chessgames.com
Members · Prefs · Laboratory · Collections · Openings · Endgames · Sacrifices · History · Search Kibitzing · Kibitzer's Café · Chessforums · Tournament Index · Players · Kibitzing

 
 
Premium Chessgames Member
Phony Benoni
Chess Game Collections
[what is this?] --*-- [what is this?]

<< previous | page 1 of 16 | next >>

  1. 1000 Best Short Games of Chess
    Compiled by Irving Chernev in 1954, and a favorite from my young days. Back in the 1960s, I checked it out of the public library and determined to play through all the games by hand during the three week loan period. I did so, but was fortunate that Carpal Tunnel Syndrome had not yet been invented.

    But the experience drilled basic mating and tactical patterns into my head, forming the basis of my later chess style. For better or for worse.

    The games are arranged by length (from 4 to 24 moves). Chernev does abbreviate a few favorites to squeeze them in within the limit, and there are all the usual apocryphal games. But don't worry about it. This is a collection for fun, and who knows? You might even learn something. I did. (Hold on--let me think of a better example.)

    188 games, 1575-1990

  2. All Russian Amateur (St. Petersburg, 1909)
    An undercard for the international tournament and the first major success for the sixteen-year-old Alexander Alekhine. The original entry list included:

    Alexander Alekhine Anatoly Alekseevich Chepurnov Dawid Daniuszewski Moisei Elyashiv Peter Artemievich Evtifeev V Goldfarb Bernhard Gregory Grigory Helbach Stefan Izbinsky Sergey Fedorovich Lebedev Boris Evgenievich Maliutin Viktor Nikolaev Peter Arsenievich Romanovsky Karl Wilhelm Rosenkrantz Georg Rotlewi Vasily I Rozanov Nikolay Semenovich Tereshchenko Boris Verlinsky Apollon Viakhirev.

    The games are notable for the fighting spirit of the players. Members of the <Never Resign! School> will find much food for thought here.

    With an odd number of players originally and two early withdrawals, each player received in effect three byes; therefore, round-by-round standings are somewhat misleading. By round 11, however, it was clear this was going to be a two-man race between Alekhine and Rotlewi, who shared the lead despite having already had their three non-counting rounds. Thereafter they bounced back and forth until round 17 when Alekhine defeated Rotlewi to take a 1.5 point lead. He then lost in round 18, but a final round victory clinched first place. Bernhard Gregory was a close 3rd in the crosstable, but was never quite able to break into the top group

    Byes, cancelled, and unplayed games will be mentioned in the round summaries, but will not show up in the final crosstable. An asterisk (*) indicates a missing game.

    <Round 1 (February 15)> table[
    1 Tereshchenko 1 Chepurnov
    2 Alekhine 1 Izbinsky
    3 Romanovsky 1 Maliutin
    4 Elyashov 0 Daniuszewski
    5 Nikolaev 0 Rotlewi
    6 Lebedev 0 Helbach
    7 Viakhirev 1 Rosenkrantz
    8 Gregory 1 Rozanov (cancelled)
    9 Verlinsky 1 Goldfarb (cancelled)
    Bye: Evtifeev ]table

    table[
    1.0-0.0: Alekhine, Daniuszewski, Helbach, Romanovsky, Rotlewi, Tereschenko, Viakhirev 0.0-0.0: Evtiefeev, Gregory, Verlinsky
    0.0-1.0: Chepurnov, Elyashov, Izbinsky, Lebedev, Maliutin, Nikolaev, Rosenkrantz ]table

    <Round 2 (February 16)> table[
    10 Helbach Viakhirev
    11 Rotlewi 0 Lebedev
    12 Daniuszewski Nikolaev
    13 Maliutin 0 Elyashov
    14 Izbinsky 1 Romanovsky
    15 Chepurnov 0 Gregory
    16 Evtifeev Tereshchenko
    17 Goldfarb 0 Alekhine (cancelled)
    18 Rozanov Verlinsky (cancelled)
    Bye: Rosenkrantz
    ]table
    table[
    1.5/2: Daniuszewski, Helbach, Tereshchenko, Viakirev 1.0/1: Alekhine, Gregory
    1.0/2: Elyashov, Izbinsky, Lebedev, Romanowsky, Rotlewi 0.5/1: Evtifeev
    0.5/2: Nikolaev
    0.0/0: Verlinsky
    0.0/1: Rosenkrantz
    0.0/2: Chepurnov, Maliutin
    ]table

    <Round 3 (February 18)> table[
    19 Gregory 1 Evtifeev
    20 Verlinsky 1 Chepurnov
    21 Elyashov 0 Izbinsky
    22 Nikolaev 0 Maliutin
    23 Lebedev Daniuszewski
    24 Viakhirev 0 Rotlewi
    25 Rosenkrantz 1 Helbach
    26 Alekhine 1 Rozanov (cancelled)
    Bye: Tereshchenko
    Unplayed game: Romanovsky--Goldfarb

    2.0/3: Daniuszewski, Gregory, Izbinsky, Rotlewi
    1.5/2: Tereshchenko
    1.5/3: Helbach, Lebedev, Viakhirev
    1.0/1: Alekhine, Verlinsky
    1.0/2: Romanovsky, Rosenkrantz
    1.0/3: Elyashov, Maliutin
    0.5/2: Evtifeev
    0.5/3: Nikolaev
    0.0/3: Chepurnov
    ]table

    <Round 4 (February 19)> table[
    27 Rotlewi 1 Rosenkrantz
    28 Daniuszewski 0 Viakhirev
    29 Maliutin 1 Lebedev
    30 Izbinsky 1 Nikolaev
    31 Chepurnov Alekhine
    32 Evtifeev 1 Verlinsky
    33 Tereshchenko 1 Gregory
    34 Rozanov 1 Romanovsky (cancelled)
    Bye: Helbach
    Unplayed game: Goldfarb--Elyashov

    3.0/4: Izbinsky, Rotlewi
    2.5/3: Tereshchenko
    2.5/4: Viakhirev
    2.0/3: Gregory
    2.0/4: Daniuszewski, Maliutin
    1.5/2: Alekhine
    1.5/3: Evtifeev, Helbach
    1.5/4: Lebedev
    1.0/2: Romanovsky, Verlinsky
    1.0/3: Elyashov, Rosenkrantz
    0.5/4: Chepurnov, Nikolaev
    ]table

    <Round 5 (February 21)> table[
    35 Verlinsky Tereshchenko
    36 Alekhine 1 Evtifeev
    37 Romanovsky 0 Chepurnov
    38 Lebedev Izbinsky
    39 Viakhirev 0 Maliutin
    40 Rosenkrantz 0 Daniuszewski
    41 Helbach 0 Rotlewi
    42 Elyashov 1 Rozanov (cancelled)
    Bye: Gregory
    Unplayed game: Nikolaev--Goldfarb

    4.0/5: Rotlewi
    3.5/5: Izblinsky
    3.0/4: Tereshchenko
    3.0/5: Daniuszewski, Maliutin
    2.5/3: Alekhine
    2.5/5: Viakhirev
    2.0/3: Gregory
    2.0/5: Lebedev
    1.5/3: Verlinsky
    1.5/4: Evtifeev, Helbach
    1.5/5: Chepurnov
    1.0/3: Elyashov, Romanovsky
    1.0/4: Rosenkrantz
    0.5/4: Nikolaev
    ]table
    <Round 6 (February 22)> table[
    43 Daniuszewski Helbach
    44 Maliutin 1 Rosenkrantz
    45 Izbinsky 0 Viakhirev
    46 Chepurnov 1 Elyashov
    47 Evtifeev 0 Romanovsky
    48 Tereshchenko 1 Alekhine
    49 Gregory 1 Verlinsky
    50 Rozanov 0 Nikolaev (cancelled)
    Bye: Rotlewi
    Unplayed game: Goldfarb -- Lebedev

    4.0/5: Rotlewi
    4.0/6: Maliutin
    3.5/4: Alekhine
    3.5/6: Daniuszewski, Izbinsky, Viakhirev
    3.0/4: Gregory
    3.0/5: Tereshchenko
    2.5/6: Chepurnov
    2.0/4: Romanovsky
    2.0/5: Helbach, Lebedev
    1.5/4: Verlinsky
    1.5/5: Evtifeev
    1.0/4: Elyashov
    1.0/5: Rosenkrantz
    0.5/4: Nikolaev
    ]table
    <Round 7 (February 23)> table[
    51 Alekhine 1 Gregory
    52 Romanovsky 1 Tereshchenko
    53 Elyashov Evtifeev
    54 Nikolaev 1 Chepurnov
    55 Rosenkrantz 1 Izbinsky
    56 Helbach Maliutin
    57 Rotlewi Daniuszewski
    58 Lebedev 1 Rozanov (cancelled)
    Bye: Verlinsky
    Unplayed game: Viakhirev -- Goldfarb

    4.5/5: Alekhine
    4.5/6: Rotlewi
    4.5/7: Maliutin
    4.0/7: Daniuszewski
    3.5/6: Viakhirev
    3.5/7: Izbinsky
    3.0/5: Gregory, Romanovsky
    3.0/6: Tereshchenko
    2.5/6: Helbach
    2.5/7: Chepurnov
    2.0/5: Lebedev
    2.0/6: Evtifeev, Rosenkrantz
    1.5/4: Verlinsky
    1.5/5: Elyashov, Nikolaev
    ]table
    <Round 8 (February 25)> table[
    59 Maliutin 0 Rotlewi
    60 Izbinsky 1 Helbach
    61 Chepurnov 0 Lebedev
    62 Evtifeev 1 Nikolaev
    63 Tereshchenko 0 Elyashov
    64 Gregory 1 Romanovsky
    65 Verlinsky 0 Alekhine
    Bye: Daniuszewski
    Unplayed games: Goldfarb -- Rosenkrantz, Rozanov -- Viakhirev

