 1/2 Marshall 22 Fox 1/2 Horowit 23 Turover 1 Laske 24 Kashdan 1 Santasiere <Round 5 (Thursday, April 23)> 25 Marshall 0 Kupchik 26 Dake 0 Horowitz 27 Kevitz 1 Lasker 28 Capablanca 1 Santasiere 29 Steiner 1/2 Kashdan 30 Fox 1 Turover <Round 6 (Saturday, April 25)> 31 Kupchik 0 Capablanca 32 Steiner 1/2 Kevitz 33 Fox 0 Dake 34 Turover 1/2 Marshall 35 Kashdan 1/2 Horowitz 36 Santasiere 0 Lasker <Round 7 (Sunday, April 26)> 37 Lasker 1/2 Kupchik 38 Horowittz 0 Santasiere 39 Marshall 0 Kashdan 40 Dake 0 Turove 41 Kevitz 1 Fox 42 Capablanca 1/2 Steiner <Round 8 (Tuesday, April 28)> 43 Turover 0 Kupchik 44 kashdan 1 Fox 45 Santasiere 1 Steiner 46 Lasker 0 Capablanca* 47 Horowitz 1 Kevitz 48 Marxhall 1 Dake <Round 9 (Wednesday, April 29))> 49 Kashdan 1/2 Kupchik 50 Santasiere 0 Turover 51 Lasker 0 Fox 52 Horowitz 1/2 Steiner 53 Marshall 0 Capablanca 54 Dake 0 Kevitz <Round 10 (Saturday, May 2)> 55 Horowitz 1/2 Kupchik 56 Marshall 1 Lasker 57 Dake 1 Santasiere 58 Kevitz 0 Kashdan 59 Capablanca 1 Turover 60 Steiner 1 Fox <Round 11 (Sunday, May 3)> 61 Kupchik 1 Fox 62 Turover 0 Steiner 63 Kashdan 1/2 Capablanca 64 Santasiere 0 Kevitz 65 Lasker 1/2 Dake 66 Horowitz 1 Marshall table[ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 1 Jose Raul Capablanca * = 1 = 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10.0 2 Isaac Kashdan = * 1 = 1 = 1 = 1 = 1 1 8.5 3 Alexander Kevitz 0 0 * = 0 1 1 = 1 1 1 1 7.0 4 Hermab Steiner = = = * = = 0 1 0 = = 1 5.5 5 Israel Albert Horowitz 0 0 1 = * = 0 1 0 1 1 = 5.5 6 Abraham Kupchik 0 = 0 = = * 0 1 = = 1 1 5.5 7 Anthon6y Santasiere 0 0 0 1 1 1 * 0 0 0 1 1 5.0 8 Isador Samuel Turover 0 = = 0 0 0 1 * 1 1 = 0 4.5 9 Edward lasker 0 0 0 1 1 = 1 0 * = 0 0 4.0 10 Arthur William Dake 0 = 0 = 0 = 1 0 = * 0 1 4.0 11 Frank James Marshall 0 0 0 = 0 0 0 = 1 1 * 1 4.0 12 Maurice Fox 0 0 0 0 = 0 0 1 1 0 0 * 2.5 ]table [Ties broken by Sonnenborg-Berger] ----- <Sources> <American Chess Bulletin>, May/June 1931, p. 93-102; September/October 1931, p. 147-148. <Brooklyn Daily Eagle> May 21 and June 11, 1931 <Cincinnati Enquirer> June 2, 1931 <New York Times>, reports from April 20-May 6 Personal database of User: sachistu. 66 games, 1931 Olympic Selection Tournament, 1933 table[ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 1 Reuben Fine X 1 1 1 1 = 0 = 1 1 1 8.0 2 Arthur William Dake 0 X 1 = 1 1 1 = 1 0 1 7.0 3 Albert Simonson 0 0 X 1 = 1 1 = 1 1 1 7.0 4 Arnold Denker 0 = 0 X 1 = 1 1 0 1 1 6.0 5 Israel Albert Horowitz 0 0 = 0 X = = 1 1 1 1 5.5 6 Robert Willman = 0 0 = = X 1 = 1 = 1 5.5 7 Robert Levenstein 1 0 0 0 = 0 X 1 = 1 0 4.0 8 Fred Reinfeld = = = 0 0 = 0 X = = 1 4.0 9 Nathan Beckhardt 0 0 0 1 0 0 = = X 1 0 3.0 10 Edward Schwartz 0 1 0 0 0 = 0 = 0 X = 2.5 11 Menealos David Hassialis 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 = X 2.5 ]table Game 1: Reinfeld, Fred - Simonson, Albert Charles Olympic Selection Tournament New York, NY (1), 05.05.1933 Source: American Chess Bulletin, May / June 1933, p. 94. 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 d5 4.Nf3 Nbd7 5.cxd5 exd5 6.Bf4 c6 7.e3 Be7 8.Rc1 0-0 9.Bd3 Re8 10.0-0 Nf8 11.Ne5 Bd6 12.Bg3 Bxe5 13.Bxe5 Ng6 14.Bxg6 hxg6 15.b4 Nd7 16.Bg3 Nb6 17.b5 Nc4 18.bxc6 bxc6 19.Re1 Be6 20.e4 Qf6 21.Be5 Nxe5 22.dxe5 Qg5 23.exd5 cxd5 24.Qd4 Red8 25.f4 Qg4 26.Nb5 g5 27.fxg5 Qxg5 28.Rc3 Rdc8 29.Nc7 Rab8 30.Nxd5 Rxc3 31.Nxc3 Rb2 32.Re2 Qc1+ 33.Kf2 Rb8 34.Qe3 Qa3 35.Nd5 Qa4 36.Nc3 Qc4 37.Ne4 Rb1 38.Qxa7 Qc1 39.Qe3 Qf1+ 40.Kg3 Qf5 41.Qg5 Qf1 42.Qd8+ Kh7 43.Qh4+ Kg8 44.Qd8+ Kh7 45.Qh4+ Kg8 46.Qd8+ ½-½ Game 2: Levenstein, Robert - Hassialis, Menelaos Dimitri Olympic Selection Tournament New York, NY (1), 05.05.1933 Source: American Chess Bulletin, May / June 1933, p. 93. 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e3 c5 5.Bd3 Nc6 6.Nf3 d5 7.0-0 cxd4 8.exd4 dxc4 9.Bxc4 0-0 10.h3 b6 11.Bg5 Be7 12.Qd2 Bb7 13.Rfd1 Nb4 14.Ne5 Nbd5 15.Qd3 Rc8 16.a3 h6 17.Bd2 Nxc3 18.Bxc3 Nd5 19.Bd2 Bg5 20.Rac1 Nf4 21.Bxf4 Bxf4 22.Rc2 Bxe5 23.dxe5 Qg5 24.Qg3 Qxg3 25.fxg3 Bd5 26.Rdc1 Be4 27.Rc3 Rfd8 28.Be2 Rxc3 29.Rxc3 Rd2 30.Bf3 Bxf3 31.gxf3 Rxb2 32.Rc8+ Kh7 33.Rc7 Rb3 34.Rxa7 Rxf3 35.Kg2 Rf5 36.Rb7 Rxe5 37.Rxf7 Ra5 38.Rf3 Kg6 39.g4 h5 40.Re3 Kf6 41.Kf3 hxg4+ 42.hxg4 Kg5 43.Rb3 Ra4 44.Rb5+ Kf6 45.g5+ Kg6 46.Rxb6 Rxa3+ 47.Kf4 Ra4+ 48.Ke5 Kxg5 49.Rxe6 Ra1 50.Kd4 Rd1+ 51.Kc3 Kf5 52.Re7 g5 53.Rf7+ Ke4 54.Re7+ Kf3 55.Rf7+ Kg3 56.Kc4 g4 57.Rg7 Kf3 58.Rf7+ Kg2 59.Rg7 g3 60.Rf7 Kh1 61.Rh7+ Kg1 62.Rg7 g2 63.Rf7 Rf1 64.Rh7 Rf3 0-1 Game 4. Willman, Robert - Bechardt, Nathan Olympic Selection Tournament New York, NY (1), 06.05.1933 Source: American Chess Bulletin, May / June 1933, p. 90. 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 Be7 5.Bxf6 Bxf6 6.Nf3 dxe4 7.Nxe4 Nd7 8.c3 a6 9.Bd3 b6 10.Qe2 Bb7 11.g4 h6 12.0-0-0 b5 13.h4 Be7 14.g5 Bd5 15.Kb1 Rb8 16.Qe3 Qc8 17.Qf4 Bd6 18.Nxd6+ cxd6 19.Rhe1 Bxf3 20.Qxf3 hxg5 21.hxg5 Qb7 22.Be4 d5 23.Bxd5 1-0 Game 6: Simonson, Albert Charles - Denker, Arnold Olympic Selection Tournament New York, NY (2), 07.05.1933 Source: American Chess Bulletin, May / June 1933, p. 94. 1.d4 Nf6 2.Bf4 d5 3.e3 Bf5 4.Bd3 Bg6 5.Nf3 e6 6.0-0 Bd6 7.Bg3 0-0 8.Ne5 c5 9.c3 Nc6 10.Bxg6 hxg6 11.f4 Ne4 12.Nd2 Nxg3 13.hxg3 Bxe5 14.fxe5 Qg5 15.Qe1 b5 16.Rf4 b4 17.Rh4 bxc3 18.Nf3 Qe7 19.Qxc3 c4 20.Kf2 f6 21.exf6 Rxf6 22.Rah1 Rff8 23.Qc2 Qe8 24.Kg1 Kf7 25.Rh7 Qe7 26.R1h4 e5 27.dxe5 Nxe5 28.Qc3 Rfe8 29.Nd4 Nd3 30.Rxg7+ Kxg7 31.Nf5+ Kf7 32.Rh7+ Ke6 33.Nxe7 Rxe7 34.Rxe7+ Kxe7 35.Qg7+ Kd6 36.Qxg6+ Kc5 37.Qg5 Re8 38.Qg7 Rb8 39.Qc7+ 1-0 Game 10. Dake, Arthur William - Willman, Robert Olympic Selection Tournament New York, NY (2), 07.05.1833 Source: Chess Review, June 1933, p. 10. 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 b6 4.g3 Bb7 5.Bg2 Bb4+ 6.Bd2 Bxd2+ 7.Qxd2 d6 8.0-0 Nbd7 9.Qc2 0-0 10.Nc3 c5 11.Rad1 Qe7 12.e4 e5 13.d5 Ne8 14.Bh3 g6 15.Nh4 Ng7 16.Rde1 Bc8 17.Nd1 Nf6 18.Bxc8 Raxc8 19.Ng2 Rce8 20.Nc3 Nfh5 21.f4 exf4 22.gxf4 f6 23.Re3 Qd7 24.Rfe1 Re7 25.Qd1 Rfe8 26.R1e2 Qc7 27.Qe1 a6 28.a4 Qb8 29.Qf2 Qc8 30.Kh1 Rf8 31.Re1 Qe8 32.Qe2 Qd7 33.e5 fxe5 34.fxe5 dxe5 35.Rxe5 Ref7 36.Ne4 Qh3 37.Kg1 Nf5 38.Ng5 Nd4 39.Nxh3 1-0 Game 14: Schwartz, Edward - Denker, Arnold Olympic Selection Tournament New York, NY (3), 08.05.1933 Source: American Chess Bulletin, May / June 1933, p. 93. 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.c4 d5 4.exd5 exd5 5.d4 Nf6 6.Nc3 Nc6 7.Bg5 Be7 8.dxc5 d4 9.Bxf6 Bxf6 10.Nd5 0-0 11.Be2 Be6 12.Nxf6+ Qxf6 13.0-0 Rad8 14.Qb3 Rd7 15.Rad1 Rfd8 16.Bd3 h5 17.h4 Bg4 18.Be4 Qe7 19.Rfe1 Qxc5 20.Qd3 Nb4 21.Qb3 d3 22.Re3 f5 23.Bd5+ Nxd5 24.cxd5 Qxd5 25.Qa4 b5 26.Qa3 Qc4 27.Ne5 Bxd1 28.Nxc4 bxc4 29.Re7 Be2 30.Qa5 d2 31.Rxg7+ Kxg7 32.Qe5+ Kf7 33.Qxf5+ Ke8 34.Qg6+ Rf7 35.Qg8+ Ke7 36.Qg5+ Rf6 37.Qe5+ Kf7 38.Qc7+ Kg6 39.Qg3+ Bg4 0-1 Game 31: Willman, Robert - Levenstein, Robert Olympic Selection Tournament New York, NY (7), 12.05.1933 Source: American Chess Bulletin, May / June 1933, p. 92. 1.e4 Nc6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 f6 4.f4 Bf5 5.c3 e6 6.Nf3 Nh6 7.Bd3 Qd7 8.Qe2 Be7 9.Be3 Bxd3 10.Qxd3 Nf5 11.Nbd2 h5 12.Bf2 h4 13.0-0-0 Na5 14.g4 hxg3 15.hxg3 0-0-0 16.Rxh8 Rxh8 17.g4 Nh6 18.Qg6 Bd8 19.Rh1 Qa4 20.a3 Nxg4 21.Rxh8 Nxf2 22.Qc2 Qb5 23.Rg8 Qe2 24.Kb1 Nd3 25.Rxg7 Nc4 26.Rg1 Ne3 27.Qa4 Nxf4 28.Qxa7 Qd3+ 29.Ka2 Nc4 30.Qa8+ Kd7 31.Rg7+ 1-0 Game 34: Beckhardt, Nathan - Simonson, Albert Charles Olympic Selection Tournament New York, NY (7), 12.05.1933 Source: American Chess Bulletin, May / June 1933, p. 94. 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 exd5 4.Bd3 Nf6 5.Nf3 Bg4 6.0-0 Be7 7.h3 Bh5 8.Bf4 0-0 9.Re1 c5 10.c3 Nc6 11.dxc5 Bxc5 12.Nbd2 Qb6 13.Be3 d4 14.Nc4 dxe3 15.Nxb6 exf2+ 16.Kh1 fxe1Q+ 17.Qxe1 Bxb6 18.Qh4 Bxf3 19.gxf3 Rad8 20.Bb5 Rd2 21.b4 Rfd8 22.a4 Ne5 23.Qf4 Ng6 24.Qg3 Nh5 25.Qg4 Ngf4 26.Re1 f5 27.Bc4+ Kh8 28.Qg5 h6 0-1 Game 39: Simonson, Alert Charles - Levenstein, Robert Olympic Selection Tournament New York, NY (8), 13.05.1933 Source: American Chess Bulletin, May / June 1933, p. 95. 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Nf3 e6 5.Bg5 Nbd7 6.e3 Qa5 7.Bxf6 Nxf6 8.Nd2 dxc4 9.Nxc4 Qg5 10.Ne5 Nd5 11.Qf3 Qf6 12.Ne4 Qxf3 13.gxf3 f6 14.Nd3 Nb4 15.Kd2 Nxd3 16.Bxd3 b6 17.Rac1 Bd7 18.Ba6 Rb8 19.a4 Bb4+ 20.Ke2 f5 21.Nc3 b5 22.axb5 cxb5 23.d5 e5 24.d6 Bxd6 25.Rhd1 Rb6 26.Nxb5 Rxb5 27.Rxd6 Rxb2+ 28.Kf1 Ke7 29.Rd5 Be6 30.Rxe5 Kf6 31.f4 Rhb8 32.Rc6 Re8 33.Bd3 g6 34.Bc4 Rb6 35.Rxb6 axb6 36.Rxe6+ Rxe6 37.Bxe6 Kxe6 38.Ke2 g5 39.fxg5 Kf7 40.f4 Kg6 41.Kd3 Kh5 42.h3 b5 43.Kc3 Kh4 44.Kb4 Kg3 45.h4 Kxh4 46.Kxb5 Kg3 47.Kc5 Kf2 48.Kd5 Kxe3 49.Ke5 Kf2 50.Kxf5 Kf3 51.Ke5 Kg4 52.Ke4 Kh5 53.Kf5 1-0 Game 41: Schwartz, Edward - Dake, Arthur R [A09] Olympic Selection Tournament New York, NY (9), 14.05.1933 Source: American Chess Bulletin, May / June 1933, p. 91. 1.Nf3 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.Qa4+ c6 4.Qxc4 Nf6 5.g3 g6 6.Bg2 Bg7 7.0-0 0-0 8.d4 Nbd7 9.Bd2 Ne4 10.Be3 Ndf6 11.Nbd2 Nd6 12.Qc1 Nd5 13.Nb3 Nxe3 14.Qxe3 a5 15.Rfd1 Be6 16.Nc5 Bd5 17.Ne5 Nf5 18.Qc3 Bxg2 19.Kxg2 Nxd4 20.Rxd4 Qc7 21.Re4 Rad8 22.f4 Rd5 23.Ncd3 f6 24.Nf3 f5 25.Re5 Bxe5 26.Ndxe5 Qb6 27.Rc1 Rfd8 28.Ng5 R8d6 29.Nc4 Qa6 30.Qe3 Rf6 31.Qxe7 c5 32.Qxh7+ Kf8 33.Qh8+ Ke7 34.Qg7+ Kd8 35.Qg8+ 1-0 27 games, 1933 Ostend 1906 The guys at Ostend did things in the grand style. Ostend (1905) was a double-round 14-player tournament for twenty-six rounds in all, and the 1907 even would a six-player, quadruple round robin Championship section and a thirty-player Master group. But those event were run along usual lines. The event held from June 5 - July 12,1906, featured a novel organizational system devised by Isidor Gunsberg, who directed the play. It was based on sound principles derived from his thirty years of experience as a practical player. The idea was logical, well-thought out, and never triedn. Gunsberg explained everything in a long article in the <Manchester Guardian>, reprinted by Adams in his book on the tournament.: <"The Master's Tourney Thirty-six players took part in this competition -- a number very considerably of any previously gathered together in in a similar tourney. Various new practices were embodied in the rules governing this completion. In the long and hard experience which my career as aa chess-player for thirty years has vouchsafed to me, I had formed certain ideals, and as Ii was placed in power I honestly and conscientiously endeavoured to put ideals which I had conceived into practical execution, even though by so doing I should, whilst trying to benefit others, created the inevitable difficulties for myself which the introduction of any novel idea to such a sensitive and nervous constituency as the competitors oin a chess tournament generally produces. I strongly disapprove of the practice