<< previous | page 1 of 3 | next >>
- 1824 Edinburgh Chess Club vs London Chess Club
5 games, 1824
In this famous upset, the unknown Scots defeated the heavily favored London Club. London had famous players like John Cochrane, William Lewis and Fraser. Cochrane left England for India while the second game was in progress. Other London players included Brand, Mercier, and Pratt. The only prominent Edinburgh club member was James Donaldson, described as the "strongest chess player in Scotland" by Lewis. The Scotch opening was introduced in this match.|
The London Club Committee:
Messrs. Brande, Lewis, Cochrane, Mercier, Fraser, Parkinson, Keen, Pratt, Samuda, Tomlin, Willshire, Wood.
The Edinburgh Club Committee: Captain Aytoun, Buchanan, Burnett, Crawford, Donaldson, Gregory. Rev. H. Liston, Mackersy, Meiklejohn. More, Pender, Rose, Sir S. Stirling Bart., Wauchope and Wylie.
The event was not without controversy when Edinburgh refused to accept a correction to move made by London. However, as the following article points out, London corrected the wrong move in a three move sequence and would have lost the game anyway.
From Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine, v.68 1850 Jul-Dec:
"The London and Edinburgh chess match, which was played by correspondence, was begun in the year 1824. It was the result of a challenge given by the Edinburgh Club, which was then only in its infancy. The terms agreed on were, that the match should consist of three won games ; and that, in case of any game being drawn, a new one, begun by the same opener, should take its place. The match commenced on 23d April 1824. Two games were opened simultaneously. The first game was opened by the Edinburgh Club; and in sending their first answering move, the London Clnb also sent the first move of the second game. The first game, which consisted of 35 moves, was, on 14th December 1824, declared to be drawn. The second, which consisted of 52 moves, was resigned by the London Club on 23d February 1825. The third game—opened by the Edinburgh Club in place of the first game, which had been drawn—was began on 20th December 1824; it consisted of 99 moves, and was drawn on 18th March 1828. The fourth game, begun by the Edinburgh Club, on 26th February 1825, was resigned by them on l5th September 1826, at the 55th move. The fifth game, begun by the Edinburgh Club, on 6th October 1826, was resigned by the London Club on 31st July 1828, at the 60th move—and this determined the match in favour of Edinburgh.
...... and there had been two drawn games, both of which were
keenly disputed, without the least advantage in favour of London at any point of either; while, on the other hand, in the third game, Edinburgh had obtained an advantage, though not sufficient to enable them to checkmate their adversaries. It has never been pretended, by the most unscrupulous partisan of England, that the winning of the fifth game was ascribable to an oversight. On the contrary, their chess writers have, with most becoming fairness and candour, always referred to it as an instance of admirable play on the part of Edinburgh; and members of the London committee, who shortly
after happened to visit Edinburgh, acknowledged that their committee
were quite unable to discover the object of particular moves, the effect of which had been previously calculated, and reduced to demonstration by the Edinburgh players.
Is there, in all this, such evidence of overwhelming superiority on the part of the English players, that their losing the match must have been an accident? But it is time to inquire a little more minutely into the so-called blunder, which the Englishmen say was the cause of their defeat. And here it is but fair to give their statement in their own words. The Quarterly reviewer says— " Perhaps the most remarkable instance on record of a strict enforcement of the tenor of chess law occurred in the celebrated match, by correspondence, between the London and Edinburgh Clubs. At the 27th move of the second game, the London Club threw a rook away. How they did so, Mr Lewis explains in the following words :
' The 26th, 27th, and 28th moves were sent on the same day to the Edinburgh Club. This was done to save time. It so happened that the secretary, whose duty it was to write the letters, had an engagement which compelled him to leave the Club two hours earlier than usual—the letter was therefore posted at three instead of five o'clock. In the mean time, one of the members discovered that the 2d move (the 27th) had not been sufficiently examined.* An application was immediately made at the Post-office for the letter, which was refused. In consequence, a second letter was transmitted by the same post to the Edinburgh Club, retracting the 2d and 3d moves, and abiding only by the first. The Edinburgh Club, in answer, gave it as their decided opinion that the London Club were bound by their letter, and that no move could be retracted : they therefore insisted on the moves being played. The London Club conceded the point, though they differed in opinion.' " We cannot but think, under all the circumstances, the Edinburgh Club were to blame. What rendered the mishap more vexatious to the Londoners was, that whereas they had a won game before, they now barely lost it, and thereby the match, which the winning of this game would have decided in their favour.'