    5.5/6: Alekhine
    5.5/7: Rotlewi
    4.5/8: Izbinsky, Maliutin
    4.0/6: Gregory
    4.0/7: Daniuszewski
    3.5/6: Viakhirev
    3.0/6: Lebedev, Romanovsky
    3.0/7: Evtifeev, Tereshchenko
    2.5/6: Elyashov
    2.5/7: Helbach
    2.5/8: Chepurnov
    2.0/6: Rosenkrantz
    1.5/5: Verlinsky
    1.5/6: Nikolaev
    ]table
    <Round 9 (February 26)> table[
    66 Romanovsky 0 Verlinsky
    67 Elyashov 1 Gregory
    68 Nikolaev Tereshchenko
    69 Lebedev 1 Evtifeev
    70 Viakhirev 0 Chepurnov
    71 Rotlewi 1 Izbinsky
    72 Daniuszewski Maliutin
    Bye: Alekhine
    Unplayed games: Rosenkrantz -- Rozanov, Helbach -- Goldfarb

    6.5/8: Rotlewi
    5.5/6: Alekhine
    5.0/9: Maliutin
    4.5/8: Daniuszewski
    4.5/9: Izbinsky
    4.0/7: Gregory, Lebedev
    3.5/7: Elyashov, Viakhirev
    3.5/8: Tereshchenko
    3.5/9: Chepurnov
    3.0/7: Romanovsky
    3.0/8: Evtifeev
    2.5/6: Verlinsky
    2.5/7: Helbach
    2.0/6: Rosenkrantz
    2.0/7: Nikolaev
    ]table
    <Round 10 (February 28)> table[
    73 Izbinsky Daniuszewski
    74 Chepurnov 0 Rosenkrantz
    75 Evtifeev 1 Viakhirev
    76 Tereshchenko 1 Lebedev
    77 Gregory 1 Nikolaev
    78 Verlinsky 0 Elyashov
    79 Alekhine 0 Romanovsky
    Bye: Maliutin
    Unplayed games: Goldfarb -- Rotlewi, Rozanov -- Helbach

    6.5/8: Rotlewi
    5.5/7: Alekhine
    5.0/8: Gregory
    5.0/9: Daniuszewski, Maliutin
    5.0/10: Izbinsky
    4.5/8: Elyashov
    4.5/9: Tereshchenko
    4.0/8: Lebedev, Romanovsky
    4.0/9: Evtifeev
    3.5/8: Viakhirev
    3.5/10: Chepurnov
    3.0/7: Rosenkrantz
    2.5/7: Helbach, Verlinsky
    2.0/8: Nikolaev
    ]table
    <Round 11 (March 1)> table[
    80 Elyashov 0 Alekhine
    81 Nikolaev 0 Verlinsky
    82 Lebedev Gregory
    83 Viakhirev 1 Tereshchenko
    84 Rosenkrantz 1 Evtifeev
    85 Helbach 0 Chepurnov
    86 Maliutin 1 Izbinsky
    Bye: Romanovsky
    Unplayed games: Rotlewi -- Rozanov, Daniuszewski -- Goldfarb

    6.5/8: Alekhine, Rotlewi
    6.0/10: Maliutin
    5.5/9: Gregory
    5.0/9: Daniuszewski
    5.0/11: Izbinsky
    4.5/9: Elyashov, Lebedev, Viakhirev
    4.5/10: Tereshchenko
    4.5/11: Chepurnov
    4.0/8: Romanovsky, Rosenkrantz
    4.0/10: Evitfeev
    3.5/8: Verlinsky
    2.5/8: Helbach
    2.0/9: Nikolaev
    ]table
    <Round 12 (March 3)> table[
    87 Chepurnov 0 Rotlewi
    88 Evtifeev 0 Helbach
    89 Tereshchenko 0 Rosenkrantz
    90 Gregory + Viakhirev (forfeit)
    91 Verlinsky Lebedev
    92 Alekhine 1 Nikolaev
    93 Romanovsky Elyashov
    Bye: Izbinsky
    Unplayed games: Goldfarb -- Maliutin, Rozanov -- Daniuszewski

    7.5/9: Alekhine, Rotlewi
    6.5/10: Gregory
    6.0/10: Maliutin
    5.0/9: Daniuszewski, Rosenkrantz
    5.0/10: Elyashov, Lebedev
    5.0/11: Izbinsky
    4.5/9: Romanovsky
    4.5/10: Viakhirev
    4.5/11: Tereshchenko
    4.5/12: Chepurnov
    4.0/9: Verlinsky
    4.0/11: Evtifeev
    3.5/9: Helbach
    2.0/10: Nikolaev
    ]table
    <Round 13 (March 4)> table[
    94 Nikolaev 0 Romanovsky
    95 Lebedev Alekhine
    96 Viakhirev 0 Verlinsky
    97 Rosenkrantz 0 Gregory
    98 Helbach Tereshchenko
    99 Rotlewi 1 Evtifeev
    100 Daniuszewski 0 Chepurnov
    Bye: Elyashov
    Unplayed games: Maliutin -- Rozanov, Izbinsky -- Goldfarb

    8.5/10: Rotlewi
    8.0/10: Alekhine
    7.5/11: Gregory
    6.0/10: Maliutin
    5.5/10: Romanovsky
    5.5/11: Lebedev
    5.5/13: Chepurnov
    5.0/10: Daniuszewski,Elyashov,Rosenkrantz,Verlinsky 5.0/11: Izbinsky
    5.0/12: Tereshchenko
    4.5/11: Viakhirev
    4.0/10: Helbach
    4.0/12: Evtifeev
    2.0/11: Nikolaev
    ]table
    <Round 14 (March 5)> table[
    101 Chepurnov 0 Maliutin
    102 Evtifeev 0 Daniuszewski
    103 Tereshchenko 1 Rotlewi
    104 Gregory 1 Helbach
    105 Verlinsky 0 Rosenkrantz
    106 Alekhine 1 Viakhirev
    107 Romanovsky 0 Lebedev
    108 Elyashov 1 Nikolaev
    Bye: Goldfarb
    Unplayed game: Rozanov -- Izbinsky

    9.0/11: Alekhine
    8.5/11: Rotlewi
    8.5/12: Gregory
    7.0/11: Maliutin
    6.5/12: Lebedev
    6.0/11: Daniuszewski, Elyashov, Rosenkrantz
    6.0/13: Tereshchenko
    5.5/11: Romanovksy
    5.5/14: Chepurnov
    5.0/11: Izbinsky, Verlinsky
    4.5/12: Viakhirev
    4.0/11: Helbach
    4.0/13: Evtifeev
    2.0/12: Nikolaev
    ]table
    <Round 15 (March 7)> table[
    109 Lebedev 0 Elyashov
    110 Viakhirev 0 Romanovsky
    111 Rosenkrantz 0 Alekhine
    112 Helbach 0 Verlinsky
    113 Rotlewi 1 Gregory
    114 Daniuszewski Tereshchenko
    115 Maliutin Evtifeev
    116 Izbinsky 1 Chepurnov
    Bye: Nikolaev
    Unplayed game: Goldfarb -- Rozanov

    10.0/12: Alekhine
    9.5/12: Rotlewi
    8.5/13: Gregory
    7.5/12: Maliutin
    7.0/12: Elyashov
    6.5/12: Daniuszewski, Romanovsky
    6.5/13: Lebedev
    6.5/14: Tereshchenko
    6.0/12: Izbinsky, Rosenkrantz, Verlinsky
    5.5/15: Chepurnov
    4.5/13: Viakhirev
    4.5/14: Evtifeev
    4.0/12: Helbach
    2.0/12: Nikolaev
    ]table
    <Round 16 (March 8)> table[
    117 Evtifeev 1 Izbinsky
    118 Tereshchenko 0 Maliutin
    119 Gregory 1 Daniuszewski
    120 Verlinsky 0 Rotlewi
    121 Alekhine 1 Helbach
    122 Romanovsky 0 Rosenkrantz
    123 Elyashov Viakhirev
    124 Nikolaev 0 Lebedev
    Bye: Rozanov
    Unplayed: Chepurnov -- Goldfarb

    11.0/13: Alekhine
    10.5/13: Rotlewi
    9.5/14: Gregory
    8.5/13: Maliutin
    7.5/13: Elyashov
    7.5/14: Lebedev
    7.0/13: Rosenkrantz
    6.5/13: Daniuszewski, Romanovsky
    6.5/15: Tereshchenko
    6.0/13: Izbinsky, Verlinsky
    5.5/15: Chepurnov, Evtifeev
    5.0/14: Viakhirev
    4.0/13: Helbach
    2.0/13: Nikolaev
    ]table
    <Round 17 (March 9)> table[
    125 Viakhirev - Nikolaev (forfeit)
    126 Rosenkrantz Elyashov
    127 Helbach Romanovsky
    128 Rotlewi 0 Alekhine
    129 Daniuszewski 1 Verlinsky
    130 Maliutin 0 Gregory
    131 Izbinsky 0 Tereshchenko
    Bye: Lebedev
    Unplayed gams: Goldfarb -- Evtifeev, Rozanov -- Chepurnov

    12.0/14: Alekhine
    10.5/14: Rotlewi
    10.5/15: Gregory
    8.5/14: Maliutin
    8.0/14: Elyashov
    7.5/14: Daniuszewski, Lebedev, Rosenkrantz
    7.5/16: Tereshchenko
    7.0/14: Romanovsky
    6.0/14: Izbinsky, Verlinsky
    5.5/15: Chepurnov, Evitfeev
    5.0/15: Viakhirev
    4.5/14: Helbach
    3.0/14: Nikolaev
    ]table
    <Round 18 (March 11)> table[
    132 Gregory + Izbinsky (forfeit)
    133 Verlinsky 0 Maliutin
    134 Alekhine 0 Daniuszewski
    135 Romanovsky 0 Rotlewi
    136 Elyashov 1 Helbach
    137 Nikolaev 0 Rosenkrantz
    138 Lebedev 1 Viakhirev
    Bye: Chepurnov
    Unplayed games: Evtifeev -- Rozanov, Tereshchenko -- Goldfarb