of conducting a tournament on the basis of giving a few prizes to the foremost players in a tournament and leaving the bulk to go away empty-handed. Of course, the best players deserve the highest reward; yet at the same time there is a vast amount of good work done by many excellent players who just fail to to win any of the higher prizes . In fact, the tournament itself would be no tournament without these strong players. The rank and file are just as necessary to chess life, and do just as good service, as the pawns in a game, especially when it is considred that the master who proves himself the King of the Tournament today may have totake his place amongst the pawns tomorrow" > <Group A> Zoltan von Balla, Ossip Bernstein, Joseph Blackburne, Amos Burn, Oldrich Duras, Walter Montagu Gattie, David Janowski, Paul Leonhardt, Gerard Oskam <Group B> Wilhelm Cohn, Hans Fahrni, Leo Forgacs, Walter John, Paul Johner, Georg Marco, Geza Maroczy, Akiba Rubinstein, Peter Petrovich Saburov <Group C> Moritz Lewitt, Boris Maliutin, Frank Marshall, Jacques Mieses, Julius Perlis, Ehrhardt Post, Rudolf Spielmann, Hugo Suechting, Richard Teichmann <Group D> Mikhail Chigorin, Arturo Reggio, Georg Salwe, Carl Schlechter, Vladimir Sournin, Rudolf Swiderski, Jean Taubenhaus, Heinrich Wolf, Eugene Znosko-Borovsky ----- This collection will contain the available games of the tournament, and provide crosstables and a brief recap of the play in each stage, For a more detailed list of pairings, results, and standings, see Game Collection: Ostend 1906 -- Details of Games and Results. Stage 1, played from June 5-14, consisted of two nine-round Scheveningen-style tournament, in which the players of Group A played all the members of Group B and Group C met Group D. The bottom three scores in each group were removed from the tournament, while the other six advanced to Stage 2. Ties for the final advancement slot were resolved by the Berger system., a forerunner of what is know as Sonnenborn-Berger today. <RESULTS OF STAGE 1> table[ Group A (44.0) B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 A1 Burn 1 1 0 1 ½ ½ 1 1 1 7.0 Advanced A2 Janowski 1 0 ½ 1 1 ½ 1 1 1 7.0 Advanced A3 Leonhardt 0 ½ 0 1 ½ 1 1 1 1 6.0 Advanced A4 Bernstein 1 0 0 ½ 1 1 0 1 1 5.5 Advanced A5 Blackburne 0 0 ½ ½ 1 1 1 ½ 1 5.5 Advanced A6 Duras 0 1 1 0 0 ½ 1 ½ 1 5.0 Advanced A6 Balla 0 ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ 1 ½ 1 5.0 Eliminated AA Oskam 0 0 0 0 0 ½ 0 ½ 1 2.0 Eliminated A9 Gattie 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1.0 Eliminated ]table There was a real fight for the last slot. Ball led Duras by a half-point going into the last round. WIth Duras slated to face the powerful Maroczy, it seemed Balla would be advancing when he took a short draw, but Duras vs Maroczy, 1906 him to the sidelines. This was unfortunate, as his 5.0 points would have advanced easily in any other group.. But then, if he had been in one of the other groups, he might not have scored five points. table[ Group B (37.0) A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 B1 Johner 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 6.0 Advanced B2 Maroczy 0 1 ½ 1 1 0 ½ 1 1 6.0 Advanced B4 Fahrni 0 ½ 1 1 ½ 0 ½ 1 1 5.5 Advanced B3 Rubinstein 1 0 0 ½ ½ 1 ½ 1 1 5.5 Advanced B5 John ½ 0 ½ 0 0 1 ½ 1 1 4.5 Advanced B6 Marco ½ ½ 0 0 0 ½ ½ ½ 1 3.5 Advanced B7 Cohn 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 3.0 Eliminated B8 Forgacs 0 0 0 0 ½ ½ ½ ½ 1 3.0 Eliminated B9 Saburov 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 Eliminated ]table Certainly not so strong as Group Al Maroczy was the only established master, as Rubinstein was still building his reputation. Johner's performance was a surprise, but was soon shown to be a fluke. . Cohn fell short of qualifying, but found a striking finish as White against Oskam: click for larger view <22.Bb8!> encouraged resignation, the point being <22..>Rxb8 23.Qxb8!>. table[ Group C (43.5) D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6 D7 D8 D9 C1 Perlis 0 0 1 ½ 1 1 1 1 1 6.5 Qualified C2 Teichmann ½ 1 ½ 0 ½ ½ 1 1 1 6.0 Qualified C3 Marshall 1 ½ 0 1 0 ½ 1 1 1 6.0 Qualified C4 Mieses 1 0 ½ 0 1 1 0 1 1 5.5 Qualified C5 Suechting ½ ½ 0 ½ 1 1 0 1 ½ 5.0 Qualified C6 Spielmann 0 ½ ½ 1 ½ 0 ½ ½ 1 4.5 Qualified C7 Post 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 4.0 Eliminated C8 Lewitt 0 ½ 0 0 1 ½ ½ 0 ½ 3.0 Eliminated C9 Maliutin 0 0 0 ½ 0 1 ½ 0 ½ 2.5 Eliminated ]table This looked like a very powerful group, and Perlis' surprising first-place finish gave him enough momentum to reach the final stage. The race at the bottom was not close, Spielmann having clinched the final spot before a last-round losz. table[ Group D (37.5) C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 D1 Znosko-Borovsky 1 ½ 0 0 ½ 1 1 1 1 6.0 Advanced D2 Schlechter 1 0 ½ 1 ½ ½ 1 ½ 1 6.0 Advanced D3 Salwe sju 0 ½ 1 ½ 1 ½ 0 1 1 5.5 Advanced D4 Swiderski ½ 1 0 1 ½ 0 0 1 ½ 4.5 Advanced D5 Chigorin 0 ½ 1 0 0 ½ 1 0 1 4.0 Advanced D6 Taubenhaus 0 ½ ½ 0 0 1 1 ½ 0 3.5 Declined D7 Wolf 0 0 0 1 1 ½ 0 ½ ½ 3.5 Advanced D8 Sournin 0 0 0 0 0 ½ 0 1 1 2.5 Eliminated D9 Reggio 0 0 0 0 ½ 0 1 ½ 0 2.0 Eliminated ]table Znosko-Borovsky's performance was a surpise, and he styed in the running for most of the first four stages with Chigorin lost his first four games, but the pace was slow enough for him to catch up and advance. Taubenhaus qualified for Stage 2 on tiebreak, but declined his spot in favor of Wolf. <Overall scores after Stage 1> 7.0: Burn, Janowski 6.5: Perlis 6.0: Johner, Leonhardt, Maroczy, Marshall, Schlechter, Teichmann, Znosko-Borovsky 5.5: Bernstein, Blackburne, Fahrni, Mieses, Rubinstein, Salwe, 5.0: Duras, Suechting 4.5: John, Spielmann, Swiderski 4.0: Chigorin 3.5: Marco, Wolf --- Intergroup play continued in Stage 2, with Group A vs. Group C and Groub B vs. Group D. Scores were carried over, and final placement based on the total of points scored I the first two stages. In each group the bottom two scores were removed. Ties were resolved using the Berger system, based on results in both stages. <Stage 2 Results> table[ Group A (64.0) C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 Stage Prev Total A1 Burn 0 ½ 1 1 ½ ½ 3.5 7.0 10.5 Advanced A2 Leonhardt ½ 1 ½ ½ ½ 1 4.0 6.0 10.0 Advanced A3 Janowski 0 0 1 ½ 0 1 2.5 7.0 9.5 Advanced A4 Bernstein 1 ½ ½ 0 1 ½ 3.5 5.5 9.0 Advanced A5 Blackburne ½ 0 1 ½ ½ 1 3.5 5.5 9.0 Eliminated A6 Duras 0 1 0 0 1 1 3.0 5.0 8.0 Eliminated ]table Once again Group A set the fastest pace, resulting in Blackburne being eliminated with a score that would have advanced easily in any other group. Duras needed another miracle to survive and did his part magnificently in Duras vs Teichmann, 1906, but this time failed to advance when Bernstein and Blackburne also won in the last round. Janowski faded somewhat after his strong showing in Stage 1. table[ Group B (53.0) D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6 Stage Prev Total B1 Maroczy ½ ½ 0 1 1 1 4.0 6.0 10.0 Advanced B2 Rubinstein ½ 0 ½ 1 1 1 4.0 5.5 9.5 Advanced B3 Johner 0 1 ½ 0 0 ½ 2.0 6.0 8.0 Advanced B4 Fahrni 0 0 1 0 0 ½ 1.5 5.5 7.0 Advanced B5 John ½ 0 ½ 1 0 ½ 2.5 4.5 7.0 Elimnated B6 Marco 0 ½ ½ 0 1 0 2.0 3.5 5.5 Eliminated ]table Maroczy and Rubinstein were clearly the class of this group, with Johner and Fahrni fading I the face of tougher competition. table[ Group C (59.5) A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 Stage Prev Total C1 Marshall 1 ½ 1 0 ½ 1 4.0 6.0 10.0 Advanced C2 Teichmann ½ 0 1 ½ 1 0 3.0 6.0 9.0 Advanced C3 Perlis 0 ½ 0 ½ 0 1 2.0 6.5 8.5 Acvanced C4 Spielmann 0 ½ ½ 1 ½ 1 3.5 4.5 8.0 Advanced C5 Mieses ½ ½ 1 0 ½ 0 2.5 5.5 8.0 Eliminated C6 Suechting ½ 0 0 ½ 0 0 1.0 5.0 6.0 Eliminated ]table Miese was the biggest name eliminated here, Spielmann catching him with a strong stage. Perl faded, but went through tranks to his strong first stage. table[ Group D (57.5) B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 Stage Prev Total D1 Schlechter ½ ½ 1 1 ½ 1 4.5 6.0 10.5 Advanced D2 Salwe ½ 1 0 1 1 ½ 4.0 5.5 9.5 Advanced D3 Znosko-Borovsky 1 ½ ½ 0 ½ ½ 3.0 6.0 9.0 Advanced D4 Swiderski 0 0 1 1 0 1 3.0 4.5 7.5 Advanced D5 Wolf 0 0 1 1 1 0 3.0 3.5 6.5 Eliminated D6 Chigorin 0 0 ½ ½ ½ 1 2.5 4.0 6.5 Eliminated ]table Schlechter came on strong, tying with Burn for the overall lead Znosko-Borovsky also fell off from his Stage 1 pagce. Wolf actually won 3 of his last 4 games, but it was too late by then. ----- Stage 3 saw the final phase of intergroup play with four palyers in each group, Group A - Group D and Grouc B vs. Grouc C. There were no eliminations following Stage 3. Instead, following Stage 4 the group designations were dropped and the nine players with the ghest overall scores advanced to the finals in Stage 5 <Results of Stage 3> table[ Group A (72.0) D1 D2 D3 D4 Stage Prev Total A1 Janowski 0 1 1 1 3.0 9.5 12.5 A2 Bernstein 1 ! 1 0 3.0 9.0 12.0! A3 Burn 0 ½ 0 1 1.5 10.5 12.0 A4 Leonhardt 0 0 0 ½ 0.5 10.0 10.5 ]table table[ Group B (61.5) C1 C2 C3 C4 Stage Prev Total B1 Maroczy ½ 1 ½ ½ 2.5 10.0 12.5 B2 Rubinstein ½ 1 ½ 1 3.0 9.5 12.5 B3 Fahrni ½ ½ ½ 1 2.5 7.0 9.5 B4 Johner 0 0 0 ½ 0.5 8.0 8.5 ]table table[ Group C (67.0) B1 B2 B3 B4 Stage Prev Total C1 Teichmann ½ ½ ½ 1 2.5 9.0 11.5 C2 Marshall 0 0 ½ 1 1.5 10.0 11.5 C3 Perlis ½ ½ ½ 1 2.5 8.5 11.0 D4 Spielmann ½ 0 0 ½ 1.0 8.0 9.0 ]table table[ Group D (65.5) A1 A2 A3 A4 Stage Prev Total D1 Schlechter 1 0 1 1 3.0 10.5 13.5 D2 Salwe 0 0 ½ 1 1.5 9.5 11.0 D3 Znosko-Borovsky 0 0 1 1 2.0 9.0 11.0 D4 Swiderski 0 1 0 ½ 1.5 7.5 9.0 ]table <Overall Scores after Stage 3 > 13.5: Schlechter 12.5: Janowski, Maroczy, Rubinstein 12.0: Bernstein, Burn 11.5: Marshall, Teichmann 11.0: Perlis, Salwe, Znosko-Borovsky 10.5: Leonhardt 9.5: Fahrni 9.0: Spielmann, Swiderski 8.5: Johner ------------------- <Stage 4> This stage, held from June 29 - July 2, consisted of play within each group which completed the round robin among the remaining players. The top nine overall scorers advanced. It is not clear if the leader within each group advanced, but in the even there were three qualifiers from Groups A and C, two from Group B, and one from Group D. Swiderski made a spirited effort to qualified by sweeping Group C, but fell a half-point short. Maroczy was also perfect in Group B while Group C was a tie-breaker's nightmare. The big surprise of Group A was Janowski's collapse, foreshadowing his poor performance in the finals. <Results of Stage 4> table[ Group A A1 A2 A3 A4 Stage Prev Total A1 Bermsteim X ½ 1 1 2.5 12.0 14.5 Advanced A2 Burn ½ X ½ 1 2.0 12.0 14.0 Advanced A3 Janowski 0 ½ X 0 0.5 12.5 13.0 Advanced A4 Leonhardt 0 0 1 X 1.0 10.5 11.5 