It is of importance to keep in view that it never was asserted that the first move, the 26th, had not been sufficiently examined; and it will be immediately seen that that more was adhered to, no attempt being made to recall it. The truth is, that the London Club could not have played a better move than their 27th. Their mistake,
as was first discovered by the Edinburgh Club, was in the 26th move, the one adhered to after examination.
In his first publication of the games, Mr Lewis gives no back-game on this 26th move; and it is believed that no member of the London Club was aware, till the game was finished, that by playing differently at the 26th move they might have won it. But Mr Lewis admits that the game could not be won by a mere alteration of the 27th or 28th move; and any one who says that it could, is either speaking in ignorance of the subject, or is making a willful misrepresentation. The likelihood of the remarks of the English writers producing an erroneous impression arises from their mixing up these two separate and distinct things: 1st, that at a previous stage of the game, the London Club had a winning position which they did not discover, and failed to avail themselves of; and, 2d, that the Edinburgh Club would not allow them to retract the 27th and 28th moves. These two facts have no longer any possible connection with each other when it is known that, at the 27th move, the London Club had ceased to have a winning position, and that the recall of that move would have been of no use to them. The failure, at a previous stage of the game, to maintain the winning position which they had, is simply one among several illustrations which occurred in the match, of the troth that the London Club, " in the pride and plenitude of its strength," did not always play as well as it was possible to have done."
One might think that this incident is long forgotten, but the Edinburgh Chess Club still retains the original letters with their wax seals just in case any claims from that city to the south should be forthcoming. http://www.edinburghchessclub.co.uk...
- 1863 Morphy
14 games, 1863
- 1893 Kiel Komplett
36 games, 1893
Eight games added to Game Collection: Kiel 1893 All dates and rounds corrected.|
8th DSB Kongress
Kiel, Germany, 1893.08.28 - 1893.09.02
C K P P H J J E E Score
1: Curt von Bardeleben X 1 = 0 1 = 1 1 1 6.0
2: Karl August Walbrodt 0 X 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 6.0
3: Paul Lipke = 0 X = = 1 = 1 1 5.0
4: Paul Klemens Seuffert 1 0 = X = 1 = 0 1 4.5
5: Hermann Von Gottschall 0 1 = = X 0 = 1 1 4.5
6: Johannes Metger = 0 0 0 1 X 1 1 1 4.5
7: Jacques Mieses 0 0 = = = 0 X 1 0 2.5
8: Emil Schallopp 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 X 1 2.0
9: Ernst Varain 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 X 1.0
36 games: +14 =8 -14
- 1901 Buffalo
28 games, 1901
A six player double round event in Buffalo, New York. It was held
August 12-17, 1901. This was the masters event from the New York State Chess Association Congress.|
1st Pillsbury ** 11 11 ½1 1½ 11 9
2nd Delmar 00 ** ½1 1½ 11 ½1 6½
=2nd Napier 00 ½0 ** 11 11 11 6½
4th Howell ½0 0½ 00 ** 11 ½1 4½
5th Marshall 0½ 00 00 00 ** 11 2½
6th Karpinski 00 ½0 00 ½0 00 ** 1
Rd 4 Napier-Delmar ½-½
Rd 9 Marshall–Karpinski 1-0
Four games submitted on 8/7/2012. Noticed DB updated 11/2/2012
- 1920 Match Nimzowitsch vs. Bogoljubov
4 games, 1920
Collection just to figure what games belong to this match. Bogo won 3-1 with no draws.|
- Alekhine plays Klyatskin's Defense
16 games, 1921-1934
"Since the defense 1.e4 Nf6 was worked out in theory, before Alekhine, by the young Russian master, Klyatskin, some Soviet authors call it the 'Moscow Defense'. - Tartakower's Best Games, Vol 1, Game 69 |
Reuben Fine in his revision of Modern Chess Openings (6th ed., 1939) says "1...Kt-KB3, although known as a playable move long before the present Champion's days, was introduced as a tournament weapon by Alekhine at Budapest in 1921."