    12.0/15: Alekhine
    11.5/15: Rotlewi
    11.5/16: Gregory
    9.5/15: Maliutin
    9.0/15: Elyashov
    8.5/15: Daniuszewski, Lebedev, Rosenkrantz
    7.5/16: Tereshchenko
    7.0/15: Romanovsky
    6.0/15: Izbinsky, Verlinsky
    5.5/15: Chepurnov, Evtifeev
    5.0/16: Viakhirev
    4.5/15: Helbach
    3.0/15: Nikolaev
    ]table
    <Round 19 (March 12)> table[
    139 Rosenkrantz Lebedev
    140 Helbach Nikolaev
    141 Rotlewi Elyashov
    142 Daniuszewski 1 Romanovsky
    143 Maliutin 0 Alekhine
    144 Izbinsky - Verlinsky (forfeit)
    145 Chepurnov 0 Evtifeev
    Bye: Viakhirev
    Unplayed games: Goldfarb -- Gregory, Rozanov -- Tereshchenko ]table

    table[
    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 Alekhine * 1 1 0 1 1 = 1 1 0 1 1 1 = 1 1 1 13.0 2 Rotlewi 0 * 1 = = 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 12.0 3 Gregory 0 0 * 1 0 1 = 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11.5 4 Daniuszewski 1 = 0 * 1 = = 1 = 1 1 1 = 0 0 = = 9.5 5 Elyashov 0 = 1 0 * 1 1 = 1 = 1 = 0 0 = 1 1 9.5 6 Maliutin 0 0 0 = 0 * 1 1 1 0 1 = 1 1 1 = 1 9.5 7 Lebedev = 1 = = 0 0 * = 0 1 = 1 = 1 1 0 1 9.0 8 Rosenkrantz 0 0 0 0 = 0 = * 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 9.0 9 Tereshchenko 0 1 1 = 0 0 1 0 * 0 = = 1 1 0 = = 7.5 10 Romanovsky 1 0 0 0 = 1 0 0 1 * 0 1 0 0 1 = 1 7.0 11 Verlinsky 0 0 0 0 0 0 = 0 = 1 * 0 1 1 1 1 1 7.0 12 Evtifeev 0 0 0 0 = = 0 0 = 0 1 * 1 1 1 0 1 6.5 13 Izbinsky 0 0 0 = 1 0 = 0 0 1 0 0 * 1 0 1 1 6.0 14 Chepurnov = 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 * 1 1 0 5.5 15 Viakirev 0 0 0 1 = 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 * = 0 5.0 16 Helbach 0 0 0 = 0 = 1 0 = = 0 1 0 0 = * = 5.0 17 Nikolaev 0 0 0 = 0 0 0 0 = 0 0 0 0 1 1 = * 3.5 ]table

    141 games, 1909

  3. Amenities and Background of Chess-play
    [Note: Originally, this work consisted of three booklets written and published by William Ewart Napier in 1934 and 1935. They were later edited by I. A. Horowitz and republished in 1957 under the title "Paul Morphy and the Golden Age of Chess", with additional material on Morphy and his games by Fred Reinfeld. Though thanks must be given to Horowitz for making the original work more widely available, I hope you'll forgive me for ignoring the Reinfeld portions. With all due respect, Napier deserves to stand alone. The introduction which follows gives some idea of his unique writing style.]

    <GREETING>

    Gracious Reader: The main object of this work is the organized preservation of excellence in chess play. Worthy and significant games, long hidden away in old and previous journals, and memoranda, are to be dusted off and brought to life, if they have spark and courage--and withal, that charm and zest which, in the Middle Ages, the Chronicles relate, lifted chess to a respected place among the eight accounplishments of a gentleman.

    Zealously, then war is to be waged upon oblivion.

    In a playful mood the scholarly Reti observed quaintly that chess was the game of the unappreciated man! Mischief enough! Surely. But what then shall be done about the unappreciated chess player? He seems to be twice afflicted--like those Puritan women who endured the same hardshps as the men, and, intepidly, had also to endure the men.

    Perhaps Master Reti discovered a truth and a need while he jested.

    The remedy, however, is not obscure. Some spirited hope is now held that future chapters hereof will make full, though belated, amends to the inveterately unsung.

    And what a happy theme it is, that, in loftier moments the minor player is indispensable to a treasury of elegant chess, as aptly as the minor poet to the to the broad anthologies of verse.

    Current games and happenings do not come within the design; for, the pasture of a century to browse in is ample, embracing an even hundred years since Master Labourdonnais put forth his treatise.

    To the studious player, who lloks to a book for lessons before amusement, the alert inspection of showers of pithy games will supply a colorful background.

    Both meek and rash need more background; for, it brings less intimidation and fewer collapses. The richly carpeted chess-mind receives obstreperous ideas with more composure than would bare floors. Pillsbury told me that he had only once been outrageously surprised abroad! And even that one he begrudged. He had due pride of background.

    To have been once upon a time in the field myself, with moderate success and a lot of fun, perhaps bestows a clear title to the privileges of reminiscence; but you shall not on that account be unduly occupied with my own encounters.

    77 games, 1580-1932

  4. Amsterdam 1889
    Preliminary arrangements appeared in the <British Chess Magazine>, August 1889, p.318. Of course, they also appeared in the German tournament book cited below, but I'm not going to inflict that on you or myself.

    <"An International Chess Congress will be held at the Cafe Red Lion, Vygendam, Amsterdam, beginning on August 25th. There will be three classes, the first to consist only of acknowledged foreign masters, and some of the strongest Dutch players. Hours of play, 12 to 4 pm., and 6-30 to 10-30, each competitor to play one game with every other and two games each day, except on three evenings of the week, when unfinished games will be played out. If the entries do not exceed seven, it will be a two-round tourney. Time limit, 18 moves per hour. The committee will decide in which class each competitor will play.">

    These players impressed the Committee sufficiently to gain admittance to the top group:

    Johann Hermann Bauer Amos Burn Arnold van Foreest Isidor Gunsberg Emanuel Lasker Robinson Kay Leather Rudolf Johannes Loman James Mason Louis van Vliet.

    Of these, Burn, Gunsberg, and Mason were already veteran Masters. Bauer and Lasker were less experienced interationally, having qualified as Masters by winning <Hauptturniers> at the German National Congress. Lasker, indeed, had done so only a month earlier.

    Van Foreest was the current Dutch champion. Loman and Van Vliet were native Dutch players, though they resided in London at the time. Finally, there's Mr. Leather, a professor at Liverpool University. There is a report that Blackburne had entered and was expected to play, so Leather might have been promoted from a lower section to produce an even number of players. When Blackburne never showed up, Leather was allowed to remain in the Master section though he proved to be outclassed.

    -----

    <Round 1 (Monday, August 26)> table[
    1 Van Foreest 0 Gunsberg
    2 Mason Burn
    3 Loman 1 Leather
    4 Lasker 1 Bauer
    Bye - Van Vliet

    <1.0>: Gunsberg*, Lasker* Loman* <0.5>: Burn*, Mason* <0.0>: Bauer*, Leather*, van Foreest*, van Vliet ]table

    A good debut for Lasker (yes, that's the double bishop sacrifice game), and the rest of the results were probably as expected. An asterisk (*) following the player's name in the standings indicates they have <not> yet had their bye.

    -----

    <Round 2 (Monday, August 26)> table[
    5 Loman Gunsberg
    6 Lasker 1 Van Foreest
    7 Mason Bauer**
    8 Van Vliet 1 Leather
    Bye - Burn

    <2.0>: Lasker*
    <1.5>: Gunsberg*, Loman* <1.0>: Mason*, Van Vliet <0.5>: Bauer*, Burn <0.0>: Leather*, Van Foreest* ]table

    The Loman vs. Gunsberg game may have been a reaction to the schedule, as the players anticipated Grandmaster Chess of the Future. Van Foreest, who organized the tournament, complained mildly in the tournament book about their game, but he had other problems to contend with, namely, that young whippersnapper Lasker who calmly soared into the lead. Mason and Bauer were too tired to hand in a score.

    -----

    <Round 3 (Tuesday, August 27)> table[
    9 Loman 0 Lasker
    10 Mason 1 Van Foreest
    11 Van Vliet Gunsberg
    12 Burn 1 Bauer
    Bye - Leather

    <3.0>: Lasker*
    <2.0>: Gunsberg*, Mason* <1.5>: Burn, Loman*, Van Vliet <0.5>: Bauer*
    <0.0>: Van Foreest*, Leather ]table

    Lasker's first-round game must have produced an "uh-oh!" or two among The Establishment, and his continued success just added to that. Leather, for once, didn't get his hide tanned.

    -----

    <Round 4 (Wednesday, August 28)> table[
    13 Mason 1 Loman
    14 Van Vliet 1 Lasker
    15 Burn 1 Van Foreest
    16 Leather 0 Gunsberg
    Bye - Bauer

    <3.0>: Gunsberg*, Lasker*, Mason* <2.5>: Burn, Van Vliet <1.5>: Loman*
    <0.5>: Bauer
    <0.0>: Van Foreest*, Leather ]table

    Lasker lost to Van Vliet and was caught by two of the pre-tournament favorites, though Gunsberg was lucky to win as Leather threw away a won endgame. Burn sat half-a-point behind with a game in hand.

    -----

    <Round 5 (Wednesday, August 28)> table[
    17 van Vliet Mason
    18 Burn 1 Loman
    19 Leather 0 Lasker
    20 Bauer Van Foreest
    Bye - Gunsberg

    <4.0>: Lasker*
    <3.5>: Burn, Mason* <3.0>: Gunsberg, Van Vliet <1.5>: Loman*
    <1.0>: Bauer
    <0.5>: Van Foreest* <0.0>: Leather ]table

    Back into the lead for Lasker, though Burn, Gunsberg and Van Vliet all had an extra game to play.

    -----

    <Round 6 (Friday, August 30)> table[
    21 Burn 1 Van Vliet
    22 Leather 0 Mason
    23 Bauer 1 Loman
    24 Gunsberg 0 Lasker
    Bye - Van Foreest

    <5.0>: Lasker*
    <4.5>: Burn, Mason* <3.0>: Gunsberg, Van Vliet <2.0>: Bauer
    <1.5>: Loman*
    <0.5>: Van Foreest <0.0>: Leather ]table

    That made it essentially a three-man race. Round 7 would see Lasker get his bye while Burn played Leather, so the lead was likely to change hands. Gunsberg dropped out by hanging a piece to Lasker, though he was already a pawn down before the blunder.