Eliminated ]table table[ Group B B1 B2 B3 B4 Stage Prev Total B1 Maroczy X 1 1 1 3.0 12.5 15.5 Advanced B2 Rubinstein 0 X 1 ½ 1.5 12.5 14.0 Advanced B3 Fahrni 0 0 X 1 1.0 9.5 10.5 Eliminated B4 Johner 0 ½ 0 X 0.5 8.5 9.0 Eliminated ]table table[ Group C C1 C2 C3 C4 Stage Prev Total C1 Marshall X ½ 0 1 1.5 11.5 13.0 Advanced C2 Teichmann ½ X ½ ½ 1.5 11.5 13.0 Advanced C3 Perlis 1 ½ X 0 1.5 11.0 12.5 Advanced C4 Spielmann 0 ½ 1 X 1.5 9.0 10.5 Eliminated ]table table[ Group D D1 D2 D3 D4 Stage Prev Total D1 Schlechter X 0 1 ½ 1.5 13.5 15.0 Advanced D2 Swiderski 1 X 1 1 3.0 9.0 12.0 Eliminated D3 Znosko-Borovsky 0 0 X 1 1.0 11.0 12.0 Eliminated D4 Salwe ½ 0 0 X 0.5 11.0 11.5 Eliminated ]table <Overall Standings after ROUND 22> 15.5: Maroczy 15.0: Schlechter 14.5: Bernstein 14.0: Burn, Rubinstein 13.0: Janowski, Marshall, Teichmann 12.5: Perlis --- 12.0: Swiderski, Znosko-Borovsky 11.5: Leonhardt, Salwe 10.5: Fahrni, Spielmann 9.0: Johner ----- Stage 5 was played form july 3-12, consisting of a round robin among the remaining nine players (who thus played a double round-robin within themselves). Maroczy came in with the lead and promptly won his first two games to stretch it to 1.5 points. However, he was unable to win another game the rest of the tournament. Schlecter steadily made his way to the top, and had a point lead going into the last round; however, he also had the bye in that round. This game Maroczy a chance to catch up, but he got disconcerted in time pressure, missed a simple winning shot, and went on to lose. <Results of Stage 5> table[ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Prev Total 1 Schlechter X ½ 1 ½ ½ ½ 1 1 1 6.0 15.0 21.0 2 Maroczy ½ X ½ ½ 0 ½ ½ 1 1 4.5 15.5 20.0 3 Rubinstein 0 ½ X ½ 1 ½ ½ 1 1 5.0 14.0 19.0 4 Teichmann ½ ½ ½ X 0 1 1 1 ½ 5.0 13.0 18.0 5 Bernstein ½ 1 0 1 X 0 ½ ½ 0 3.5 14.5 18.0 6 Burn ½ ½ ½ 0 1 X ½ 0 1 4.0 14.0 18.0 7 Marshall 0 ½ ½ 0 ½ ½ X ½ 1 3.5 13.0 16.5 8 Janowski 0 0 0 0 ½ 1 ½ X 1 3.0 13.0 16.0 9 Perlis 0 0 0 ½ 1 0 0 0 X 1.5 12.5 14.0 ]table This may not work very well, but here is a crosstable for the full 36-player field: ------------------- <FRIVOLITIES> A crosstable for the entire tournament, given in three blocks due to formatting considerations: ]table The follow crossstable displays the results for all thirty-six players. Players in the Fifth Stage, who played each other twice during the tournament have the results displayed in the order played. A minus sign (-) indicates the two players did not meet. Ties are broken by Sonnenborn-Berger, a forerunner of which was used at the tournament. table[ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total SB 1 Schlechter ** ½½ ½1 0½ 0½ 1½ ½1 11 11 0 1 ½ 1 ½ 1 1 - - 1 ½ - - ½ 1 - 1 - ½ - 1 - - - - - - 21.0/30 2 Maroczy ½½ ** 1½ ½½ 10 0½ 1½ 11 ½1 1 0 ½ ½ ½ 1 1 1 0 - - 1 1 - - - 1 - ½ - 1 - - - - - - 20.0/30 3 Rubinstein ½0 0½ ** ½½ ½1 1½ 1½ 01 ½1 1 ½ 0 0 1 1 ½ ½ 1 - - 1 1 - - ½ - - - - - - - - 1 1 - 19.0/30 4 Teichmann 10 ½½ ½½ ** ½0 ½1 ½1 11 ½½ 0 ½ ½ 0 ½ ½ 1 1 0 - - ½ 1 - - - - ½ - - - - 1 1 - - - 18.0/30 233.50 5 Bernstein 1½ 01 ½0 ½1 ** ½0 1½ 1½ ½0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 - - 1 1 - - ½ 1 - - - - 0 - 1 - - - - 1 18.0/30 223.25 6 Burn 0½ 1½ 0½ ½0 ½1 ** 0½ ½1 11 1 0 ½ 1 1 1 1 - - ½ ½ - - ½ ½ - - - - 1 - 1 - - - - 1 18.0/30 208.75 7 Marshall ½0 0½ 0½ ½0 0½ 1½ ** 1½ 01 1 1 0 ½ 1 ½ 1 ½ 1 - - 0 1 - - - - ½ - - - - 1 1 - - - 16.5/30 8 Janowski 00 00 10 00 0½ ½1 0½ ** 11 1 1 1 0 ½ ½ 1 - - 0 1 - - 1 ½ - - - - 1 - 1 - - - - 1 16.0/30 9 Perlis 00 ½0 ½0 ½½ ½1 00 10 00 ** ½ 0 1 ½ 0 ½ 1 0 1 - - 1 1 - - - - 1 - - - - 1 1 - - - 14.0/30 10 Swiderski 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 ½ * 1 1 ½ 0 1 1 - - 1 0 - - ½ 1 - 0 - 1 - ½ - - - - - - 12.0/22 133.75 11 Znosko-Borovsky 0 1 ½ ½ 0 1 0 0 1 0 * 1 1 1 0 ½ - - 0 ½ - - ½ ½ - 1 - 1 - 1 - - - - - - 12.0/22 127.75 12 Salwe ½ ½ 1 ½ 0 ½ 1 0 0 0 0 * 1 ½ 1 0 - - ½ 1 - - 1 ½ - 0 - 1 - 1 - - - - - - 11.5/22 127.00 13 Leonhardt 0 ½ 1 1 0 0 ½ 1 ½ ½ 0 0 * ½ 0 0 - - ½ ½ - - 1 1 - - - - 1 - 1 - - - - 1 11.5/22 114.50 14 Spielmann ½ ½ 0 ½ 1 0 0 ½ 1 1 0 ½ ½ * 0 ½ ½ 1 - - ½ ½ - - - - 0 - - - - ½ 1 - - - 10.5/22 119.75 15 Fahrni 0 0 0 ½ 1 0 ½ ½ ½ 0 1 0 1 1 * 1 ½ 0 - - ½ 0 - - ½ - - - - - - - - 1 1 - 10.5/22 106.50 16 Johner 0 0 ½ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ½ 1 1 ½ 0 * 1 1 - - ½ 0 - - 1 - - - - - - - - 1 1 - 9.0/22 72.00 17 Blackburne - 0 ½ 0 - - ½ - 1 - - - - ½ ½ 0 * - ½ 1 - - 1 1 - - - - 1 - ½ - - - - 1 9.0/15 69.25 18 Duras - 1 0 1 - - 0 - 0 - - - - 0 1 0 - * 1 0 - - 1 ½ - - - - 1 - ½ - - - - 1 8.0/15 69.75 19 Mieses 0 - - - 0 ½ - 1 - 0 1 ½ ½ - - - ½ 0 * - 1 0 - - - - 1 - - - - 1 1 - - - 8.0/15 67.50 20 John ½ - - - 0 ½ - 0 - 1 ½ 0 ½ - - - 0 1 - * ½ 0 - - ½ - - - - - - - - 1 1 - 7.0/15 21 Chigorin - 0 0 ½ - - 1 - 0 - - - - ½ ½ ½ - - 0 ½ * - 0 1 - 1 - 0 - 1 - - - - - - 6.5/15 56.50 22 Wolf - 0 0 0 - - 0 - 0 - - - - ½ 1 1 - - 1 1 - * 1 0 - 0 - ½ - ½ - - - - - - 6.5/15 48.75 23 Suechting ½ - - - ½ ½ - 0 - ½ ½ 0 0 - - - 0 0 - - 1 0 * - - - 1 - - - - 1 ½ - - - 6.0/15 24 Marco 0 - - - 0 ½ - ½ - 0 ½ ½ 0 - - - 0 ½ - - 0 1 - * ½ - - - - - - - - ½ 1 - 5.5/15 25 Balla - ½ ½ - - - - - - - - - - - ½ 0 - - - ½ - - - ½ * - - - 1 - ½ - - - - 1 5.0/ 9 26 Post 0 - - - - - - - - 1 0 1 - - - - - - - - 0 1 - - - * 0 - - - - 1 0 - - - 4.0/ 9 27 Taubenhaus - - - ½ - - ½ - 0 - - - - 1 - - - - 0 - - - 0 - - 1 * ½ - 0 - - - - - - 3.5/ 9 28 Lewitt ½ - - - - - - - - 0 0 0 - - - - - - - - 1 ½ - - - - ½ * - - - 0 ½ - - - 3.0/ 9 23.00 29 Cohn - - - - 1 0 - 0 - - - - 0 - - - 0 0 - - - - - - 0 - - - * - - - - 1 1 - 3.0/ 9 21.00 30 Maliutin 0 - - - - - - - - ½ 0 0 - - - - - - - - 0 ½ - - - - 1 - - * - 0 1 - - - 3.0/ 9 14.75 31 Forgacs - - - - 0 0 - 0 - - - - 0 - - - ½ ½ - - - - - - ½ - - - - - * - - ½ 1 - 3.0/ 9 13.00 32 Sournin - - - 0 - - 0 - 0 - - - - ½ - - - - 0 - - - 0 - - 0 - 1 - 1 - * - - - - 2.5/ 9 33 Reggio - - - 0 - - 0 - 0 - - - - 0 - - - - 0 - - - ½ - - 1 - ½ - 0 - - * - - - 2.0/ 9 8.50 34 Oskam - 0 0 - - - - - - - - - - - 0 0 - - - 0 - - - ½ - - - - 0 - ½ - - * - 1 2.0/ 9 4.25 35 Gattie - 0 0 - - - - - - - - - - - 0 0 - - - 0 - - - 0 - - - - 0 - 0 - - - * 1 1.0/ 9 36 Saburov - - - - 0 0 - 0 - - - - 0 - - - 0 0 - - - - - - 0 - - - - - - - - 0 0 * 0.0/ 9 ]table <PRIZES> 1st: Schlechter $000 francs, £160) 2nd: Maroczy (2500 francs, £100) 3rd: Rubinstein (1500 franks, £60) 4th-6th: Bernstein, Burn, Teichmann (each 833 Frans, £33) 7th: Marshall ((600 francs, £24) 8th: Janowski (500 francs, £20) 9th: Perlis (400 francs, £16) >Bro;;amcu {rozes> Blackburne vs W John, 1906 (125 francs) Janowski vs Salwe, 1906 (125 francs) Swiderski vs Marshall, 1906 (125 francs) Burn vs P Johner, 1906 (100 francs) Maroczy vs Blackburne, 1906 (100 francs) P Leonhardt vs H Suechting, 1906 (50 francs) H Wolf vs G Marco, 1906 (50 francs) Janowski vs J Mieses, 1906 (50 francs) J Perlis vs Salwe, 1906 (50 francs) A Reggio vs E Post, 1906 (50 francs) Swiderski vs Spielmann, 1906 (50 francs) Spielmann vs Taubenhaus, 1906 (50 francs) H Wolf vs W John, 1906 (50 francs) Burn vs Znosko-Borovsky, 1906 (50 francs) 231 games, 1906 Ostend 1906 -- Details of Games and Results The numbers are those assigned by Gillam. A single asterisk following an entry represents a game score form Gillam shih is not yet in the database, and will be submitted. Two askisks following an entry (**) indicate a game for which neither Gillam nor <CG> has a score. No asterisks indicate a game already in the <CG> database. As of now, only games 1-234 (stages 1 and 2) have been checked tosee in they are the database. If any of the remaining games scores are not in Gillam, they will receive the double asterisk marker. Game Collection: Ostend 1906 is the working file containing games in the <CG> database. --- <ROUND 1 (Stage 1, Round 1, Tuesday, June 5)> Group C vs. Group D 1 Suechting 1 Chigorin 2 Mieses 1 Reggio 3 Spielmann 1/2 Schlechter 4 Marshall 1 Sournin 5 Post 0 Znosko-Borovsky 6 Maliutin 1/2 Wolf 7 ; Perlis 1 Salwe 8 ; Lewitt 0 Swiderski 9 ; Teichmann 1/2 Taubenhaus <scores after ROUND 1> Group A: Total, 4.5/9 1.0: Blackburne, Janowski, Leonhardt 0.5: Balla, Burn, Duras 0.0: Benstein, Gatie, Oskam Group B:Tptal, 4/5/9 1.0: Fahrni, Maroczy, Rubinstein 0.5: Forgacs, John, Marco 0.0: Cohn, Johner, Saburov Group C: Total, 55/9 1.0: Marshall, Mieses, Perlis, Suechting 0,5: Maliutin, Spielmann, Teichmann 0.0: Lewitt, Post Group D: Total, 3.5/9 1.0: Swiderski, Znosko-Borovsky 0.5: Swiderski, Taubenhuas, Wolf 0.0: Chigorin, Reggio, Salwe, sournin <Top Scorers overall> 1.0: Blackburne, Fharni, Janowski, Leonhardt. Maroczy, Marshall, Mieses, Perlis, Rubinstein, Spielmann, Swiderski, Znosko-Borovsky Group A vs. Group B 10 Blackburne 1 Cohn 11 Duras 1/2 Marco 12 Gattie 0 Maroczy 13 Burn 1/2 John 14 Bernstein 0 Fahrni 15 Janowski 1 Johner 16 Oskam 0 Rubinstein 17 Leonhardt 1 Saburov 18 Balla 1/2 Forgacs --- <ROUND 2 (Stage 1, Round 2, WEdnesday, June 6)> Groub C vs. Group D 19 Schlechter 0 Teichmann 20 Swiderski 0 Spielmann 21 Taubenhaus 1/2 Marshall 22 Znosko-Borovsky 1 Mailutin 23 Wolf 1 Suechting 24 Reggio 1/2 Lewitt 25 Sournin 0 Post 26 Salwe 1/2 Mieses 27 Chigorin 0 Perlis Group A vs. Group B 28 Maroczy 0 Burn 29 Johner 1 Blackburne 30 Saburov 0 Oskam 31 Cohn 0 Duras 32 Forgacs 0 Bernstein 33 Marco 1 Gattie 34 Fahrni 1/2 Janowski 35 Rubinstein 1/2 Balla 36 John 1/2 Leonhardt <Scores after ROUND 2> Group A (10.0/18) 1.5: Burn, Duras, Janowski, Leonhardt 1.0: Balla, Bernstein, Blackburne, Oskam 0.0: Gattie Group B (8.0/18) 1.5: Fahrni, Marco, Rubinstein 1.0: John, Johner, Maroczy 0.5: Forgacs 0.0: Coh, Saburov Group C (11.0/18) 2.0: Perlis 1.5: Marshall, Mieses, Spielmann, Teichman 1.0: Post, Suechting 0.5: Lewitt, Maliutin Broup D (7.0/18) 2.0: Znosko-Borovsky 1.5: Wolf 1.0: Swiderski, Taubenhaus 0.5: Reggio, Salwe, Schlechter 0.0: Sounin <Top Scorers overall> 2.0: Perlis, Znosko-Borovsky 1.5: Burn, Duras, Fahrni,, Janowski, Leonhardt. Marco, Marshall, Mieses, Rubinstein, Spielmann, Teichman, Wolf --- <ROUND 3 (Stage 1, Round 3, Thursday, June 7)> Group C vs. Group D 37 Teichmann 0 Swiderski 38 Perlis 1 Wolf 39 Mieses 1 Chigorin 40 ; Post 0 Taubenhaus 41 Spielmann 1 Reggio 42 Maliutin 0 Sournin 43 Marshall 1/2 Schlechter 44 Suechting 1/2 Znosko-Borovsky 45 Lewitt 0 Salwe Group A vs. Group B 46 Leonhardt 1/2 Maroczy 47 Duras 0 Johner 48 Balla 1 Saburov 49 Gattie 0 Cohn 50 Oskam 0 John 51 Janowski 1 Forgacs 52 Burn 1/2 Marco 53 Blackburne 1/2 Fahrni 54 Bernstein 1/2 Rubinstein <Scores after ROUND 3 3> Group A (14.0/27) 2.5: Janowski 2.0: Balla, Burn, Leonhardt 1.5: Bernstein, Blackburne, Duras 1.0: Oskam 0.0: Gattie Group B (13.0/27) 2.0: Fahrni, John Johner, Marco, Rubinstein 1.5: Maroczy 1.0: Cohn 