For example, see Nimzowitsch vs Albin, 1905 . There are other games between minor players where the move was played. The opening, in fact, was covered by Allgaier in his book. He gives 1.e4 Nf6 2.e5 Nd5 3.c4 Nb6 4.d4 d6 5.f4 The year? 1819! A well-known Moscow player and problemist, Mikhail Gertsovich Klyatskin (sometimes spelled Kliatskin) (1897-1926), championed the defense in Russia where he was recognized for development of its opening theory. Alekhine, in fact, only claimed to have introduced the move into master practice. The opening apparently got its name when Hans Fahrni published a booklet , "Das Aljechin-Verteidigung", in 1922. This collection chronicles all serious "Alekhine's Defense" games by A. Alekhine and notes his gradual disenchantment with the opening.
I usually give White's second move in the description. Out of 16 games, only 6 games continue 2.e5. The man who the defense is named after, therefore played only six games with its signature variation and that includes the Saemisch game which tranposes into a French formation and game 2 which is from a simul. This, of course, is not Alekhine's fault that his opponents did not care to continue a complicated and little known opening, but the fact remains that Alekhine contributed very little to the theory of the opening named after him. Alekhine may have abandoned the opening because his opponents got easy equality with 2.d3 or 2.Nc3.
Notable games are 2)Steiner,modern looking 5)Maroczy, well played by AA 8)Znosko, combat! 12)Yates some nice tactics 13) Nimzowitsch, a classic. For some reason, Alekhine thought Nimzowitsch was a good player to try 1...Nf6 against. He had virtually stopped playing the opening after 1925 but employed the defense three times in 1926-1927 against Nimzo. The author of "My System", however, scored 2-1.
click for larger view
- Alekhine takes Manhattan (and Staten Island too)
13 games, 1932
This spectacular event was held in the Drill Hall of the 7th Regiment Armory. The exhibition was on fifty boards against 200 opponents in teams of four.|
"Beginning actual play at 3:30 o'clock in the afternoon, Dr. Alekhine was busy at his task until 4:05 Wednesday morning, at which time an agreement was reached to the decision in the fiftieth game to be finished. The result was that members of the Columbia College Team, the last to finish obtained a draw to which they were entitled on the merits of their position. At the close of the marathon, it was found that the champion had won 30 games, drawn 14 and lost six." - Herman Helms writing in American Chess Bulletin, 1932, pages 157-158
Alekhine took only one intermission of about twenty minutes, ate only one sandwich and had some coffee refreshment.
- Alekhine was drunk!
84 games, 1863-2007
Alternate Title: "How to Impress your Fellow Kibitzers."|
"I envy people who drink. At least they have something to blame everything on." Oscar Levant
In this collection, Chessgame kibitzers identify games where Alekhine and other players were drunk. If you can't think of anything to say, always leave an "Alekhine was drunk" comment. Everyone will think you are a clever and informed person.
- Alekhine was sunk!
87 games, 1909-1944
"I have had to work long and hard to eradicate the dangerous delusion that, in a bad position, I could always, or nearly always, conjure up some unexpected combination to extricate me from my difficulties." - Alexander Alekhine|
I wondered if AA really had a lot of games where he avoided defeat. The collection contains games that Alekhine might have lost with a little better play from his opponent. Often, I have one or two games in the list that are, more or less, bookmarks and need further analysis.