    -----

    <Round 7 (Friday, August 30)> table[
    25 Leather 0 Burn
    26 Bauer 0 Van Vliet
    27 Gunsberg Mason
    28 Van Foreest 0 Loman
    Bye - Lasker

    <5.5>: Burn
    <5.0>: Lasker, Mason* <4.0>: Van Vliet <3.5>: Gunsberg <2.5>: Loman*
    <2.0>: Bauer
    <0.5>: Van Foreest <0.0>: Leather ]table

    As expected, Burn moved into the lead after some sharp play against Leather. Mason, with a bye yet to come, was obviously not going to catch him, but Lasker was scheduled to play Burn in the last round and would have a chance to catch up.

    -----

    <Round 8 (Saturday, August 31)> table[
    29 Bauer 1 Leather
    30 Gunsberg 0 Burn
    31 Van Foreest Van Vliet
    32 Lasker Mason
    Bye - Loman

    <6.5>: Burn
    <5.5>: Lasker, Mason* <4.5>: Van Vliet <3.5>: Gunsberg <3.0>: Bauer
    <2.5>: Loman
    <1.0>: Van Foreest <0.0>: Leather ]table

    Burn ground down Gunsberg, clinching a tie for first as Lasker could only draw after a slow opening.

    -----

    <Round 9 (Sunday, September 1)> table[
    33 Gunsberg Bauer
    34 Van Foreest + Leather**
    35 Lasker Burn
    36 Loman Van Vliet
    Bye - Mason ]table

    Lasker apparently decided to be satisfied with second place, as he played the Exchange variation against Burn's French and took the draw after 15 moves. Van Vliet had a chance to tie Mason for third and played a bit more enterprising against Loman, but the draw was agreed before move 30 as well.

    Bauer had a chance to take fifth place with a win, and resorted to an early version of the Pirc. Gunsberg had the advantage most of the way in a long game, but Bauer was able to hold.

    Leather decided to end his tournament a round early. Can't say I blame him. table[
    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
    1 Burn * = = 1 1 1 1 1 1 7.0
    2 Lasker = * = 0 1 1 1 1 1 6.0
    3 Mason = = * = = = 1 1 1 5.5
    4 Van Vliet 0 1 = * = 1 = = 1 5.0
    5 Gunsberg 0 0 = = * = = 1 1 4.0
    6 Bauer 0 0 = 0 = * 1 = 1 3.5
    7 Loman 0 0 0 = = 0 * 1 1 3.0
    8 Van Foreest 0 0 0 = 0 = 0 * 1 2.0
    9 Leather 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 * 0.0 ]table

    -----
    <Sources>

    <British Chess Magazine>, August 1889, p.318:

    <Der Internationale Schachkongress zu Amsterdam im August 1889> / bearbeitet von Jur. Das. D van Foreest und Cand.-Jur. L. D. Tresling. Utrecht : J.E. Beijers, 1891.

    <Yenowine's News>, September 29, 1889.

    34 games, 1889

  5. Amsterdam 1899
    International Amateur Tournament
    Amsterdam, Netherlands
    August 7-16, 1899

    The tournament consisted of sixteen players, mainly from the Netherlands and Germany with single representatives from England and Austria:

    Henry Ernest Atkins Dirk Bleijkmans Julius Dimer Arnold van Foreest Jan Frederik Heemskerk Jan Willem te Kolste Nathan Mannheimer Willem Barend Hendrik Meiners Julien Jean Rudolphe Moquette Adolf Georg Olland Josef Partaj Friedrich Wilhelm Pelzer Wilhelm Schwan Rudolf Swiderski Joan Diderik Tresling Cornelius Trimborn

    It turned out to be one of those tournaments where the final crosstable speaks louder than words:

    table[
    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 Henry Ernest Atkins * 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 15.0 2 Adolf Georg Olland 0 * 0 1 = = 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11.0 3 Jan Diderik Tresling 0 1 * 0 = 1 = = 1 = 1 0 1 1 1 1 10.0 4 Dirk Bleijkmans 0 0 1 * 1 0 = 1 1 1 = 1 1 0 1 1 10.0 5 Nathan Mannheimer 0 = = 0 * 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 10.0 6 Rudolf Swiderski 0 = 0 1 0 * 0 = 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10.0 7 Julius Dimer 0 0 = = 0 1 * 0 = 1 = 1 1 = 1 1 8.5 8 Arnold Van Foreest 0 0 = 0 0 = 1 * 1 = 1 1 0 1 1 1 8.5 9 Josef Partaj 0 1 0 0 1 0 = 0 * = 0 = 1 1 0 1 6.5 10 F W Pelzer 0 0 = 0 1 0 0 = = * = 1 1 0 = 1 6.5 11 J J R Moquette 0 0 0 = 0 0 = 0 1 = * 0 0 1 1 1 5.5 12 Wilhelm Schwan 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 = 0 1 * 0 = 1 1 5.0 13 W B H Meiners 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 * = = 1 5.0 14 Jan-Willem te Kolste 0 0 0 1 0 0 = 0 0 1 0 = = * 0 = 4.0 15 Jan Frederik Heemskerk 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 = 0 0 = 1 * 0 3.0 16 Cornelius Trimborn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 = 1 * 1.5 ]table

    Perfect scores in international tournaments are rare and generally memorable, but Atkins' 15-0 is largely forgotten. Part of the reason is that there weren't any big names among his opponents. If you compare his achievement with perfect scores by Lasker (Game Collection: New York 1893, The Impromtu Tournament or Capablanca (Game Collection: Rice CC Summer Masters Tourn. (New York 1913)), there seems no comparison between the strength of the opposition--at least, for those more familiar with US chess history than Dutch chess history.

    In any event, if 15-0 were that easy everybody would do it. Most masters who visited the Netherlands for a tournament knew better than to take the locals lightly.

    As it turned out, Atkins needed most of those points. Olland started out with two draws, then ran off nine wins in a row before a round 12 loss left him two points down. He made a gallant effort in their round 13 game, but Atkins ground away to clinch the tournament. By then he had two of the tailenders left to play, so why not go for it? Last place finisher Trimborn put up a grim resistance in the final round and may have even missed a draw, but Atkins was not to be denied.

    Atkins played a number of attractive games in this touranment, particularly with White, but it was the round 8 game J D Tresling vs H E Atkins, 1899 which took away the brillancy prize.

    <SCORING BY ROUNDS> table[
    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 1 Atkins 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 15.0 2 Olland = = 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 11.0 3 Bleijkmans 1 = 0 = 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 10.0 4 Mannheimer = 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 = 0 1 0 1 10.0 5 Swiderski 1 = 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 = 1 1 1 1 0 10.0 6 Tresling = = 1 1 = 0 1 0 1 1 = 1 0 1 1 10.0 7 Dimer = = 1 = = 0 1 = 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 8.5 8 Van Foreest = 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 = = 1 1 1 0 8.5 9 Partaj = 1 1 0 = 0 1 = 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 6.5 10 Pelzer 0 = 0 = = 1 0 1 1 1 = 0 = 0 0 6.5 11 Moquette = = 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 = 0 1 5.5 12 Meiners 0 = 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 = 0 0 0 5.5 13 Schwan = 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 = 0 0 1 0 1 5.0 14 te Kolste 0 = 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 = = = 0 1 0 4.0 15 Heemskerk 0 = 0 = 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 3.0 16 Trimborn 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 = 0 0 0 0 1.5 ]table

    <PROGRESSIVE SCORE> table[
    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 1 Atkins 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 2 Olland 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 10 10 11 11 3 Bleijkmans 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 5 6 6 7 8 9 10 4 Mannheimer 1 2 3 4 4 5 6 7 7 8 8 9 9 10 5 Swiderski 1 1 1 2 3 4 4 5 5 6 7 8 9 10 10 6 Tresling 1 2 3 3 3 4 4 5 6 7 8 8 9 10 7 Dimer 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 4 4 5 6 7 7 8 8 Van Foreest 1 2 2 2 3 4 4 5 5 6 7 8 8 9 Partaj 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 6 10 Pelzer 0 1 1 2 2 3 4 5 6 6 6 6 6 11 Moquette 1 1 1 2 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 5 12 Meiners 0 1 2 2 3 3 4 5 5 5 5 13 Schwan 1 1 1 1 2 3 3 3 4 4 5 14 te Kolste 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 15 Heemskerk 0 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 16 Trimborn 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ]table

    <Tournament book>: Amsterdam Internationale Schaakwedstrijd edited by H. D. B. Meijer. http://books.google.com/books?id=-b.... Thanks to <Calli> for spotting it.

    <Other sources>

    Many thanks to User: thomastonk for tracking down the dates of the individual rounds from contemporary newspapers, mostly the <Algemeen Handelsbad>. Also to User: Stonehenge for submitting many of the games.

    <British Chess Magazine>, 1899, p. 373>: http://books.google.com/books?id=Ro...

    <Deutsche Schachzeitung>, September 1899, p. 284, : http://books.google.com/books?id=9j... November 1899, p. 331: http://books.google.com/books?id=9j...

    <Tijdschrift van den Nederlandschen Schaakbond>, January 1900, p. 16-17: http://books.google.com/books?id=kh...

    <Wiener Schachzeitung>, August/September 1899, p. 126: http://books.google.com/books?id=nR...


    120 games, 1899

  6. Anglo-American Cable Matches, 1896-1911
    From 1896 to 1911 the Anglo-American Cable Match was a highlight on the chess calendars of Great Britain and the United States, attracting some of the best players from both nations. Thirteen matches in all were played, and to say the results were even is an understatement: each side won 6 matches (with one match drawn) and each side scored exactly 64 points in the 13 matches. This was a competitive and hard-fought series all the way, with very few short draws or quick victories.