0.5: Forgacs 9.0: Saburov Group C (15.0/27) 3.0: Perlis 2.5: Mieses, Spielmann 2.0: Marshall 1.5: Suechting, Teichmann 1.0: Post 0.5: Lewitt, Maliutin Group D (12.0/27)27 2.5: Znosko-Borovsky 2.0: Swiderski, Taubenhaus 1.5: Salwe, Wolf 1.0: Schlechter, Sournin 0.5: Reggio 0.0: Chigorin <op Scorers overall after RPIMD 3> 3.0: Perlis 2.5: Janowski, Mieses, Spielmann, Znosko-Borovsky 2.0: Balla, Burn, Fahrni, John, Johner, Leonhardt,Marco, Rubinstein, Swiderski, Taubenhaus --- <ROUND 4 (Stage 1, Round 4 (Friday, June 8)> Group C vs. Group D 55 Taubenhaus 0 Maliutin 56 Schlechter 1 Post 57 Swiderski 0 Marshall 58 Reggio 0 Teichmann 59 Salwe 1/2 Spielmann 60 Chigorin 0 Lewitt 61 Wolf 1 Mieses 62 Znosko-Borovsky 1 Perlis 63 Sournin 0 Suechting Group A vs. Group B 64 Rubinstein 0 Janowski 65 Saburov 0 Bernstein 66 John 1/2 Balla 67 Maroczy 1 Oskam 68 Marco 0 Leonhardt 69 Cohn 0 Burn 70 Johnere 1 Gattie 71 Duras 0 Fahrni 72 Forgacs 1/2 Blackburne <Scores after Round 4> Group A (20.0/36) 3.5: Janowski 3.0: Burn, Leonhardt 2.5: Balla, Bernstein. Duras 2.0: Blackburne 1.0: Oskam 0.0: Gattie Group B (16.0/36) 3.0: Johner 2.5: John, Maroczy 2.0: Fahrni, Marco, Rubinstein 1.0: Cohn, Forgacs 9.0: Saburov Group C (20.5/36) 3.0: Marshall, Perlis, Spielmann 2.5: Mieses, Suechting, Teichamnn 1.5: Lewitt, Maliutin 1.0: Post Group D (15.5/36) 3.5: Znosko-Borovsky 2.5: WOlf 2.0: Salwe, Schlechter, Swiderski, Taubenhaus 1.0: Sournin 0.5: Reggio 0.0: Chigorin <op Scorers overall after ROUND 4> 3.5: Janowski, Znosko-Borovsky 3.0: Burn, Johner, Leonhardt, Marshall, Perlis, Spielmann, 2.5: Balla, Bernstein, Duras,Mieses, John, Maroczy, Swiderski, Suechting, Teichmann, Wolf --- <ROUND 5 (Stage 1, Round 5, Saturday, June 9)> Missing games, indicated by two asterisks (**), begin to appear in this round. Group C vs. Group D 73 Perlis 1 Sournin** 74 Marshall 1 Regtgio** 75 Teichmann 1/2 Salwe** 76 Mieses 1 Znosko-Borovsky 77 Suechting 1 Taubenhaus 78 Spielmann 1/2 Chigorin** 79 Post 1 Swiderski 80 Lewitz 1/2 Wolf** 81 Maliutin 0 Schlechter Group A vs. Group B 82 Janowski 1 Saburov 83 Bernstein 1 John 84 Balla 1/2 Maroczy 85 Oskam 1/2 Marco 86 Leonhardt 1 Cohn 87 Duras 1/2 Forgacs** 88 Blackburne 1/2 Rubinstein** 89 Gattie 0 Fahrni** 90 Burn 1 Johner <Scores after Round 5> Group A (26.0/45) 4.5: Janowski 4.0: Burn, Leonhardt 3.5: Bernstein 3.0: Balla, Duras 2.5: Blackburne 1.5: Oskam 0.0: Gattie Group B (19.0/45) 3.0: Fahrni, Johner, Maroczy 2.5: John, Marco, Rubinstein 1.5: Forgacs 1.0: Cohn 0.0: Saburov Group C (27.0/45) 4.0: Marshall, Perllis 3.5: Mieses, Spielmann, suechting 3.0: Teichmann 2.0: Lewitt, Post 1.5: Maliutin Group D (18.0/45) 3.5: Znosko-Borovsky 3.0: Schlechter, Wolf 2.5: Salwe 2.0: Swiderski, Taubenhaus 1.0: Sournin 0.5: Chigorin, Reggio <Top Overall Scores after ROUND 5> 4.5: Janowski 4.0: Burn, Leonhardt, Marshall, Perlis 3.5: Bernstein, Mieses, Spielmann, Suechting, Znosko-Borovsky 0--- <ROUND 6 (Stage 1, Round 6. Monday June 11)> Group C vs. Group D 91 Reggio 1 Post 92 Taubenhaus 0 Perlis 93 Znosko-Borovsky 1 Lewitt 94 Salwe 1 Marshall 95 Sournin 0 Miese* 96 Wolf 1/2 Spielmann 97 swiderski 1/2 Maliutin 98 Chigorin 1/2 Teichmann 99 Schlechter 1/2 Suechting Group A vs. group B 100 Maroczy 1 Bernstein 101 Johner 1 Leonhardt 102 Cohn 1 Oskam 103 Forgacs 1 Gattie 104 Fahrni 0 Burn 105 Saburov 0 Blackurne 106 John 0 Janowski 107 Rubinstein 1 Duras 108 Marco 1/2 Balla <Scores after Round 6> Group A (29.5/54) 5.5: Janowski 5.0: Burn 4.0:,Leonhardt 3.5: Balla, Bernstein, Blackburne 3.0: Duras 1.5: Oskam 0.0: Gattie Group B (24.5/54) 4.0: Johner, Maroczy 3.5: Rubinstein 3.0: Fahrni, Marco 2.5: Forgacs, John 2.0: Cohn 0.0: Saburov Group C (31.0/54) 5.0: Perllis 4.5: Mieses 4.0: Marshall, Spielmann, Suechting 3.5: Teichmann 2.0: Lewitt, Maliutin, Post Group D (23.0/54) 4.5: Znosko-Borovsky 3.5: Salwe, Schlechter, Wolf 2.5: Swiderski 2.0: Taubenhaus 1.5: Reggio 1.0: Chigorin, Sournin <Top Overall Scores after ROUND 6> 5.5: Janowski 5.0: Burn, Perlis 4.5: Mieses, Znosko-Borovsky 4.0: Johner, Leonhardt, Maroczy, MarshallSpielman, Suechting --- <ROUND 7 (Stage 1, Round 7, Tuesday, June 12)> Group C vs. Group D 109 Mieses 1 Taubenhaus 110 Maliutin 1 Reggio 111 Post 1 Salwe 112 Teichmann 1 Wolf 113 Perlis 0 Schlec*hter 114 Marshall 0 Chigorin 115 Spielmann 0 Znosko-Borovsky 116 Lewitt 0 Sournin 117 Suechting 1/2 Swiderski Group A vs. Group B 118 Duras 1 Saburov 119 Balla 1 Cohn 120 Bernstein 1 Marco 121 Blackburne 1 John 122 Burn 1 Forgacs 123 Gattie 0 Rubinstein 124 Oskam 0 Johner 125 Leonahrdt 0 Fahrni 126 Janowski 0 Maroczy <Scores after Round 7> Group A (34.5/63) 6.0: Burn 5.5: Janowski 4.5: Balla, Bernstein, Blackburne 4.0: Duras, Leonhardt 1.5: Oskam 0.0: Gattie Group B (28.5/63) 5.0: Johner, Maroczy 4.5: Rubinstein 4.0: Fahrni 3.0: Marco 2.5: Forgacs, John 2.0: Cohn 0.0: Saburov Group C (35.5/63) 5.5: Mieses 5.0: Perllis 4.5: Suechting, Teichmann 4.0: Marshall, Spielmann 3.0: Maliutin, Post 2.0: Lewitt Group D (27.5/63) 5.5: Znosko-Borovsky 4.5: Schlechter 3.5: Salwe, Wolf 3.0: Swiderski 2.0: Chigorin, Sournin, Taubenhaus 1.5: Reggio <Top Overall Scores after ROUND 7> 6.0: Burn 5.5: Janowski, Mieses, Znosko-Borovsky 5.0: Johner, Maroczy, Perlis 4.5: Balla, Bernstein, Blackburne, Rubinstein, Schlechter, Suechting, Teichamnn --- <ROUND 8 (Stage 1, Round 8, Wednesday, June 13)> Group C vs. Group D 127 Schlechter 1 Mieses 128 Salwe 1 Maliutin** 129 Chigorin 1 Post** 130 Swiderski 1/2 Perlis** 131 Wolf 0 Marshall** 132 Znosko-Borovsky 1/2 Teichmann** 133 Reggio 1/2 Suechting** 134 Sournin 1/2 Spielmann** 135 Tabuenhaus 1/2 Lewitt** Group A vs. Group B 136 Rubinstein 1 Burn 137 Johner 1 Balla 138 Maroczy 1 Blackburne 139 Forgacs 0 Leonhardt 140 John 1 Duras 141 Saburov 0 Gattie 142 Fahrni 1 Oskam 143 Cohn 1 Bernstein 144 Marco 1/2 Janowski* <Scores after Round 8> Group A (37.0/72) 6.0: Burn, Janowski 5.0: Leonhardt 4.5: Balla, Bernstein, Blackburne 4.0: Duras 1.5: Oskam 1.0: Gattie Group B (35.0/72) 6.0: Johner, Maroczy 5.5: Rubinstein 5.0: Fahrni 3.5: John, Marco 3.0: Cohn 2.5: Forgacs 0.0: Saburov Group C (39.0/72) 5.5: Mieses. Perlis 5.0: Marshall, Suechting, Teichmann 4.5: Spielmann 3.0: Maliutin, Post 2.5: Lewitt Group D (33.0/72) 6.0: Znosko-Borovsky 5.5: Schlechter 4.5: Salwe 3.5: Swiderski, Wolf 3.0: Chigorin 2.5: Sournin; Taubenhaus 2.0: Reggio <Top Overall Scores after ROUND 8> 6.0: Burn, Janowski, Johner, Maroczy, Znosko-Borovsky 5.5: Mieses, Perlis, Rubinstein, Schlechter 5.0: Fahrni, Leonhardt, Marshall, Suechting, Taubenhaus --- <ROUND 9 (Stage 1, Round 9, Thursday, June 44)> Group C vs. Group D 145 Perlis 1 Reggio 146 Marshall 1 Znosko-Borovsky 147 Teichmann 1 Sournin** 148 Mieses 0 Swiderski 149 Suechting 0 Salwe 150 Spielmann 0 Taubenhaus 151 Post 1 Wolf 152 Lewitt 1/2 Schlechter 153 Maliutin 0 Chigorin Group A vs. Group B 154 Janowski 1 Cohn 155 Burn 1 Saburov 156 Leonhardt 1 Rubinstein 157 Bernstein 1 Johner 158 Blackburne 1 Marco 159 Balla 1/2 Fahrni 160 Duras 1 Maroczy 161 Oskam 1/2 Forgacs 162 Gattie 0 John --- <ROUND 10 (Stage 2, Round 1, Friday, June 15> Group B vs. Group D 163 Johner 1 Salwe 164 Maroczy 1 Swiderski 165 Fahrni 1 Znosko-Borovsky 166 Rubinstein 1 Wolf** 167 John 1/2 Schlechter** 168 Marco 0 Chigorin Group A vs. Group C 169 Spielmann 1/2 Janowski 170 Mieses 1/2 Burn** 171 Teichmann 1 Blackburne 172 Perlis 1/2 Leonhardt** 173 Suechting 1/2 Bernstein 174 Marshall 1 Duras** <Scores after Round 10> Group A (2.0/6, Total 46.0/87) 7.5: Burn, Janowski 6.5: Leonhardt 6.0: Bernstein 5.5: Blackburne 5.0: DUras Group B (4.5/6; Total 41.5/87)) 7.0: Johner, Maroczy 6.5: Fahrni, Rubinstein 5.0: John 3.5: Marco Group C (4.0/6; Total 47.5/87) 7.0: Marshall, Perlis, Teichmann 6.5: Suechting 6.0: Mieses 5.0: Spielmann Group D (1.5/6; Total 39.0/87) 6.5: Schlechter 6.0: Znosko-Borovsky 5.0: Chigorin 5.5: Salwe 4.5: Swiderski 3.5: Wolf <Overall Scores> 7.5: Burn, Janowski 7.0: Johner, Maroczy, Marshall, Perlis, Teichmann 6.5: Fahrni, Leonhardt, Rubinstein, Schlechter 6.0: Bernstein, Mieses, Znosko-Borovsky 5.5: Blackburne, Salwe Suechting 5.0: Chigorin, Duras, John, Spielmann 4.5: Swiderski 3.5: Marco, Wolf <ROUND 11 (Stage 2, Round 2, Saturday, June 16)> Group B vs. Group D 175 Swiderski 1 JOhner** 176 Wolf 0 Maroczy** 177 Chigorin 1/2 Fahrni** 178 Schlechter 1/2 Rubinstein** 179 Znosko-Borovsky 1/2 JOhn** 180 Salwe 1/2 Marco** Group A vs. Group C 181 Janowski 0 Mieses 182 Burn 1 Perlis 183 Blackburne 11/2 Marshall** 184 Leonhardt 1 Teichmann 185 Bernstein 0 Spielmann 186 Duras 1 Suechting <Scores after Round 11> Group A: 3.5/6 (round), 5/5!2 (Stage). 49.5/93) (total) 8.5: Burn 7.5: Janowski, Leonardt 6.0: Bernstein, Blackburne, Duras Group B 3.0/6 (round),7.5/12 (stage), 44.5/93 (total) 8.0: Maroczy 7.0: Fahrni, Johner, Rubinstein 5.5: John 4.0: Marco Group C 2.5/6 (round), 6.5/12 (stage), 50.0/93) 7.5: Marshall 7.0: Mieses, Perlis, Teichmann 6.0: SPielmann 5.5: Suechting Group D: 3.0/6 (round), 4.5/12 (stage), 42.0/93 (total) 7.0: Schlechter 6.5: Znosko-Borovsky 6.0: Salwe 5.5: Chigorin, Swiderski 3.5: Wolf <Overall Scores> 8.5: Burn 8.0: Maroczy 7.5: Janowski, leonhardt, Marshall 7.0: Fahrni, Johner, Mieses, Perlis, Rubinstein, Schlechter, Teichmann 6.5: Znosko-Borovskyt 6.0: Bernstein, Blackburne, Duras, Salwe, Spielmann 5.5: Chigorin, John, Suechting, Swiderski 4.0: Marco 3.5: Wolf <ROUND 12 (Stage 2, Round 3, Tuesday June 18)> Group B vs. Group D 187 Johner 0 Wolf** 188 Fahrni 0 Salwe** 189 Marco 0 Swiderski 190 Rubinstein 1/2 Znosko-Borovsky 191 John 1/2 Chigorin**; 192 Maroczy 1/2 Schlechter Grpi[ A vs. Group C 193 Suechting 0 Blackburne 194 Perlis 0 Janowski 195 Mieses 0 Bernstein 196 Spielmann 1 Duras** 197 Spielmann 1/2 Burn** 198 Marshall 1/2 leonhardt <Scores after Round 12> Group A: 4.0/6 (round), 9.5/18 (Stage). 53.5/99) (total) 9.0: Burn 8.5: Janowski 8.0: Leonhardt 7.0: Gernstein, Blackburne 6.0: Duras Group B 1.5//6 (round), 9.0/18 (stage), 46.0/99 (total) 8.5: Maroczy 7.5: Rubinstein 7.0: Fahrni, Johner 6.0: John 4.0: Marco Group C 2.0/6 (round), 8.5/18 (stage), 52.0/99 (total) 8.0: Marshall 7.5: Teichmann 7.0: Mieses, Perlis, Spielmann 5.5: Suechting Group D: 4.5/6 (round), 9.0/18 (stage), 46.5/99 (total)4 7.5: Schlechter 7.0: Salwe q, Znosko-Borovsky 6.5: Swiderski 6.0: Chigorin <Overall Scores> 9.0: Burn 8.5: Janowski, Maroczy 8.0: Leonhardt, Marshall 7.5: Rubinstein, Schlechter, Teichmann 7.0: Bernstein, Blackburne, Fahrni, Johner, Mieses, Perlis, Salwe, Spielmann, Znosko-Brorvsky 6.5: Swiderski 6.0: Chigorin, Duras, John 5.5: Suechting 4.5: Wolf 4.0: Marco <ROUND 13 (Stage 2, Round 4, Monday, June 19)> Group B vs. Group D 199 Salwe 1 John** 200 Schlechter 1 Johner** 201 Wolf 0 Marco 202 Znosko-Borovsky 1 Maroczy** 203 Swiderski 1 Fahrni** 204 Chigorin 0 Rubinstein** Group A vs. Group C 205 Leonhardt 1 Suechting 206 Burn 0 Marshall 207 Janowski 0 Teichmann 208 Duras 1 Mi4ses** 209 Blackburne 1/2 Spielmann** 210 Bernstein 1/2 Perlis** <Scores after Round 13> Group A: 3.0/6 (round), 12.5/24 (Stage). 