Rosselli del Turco,S - Alekhine,A [D40]
5th Olympiad, Folkestone (Rd 9), 19.06.1933
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 d5 4.Nc3 c5 5.e3 Nc6 6.a3 Bd6 7.dxc5 Bxc5 8.b4 Bd6 9.Bb2 a5 10.b5 Ne5 11.cxd5 exd5 12.Be2 Be6 13.Nd4 Rc8 14.Rc1 0-0 15.0-0 Nc4 16.Bxc4 Rxc4 17.Nce2 Rxc1 18.Qxc1 Ne4 19.Ng3 Bxg3 20.hxg3 Qb6 21.Qa1 Bd7 22.a4 Rc8 23.Rc1 Rc4 24.Nb3 Qc7 25.Bd4 f6 26.Qb2 Be6 27.b6 Qc6 28.Rxc4 dxc4 29.Nxa5 c3?? 30.Qc2?? [30.Nxc6! cxb2 31.Bxb2 ] 30...Qd5 31.f3 Nxg3 32.Bxc3 Qc5 33.Kf2 Nf5?? [33...Nh1+ Draws by repetition] 34.Qe4 Qxb6 35.Nxb7 Kf7 36.g4?! Nxe3?? The comedy continues 37.Qxe3?? [37.Bd4 wins] 37...Qxb7 38.a5 Bc4 ½-½
Alekhine,A - Erdélyi,S [B54]
Praha ol, Rd 13, 1931
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.c4 Nc6 4.d4 cxd4 5.Nxd4 Nf6 6.Nc3 d6 7.Be2 a6 8.0-0 Qc7 9.b3 Be7 10.Bb2 0-0 11.Nc2?! [11.Qd2 is normal and better ] 11...Rd8 12.Ne3 Ne5 13.Qe1?! preparing f4, but Black stops it with his next move 13...Qc5! 14.Na4 Qa7?! [14...Qc6] 15.Rd1 Rb8?! 16.c5! Nc6 17.cxd6 Rxd6 18.e5?! loses patience 18...Rxd1 19.Bxd1 Nd7 20.f4 b5 21.Nc3 Bc5³ 22.Bc1 Ne7 23.Kh1 Bb7 24.Bc2?! [24.Nc2 Rd8 25.Ne4] 24...Qa8 25.Qe2 Ng6 26.f5? unjustified pawn sacrifices follow 26...exf5 27.Bxf5 Ndxe5 28.Ng4?? a blunder 28...Re8! 29.Nxe5 Rxe5 30.Qg4 Nh4? [30...Rxf5! wins easily 31.Rxf5 Bxg2+ 32.Qxg2 Qxg2+ 33.Kxg2 Nh4+ 34.Kf1 Nxf5 ] 31.Bxh7+ Kf8? [31...Kxh7 32.Qxh4+ Kg8 should still win] 32.Be4 Rxe4?! [32...Bxe4! is better] 33.Qh5 g6?? finally losing it 34.Qxc5+?? Incredible, Alekhine gives it back [winning was 34.Qh8+ Ke7 35.Qf6+ Kd7 36.Nxe4 Bxe4 37.Qxf7+ Be7 38.Rd1+] 34...Re7?? [34...Kg8 35.Nxe4 Bxe4 is unclear] 35.Bg5! Bxg2+ 36.Kg1 Bxf1 37.Qxe7+ Kg8 38.Qd8+ Qxd8 39.Bxd8 Nf3+ 40.Kxf1 Nxh2+ 41.Ke2 Ng4 42.Nd5 1-0
Alekhine,A - Baratz,A [D30]
3rd Olympiad Hamburg, Rd(2), 14.07.1930
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 d5 4.Bg5 c6 5.Nbd2 Nbd7 6.e3 Qa5 7.cxd5 exd5 8.Bd3 Ne4 9.0-0 Nxg5 10.Nxg5 h6 11.Ngf3 Be7 12.Qe2 Nf6 13.Ne5 Qb6 14.Rab1 0-0 15.b4 a5 16.bxa5 Qxa5 17.Rb2 Qa3 18.Nb1 Qa5 19.Rc1 Bd6 Baratz has thwarted Alekhine's queenside attack 20.f4?! a weakening move 20...Qd8 21.Rbc2 Qe7 22.Nc3 Ra5?! [22...c5 is logical] 23.Qf3?! Be6 24.g4? another silly pawn sac 24...Bxg4 25.Nxg4 Nxg4 26.Re2 Nf6 27.Kh1 Bb4 [27...Rfa8 is a winning position] 28.Rg2 Bxc3 29.Rxc3 Ne4? [29...Rfa8 still looks winning] 30.Bxe4 dxe4 31.Qh3 f5 32.Rc1 Qe6?? [32...Kh8 33.Rcg1 Rf7 holds and may still win] 33.Rcg1 Rf7 34.Rg6 Rf6 35.Rxg7+ Kf8 36.Qh4 1-0
Alekhine,A - Andersen,E [E24]
6th Olympiad in Warsaw Warsaw (17), 29.08.1935
69...Nd8? loses a precious tempo. 69...Kg7 led to win.