    The matches were played over two days at the relatively fast time limit of 20 moves per hour, though transmission times slowed this down a bit. Two four-hour sessions were played each day with an one-hour interval between, starting at 3:00 PM (London time) or 10:00 AM (New York time). Unfinished games after the fourth session were to be adjudicated, though this was rarely necessary as the two sides could usually agree as to the results. There were some minor changes to these conditions throughout the series, but they remained fairly consistent throughout.

    In general, the players were required to be "native-born", though this requirement was relaxed for children born to citizens who were overseas at the time, such as Hermann G Voigt or George Alan Thomas .

    The prize at stake was the Sir George Newnes Cup, which was to remain in the permanent possession of the first team to win three matches in a row. When Great Britain accomplished this feat in 1909-1911, the series ended. A picture of the Cup can be found at http://www.rookhouse.com/blog/index... (scroll down a bit; thanks to <The Focus> for pointing this out).

    <Match 1, March 13-14, 1896: USA 4, GBR 3> (USA White on the odd-numbered boards)

    1 Pillsbury 0 Blackburne
    2 Showalter 1 Burn
    3 Burille 1 Bird
    4 Barry 1 Tinsley
    5 Hymes 1/2 Locock
    6 Hodges 1/2 Mills
    7 Delmar 1/2 Atkins
    8 Baird 0 Jackson

    The first match proved a pattern for what was to come, as the lead seesawed back and forth. Lawrence put the British up, but Bird evened things up by blundering his king. Showalter put the Americans ahead, Blackburne evened the match, then Barry clinched it with the last game to finish.

    <Match 2, February 12-13, 1897: GBR 5, USA 4> (GBR White on the odd-numbered boards)

    1 Blackburne 1/2 Pillsbury
    2 Locock 0 Showalter
    3 Atkins 1 Burille
    4 Lawrence 0 Barry
    5 Mills 1/2 Hymes
    6 Bellingham 1/2 Hodges
    7 Blake 0 Delmar
    8 Jackson 1 Helms
    9 Cole, Henry 1 Teed
    10 Jacobs 1 McCutcheon

    The second match saw the rosters expand to ten players, which seemed to favor the British as their one-point victory was due in large part to a sweep on the bottom three boards.

    <Match 3, March 18-19, 1898: GBR 5, USA 4> (USA White on the odd-numbered boards)

    1 Pillsbury 1/2 Blackburne
    2 Showalter 1 Burn
    3 Barry 1 Caro
    4 Hymes 1/2 Atkins
    5 Hodges 1 Bellingham
    6 Delmar 0 Mills
    7 Baird 1/2 Locock
    8 Young 0 Jackson
    9 Robinson 0 Jacobs
    10 Galbreath 0 Trenchard

    Once again, British depth told the story. The Americans scored 4-1 on the top five boards, but could only manage 1/2-point on the bottom five. Board 7 was possibly the least interesting game in the entire series, Baird producing nothing from his last 45 moves except a very long scoresheet.

    <Match 4, March 10-11, 1899: USA 6, GBR 4> (GBR White on the odd-numbered boards)

    1 Blackburne 1 Pillsbury
    2 Atkins 0 Showalter
    3 Lawrence 0 Barry
    4 Jackson 0 Hodges
    5 Mills 1/2 Hymes
    6 Jacobs 1/2 Voigt
    7 Locock 1/2 Johnston
    8 Wainwright 1/2 Marshall
    9 Bellingham 1/2 Newman
    10 Trenchard 1/2 Baird

    Since Great Britain had won two matches in a row, a victory this year would give them permananet possession of the Newnes Cup--but the Americans put an emphatic stop to that with their usual good performance on the top boards and a solid job by the lower. Notable among the newcomers was a young Frank J. Marshall, who showed some promise.

    <Match 5, March 23-24, 1900: USA 6, GBR 4> (USA White on the odd-numbered boards)

    1 Pillsbury 1/2 Blackburne
    2 Showalter 1/2 Lee
    3 Barry 1 Atkins
    4 Hodges 1 Bellingham
    5 Hymes 1/2 Mills
    6 Voigt 1 Lawrence
    7 Marshall 0 Jackson
    8 Bampton 0 Jacobs
    9 Newman 1/2 Ward
    10 Delmar 1 Trenchard

    The USA made it two victories in a row with another solid performance on the higher boards. Pillsbury remained winless in five cable games against Blackburne, and Showalter was finally slowed after four wins in a row. However, Barry kept his winning streak intact, Hodges contributed a second victory, and Hymes made in five draws in a row.

    <Match 6, April 19-20, 1901: USA 5, GBR 5> (USA White on the odd-numbered boards)

    1 Pillsbury 1 Blackburne
    2 Showalter 0 Mason
    3 Barry 1/2 Lee
    4 Hodges 1/2 Mills
    5 Hymes 1 Atkins
    6 Voigt 1/2 Bellingham
    7 Marshall 0 Ward
    8 Bampton 1/2 Jackson
    9 Newman 1 Jacobs
    10 Howell 0 Michell

    It was now the USA's turn to be within one win of retaining the Newnes Cup permanently, but the British just hung on with a tie match that broke several streaks. Pillsbury finally collected a win on board 1 over Blackburne, but Showalter suffered his first loss and Barry his first draw. On the other hand, Hymes ended his run of draws with a victory, but it was not enough.

    <Match 7, March 14-15, 1902: USA 5, GBR 4> (USA White on the odd-numbered boards)

    1 Pillsbury 1/2 Lawrence
    2 Barry 1/2 Mason
    3 Marshall 0 Atkins
    4 Hodges 1 Lee
    5 Hymes 1/2 Mills
    6 Voigt 1/2 Bellingham
    7 Delmar 0 Trenchard
    8 Newman 1/2 Blake
    9 Howell 1 Michell
    10 Helms 1 Girdlestone

    The United States started a new winning streak, in a year that saw regulars like Blackburne, Jackson, Jacobs and Showalter missing. Some new blood had to be found, and the USA replacements worked out better. An unusual feature saw Pillsbury and Marshall, who had just finished a tournament in Monte Carlo, hopping across the Channel and playing their games over-the-board in London.

    <Match 8, April 3-4, 1903: USA 5, GBR 4> (GBR White on the odd-numbered boards)

    1 Lawrence 1/2 Pillsbury
    2 Blackburne 0 Barry
    3 Mills 1/2 Hodges
    4 Atkins 0 Marshall
    5 Bellingham 1 Hymes
    6 Trenchard 0 Voigt
    7 Michell 1 Newman
    8 Jacobs 1/2 Delmar
    9 Gunston 1 Howell
    10 Hooke 0 Helms

    The Americans fielded the same team as the previous year, and another narrow victory gave the Americans 4 wins in the previous 5 matches. They were still one win short of the three-in-a-row clause., but the aged and ill Blackburne was no longer the same force and the British seemed to have nobody coming forward to take up the slack.

    Pillsbury and Marshall once again played their games in London, the latter pulling off a patented swindle to get his first cable match win.

    With all the momentum on the American side, it looked like 1904 might see the end of the series. But then free enterprise intervened.

    In both 1904 and 1905 the teams were ready to play, but at the last moment the cable companies refused to carry the moves in a dispute over compensation. For some time it seemed the series would come to an untimely end, but eventually matters were worked oout and the next match was held in 1907--by which time some things had happened.

    <Match 9, February 22-23, 1907: GBR 5, USA 4> (USA White on the odd-numbered boards)

    1 Marshall 1/2 Burn
    2 Barry 0 Atkins
    3 Hodges 1/2 Lawrence
    4 Voigt 1/2 Blackburne
    5 Morgan 0 Richmond
    6 Fox 1/2 Lee
    7 Bampton 1 Ward
    8 Wolbrecht 1/2 Holmes
    9 Howell 1 Michell
    10 Robinson 0 Wainwright

    With the death of Pillsbury and the inactivity of several other familiar faces, fully half the American team changed. Burn got his pipe going in time to strengthen the British side, and the bottom game went their way when Robinson blundered a rook by falling for an elementary trap in the French Defense.

    The British got another break on board 5 when Mordecai Morgan forfeited on time, under the misapprehension that the control was 40/2 rather than 20/1. The Americans did have some consolation in Howell's brilliant win (played live in London).

    So how seriously did the players take this event? Marshall participated though he was in the middle of his world championship match with Lasker!

    <Match 10, March 13-14, 1908: USA 6, GBR 3> (GBR White on the odd-numbered boards)

    1 Blackburne 1/2 Hodges
    2 Atkins 1/2 Voigt
    3 Lawrence 1/2 Helms
    4 Richmond 1/2 Delmar
    5 Wainwright 1/2 Stadelman
    6 Ward 1/2 Howell
    7 England 0 Schwietzer
    8 Michell 0 Wolbrecht
    9 Palmer 0 Libaire
    10 Sergeant 1/2 Robinson

    The 1908 meeting was probably the weakest of the series thus far, with many top players on both sides missing. In the end, it was the Americans who pushed the right buttons and scored the most lop-sided victory thus far.

    <Match 11, March 26-27, 1909: GBR 6, USA 4> (USA White on the odd-numbered boards)

    1 Marshall 1 Blackburne
    2 Barry 1/2 Lawrence
    3 Hodges 1 Ward
    4 Voigt 1 Wainwright
    5 Howell 0 Blake
    6 Helms 0 Michell
    7 Schwietzer 0 Wahltuch
    8 Stadelman 1/2 Holmes
    9 Mlotkowski 0 Sergeant
    10 Ruth 0 Jacobs

    With the teams closer to full strength, Great Britain again showed their traditional depth: they scored only 1 draw on the top four boards, but collected 5 on the bottom six!

    Marshall later related how he announced mate in five against Blackburne and received the reply, "Saw it; gone home."

    <Match 12, March 11-12, 1910: GBR 6, USA 3> (USA White on the odd-numbered boards)

    1 Marshall 1 Blackburne
    2 Barry 0 Atkins
    3 Hodges 1/2 Lawrence
    4 Voigt 0 Wahltuch
    5 Wolbrecht 0 Yates
    6 Stadelman 0 Wainwright
    7 Schwietzer 1/2 Ward
    8 Black 1 Blake
    9 Rosenfeld 0 Thomas
    10 Meyer 1/2 Michell

    The British won their second match in a row, duplicating the Americans' record margin from 1908. They had some strong, upcoming players on their side with Yates and Thomas playing for the first time. Atkins' win was widely considered the best game of the match, and possibly of his career.