56.5/105) (total) 9.0: Burn, Leonhardt 8.5: Janowski 7.5: Bernstein, Blackburne 7.0: Duras Group B 2.0//6 (round), 11.0/24 (stage), 48.0/105 (total) 8.5: Maroczy, RUbinstein 7.0: Fahrni, Johner 6.0: John 5.0: Marco Group C 3.0/6 (round), 11.5/24 (stage), 55.0/105 (total) 9.0: Marshall 8.5: Teichmann 7.5: Perlis, Spielmann 7.0: Mieses 5.5: Suechting Group D: 4.0/6 (round), 13.0/24 (stage), 50.5/105 (total)4 8.5: Schlechter 8.0: Salwe, Znosko-Borovsky 7.5: Swiderski 6.0: Chigorin 4.5: Wolf <Overall Scores> 9.0: Burn, Leonhardt, Marshall 8.5: Janowski, Maroczy, Rubinstein, Schlecter, Teichmann 8.0: Salwe, Znosko-Borovsky 7.5: Bernstein, Blackburne, Perlis, Spielmann, Swiderski 7.0: Duras, Fahrni, Johner, Mieses 6.0: Chigorin, John 5.5: Suechting 5.0: Marco 4.5: Wolf <ROUND 14 (Stage 2, Round 5, Wednesday, June 20)> Group B vs. Group D 211 Maroczy 1 Chigorin 212 Marco 0 Schlechte* 213 Rubinstein 0 Salwe 214 Fahrni 0 WOlf 215 John 1 Swiderski 216 Johner 1/2 Znosko-Borovsky Grouc A vs. Group C 217 Marshall 1 Janowski 218 Teichmann 1/2 Bernstein 219 Suechting 1/2 Burn 220 Perlis 1 Duras 221 Spielmann 1/2 Leonhardt 222 Mieses 1/2 Blackburne <Scores after Round 14> Group A: 2.0/6 (round), 14.5/30 (Stage). 58.5/111) (total) 9.5: Burn, Leonhardt 8.5: Janowski 8.0: Bernstein, Blackburne 7.0: Duras Group B 2.5//6 (round), 13.5/30 (stage), 50.5/111 (total) 9.5: Maroczy 8.5: Rubinstein 7.5: Johner 7.0: Fahrni, John 5.0: Marco Group C 4.0/6 (round), 15.5/30 (stage), 59.0/111 (total) 10.0: Marshall 9.0: Teichmann 8.5: Perlis 8.0: Spielmann 7.5: Mieses 6.0: Suechting Group D: 3.5/6 (round), 16.5/30 (stage), 54.0/111 (total)4 9.5: Schlechter 9.0: Salwe 8.5: Znosko-Borovsky 7.5: Swiderski 6.0: Chigorin 5.5: Wolf <Overall Scores> 10.0: Marshall 9.5: Burn, Leonhardt, Maroczy, Schlechter 9.0: Salwe, Teichmann 8.5: Janowski, Perlis, Rubinstein, Znosko-Borovsky 8.0: Bernstein, Blackburne, Spielmann 7.5: Johner, Mieses, Swiderski 7.0: Duras, Fahrni, John 6.0: Chigorin, Suechting 5.5: Wolf 5.0: Marco <ROUND 15 (Stage 2, Round 6, Thursday, June 21)> Group B vs. Group D 223 Salwe 1/2 Maroczy 224 ; Znosko-Borovsky 1/2 Marco** 225 Chigorin 1/2 Johner** 226 ;widerski 0 Rubinstein 227 Schlechter 1 Fahrni 228 Wolf 1 John Group A vs. Group C 229 Janowski 1 Suechting 230 Blackburne 1 Perlis 231 Leonhardt 1/2 Mieses 232 Duras 1 Teichmann 233 Bernstein 1 Marshall 234 Burn 1 Spielmann <Scores after Round 15> Group A: 5.5/6 (round), 20.0/36 (Stage). 64.0/117) (total) 10.5: Burn 10.0: Leonhardt 9.5: Janowski 9.0: Bernstein, Blackburne 8.0: Duras Group B 2.5//6 (round), 16.0/36 (stage), 53.0/117 (total) 10.0: Maroczy 9.5: Rubinstein 8.0: Johner 7.0: Fahrni, John 5.5: Marco Group C 0.5/6 (round), 16.0/36 (stage), 59.5/117 (total) 10.0: Marshall 9.0: Teichmann 8.5: Perlis 8.0: Mieses, Spielmann 6.0: Suechting Group D: 3.5/6 (round), 20.0/36 (stage), 57.5/117 (total)4 10.5: Schlechter 9.5: Salwe 9.0: Znosko-Borovsky 7.5: Swiderski 6.5: Chigorin, Wolf <Overall Scores> 10.5: Burn, Schlechter 10.0: Leonhardt, Maroczy, Marshall 9.5: Janowski, Rubinstein, Salwe 9.0: Bernstein, Blackburne, Teichmann, Znosko-Borovsky 8.5: Perlis 8.0: Duras, Johner, Mieses, Spielmann 7.5: Swiderski 7.0: Fahrni, John 6.5: Chigorinm Wolf 6.0: Suechting 5.5L Marco ----------------- <ROUND 16 (Stage 3, Round 1 Saturday, June 23)> Group B vs. Group C 235 Maroczy Marshall 236 Fahrni 1 Spielmann 237 Johner 0 Perlis** 238 Rubinstein 1/2 Teichmann** Group A vs. Group D 239 Schlechter 1 Burn 240 Znosko-Borovsky 0 Janowski** (position after W21) 241 Salwe 1 Leonhardt** 242 Swiderski 1 Bernstein <Scores after Round 16> From this point on standing within groups is irrelevant, since the final elimination after Stage 4 will be based on total score. The top nine qualify for the final stage. 11.5: Schlechter 11.0: Maroczy 10.5: Burn, Janowski, Salwe 10.0: Leonhardt, Marshall, Rubinstein 9.5: Perlis, Teichmann 9.0: Bernstein, Znosko-Borovsky 8.5: Swiderski 8.0: Fahrni, Johner, Spielmann <ROUND 17 (Stage 3, Round 2 Monday, June 25)> Group B vs. Group C 243 Marshall 0 Rubinstein 244 Teichmann 1 Johner** 245 Perlis 1/2 Fahrni** 246 Spielmann 1/2 Maroczy** Group A vs. Group D 247 Burn 0 Znosko-Borovsky 248 Bernstein 1 Schlechter 249 Janowski 1 Salwe 250 Leonardt 1/2 Swiderski** <Scores after ROUND 17> 11.5" Janowski, Maroczy, Schlechter 11.0: Rubinstein 10.5: Burn, Leonhardt, Salwe, Teichmann 10.0: Bernstein, Marshall, Perlis, Znosko-Borovsky 9.0: Swiderski 8.5: Fahrni, Spielmann 8.0: Johner <ROUND 18 (Stage 3, Round 3 Tuesday, June 26))> Group B vs. Group C 251 Johner 0 Marshall** 252 Fahrni 1/2 Teichmann 253 Rubinstein 1 Spielmann** (position only) 254 Maroczy 1/2 Perlis** Group A vs. Group D 255 Swiderski 0 Janowski 256 Schlechter 1 Leonhardt** 257 Salwe 1/2 Burn 258 Znosko-Borovsky 0 Bernstein** <Scores after ROUND 18> 12.5: Janowski, Schlechter 12.0: Maroczy, Rubinstein 11.0: Bernstein, Burn, Marshall, Salwe, Teichmann 10.5: Leonhardt; Perlis 10.0: Znosko-Borovsky 9.0: Fahrni, Swiderski 8.5: Spielmann, 8.0: Johner <ROUND 19 (Stage 3, Round 4 Wednesday, June 27)> Group B vs. Group C 259 Marshall 1/2 Fahrni** 260 Spielmann 1/2 Johner** 261 Perlis 1/2 Rubinstein** 262 Teichmann 1/2 Maroczy** Group A vs. Group D 263 Janowski 0 Schlechter 264 Leonhardt 0 Znosko-Borovsky 265 Burn 1 Swiderski 266 Bernstein 1 Salwe <Scores after ROUND 19> 13.5: Schlechter 12.5: Janowski, Maroczy, Rubinstein 12.0: Bernstein, Burn 11.5: Marshall, Teichmann 11.0: Perlis, Salwe, Znosko-Borovsky 10.5: Leonhardt 9.5: Fahrni 9.0: Spielmann, Swiderski 8.5: Johner <ROUND 20 (Stage 4, Round 1, Friday, June 29)> Group A 267 Janowski 0 Bernstein 2681 Burn 1 Leonhardt Group B 269 Johner 1/2 Rubinstein** 270 Fahrni 0 Maroczy** Group C 271 Perlis 1 Marshall 272 Spielman 1/2 Teichmann** Group D 273 Salwe 1/2 Schlechter** 274 Swiderski 1 Znosko-Borovsky** <Overall Standings after ROund 20> 14.0: Schlechter 13.5: Maroczy 13.:: Bernstein, Burn, Rubinstein 12.5: Janowski 12.0: Perlis, Teichmann 11.5: Marshall, Salwe 11.0: Znosko-Borovsky 10.5: Leonhardt 10.0: Swiderski 9.5: Fahrni, Spielmann 9.0: Johner The top nine qualify for the Finals in Stage 5. <ROUND 21 (Stage 4, Round 2, Saturday, June 30)> Group A 275 Leonhardt 1 Janowski 276 Bernstein 1/2 Burn** Group B 277 Fahrni 0 Rubinstein** (position ony) 278 Maroczy 1 Johner Group C 279 Marshall 1 Spielmann 280 Perlis 1/2 Teichmann** Group D 281 Schlechter 1 Znosko-Borovsky 282 Salwe 0 Swiderski** <Overall atandings after ROUND 21> 15.0: Schlechter 14.5 Maroczy 14.0: Rubinstein 13.5: Bernstein, Burn 12.5: Janowski, Marshall, Perlis, Teichmann 11.5: Leonhardt, Salwe 11.0L Swiderski, Znosko-Borovsky 9.5: Fahrni, Spielmann 9.0: Johner The top nine qualify for the Finals in Stage 5. <ROUND 22 (Stage 4, Round 3, Monday, July 2)> Group A 283 Leonhardt 0 Bernstein 284 Burn 1/2 Janowski** Group B 285 Rubinstein 0 Maroczy** 286 Johner 0 Fahrni** Group C 287 Teichmann 1/2 Marshall** 288 Spielman 1 Perlis** Group D 289 Swiderski 1 Schlechter 290 Znoskl-Borovsky 1 Salwe** <Overall Standings after ROUND 22> 15.5: Maroczy 15.0: Schlechter 14.5: Bernstein 14.0: Burn, Rubinstein 13.0: Janowski, Marshall, Teichmann 12.5: Perlis -------------- 12.0: Swiderski, Znosko-Borovsky 11.5: Leonhardt, Salwe 10.5: Fahrni, Spielmann 9.0: Johner The top nine qualify for the Finals in Stage 5. <ROUND 23 (Stage 5, Round 1, Tuesday, July 3)> 291 Rubinstein 1 Bernstein 292 Teichmann 1/2 Schlechter** 293 Perlis 0 Burn** 294 Maroczy 1 Janowski Marshall-bye <Scores after Round 23> 16.5/23: Maroczy 15.5/23: Schlechter 15.0/23: Burn*, Rubinstein 14.5/23: Bernstein 13.5/23: Teichmann 13.0/22: Marshall 13.0/23: Janowski 12.5/13 : Perlis <ROUND 24 (Stage 5, Round 2 Wednesday, July 4)> 295 Janowski 0 Rubinstein 296 Perlis 0 Maroczy** 297 Marshall 1/2 Burn 298 Schlechter 1/2 Bernstein** Teichmann-bye <Scores after Round 24> 17.5/24: Maroczy 16.0/24: Rubinstein, Schlechter 15.5/24: Burn 15.0/24L Bernstein 13/5/23: Teichmann 13.5/23: Marshall 13.0/24: Janowski 12.5/24: Perlis <ROUND 25 (Stage 5, Round 3, Thursday, July 5)> 299 Marshall 1/2 Maroczy 300 Rubinstein 1 Perlis 301 Schlechter 1 Janowski 302 Bernstein 1 Teichmannn Burn-bye <Scores after Round 25> 18.0/25: Maroczy 17.0/25: Rubinstein, Schlechter 16.0/25: Bernstein 15.5.24: Burn 14.0.24: Marshall 13.5/24: Teichmann 13.0/25 : Janowski 12.5/25 : Perlis <ROUND 26 (Stage 5, Round 4, Friday, July 6)> 303 Schlechter 1 Perlis 304 Teichmann 1 Janowski 305 Rubinstein 1/2 Marshall** 306 Burn 1/2 Maroczy** Bernstein-bye <Scores after Round 26> 18.5/26: Maroczy 18.0/26: Schlechter 17.5/26: Rubinstein 16.0/25: Bernstein, Burn 14.5/25: Marshall, Teichmann 13.0.25: Janowski 12.5.25 Perlis <ROUND 27 (Stage 5, Round 5 Saturday, July 7)> 307 Burn 1/2 Rubinstein** 308 Schlechter 1 Marshall 309 Teichmann 1/2 Perlis** 310 Bernstein 1/2 Janowski Maroczy-bye <Scores after Round 27> 19.0/27: Schlechter 18.5/26: Maroczy 18.0/27: Rubinstein 16.5/26: Bernstein, Burn 15.0/26: Teichmann 14.5/26: Marshall 13.5/27: Janowski 13.0: Perlis* <ROUND 28 (Stage 5, Round 6, Monday, July 9)> 311 Burn 1/2 Schlechter** 312 Marshall 0 Teichmann 313 Perlis 1 Bernstein** 314 Maroczy 1/2 Rubinstein** Janowski-b6e <Scores after Round 28> 19.5/28: Schlechter 19.0/27: Maroczy 18.5/28: Rubinstein 17.0/27: Burn 16.5/27: Bernstein 16.0/27: Teichmann 14.5/27: Marshall 14.0/28: Perli*s 13.5/27: Janowski <ROUND 29 (Stage 5, Round 7 Tuesday, July 10)> 315 Janowski 1 Perlis 316 Schlechter 1/2 Maroczy 317 Marshall 1/2 Bernstein** 318 Burn 0 Teichmann** Rubinstein-bye <Scores after Round 29> 20.0/29: Schlechter 19.5/28: Maroczy 18.5/28: Rubinstein 17.0/28: Bernstein, Burn, Teichmann 15.0/28: Marshall 14.5/28: Janowski 14.0/29: Perlis <ROUND 30 (Stage 5, Round 8, Wednesday, July 11)> 319 Janowski 1/2 Marshall** 320 Burn 1 Bernstein 321 Maroczy 1/2 Teichmann** 322 Rubinstein 0 Schlechter Perlis-bye <Scores after Round 30> 21.0/30: Schlechter 20.0/29: Maroczy 18.5/29: Rubinstein 18.0/29: Burn 17.5;19: Teichmann 17.0/29: Bernstein 15.5/29: Marshall 15.0/29: Janowski 14.0/29: Perlis <ROUND 31 (Stage 5, Round 9, Thursday, July 12)> 323 Marshall 1 Perlis** 324 Bernstein 1 Maroczy 325Teichmann 1/2 Rubinstein 326 Janowski 1 Burn Schlechter-bye <Results of Stage 5> table[ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Prev Total 1 Schlechter X ½ 1 ½ ½ ½ 1 1 1 6.0 15.0 21.0 2 Maroczy ½ X ½ ½ 0 ½ ½ 1 1 4.5 15.5 20.0 3 