Tartakower, Grigoriewitsch,S - Alekhine,A [A20]
6th Olympiad in Warsaw Warsaw (16), 28.08.1935
1.c4 e5 2.Nf3 e4 3.Nd4 Nc6 4.Nxc6 dxc6 5.d3 exd3 6.Qxd3 Qxd3 7.exd3 Bf5 8.Be3 0-0-0 9.d4 Nf6 10.f3 Bb4+ 11.Nc3 Rhe8 12.Kf2 Bf8 13.Rd1 g6 14.Bd3 Bxd3 15.Rxd3 Bg7 16.Rhd1 Nd7 17.Bg5 Bf6 18.Bxf6 Nxf6 19.Re3 Nh5 20.g3 Ng7 21.Rxe8 Rxe8 22.Re1 Rxe1 23.Kxe1 Nf5 24.Ne2 Kd7 25.Kd2 Kd6 26.b4 b5 27.cxb5 cxb5 28.Kd3 Ke6 29.Nc3 c6 30.d5+ Kd6 31.Ke4 f6?? strange! 32.dxc6 [the subtle 32.Kd3! with the threat of Ne4+ looks winning. Apparently forced is 32...cxd5 (not 32...Ne7 33.Ne4+ Kxd5 34.Nxf6+ Kd6) 33.Nxb5+ Kc6 34.a4 should win] 32...Kxc6 33.Nd5 Nd6+ 34.Kd4 Nf5+ ½-½
Alekhine-Kashdan, Bled 1931
AA's 65.Qc5+?? is blunder that should have lost. He has a perpetual check with 65.Qe5. "Euwe showed a clear win for Black ... 70...Qd5+ 71.Ke3 f6! 72.Qc8 Kg5 73.Qh8 Kxg4." <WMD>
Kashdan on 70...Qf6+:
"A complete miscalculation, which at once throws away the fruits of very considerable labor. After three sessions, something like twelve hours all told, I had for the first time in my career obtained a clearly winning position against the World Champion. And then to err on a simple matter of counting which every beginner is taught!" - <Phony Benoni> quoting from Fred Reinfeld's "Practical End-Game Play"
T Van Scheltinga vs Alekhine, 1939
(D22) Queen's Gambit Accepted, 54 moves, 1/2-1/2
The score is incorrect. Should be 47...Ke8.
- Alyehkin's Record breaking Blindfold Performance
28 games, 1925
Paris 1925 - 28 games Blindfolded against chess club teams. His score was 22 wins 3 loses and 3 draws. Numbers indicate board numbers.|
- Brooklyn & Columbia Chess Chronicles
- Buckle - Loewenthal Match 1851
7 games, 1851
Buckle paid the entry fee to the London 1851 tournament but then could not play due to other commitments. However, matches were arranged outside the main event and Buckle played Loewenthal about a month after the tournament began. Loewenthal had already lost in the first round of the tournament.|
Account of match: http://books.google.com/books?id=Kf...
- Calli's bookmarked games
5 games, 1913-1929
- Calli's favorite games
6 games, 1868-2007
- Calli's unresolved database corrections
5 games, 1857-1946
Database corrections. Some were sent to CG and some not.|
Papp - Charousek Sergeant gives the date as "1892?", Site "Miskolc, Hungary",
Date "1892", White "J Papp", Source: Game 94 in Sergeant's "Charousek's Games of Chess".
- Capablanca loses with the Black pieces
22 games, 1909-1938
- Capablanca loses with the White pieces
12 games, 1911-1934
- Capablanca plays 200 at the Armory
2 games, 1931
- Capablanca's Losses
- Chess Matches at Google Books
1 game, 1894
<< previous | page 1 of 3 | next >>
|SEARCH ENTIRE GAME COLLECTION DATABASE|
use these two forms to locate other game collections in the database|