    On a sad note, Sir George Newnes, whose Cup had helped kick off the nonsense, died in 1910. Perhaps it was appropriate that the next match would be the last.

    <Match 13, April 21-22, 1911: GBR 6, USA 4> (GBR White on the odd-numbered boards)

    1 Burn 1 Marshall
    2 Atkins 1/2 Hodges
    3 Lawrence 0 Fox
    4 Wahltuch 1 Barry
    5 Yates 1 Voigt
    6 Richmond 0 Black
    7 Ward 1 Walcott
    8 Thomas 1 Neill
    9 Michell 1/2 Schwietzer
    10 Cole 0 Meyer

    Three times before, a team had been on the brink of gaining perpetual possession of the Newnes Cup. The fourth time was a charm.

    It was the top half of the team which really let the Americans down this time, as Marshall, Barry and Voigt, heroes of many previous matches, all lost their games. First-time players Walcott and Neill also lost, killing any chance of a comeback. (By the way, Neill's name is usually given as <B Milnes>, but this was actually a pseudonym of Benjamin Milnes Neill.)

    The 65 players who participated are listed below, with their records. The player's name is followed by his (country), year, (board number), result and opponent. By the way, <Albert Hodges> was the only player to come out for all 13 matches, and he was also able to remain undefeated the entire way (5 wins, 8 draws). Other players with at leat 10 appearances were Atkins and Barry (12), Blackburne (11), Lawrence and Voigt (10).

    1. Henry Ernest Atkins (GBR): 1896 (7) D-Delmar; 1897 (3) W-Burille; 1898 (4) D-Hymes; 1899 (2) L-Showalter; 1900 (3) L-Barry; 1901 (5) L-Hymes; 1902 (3) W-Marshall; 1903 (4) L-Marshall; 1907 (2) W-Barry; 1908 (2) D-Voigt; 1910 (2) W-Barry; 1911 (2) D-Hodges. +4 -4 =4 .500

    2. David Graham Baird (USA): 1896 (8) L-Jackson; 1898 (7) D-Locock; 1899 (10) D-Trenchard. +0 -1 =2 .333

    3. Samuel Warren Bampton (USA): 1900 (8) L-Jacobs; 1901 (8) D-Jackson; 1907 (7) W-Ward. +1 -1 =1 .500

    4. John Finan Barry (USA): 1896 (4) W-Tinsley; 1897 (4) W-Lawrence; 1898 (3) W-Caro; 1899 (3) W-Lawrence; 1900 (3) W-Atkins; 1901 (3) D-Lee; 1902 (2) D-Mason; 1903 (2) W-Blackburne; 1907 (2) L-Atkins; 1909 (2) D-Lawrence; 1910 (2) L-Atkins; 1911 (4) L-Wahltuch. +6 -3 =3 .625

    5. George Edward H Bellingham (GBR): 1897 (6) D-Hodges; 1898 (5) L-Hodges; 1899 (9) D-Newman; 1900 (4) L-Hodges; 1901 (6) D-Voigt; 1902 (6) D-Voigt; 1903 (5) W-Hymes. +1 -2 =4 .429

    6. Henry Edward Bird (GBR): 1896 (3) L-Burille. +0 -1 =0 .000

    7. Roy Turnbull Black (USA): 1910 (8) W-Blake; 1911 (6) W-Richmond. +2 -0 =0 1.000

    8. Joseph Henry Blackburne (GBR): 1896 (1) W-Pillsbury; 1897 (1) D-Pillsbury; 1898 (1) D-Pillsbury; 1899 (1) W-Pillsbury; 1900 (1) D-Pillsbury; 1901 (1) L-Pillsbury; 1903 (2) L-Barry; 1907 (4) D-Voigt; 1908 (1) D-Hodges; 1909 (1) L-Marshall; 1910 (1) L-Marshall. +2 -4 =5 .409

    9. Joseph Henry Blake (GBR): 1897 (7) L-Delmar; 1902 (8) D-Newman; 1909 (5) W-Howell; 1910 (8) L-Black. +1 -2 =1 .375

    10. Constant Ferdinand Burille (USA): 1896 (3) W-Bird; 1897 (3) L-Atkins. +1 -1 =0 .500

    11. Amos Burn (GBR): 1896 (2) L-Showalter; 1898 (2) L-Showalter; 1907 (1) D-Marshall; 1911 (1) W-Marshall. +1 -2 =1 .375

    12. Horatio Caro (GBR): 1898 (3) L-Barry. +0 -1 =0 .000

    13. Harold Godfrey Cole (GBR): 1911 (10) L-Meyer. +0 -1 =0 .000

    14. Henry Holwell Cole (GBR): 1897 (9) W-Teed. +1 -0 =0 1.000

    15. Eugene Delmar (USA): 1896 (7) D-Atkins; 1897 (7) W-Blake; 1898 (6) L-Mills; 1900 (10) W-Trenchard; 1901 (7) L-Trenchard; 1903 (8) D-Jacobs; 1908 (4) D-Richmond. +2 -2 =3 .500

    16. Philip Remington England (GBR): 1908 (7) L-Schwietzer. + 0 -1 =0 .000

    17. Albert Whiting Fox (USA): 1907 (6) D-Lee; 1911 (3) W-Lawrence. +1 -0 =1 .750

    18. John Albert Galbreath (USA): 1898 (10) L-Trenchard. +0 -1 =0 .000

    19. Thomas Bolton Girdlestone (GBR): 1902 (10) L-Helms. +0 -1 =0 .000

    20. William Hewison Gunston (GBR): 1903 (9) W-Howell. +1 -0 =0 1.000

    21. Hermann Helms (USA): 1897 (8) L-Jackson; 1902 (10) W-Girdlestone; 1903 (10) W-Hooke; 1908 (3) D-Lawrence; 1909 (6) L-Michell. +2 -2 =1 .500

    22. Albert Hodges (USA): 1896 (6) D-Mills; 1897 (6) D-Bellingham; 1898 (5) W-Bellingham; 1899 (4) W-Jackson; 1900 (4) W-Bellingham; 1901 (4) D-Mills; 1902 (4) W-Lee; 1903 (3) D-Mills; 1907 (3) D-Lawrence; 1908 (1) D-Blackburne; 1909 (3) W-Ward; 1910 (3) D-Lawrence; 1911 (2) D-Atkins. +5 -0 =8 .692

    23. Harry H Holmes (GBR): 1907 (8) D-Wolbrecht; 1909 (8) D-Stadelman. +0 -0 =2 .500

    24. George Archer Hooke (GBR): 1903 (10) L-Helms. +0 -1 =0 .000

    25. Clarence Seaman Howell (USA): 1901 (10) L-Michell; 1902 (9) W-Michell; 1903 (9) L-Gusnton; 1907 (9) W-Michell; 1908 (6) D-Ward; 1909 (5) L-Blake. +2 -3 =1 .417

    26. Edward Hymes (USA): 1896 (5) D-Locock; 1897 (5) D-Mills; 1898 (4) D-Atkins; 1899 (5) D-Mills; 1900 (5) D-Mills; 1901 (5) W-Atkins; 1902 (5) D-Mills; 1903 (5) L-Bellingham. +1 -1 =6 .500

    27. Edward Mackenzie Jackson (GBR): 1896 (8) W-Baird; 1897 (8) W-Helms; 1898 (8) W-Young; 1899 (4) L-Hodges; 1900 (7) W-Marshall; 1901 (8) D-Bampton. +4 -1 =1 .750

    28. Herbert Levi Jacobs (GBR): 1897 (10) W-McCutcheon; 1898 (9) W-Robinson; 1899 (6) D-Voigt; 1900 (8) W-Bampton; 1901 (9) L-Newman; 1903 (8) D-Delmar; 1909 (10) W-Ruth. +4 -1 =2 .714

    29. Sidney Paine Johnston (USA): 1899 (7) D-Locock. +0 -0 =1 .500

    30. Thomas Francis Lawrence (GBR): 1897 (4) L-Barry; 1899 (3) L-Barry; 1900 (6) L-Voigt; 1902 (1) D-Pillsbury; 1903 (1) D-Pillsbury; 1907 (3) D-Hodges; 1908 (3) D-Helms; 1909 (2) D-Barry; 1910 (3) D-Hodges; 1911 (3) L-Fox. +0 -4 =6 .300

    31. Francis Joseph Lee (GBR): 1900 (2) D-Showalter; 1901 (3) D-Barry; 1902 (4) L-Hodges; 1907 (6) D-Fox. +0 -1 =3 .375

    32. Edward William Libaire (USA): 1908 (9) W-Palmer. +1 -0 =0 1.000

    33. Charles Dealtry Locock (GBR): 1896 (5) D-Hymes; 1897 (2) L-Showalter; 1898 (7) D-Baird; 1899 (7) D-Johnston. +0 -1 =3 .375

    34. Frank James Marshall (USA): 1899 (8) D-Wainwright; 1900 (7) L-Jackson; 1901 (7) L-Ward; 1902 (3) L-Atkins; 1903 (4) W-Atkins; 1907 (1) D-Burn; 1909 (1) W-Blackburne; 1910 (1) W-Blackburne; 1911 (1) L-Burn. +3 -4 =2 .444

    35. James Mason (GBR): 1901 (2) W-Showalter; 1902 (2) D-Barry. +1 -0 =1 .750

    36. John Lindsay McCutcheon (USA): 1897 (10) L-Jacobs. +0 -1 =0 .000

    37. Leonard B Meyer (USA): 1910 (10) D-Michell; 1911 (10) W-Cole, Harold. +1 -0 =1 .750

    38. Reginald Pryce Michell (GBR): 1901 (10); W-Howell; 1902 (10) L-Howell; 1903 (7) W-Newman; 1907 (9) L-Howell; 1908 (8) L-Wolbrecht; 1909 (6) W-Helms; 1910 (10) D-Meyer; 1911 (9) D-Schwietzer. +3 -3 =2 .500