Rubinstein 0 ½ X ½ 1 ½ ½ 1 1 5.0 14.0 19.0 4 Teichmann ½ ½ ½ X 0 1 1 1 ½ 5.0 13.0 18.0 5 Bernstein ½ 1 0 1 X 0 ½ ½ 0 3.5 14.5 18.0 6 Burn ½ ½ ½ 0 1 X ½ 0 1 4.0 14.0 18.0 7 Marshall 0 ½ ½ 0 ½ ½ X ½ 1 3.5 13.0 16.5 8 Janowski 0 0 0 0 ½ 1 ½ X 1 3.0 13.0 16.0 9 Perlis 0 0 0 ½ 1 0 0 0 X 1.5 12.5 14.0 ]table table[ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total SB 1 Schlechter ** ½½ ½1 0½ 0½ 1½ ½1 11 11 0 1 ½ 1 ½ 1 1 - - 1 ½ - - ½ 1 - 1 - ½ - 1 - - - - - - 21.0/30 2 Maroczy ½½ ** 1½ ½½ 10 0½ 1½ 10 ½0 1 0 ½ ½ ½ 1 1 1 0 - - 1 1 - - - 1 - ½ - 1 - - - - - - 21.0/30 3 Rubinstein ½0 0½ ** ½½ ½1 1½ 1½ 01 ½1 1 ½ 0 0 1 1 ½ ½ 1 - - 1 1 - - ½ - - - - - - - - 1 1 - 19.0/30 4 Teichmann 10 ½½ ½½ ** ½0 ½1 ½1 11 ½½ 0 ½ ½ 0 ½ ½ 1 1 0 - - ½ 1 - - - - ½ - - - - 1 1 - - - 18.0/30 233.50 5 Bernstein 1½ 01 ½0 ½1 ** ½0 1½ 1½ ½0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 - - 1 1 - - ½ 1 - - - - 0 - 1 - - - - 1 18.0/30 223.25 6 Burn 0½ 1½ 0½ ½0 ½1 ** 0½ ½1 11 1 0 ½ 1 1 1 1 - - ½ ½ - - ½ ½ - - - - 1 - 1 - - - - 1 18.0/30 208.75 7 Marshall ½0 0½ 0½ ½0 0½ 1½ ** 1½ 01 1 1 0 ½ 1 ½ 1 ½ 1 - - 0 1 - - - - ½ - - - - 1 1 - - - 16.5/30 8 Janowski 00 00 10 00 0½ ½1 0½ ** 11 1 1 1 0 ½ ½ 1 - - 0 1 - - 1 ½ - - - - 1 - 1 - - - - 1 16.0/30 9 Perlis 00 ½0 ½0 ½½ ½1 00 10 00 ** ½ 0 1 ½ 0 ½ 1 0 1 - - 1 1 - - - - 1 - - - - 1 1 - - - 14.0/30 10 Swiderski 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 ½ * 1 1 ½ 0 1 1 - - 1 0 - - ½ 1 - 0 - 1 - ½ - - - - - - 12.0/22 133.75 11 Znosko-Borovsky 0 1 ½ ½ 0 1 0 0 1 0 * 1 1 1 0 ½ - - 0 ½ - - ½ ½ - 1 - 1 - 1 - - - - - - 12.0/22 127.75 12 Salwe ½ ½ 1 ½ 0 ½ 1 0 0 0 0 * 1 ½ 1 0 - - ½ 1 - - 1 ½ - 0 - 1 - 1 - - - - - - 11.5/22 127.00 13 Leonhardt 0 ½ 1 1 0 0 ½ 1 ½ ½ 0 0 * ½ 0 0 - - ½ ½ - - 1 1 - - - - 1 - 1 - - - - 1 11.5/22 114.50 14 Spielmann ½ ½ 0 ½ 1 0 0 ½ 1 1 0 ½ ½ * 0 ½ ½ 1 - - ½ ½ - - - - 0 - - - - ½ 1 - - - 10.5/22 119.75 15 Fahrni 0 0 0 ½ 1 0 ½ ½ ½ 0 1 0 1 1 * 1 ½ 0 - - ½ 0 - - ½ - - - - - - - - 1 1 - 10.5/22 106.50 16 Johner 0 0 ½ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ½ 1 1 ½ 0 * 1 1 - - ½ 0 - - 1 - - - - - - - - 1 1 - 9.0/22 72.00 17 Blackburne - 0 ½ 0 - - ½ - 1 - - - - ½ ½ 0 * - ½ 1 - - 1 1 - - - - 1 - ½ - - - - 1 9.0/15 69.25 18 Duras - 1 0 1 - - 0 - 0 - - - - 0 1 0 - * 1 0 - - 1 ½ - - - - 1 - ½ - - - - 1 8.0/15 69.75 19 Mieses 0 - - - 0 ½ - 1 - 0 1 ½ ½ - - - ½ 0 * - 1 0 - - - - 1 - - - - 1 1 - - - 8.0/15 67.50 20 John ½ - - - 0 ½ - 0 - 1 ½ 0 ½ - - - 0 1 - * ½ 0 - - ½ - - - - - - - - 1 1 - 7.0/15 21 Chigorin - 0 0 ½ - - 1 - 0 - - - - ½ ½ ½ - - 0 ½ * - 0 1 - 1 - 0 - 1 - - - - - - 6.5/15 56.50 22 Wolf - 0 0 0 - - 0 - 0 - - - - ½ 1 1 - - 1 1 - * 1 0 - 0 - ½ - ½ - - - - - - 6.5/15 48.75 23 Suechting ½ - - - ½ ½ - 0 - ½ ½ 0 0 - - - 0 0 - - 1 0 * - - - 1 - - - - 1 ½ - - - 6.0/15 24 Marco 0 - - - 0 ½ - ½ - 0 ½ ½ 0 - - - 0 ½ - - 0 1 - * ½ - - - - - - - - ½ 1 - 5.5/15 25 Balla - ½ ½ - - - - - - - - - - - ½ 0 - - - ½ - - - ½ * - - - 1 - ½ - - - - 1 5.0/ 9 26 Post 0 - - - - - - - - 1 0 1 - - - - - - - - 0 1 - - - * 0 - - - - 1 0 - - - 4.0/ 9 27 Taubenhaus - - - ½ - - ½ - 0 - - - - 1 - - - - 0 - - - 0 - - 1 * ½ - 0 - - - - - - 3.5/ 9 28 Lewitt ½ - - - - - - - - 0 0 0 - - - - - - - - 1 ½ - - - - ½ * - - - 0 ½ - - - 3.0/ 9 23.00 29 Cohn - - - - 1 0 - 0 - - - - 0 - - - 0 0 - - - - - - 0 - - - * - - - - 1 1 - 3.0/ 9 21.00 30 Maliutin 0 - - - - - - - - ½ 0 0 - - - - - - - - 0 ½ - - - - 1 - - * - 0 1 - - - 3.0/ 9 14.75 31 Forgacs - - - - 0 0 - 0 - - - - 0 - - - ½ ½ - - - - - - ½ - - - - - * - - ½ 1 - 3.0/ 9 13.00 32 Sournin - - - 0 - - 0 - 0 - - - - ½ - - - - 0 - - - 0 - - 0 - 1 - 1 - * - - - - 2.5/ 9 33 Reggio - - - 0 - - 0 - 0 - - - - 0 - - - - 0 - - - ½ - - 1 - ½ - 0 - - * - - - 2.0/ 9 8.50 34 Oskam - 0 0 - - - - - - - - - - - 0 0 - - - 0 - - - ½ - - - - 0 - ½ - - * - 1 2.0/ 9 4.25 35 Gattie - 0 0 - - - - - - - - - - - 0 0 - - - 0 - - - 0 - - - - 0 - 0 - - - * 1 1.0/ 9 36 Saburov - - - - 0 0 - 0 - - - - 0 - - - 0 0 - - - - - - 0 - - - - - - - - 0 0 * 0.0/ 9 ]table ----- <Frivol8ities> The nine players in the final stage wound up playing a double-round tournament among themselves, one of Gunsber's ideas in using this system. Here is the rults of that tournament within a tournament: table[ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Tptal S/B 1 Schlechter ** 0½ ½½ ½1 0½ 1½ ½1 11 11 10.5/16 2 Teichmann 1½ ** ½½ ½½ ½0 ½1 ½1 11 ½½ 10.0/16 75.50 3 Maroczy ½½ ½½ ** 1½ 10 0½ 1½ 11 ½1 10.0/16 73.75 4 Rubinstein ½0 ½½ 0½ ** ½1 1½ 1½ 01 ½1 9.0/16 5 Bernstein 1½ ½1 01 ½0 ** ½0 1½ 1½ ½0 8.5/16 6 Burn 0½ ½0 1½ 0½ ½1 ** 0½ ½0 11 7.5/16 7 Marshall ½0 ½0 0½ 0½ 0½ 1½ ** 1½ 01 6.5/16 8 Janowski 00 00 00 10 0½ ½1 0½ ** 11 5.5/16 9 Perlis 00 ½½ ½0 ½0 ½1 00 10 00 ** 4.5/16 ]table The method of pairing also meant that The sixteenplayers in Stages 3 and 4 would play a round robin amongst themselves by the end of round 22. (They had also played seven games against players who had been eliminated.) As a curiosity, here is the corsstable for that "tournament": table[ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total S-B 1 Maroczy * ½ 1 0 1 ½ 1 1 0 1 1 ½ ½ ½ ½ 1 10.0 2 Schlechter ½ * 0 1 ½ 0 0 ½ 1 1 1 ½ ½ 1 1 1 9.5 3 Bernstein 0 1 * ½ ½ ½ 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 ½ 1 1 9.0 63.75 4 Burn 1 0 ½ * 0 ½ 1 0 0 ½ 1 ½ 1 1 1 1 9.0 62.50 5 Rubinstein 0 ½ ½ 1 * ½ 1 1 ½ 0 1 0 1 ½ 0 ½ 8.0 60.50 6 Teichmann ½ 1 ½ ½ ½ * 0 ½ ½ 1 ½ ½ ½ ½ 0 1 8.0 59.50 7 Swiderski 0 1 1 0 0 1 * 0 1 0 1 1 0 ½ ½ 1 8.0 57.00 8 Marshall 0 ½ 0 1 0 ½ 1 * 1 1 ½ 0 1 0 ½ 1 8.0 57.00 9 Znosko-Borovsky 1 0 0 1 ½ ½ 0 0 * 0 0 1 1 1 1 ½ 7.5 53.75 10 Janowski,David 0 0 0 ½ 1 0 1 0 1 * ½ 1 ½ 1 0 1 7.5 51.25 11 Fahrni 0 0 1 0 0 ½ 0 ½ 1 ½ * 0 1 ½ 1 1 7.0 12 Salwe ½ ½ 0 ½ 1 ½ 0 1 0 0 1 * ½ 0 1 0 6.5 50.00 13 Spielmann ½ ½ 1 0 0 ½ 1 0 0 ½ 0 ½ * 1 ½ ½ 6.5 48.75 14 Perlis,Julius ½ 0 ½ 0 ½ ½ ½ 1 0 0 ½ 1 0 * ½ 1 6.5 45.75 15 Leonhardt ½ 0 0 0 1 1 ½ ½ 0 1 0 0 ½ ½ * 0 5.5 16 Johner 0 0 0 0 ½ 0 0 0 ½ 0 0 1 ½ 0 1 * 3.5 ]table A crosstable of the scores in the intergroup play of stages 1-3: table[ A B C D Total A **** 44.0 20.0 8.0 72.0 B 37.0 **** 8.5 16.0 61.5 C 16.0 7.5 **** 43.5 67.0 D 7.0 20.0 37.5 **** 64.5 ]table ----- Game to be submitted. <ROUND 8 (Stage 1, Round 8, June 13)> Maarco - Janowski: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 d6 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 Na5 8.Nc3 Be7 9.d3 Bg4 10.Bd2 c6 11.Qe2 Nxb3 12.axb3 Nd7 13.Nd1 0-0 14.Ne3 Be6 15.d4 f6 16.Ba5 Qb8 17.Red1 Qb7 18.d5 cxd5 19.exd5 Bf7 20.Nf5 Rfe8 21.Nxe7+ Rxe7 22.c4 Rc8 23.Nd4 Nc5 24.Nc6 Ree8 25.Ra3 f5 26.Bb4 Ne4 27.cxb5 axb5 28.Ra7 Qb6 29.Ba5 Qc5 30.Bb4 Qb6 31.Ba5 Qc5 32.b4 Qc4 33.Qxc4 bxc4 34.Ne7+ Rxe7 35.Rxe7 Nf6 36.Rc7 Rb8 37.Rxc4 Bxd5 38.Rc7 Rb5 39.Ra7 Ne8 40.Bc7 Bb3 41.Rd3 Bc4 42.Rd1 Bb3 43.Rd3 Bc4 44.Rd1 Bb3 45.Rd3 Bc4 46.Rd2 Nxc7 47.Rxc7 d5 48.Rd1 h5 49.Ra1 Kh7 50.Raa7 Kg6 51.Rxg7+ Kf6 52.Raf7+ Ke6 53.Re7+ Kd6 54.Rd7+ Kc6 55.Rc7+ Kd6 56.Rcd7+ Kc6 57.Rc7+ Kd6 58.Rcd7+ Kc6 59.Rc7+ Kd6 60.Rgd7+ Ke6 61.Re7+ Kd6 62.Red7+ Ke6 Amd drawm after a few further moves. Source: Gillam - Ostend 1906 (2006) G-11 p244 / New-Yorker Staats-Zeitung, 1906.07.03. ½-½ ----- Error to be corrected <ROUND 9 (Stage 1, Round 9 June 14)> Change Janowski - John to Janowski - Cohn 3 games, 1905-1995 Ostend Supllementary Tournament 1905 The "American Chess Bulletin", August 1905, p. 270, reported on a small event held after Ostend (1905) <"At the conclusion of the main event at Ostend, Marshall, Marco, Leonhardt and Teichmann were invited to take part in a four cornered tourney for a prize fund of 600 frncs, supplied by Professor Begas and Herr Albert Hallgarten. The winner of each game received 60 francs the loser 4 francs."> No other details wre provided, outside of the final standings and a list of games, the scores of which were later published in "American Chess Bulletin}, February 1906, p. 32. The exact dates and schedule of play are not known. However, since the main Ostend event ended on July 18 and both Marshall and Leonhardt plated at Scheveningen (1905) beginning on July 31, in can be inferred that this event was entirely held in late July. THough the report does not say so, it seems dafe to assume that each player received 50 francs in case of a draw. That would make the final standings and prizes: table[ 1 2 3 4 1 Georg Marco * 1 1 0 2.0 160 francs 2 Paul Saladin Leonhardt 0 * ½ 1 1.5 150 francs 3 Frank James Marshall 0 ½ * 1 1.5 150 francs 4 Richard Teichmann 1 0 0 * 1.0 140 francs ]table Finally, it is interesting that all six games began <1.e4 e5> and that neither the Spanish nor the Four Knights were played. Three may or may not have been a formal restriction on openings, but it looks like the players understood that the sponsors were hoping for wide-open, exciting games. <NOTE>: TH eorder of games below is the one which Helms listed them in ACB. The actual order is not known. 6 games, 1905 Pan Pacific International, San Francisco, 1995 A category 13 event (average rating 2574), featuring a selection of veterans and younger players, with two of the strongest women in the world thrown in for good measure. Maurice Ashley Walter Browne Larry Christiansen Nick de Firmian Boris Gulko Robert Huebner Viktor Korchnoi John Nunn Sofia Polgar Jonathan Tisdall Joshua Waitzkin Jun Xie The veterans had the best time of it. By round 8, Gulko, Korchnoi and Nunn were tied for the lead and 1.5 points ahead of anyone else. Round nine proved decisive, as Korchnoi disposed of Waitzkin while Gulko lost a strange game to DeFirmian and Nunn could only draw with Huebner. The old man had to face his nearest competitors in the last two rounds, but drew both games handily to maintain his lead. table[ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 1 Korchnoi * = = = 1 = = = 1 1 1 1 8.0 2 Nunn = * = = = = 1 1 = = 1 1 7.5 3 Gulko = = * 0 1 1 = = 1 = 1 1 7.5 4 DeFirmian = = 1 * 0 = = = 1 1 = = 6.5 5 Huebner 0 = 0 1 * = 1 = = = 1 = 6.0 6 Christiansen = = 0 = = * = = = 1 0 1 5.5 7 Xie Jun = 0 = = 0 = * = 1 = = 1 5.5 8 Browne = 0 = = = = = * 0 1 = = 5.0 9 Waitzkin 0 = 0 0 = = 0 1 * = = = 4.0 10 Polgar 0 = = 0 = 0 = 0 = * 1 0 3.5 11 Tisdall 0 0 0 = 0 1 = = = 0 * = 3.5 12 Ashley 0 0 0 = = 0 0 = = 1 = * 3.5 ]table Huebner seemed off form, while DeFirmian and Christiansen never got closer than shouting distance. Xie Jun had the best result of the younger players. 