    39. Daniel Yarnton Mills (GBR): 1896 (6) D-Hodges; 1897 (5) D-Hymes; 1898 (6) W-Delmar; 1899 (5) D-Hymes; 1900 (5) D-Hymes; 1901 (4) D-Hodges; 1902 (5) D-Hymes; 1903 (3) D-Hodges. +1 -0 =7 .563

    40. Stasch Mlotkowski (USA): 1909 (9) L-Sergeant. +0 -1 =0 .000

    41. Mordecai Morgan (USA): 1907 (5) L-Richmond. +0 -1 =0 .000

    42. Benjamin Milnes Neill (USA): 1911 (8) L-Thomas. +0 -1 =0 .000

    43. Charles John Newman (USA): 1899 (9) D-Bellingham; 1900 (9) D-Ward; 1901 (9) W-Jacobs; 1902 (8) D-Blake; 1903 (7) L-Michell. +1 -1 =3 .500

    44. Wilfred Charles Palmer (GBR): 1908 (9) L-Libaire. +0 -1 =0 .000

    45. Harry Nelson Pillsbury (USA): 1896 (1) L-Blackburne; 1897 (1) D-Blackburne; 1898 (1) D-Blackburne; 1899 (1) L-Blackburne; 1900 (1) D-Blackburne; 1901 (1) W-Blackburne; 1902 (1) D-Lawrence; 1903 (1) D-Lawrence. +1 -2 =5 .438

    46. George William Richmond (GBR): 1907 (5) W-Morgan; 1908 (4) D-Delmar; 1911 (6) L-Black. +1 -1 =1 .500

    47. Alfred K Robinson (USA): 1898 (9) L-Jacobs; 1907 (10) L-Wainwright; 1908 (10) D-Sergeant. +0 -2 =1 .167

    48. Herbert Rosenfeld (USA): 1910 (9) L-Thomas. +0 -1 =0 .000

    49. William Allen Ruth (USA): 1909 (10) L-Jacobs. +0 -1 =0 .000

    50. George Schwietzer (USA): 1908 (7) W-England; 1909 (7) L-Wahltuch; 1910 (7) D-Ward; 1911 (9) D-Michell. +1 -1 =2 .500

    51. Edward G Sergeant (GBR): 1908 (10) D-Robinson; 1909 (9) W-Mlotkowski. +1 -0 =1 .750

    52. Jackson Whipps Showalter (USA): 1896 (2) W-Burn; 1897 (2) W-Locock; 1898 (2) W-Burn; 1899 (2) W-Atkins; 1900 (2) D-Lee; 1901 (2) L-Mason. +4 -1 =1 .750

    53. Samuel Leigh Stadelman (USA): 1908 (5) D-Wainwirght; 1909 (8) D-Holmes; 1910 (6) L-Wainwirght. +0 -1 =2 .333

    54. Frank Melville Teed (USA): 1897 (9) L-Cole, Henry. +0 -1 =0 .000

    55. George Alan Thomas (GBR): 1910 (9) W-Rosenfeld; 1911 (8) W-Milnes. +2 -0 =0 1.000

    56. Samuel Tinsley (GBR): 1896 (4) L-Barry. +0 -1 =0 .000

    57. Herbert William Trenchard (GBR): 1898 (10) W-Galbreath; 1899 (10) D-Baird; 1900 (10) L-Delmar; 1902 (7) W-Delmar; 1903 (6) L-Voigt. +2 -2 =1 .500

    58. Hermann G Voigt (USA): 1899 (6) D-Jacobs; 1900 (6) W-Lawrence; 1901 (6) D-Bellingham; 1902 (6) D-Bellingham; 1903 (6) W-Trenchard; 1907 (4) D-Blackburne; 1908 (2) D-Atkins; 1909 (4) W-Wainwright; 1910 (4) L-Wahltuch; 1911 (5) L-Yates. +3 -2 =5 .550

    59. Victor Leonard Wahltuch (GBR): 1909 (7) W-Schwietzer; 1910 (4) W-Voigt; 1911 (4) W-Barry. +3 -0 =0 1.000

    60. George Edward Wainwright (GBR): 1899 (8) D-Marshall; 1907 (10) W-Robinson; 1908 (5) D-Stadelman; 1909 (4) L-Voigt; 1910 (6) W-Stadelman. +2 -1 =2 .600

    61. George H Walcott (USA): 1911 (7) L-Ward. +0 -1 =0 .000

    62. William Ward (GBR): 1900 (9) D-Newman; 1901 (7) W-Marshall; 1907 (7) L-Bampton; 1908 (6) D-Howell; 1909 (3) L-Hodges; 1910 (7) D-Schwietzer; 1911 (7) W-Walcott. +2 -2 =3 .500

    63. George H Wolbrecht (USA): 1907 (8) D-Holmes; 1908 (8) W-Michell; 1910 (5) L-Yates. +1 -1 =1 .500

    64. Fred Dewhirst Yates (GBR): 1910 (5) W-Wolbrecht; 1911 (5) W-Voigt. +2 -0 =0 1.000

    65. Franklin Knowles Young (USA): 1898 (8) L-Jackson. +0 -1 =0 .000

    <Sources>:

    http://www.365chess.com proved an excellent source for games, even compiling results by tournament. However, their player information must be appproached with caution, and sometimes the dates given are incorrect.

    <Chess Results, 1747-1900> and <Chess Results 1901-1920> compiled by Gino di Felice were a helpful source to verify players' names and results--though I do wish he wouldn't insist on using the term <Radiomatch>, which is both inaccurate and anachonistic.

    If you want greater detail than the summary provided above, there are <Great Britain versus America : cable matches 1895-1901> and <Great Britain versus America : cable matches 1902-1911>, both edited by Terry Gillam and published by The Chess Player in 1997. Both are about 75 pages long. However, I did not consult them.

    There are accounts from contemporary periodicals available online through Google Books. The <American Chess Magazine> (with which I was not acquainted previously) is chatty and profusely illustrated; the <British Chess Magazine> is both stately and lively, and feels a bit more objective; and the <American Chess Bulletin> is interesting reading as well. I think you'll enjoy the accounts from all three.

    Archival copies of news reports from the <New York Times> and the <Brooklyn Daily Eagle> are also available, and I'll be popping in some links as I find them. Thanks to <Calli> and <TheFocus> for showing the way to these resources.

    <1896>: British Chess Magazine, 1896, p.151: http://books.google.com/books?id=5Y... New York Times: (2/24/96), http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstra... (3/14/96), http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstra... (3/15/96), http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstra... (3/15/96 editorial), http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstra...

    <1897>: British Chess Magazine, 1897, p.81: http://books.google.com/books?id=eR...

    <1898>: American Chess Magazine, v.1, p.547 http://books.google.com/books?id=53... British Chess Magazine, 1898, p.150 http://books.google.com/books?id=73...

    <1899>: American Chess Magazine, v.2, p.419: http://books.google.com/books?id=02... British Chess Magazine, 1899, p.146: http://books.google.com/books?id=ln...

    <1900>: British Chess Magazine, 1900, p. 144: http://books.google.com/books?id=Gp...

    <1901>: British Chess Magazine, 1901, p.202: http://books.google.com/books?id=1H...

    <1902>: British Chess Magazine, 1902, p.166: http://books.google.com/books?id=S3...

    <1903>: British Chess Magainze, 1903, p.202: http://books.google.com/books?id=0X...

    <1907>: American Chess Bulletin, 1907, p.69: http://books.google.com/books?id=3C...

    <1908>: American Chess Bulletin, 1908, p.84: http://books.google.com/books?id=uS...

    If you discover some errors or unearth more online sources, please leave a note at my forum.

    128 games, 1896-1911

  7. Banks - Steiner 1937
    In the winter of 1936/1937, Newell Williams Banks toured the Southern United States, giving checkers and chess exhibitions, before reaching Los Angeles. That's where Herman Steiner, was living and promoting chess, and a match was arranged. A little extra publicity for their respective purposes certainly did no harm.

    The <Los Angles Times>, to which Steiner contributed a weekly column, reported on February 20, 1937:

    <Chess Experts Play Today>

    <Ten-Game Match to Be Started Here by Cahmpions>

    "At 2 p.m. today, two internationally known chess players will face each other across a board at the Los Angeles Chess and Checkers Club, 810 West Sixth street, to begin the first game of a ten-game individual match which is open to the public.

    <FRIENDLY ENEMIES>

    The friendly rivals will be Newell W. Banks of Detroit, who in addition to being a chess expert is blindfold checkers champion of the world, and herman Steiner, chess editor of the Times, Pacific Coast champion, and member of the American Olympic chess team which won the world's championship three consecutive times.

    "Each game in the match will to borth moves during a two-hour period for each player. Referees will be E. P. Elliott, secretary-manager of the club, and Dr. R. b. Griffith, former Southern California chess champion.

    <EXHIBTION GAMES>

    "While in Los Angeles, Banks, who held the American match checkers championship for twenty-four consecutive years, and has been giving exhibitions over a thirty-three year period, plans to appear in a series of local exhibitions.

    "In his theater appearances he plays simultaneous checkers and chess games, together with blindfold checkers."

    (As an aside: E. P . Elliott was indeed Edward P Elliott, winter of the Western Chess Association tournaments of 1908 and 1912. Several of the "Good Ol' Boys from Excelsior" had settled in the Los Angeles area around this time, including Edward Friederich Schrader (1905 winner) and John Winter.)

    Steiner was certainly one of the top players in the country, thought his move to California following the Pasadena 1932 tournament had limited his chances for strong practice. Even so, what chance did Banks have?

    Probably not much of one. He had played in at least three national level tournaments: Rice Memorial (1916), Game Collection: US Open 1924, Detroit = 25th Western Champ., and Game Collection: Chicago Masters Tournament, 1926, He had done relatively well at the Western tournament held in his hometown of Detroit, but poorly in the stronger events. He was capable of defeating both Marshall and Kashdan at the Chicago tournament, but in general seemed satisfy to draw with the stronger players.