66 games, 1995 Pan-American Chess Congress, Hollywood,1945 Pan-American Chess Congress, Masters Section Hollywood, California July 28-August 12, 1945 Prizes: 1st $1000 2nd: $750 3rd: $500 4th: $400 5th: $350 6th: $250 7th: $200 8th: $150 Total $3600 plus brilliancy prizes Time controls: 40 moves in 2 hours, followed by 20 moves in 1 hour. Playing sessions were four hours. Most rounds were from 7:00 - 11:00 pm, with adjournment played the next afternoon from 2:00 -6:00 pm. Exceptions were round 1, which ran from 8:00 pm - 12 midnight, and the two rounds played on Tournament director: Hermann Helms Daily reports in the <Los Angeles Times? established the playing dates of schedules and the Sunday rounds (July 29 (2) and August 5 (8) when the round itself was 2:00 - 6:00 and adjournments from 7:00-11:00 pm. ----- Saturday, July 28, 8:00 PM Round 1 Adams - bye 1 Steiner 1 Cruz (postponed played August 10) 2 Kashdan 1 Camarena 3 Reshevsky - Pilnik (postponed, played 8/3) 4 Araiza Munoz 1/2 Seidman 5 Fine 1 Broderman 6 Rossetto 0 Horowitz Pilnik and Cruz were en route from Florida, and were expected at any time; their delay was attributed to wartrave travel restrictions. Adams, a last-minute replacement for Edward Lasker, was know to be coming late, and was possibly assigned a first round bye to reduce his number of postponed games. ----- Sunday, july 29, 2:00 PM ROUND 2 Bye - Horowitz 7 Broderman 1/2 Rossetto 8 Seidman 0 Fine 9 Pilnik --- Araizza Munoz (postponed, played August 6)) 10 Camarena 0 Reshevsky 11 Cruz -- Kashdan (postponed; played August 6)) 12 Adams -- Steiner (postponed; played August 3) Still not definite word from the three missing players. Perhaps they didn't want to use their cell phones because of the roaming charges. ---- Monday, July 30, 7:00 PM Round 3 Steiner - bye 13 Kashdan -- Adams (postponed; played 8/6) 14 Reshevsky 1 Cruz (postponed; played 8/6) 15 Araiza Munoz 1 Camarena 16 Fine -- Pilnik (postponed; played August 8) 17 Rossetto 1 Seidman 18 Horowitz 1 Broderman The three missing playes were expected by the next morning. ----- Tuesday, July 31, 7:00 pm Round 4 Bye -- Broderman 19 Seidman 0 Horowitz 20 Pilnik -- Rossetto (postponed; played August 12) 21 Camarena 0 Fine 22 Cruz 1/2 Araiza Munoz 23 Adams 0 Reshevsky 24 Steiner 0 Kashdan Adams and Cruz finally arrived today. There are contradictory reports in the "Los Angeles Times" about whether they began play this evening or not, but a fortuitous report in "Chess Review" (October 1945, p.30) settles the issue. It shows Adams - Reshevsky game in progress, with three demonstration boards in the background. One shows a middle game position from Camerana -- Fine, a game definitely played this evening. A second shows a middle game from Cruz - Araiza Munoz, showing it was being played at the same time. Both games were eventually adjourned, Adams - Reshevsky being played off the next afternoon and Cruz -- Araiza Munoz on August 2nd. Word was also received of Pilnik. "Herman Pilnik, Argentina, the third missing participant, wqs involved in an auto accident en route from Florida and was discharged from a hospital yesterday. He is due to arrive early today, completing the line up for tonight's games." ----- Wednesday, August 1, 7:00 pm ROUND 5 Kashdan - Bye 25 Reshevsky 1 Steiner 26 Araiza Munoz 1 Adams 27 Fine 1/2 Cruz 28 Rossetto 1 Camarena 29 Horowitz 1/2 Pilnik 30 Broderman 0 Seidman Pilnik finally arrive, head still heavily bandaged. ----- Thursday, August 2, 2:00 pm Postponed game Cruz 1/2 Ariaza Munoz (round 4) 7:00 pm ROUND 6 Bye - Seidman 31 Pilnik 1 Broderman 32 Camarena 0 Horowitz 33 Cruz 0 Rossetto 34 Adams 0 Fine 35 Steiner 1 Araiza Munoz 36 Kashdan 0 Reshevsky It was decided that Friday, august 3 and Monday, August 6 would be reserved for the playing of postponed games Adams had two games to make up, Cruz three, and Pilnik four. ----- Friday, August 3, 7:00 pm Postponed games Reshevsky 1 Pilnik (round 1) Adams 1/2 Steiner (round 2) ----- Saturday, August 4 ROUND 7 Reshevsky - Bye 37 Araiza Munoz 1/2 Kashdan 38 Fine 1 Steiner 39 Rossetto 0 Adams 40 Horowitz 1/2 Cruz 41 Broderman 1/2 Camarena 42 Seidman 0 Pilnik ----- sunday, August 8, 2:00 pm ROUND 8 Bye-Pilnik 43 Camarena 0 Seidman 44 Cruz 1 Broderman 45 Adams 1 Horowitz 46 Steiner 0 Rossetto 47 Kashdan 0 Fine 48 Reshevsky 1 Araiza Munoz ----- Monday, August 9 Postponed games 2:00 pm Cruz 1/2 Kashdan (round 2) 7:00 om Reshevsky 1 Cruz (round 3) Pillnik 1 Araiza Munoz (round 2) Kashdan 1 Adams (round 3) ----- Tuesday, August 7, 7:00 pm ROUND 9 Araiza Munoz - Bye 49 Fine 12 Reshevsky 50 Rossetto 0 Kashdan 51 Horowitz 1 Steiner 52 Broderman 0 adams 53 Seidman 1/2 Cruz 54 Pilnik 1 Camarana ----- Wednesday, August 8 2:00 pm Postponed game Fine 1/2 Pilnik (round 3) 7:00 pm ROUND 10 Bye-Camarana 55 Cruz 1/2 Pilnik 56 Adams 1 Bernstein 57 Steiner 1 Broderman 58 Kashdan 1/2 Horowitz 59 Reshevsky 1/2 Rossetto 60 Araiza Munoz 1/2 Fine ----- Thursday, August 9, 7:00 om ROUND 11 Fine - Bye 61 Rossetto 1/2 Araiza Munoz 62 Horowitz 1/2 Reshevsky 63 broderman 1/2 Kashdan 64 Seidman 0 Steiner (forfeit) 65 Pilnik 1 Adams 66 Camaerana 0 Cruz Seidman withdrew to return to his Army base before his furlough expired, forfeiting his games in round 11-13. ----- Friday, August 10 2;)0 pm Postponed game Steiner 1 Cruz (round 1) 7:00 pm ROUND !2 Bye-Cruz 67 Adams 1 Camarena 68 Steiner 1/2 P8ilnik 69 Kashdan 1 Seidman (forfeit) 70 Reshevsky 1 Broderman 71 Araiza Munoz 1/2 Horowitz Fine 1/2 Rossetto The Los Angeles Times states the Steiner - Pilnik game had been postponed and played int he afternoon. However, it was actually Steiner - Cruz that had been postponed. Previously postponed games had been made up in the afternoon on days a round was also scheduled, so I have indicated that. However, since Cruz had a bye in round 12, it is possible he and Pilnik agreed to play the games as the Times indicated. A brilliancy prize was awarded in this round in honor of the birthday of the late Frank Marshall. It was won by Reshevsky for his tournament-clinching win over Broderman. ----- Saturday, August 11, 7:00 pm ROUND 13 Rossetto - Bye 73 Horowitz 1 Fine 74 Broderman 1 Araiza Munoz 75 Seudnab 9 Resgevsjt *firfeut( 76 Pilnik I Kashdan 77 Camarena 1/2 Steiner 78 Cruz 1 Adams ----- Sunday, August 12 Postpone game Pilnik 1/2 Rossetto (round 4) ---- table[ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 1 Samuel REshevsky * = 1 = 1 = 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10.5 2 Reibem Fine = * = = 1 = 1 1 = = 1 1 1 9.0 3 Herman P8ilnik 0 = * = 1 = 1 = = 1 1 1 1 8.5 4 Israel Albert Horowtittz = = = * = 1 0 1 = = 1 1 1 8.0 5 Isaac Kashdan 0 0 0 = * 1 1 1 = = = 1 1 7.0 6 Hector Decio Rossetto = = = 0 0 * 0 1 1 = = 1 1 6.5 7 Weaver Adams 0 0 0 1 0 1 * = 0 0 1 1 1 5.5 8 Herman Steiner 0 0 = 0 0 0 = * 1 1 1 1 = 5.5 9 Walter Oswaldo Cruz 0 = = = = 0 1 0 * = 0 = 1 5.0 10 Jose Joaquin Araiza Munoz 0 = 0 = = = 1 0 = * 0 = 1 5.0 11 Jose Broderman 0 0 0 0 = = 0 0 1 1 * 0 = 3.5 12 Herbert Seidman 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 = = 1 * 1 3.0 13 Joaquin Camarena 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 = 0 0 = 0 * 1.0 ]table Ties broken by Sonnenborn-Berger. Seidman withdrew to return to his Army base before his furlough expired, and forfeited his last three games against Steiner (Round 11), Kashdan (Round 12), and Reshevsky (round 13). ----- <Kibitzing the Kibitzers> http://www.julielondon.org/J/Family... (Contributed by <Stonehenge> 59 games, 1945 Petrosian Memorial 1999 So here's the idea. To commemorate the 15th anniversary of the death of former World Champion Tigran Petrosian and the 70th of his birth, a memorial tournament was organized in Moscow featuring ten of his contemporaries: Yuri Balashov (50); Svetozar Gligoric (76); Vlastimil Hort (55); Borislav Ivkov (65); Bent Larsen (64); Lajos Portisch (62); Vasily Smyslov (78); Boris Spassky (62); Mark Taimanov (73); Vitaly Tseshkovsky (54) Sounds nice, but think about it. Ten players, ranging in age from 50 to 78, playing in a <Petrosian Memorial>. So how do you best honor Tigran Petrosian? table[ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 01 Ivkov * ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ 1 ½ ½ 5.0 02 Portisch ½ * ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ 1 5.0 03 Taimanov ½ ½ * ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ 4.5 04 Spassky ½ ½ ½ * ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ 4.5 05 Smyslov ½ ½ ½ ½ * ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ 4.5 06 Hort ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ * ½ ½ ½ ½ 4.5 07 Balashov ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ * ½ ½ ½ 4.5 08 Tseshkovsky 0 ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ * 1 ½ 4.5 09 Gligoric ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ 0 * ½ 4.0 10 Larsen ½ 0 ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ * 4.0 ]table This could be regarded as the Least Interesting Tournament in the World, with 42 draws in 45 games and five of the ten players drawing every game. So who stepped out of line? Larsen, of course, but you have to expect that. The big offender was the youthful Tseshkovsky, with two decisive results in the first four rounds. I imagine his elders sat him down and told him to get with the program, and he took the advice: every game in the last five rounds was drawn. But mocking and criticizing this tournament is the wrong attitude to take. Instead, it should probably be regarded more as an exhibition than a truly serious competition. Many sports will have "Old-Timers" games, where retired players will dress up in their uniforms and go through the motions. The attraction is not who wins or loses or what the final score is, but just watching the legends of long ago gathered together--here, in tribute to a fallen comrade. 45 games, 1999 Podebrady 1936 The 14th Czechoslovak Championship was held at Podebrady (also Podebrad or Bad Podebrad) from July 5-26, 1936. It was organized as an international event with the title going to the top Czech finisher. The 18 combatants included: Alexander Alekhine, Erich Eliskases, Stefan Fazekas, Salomon Flohr, Jan Foltys, Paulino Frydman, Vera Menchik, Karel Opocensky, Jiri Pelikan, Vladimir Petrov, Vasja Pirc, Kurt Richter, Karel Skalicka, Gideon Stahlberg, Lajos Steiner, George Thomas, Karel Treybal, Emil Zinner <Resignation Trap> has tracked down several photos of the action, and was also able to fill in some of the historical gaps. First, a class photo, minus Fazekas: http://www.rogerpaige.me.uk/images/... Class photo, minus Pirc and Frydman, but improved by the inclusion of Mrs. Flohr: http://www.clubedexadrez.com.br/por... Salo Flohr: http://smzsnzz.wz.cz/fotky1/0115.JPG Big Al: http://smzsnzz.wz.cz/fotky1/0116.JPG Jan Foltys: http://smzsnzz.wz.cz/fotky1/0117.JPG Erich Eliskases: http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/... Sir George Thomas: http://smzsnzz.wz.cz/fotky1/0118.JPG Vasja Pirc, from the round 7 game K Skalicka vs Pirc, 1936 with Bedrich Thelen observing: http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/... Flohr and Alekhine picking up a few pointers from the round 10 game Eliskases vs L Steiner, 1936 http://smzsnzz.wz.cz/fotky1/0119.JPG Speaking of Flohr and Alekhine, the two world championship candidates started a bit slowly by drawing each other in round 1 and not setting a torrid pace thereafter. Alekhine did remain undefeated, but Flohr lost to Eliskases in round 6 and spent most ot the tournament making up ground. However, after round 9 they had pulled ahead of the field, Alekhine having 7 points and Flohr 6. The problem was that they still weren't in the lead. Paulin (not yet Paulino) Frydman had scored 8 points, with the help of a six-game winning streak in rounds 2-7. Unfortunately for Frydman, this is where the tough part of his schedule began; he would not win another game for the rest of the event. The trouble started when he lost to Alekhine in round 10. A short draw with with Stahlberg was followed by bad losses to Menchik and Petrov. That set up the round 14 game with Flohr, which reached this position with Black (Frydman) to play: click for larger view Frydman was still only one point behind co-leaders Alekhine and Flohr, and 23...f5! would give him good winning chances--but instead, Frydman resigned! There have been some tales that he suffered a nervous breakdown after the game with Alekhine, but Edward Winter has debunked that (http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/...). In any case, such collapses are not unusual once a player's momentum is broken. Round 14 was nearly disastrous for Alekhine as well, playing Black against Treybal (to play) click for larger view Now 61.Be4! would win for White, the main line being 61...Qa7 62.f6+ Bg6 63.Bxg6+ Kxg6 64.f7+ Kh5 65.Qxh6+! Kxf6 66.f8Q+, and White will be able to protect his king and win with the extra piece. Instead, Treybal played the disastrous <61.f6??>, and was forced to resign after <61...Bg6+>. This left Alekhine and Flohr still tied at 10.5, their nearest competitor being Pirc at 9.5. Round 15 saw Flohr take his first lead by defeating Pelikan, while Alekhine and Stahlberg had a short draw. Alekhine got back on track the next round by defeating Menchik, but Flohr stayed ahead by ending any faint chances Pirc might have had. In the final round, Flohr played it safe with a 17-move draw. Alekhine played it dangerously, but was unable to get anything substantial against Petrov and narrowly avoided losing in the end. table[ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 Flohr * ½ ½ ½ 1 0 1 ½ 1 1 1 ½ ½ 1 1 1 1 1 13.0 2 Alekhine ½ * 1 ½ ½ 1 1 ½ ½ ½ 1 ½ 1 1 1 ½ 1 ½ 12.5 3 Foltys ½ 0 * ½ ½ 1 0 0 1 ½ 1 ½ 1 ½ 1 1 1 1 11.0 4 Stahlberg ½ ½ ½ * ½ 0 ½ 0 1 1 1 ½ 1 1 0 1 1 ½ 10.5 5 Pirc 0 ½ ½ ½ * ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 10.5 6 Eliskases 1 0 0 1 ½ * ½ ½ 1 1 ½ ½ ½ 0 1 0 1 ½ 9.5 7 Frydman 0 0 1 ½ ½ ½ * ½ 1 0 ½ 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 9.5 8 Richter ½ ½ 1 1 ½ ½ ½ * 0 ½ 0 ½ 1 0 0 ½ 1 1 9.0 9 Pelikan 0 ½ 0 0 ½ 0 0 1 * 1 0 1 1 ½ ½ 1 1 1 9.0 10 Petrov 0 ½ ½ 0 ½ 0 1 ½ 0 * 1 ½ 1 1 ½ 0 1 ½ 8.5 11 Steiner 0 0 0 0 ½ ½ ½ 1 1 0 * 1 0 1 ½ 1 ½ 1 8.5 12 Opocensky ½ ½ ½ ½ 0 ½ 0 ½ 0 ½ 0 * 0 ½ 1 1 1 1 8.0 13 Menchik ½ 0 0 0 0 ½ 1 0 0 0 1 1 * 0 1 1 0 1 7.0 14 Zinner 0 0 ½ 0 0 1 1 1 ½ 0 0 ½ 1 * 0 0 0 1 6.5 15 Treybal 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 ½ ½ ½ 0 0 1 * ½ ½ ½ 6.0 16 Skalicka 0 ½ 0 0 0 1 0 ½ 0 1 0 0 0 1 ½ * 1 ½ 6.0 17 Fazekas 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 ½ 0 1 1 ½ 0 * 0 4.0 18 Thomas 0 ½ 0 ½ 0 ½ 0 0 0 ½ 0 0 0 0 ½ ½ 1 * 4.0 ]table <Cumulative Scores> table[ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1 Flohr 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.5 3.5 3.5 4.5 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 8.5 9.5 10.5 11.5 12.5 13.0 2 Alekhine 0.5 1.5 2.5 3.0 4.0 4.5 5.5 6.5 7.0 8.0 8.5 9.0 9.5 10.5 11.0 12.0 12.5 3 Foltys 1.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.0 5.5 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.5 9.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 4 Stahlberg 1.0 1.5 1.5 2.5 2.5 3.5 4.0 5.0 5.5 6.5 7.0 8.0 8.5 9.0 9.5 9.5 10.5 5 Pirc 1.0 1.5 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.5 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.5 7.5 8.0 8.5 9.5 10.0 10.0 10.5 6 Eliskases 0.5 0.5 1.5 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 8.0 9.0 9.5 7 Frydman 0.5 1.5 2.5 3.5 4.5 5.5 6.5 7.0 8.0 8.0 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 9.0 9.0 9.5 8 Richter 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.5 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 8.5 9.0 9 Pelikan 1.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.5 5.0 6.0 6.5 6.5 7.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 9.0 10 Petrov 0.0 1.0 1.5 1.5 1.5 2.5 3.0 4.0 4.5 5.5 6.0 6.0 7.0 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5 11 Steiner 0.5 1.5 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.5 4.5 5.5 6.0 7.0 7.5 7.5 8.5 12 Opocensky 0.5 1.0 1.5 1.5 2.5 3.5 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.0 7.5 8.0 13 Menchik 1.0 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 14 Zinner 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 2.5 2.5 3.5 3.5 4.5 4.5 5.0 5.0 6.0 6.5 15 Treybal 0.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.5 2.5 2.5 3.5 3.5 4.0 4.0 4.5 5.5 6.0 16 Skalicka 0.5 1.5 1.5 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.5 2.5 2.5 3.5 3.5 4.5 5.5 6.0 6.0 17 Fazekas 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.5 3.5 4.0 18 Thomas 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 1.0 1.5 1.5 2.0 2.0 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 3.0 4.0 4.0 ]table If you're looking for an interesting game from this tournament that you haven't seen before, try K Opocensky vs K Skalicka, 1936 from round 8. 153 games, 1936 Prague 1908 Played a few weeks after the other big international event of the year (Game Collection: Vienna 1908), Prague was also held in commemoration of the 60th anniversary of the reign of Emperor Franz Joseph and featured most of the same big names with the addition of Vidmar. To wit: Semyon Alapin, Oldrich Duras, Fyodor Duz-Khotimirsky, David Janowski, Jan Kvicala, Paul Leonhardt, Geza Maroczy, Frank Marshall, Jacques Mieses, Ladislav Prokes, Abram Rabinovich, Akiba Rubinstein, Georg Salwe, Carl Schlechter, Rudolf Spielmann, Hugo Suechting, Richard Teichmann, Frantisek Treybal, Milan Vidmar, Curt von Bardeleben Of the three co-winners at Vienna, Schlechter and Duras maintained their supremacy while Maroczy slipped back a bit. Schlechter was in the lead the whole way, with Vidmar nipping at his heels and Rubinstein never far behind. However, in the end it was Duras who caught up in round 18 after a couple of winning spurts. Duras and Schlechter were paired in the final round, but nothing happened and they drew quickly. Vidmar, 1/2-point behind coming in, was uanble to win with Black against Marshall and had to settle for third place. table[ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 Duras * = 0 = 0 = 1 1 1 1 + 1 1 = = 1 0 + 1 1 13.5 2 Schlechter = * = = = = = 0 1 = 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 = 1 = 13.5 3 Vidmar 1 = * 0 = 0 0 = = 1 1 = = 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 13.0 4 Rubinstein = = 1 * = 0 1 = 1 0 = 1 = 1 1 = = = 1 1 12.5 5 Teichmann 1 = = = * = = = = = 0 = = 1 1 1 = = 1 1 12.0 6 Maroczy = = 1 1 = * 0 = = 0 = = = = 1 1 = 1 = 1 11.5 7 Leonhardt 0 = 1 0 = 1 * = = 0 1 = = = 0 1 = 1 1 1 11.0 8 Marshall 0 1 = = = = = * = 0 = 0 = = 1 1 1 1 1 = 11.0 9 Salwe 0 0 = 0 = = = = * 1 1 = 0 1 1 = 1 1 = 1 11.0 10 Janowski 0 = 0 1 = 1 1 1 0 * 0 1 1 0 0 1 = 1 1 0 10.5 11 Dus Chotimirsky - 0 0 = 1 = 0 = 0 1 * 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 9.5 12 Alapin 0 0 = 0 = = = 1 = 0 0 * = 1 1 0 1 1 = = 9.0 13 Suechting 0 0 = = = = = = 1 0 0 = * = = = = = = 1 8.5 14 Mieses = 0 0 0 0 = = = 0 1 1 0 = * 1 1 = 0 1 = 8.5 15 Spielmann = 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 = 0 * 1 1 0 = 1 7.5 16 Prokes 0 0 0 = 0 0 0 0 = 0 1 1 = 0 0 * 1 = 1 = 6.5 17 Von Bardeleben 1 0 0 = = = = 0 0 = 0 0 = = 0 0 * = = = 6.0 18 Kvicala - = 0 = = 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 = 1 1 = = * - = 5.5 19 Rabinovich 0 0 0 0 0 = 0 0 = 0 0 = = 0 = 0 = + * 1 5.0 20 Treybal 0 = 0 0 0 0 0 = 0 1 0 = 0 = 0 = = = 0 * 4.5 ]table <Prizes> table[ 1st-2nd: Duras, Schlechter (3500 kr.) 3rd: Vidmar (2000 kr.) 4th: Rubinstein (1500 kr.) 5th: Teichmann (who else?) (1000 kr.) 6th: Maroczy (800 kr.) 7th-9th: Leonhardt, Marshall Salwe (433 kr.) 10th: Janowski (200 kr.) ]table The games Duras 1 Dus Chotimirsky (round 1), Duras 1 Kvicala (round 18) and Rabinovich 1 Kvicala (round 19) appear to have been defaulted. The <British Chess Magazine> noted that Duras scored two wins by default, making it likely that Kvicala did not play his last two games. <Sources>: American Chess Bulletin, April 1908, p.79 British Chess Magazine, July 1908, p.311 Chess Results, 1901-1920 / Gino Di Felice, p.109 Schaakcourant, 1908 (various issues) 187 games, 1908 Pretty Maids All in a Row: 3 Connected Ps on 7th They are if you're the player with the three connected pawns on the seventh rank and can expect to have all sorts of pretty maids livening up the party in a move or two. Your opponent may feel differently about the whole experience. With a theme like this, there is always the temptation to go for the row of pawns even when it's not necessary, especially if the opponent is helpless. Not wanting to encourage such behavior, I will simply mention M Matto vs A Mossiaguine, 2008 for the sake of completeness but not add it to the collection. I'm sure the perpetrator will be shamed into never doing such a thing again. 16 games, 1834-2019 Puzzle of the Day 2004 See Game Collection: Game of the Day & Puzzle of the Day Collections for complete lists of my Game of the Day and Puzzle of the Day collections. <NOTE> Puzzles from the early part of the year may not follow the now traditional order of difficulty 365 games, 1848-2004 Puzzle of the Day 2005 See Game Collection: Game of the Day & Puzzle of the Day Collections for complete lists of my Game of the Day and Puzzle of the Day collections. <Missing Entries> <NOTE>: There is no puzzle for Oct-25-05 when the site was down due to Hurricane Wilma. 364 games, 1839-2005 Puzzle of the Day 2006 See Game Collection: Game of the Day & Puzzle of the Day Collections for complete lists of my Game of the Day and Puzzle of the Day collections. 365 games, 1837-2006

<< previous | page 10 of 21 | next >>