    A promotional article under Banks' byline appeared in Steiner's column for Sunday, February 21. The first results were not mentioned until February 28:

    "The Chess and Checkers Club of Los Angeles, at 810 West Sixth street, were sponsors of a very interesting match between N. W. Banks from Detroit and the editor. So far thee games have been played. The first game was won by the editor, who took advantage of the open King Rook file, and a well posted Kt on K5. To avoid immediate loss Banks sacrificed his Rook for the Kt on his 33rd move and this enabled him to exchange the Queens but later he was not able to avoid the loss of a piece and resigned.

    Herman Steiner - Newell Williams Banks (Game 1, Saturday, February 20, 1937): 1.d4 e6 2.Nf3 d5 3.c4 c6 4.Nc3 Nf6 5.Bg5 Be7 6.e3 h6 7.Bh4 Nbd7 8.Qc2 0-0 9.Rd1 Ne8 10.Bg3 f5 11.a3 Nd6 12.cxd5 exd5 13.Bd3 Ne4 14.0-0 Ndf6 15.Ne5 Nh5 16.Ne2 Nhxg3 17.hxg3 Bg5 18.Nf4 Bxf4 19.gxf4 Be6 20.g3 Rf6 21.Kg2 Rc8 22.f3 Nd6 23.Rh1 Rc7 24.Rh5 b6 25.g4 fxg4 26.fxg4 Ne4 27.Bxe4 dxe4 28.Kg3 Bd5 29.b4 Qe8 30.Rdh1 Qe6 31.g5 Rf5 32.Qh2 Kh7 33.Qh3 Rxe5 34.dxe5 Qxh3+ 35.R5xh3 c5 36.f5 Rc6 37.b5 Rc8 38.gxh6 g6 39.Rd1 Rd8 40.fxg6+ Source: Los Angeles Times, February 28, 1937. 1-0

    "The second game resulted in a draw. It was an irregular QP game, and after Banks opened the QB file, the major pieces were exchanged on the same. On the 23rd move there were two Knights and seve Pawns for Banks and a Kt and a B and seven pawns for the writer. After much maneuver Black gained a slight advantage but not enough to win the game. In the end each was left with a Kt and three pawns. After 68 moves it was called a draw.

    Newell Williams Banks - Herman Steiner ((Game 2, played between February 20 and February 28, 1937): 1.Nf3 d5 2.c4 c6 3.d4 Nf6 4.Nc3 Nbd7 5.e3 g6 6.cxd5 cxd5 7.Qb3 e6 8.Bd3 a6 9.Bd2 Bd6 10.Rc1 0-0 11.0-0 b5 12.a3 Bb7 13.Ne2 Ne4 14.Bb4 Nb6 15.Bxd6 Qxd6 16.Bxe4 dxe4 17.Nd2 Rac8 18.Rxc8 Rxc8 19.Rc1 Rxc1+ 20.Nxc1 Qc7 21.Ne2 Bd5 22.Qc3 Qxc3 23.Nxc3 f5 24.b3 Kf7 25.Kf1 Ke7 26.Ke2 Kd6 27.Kd1 g5 28.Kc2 Bc6 29.Kb2 Nd7 30.Kc2 Nf6 31.h3 e5 32.dxe5+ Kxe5 33.Kd1 Nd7 34.Ke2 Nc5 35.b4 Nb7 36.Nb3 Bd5 37.Nxd5 Kxd5 38.Kd2 f4 39.Kc3 Nd6 40.Nd2 h5 41.g3 fxg3 42.fxg3 Nf5 43.Nf1 h4 44.gxh4 gxh4 45.Kc2 Ng3 46.Nh2 Kc4 47.Ng4 Nf5 48.Ne5+ Kd5 49.Ng4 Nd6 50.Kb3 Nc4 51.a4 Nd2+ 52.Kc2 Nf3 53.axb5 axb5 54.Kc3 Ng1 55.Nf2 Ke5 56.Ng4+ Kf5 57.Nf2 Ne2+ 58.Kd2 Ng1 59.Kc3 Ke5 60.Ng4+ Kd5 61.Nf2 Ne2+ 62.Kd2 Ng3 63.Kc3 Ne2+ 64.Kb3 Ke5 65.Kc2 Ng1 66.Kd2 Nf3+ 67.Kc3 Ng5 68.Ng4+ Source: Los Angeles Times, February 28, 1937. 1/2-1/2

    "The third game was won by the writer again. It started the same as the first up to the eighth move, where Banks tried to change his idea by moving Kt to KR4., thereby allowing White to advance KRP which later came in handy to open the KR file. This strategy called for castling on the Queen's side , which brought in the R on the KKt file and made short order of Black's K side. There followed a Q sacrifice on White's 20th move which netter a B, causing Black to resign on the 24th move."

    Herman Steiner - Newell Williams Banks((Game 3, played between February 20 and February 28, 1937): 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 Be7 5.e3 Nbd7 6.Nf3 0-0 7.a3 c6 8.Qc2 Nh5 9.h4 f5 10.Bd3 Ndf6 11.Ne5 Bd7 12.0-0-0 Rb8 13.Rdg1 Be8 14.g4 fxg4 15.Nxg4 g6 16.Bh6 Ng7 17.Nxf6+ Rxf6 18.h5 Nf5 19.Bf4 Nxd4 20.hxg6 Bxg6 21.exd4 Rxf4 22.Bxg6 Bg5 23.Bxh7+ Kf8 24.Qg6 SourceL Los Angeles Times, February 28, 1937. 1-0

    at some point, for reasons not explained in the Times, a decision was made to shorten the match to six game. This mean Steiner needed only one more point to win, and he wasted no time in getting it as described in his column of March 7:

    "The fourth and the final game in the projected six-game match was played Monday, March 1, in the Pasadena Club at the Hotel Green. The plaeyrs were enthusiastically received, and after an introductory speech by Dr. Sawyer and A. F. Taylor, the contested resumed play. The game proceeded along the usual line of the Nimzowitch Defense to the Queen's Pawn Opening. White's fourth move was weak in allowing doubling of his Queen's Bishop pawn. On his thirteenth move he made a fatal blunder which resulted in lost [sic] of a rook and the game.

    Newell Williams Banks - Herman Steiner ((Game 4, played Monday, March 1 1937): 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.a3 Bxc3+ 5.bxc3 b6 6.Nf3 Bb7 7.e3 0-0 8.Bd3 c5 9.0-0 Nc6 10.Bb2 Rc8 11.Re1 Na5 12.Rc1 Ne4 13.Nd2 Nxd2 14.Qxd2 Nb3 15.Bxh7+ Kh8 16.Qc2 Nxc1 17.Bxc1 f5 18.e4 Kxh7 19.exf5 exf5 20.d5 Qh4 21.Re5 g6 22.Qe2 Rf7 23.g3 Qf6 24.h4 Ba6 25.Bg5 Bxc4 26.Qe3 Qg7 27.f4 d6 28.Re6 Bxd5 29.Rxd6 Rd7 30.Bf6 Qf7 31.Rxd7 Qxd7 32.Qe2 Re8 33.Be5 Be4 Source: Los Angeles Times, March 7, 1937. 0-1

    table[
    1 2 3 4
    Herman Steiner 1 = 1 1 3.5
    Newell Williams Banks 0 = 0 0 0.5

    Steiner had White in the odd-numbered games.
    ]table

    -----

    <Source>
    "Los Angeles Times", February 20, 21, 27, March 1, 1937


    4 games, 1937

  8. Barmen Meisterturnier A
    Yet another of the great pre-WWI German tournaments, Barmen 1905 was held from August 12-September 1, 1905. Several worthy events were held simultaneously; see also Game Collection: Barmen Meisterturnier B 1905. This collection will focus on Meisterturnier A, which included these players:

    Semion Alapin Curt von Bardeleben Johann Nepomuk Berger Ossip Bernstein Amos Burn Mikhail Chigorin Hermann von Gottschall David Janowski Walter John Paul Saladin Leonhardt Geza Maroczy Frank James Marshall Jacques Mieses Carl Schlechter Hugo Suechting Heinrich Wolf.

    When talking about players from this time, everyone seems to know about the flamboyant Janowski and Marshall or the tragic figure of Schlechter. Maroczy is acknowledged as also being in the top rank, but seems less well defined and appreciated. One thing the man could do, though, was win the big games.

    Here he started slowly; after eight rounds he had only an even score and was two full points behind co-leaders Bernstein and Schlechter. With figures like Janowski and Marshall also ahead of him, it seemed a difficult task to catch up.

    Bernstein was the first to fade. He had actually started with 5/6, but three draws followed by successive losses to Marshall, Schlechter and Suechting ended his chances.

    Schlechter, though among the leaders, did not seem in particularly good form for the most part. Losses to Marcozy and Berger in rounds 9 and 10 dropped him behind Janowski and Marshall.

    These two stayed on top until the fatal round 14, when they lost to Berger and Chigorin respectively. Going into the last round, Maroczy had caught Janowski, both sitting a half-point ahead of Marshall and Schlechter.

    This led to a dramatic finish. Schlechter was playing White against Janowski, but went down to defeat. This meant Maroczy had to defeat outsider Von Gottschall to tie for first. It took him nearly 100 moves and every maneuver under the sun, but he pulled it off to cap a finish with 6 1/2 points in his last seven games. table[
    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
    1 Janowski * 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 10.5 2 Maroczy * 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 10.5 3 Marshall 0 * 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 10.0 4 Bernstein 1 0 * 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 9.0 5 Schlechter 0 0 0 1 * 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 9.0 6 Berger 1 1 1 * 1 0 0 0 8.0 7 Chigorin 1 0 0 0 * 0 1 0 1 1 7.0 8 Wolf 0 0 1 * 0 1 7.0 9 Leonhardt 0 0 0 1 1 0 * 1 0 0 1 1 7.0 10 John 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 * 0 1 0 1 1 1 7.0 11 Suechting 0 0 1 0 1 * 0 1 0 6.5 12 Bardeleben 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 * 1 1 0 6.5 13 Burn 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 * 1 0 6.0 14 Alapin 0 0 0 1 0 0 * 1 6.0 15 Gottschall 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 * 1 5.0 16 Mieses 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 * 5.0 ]table

    Berger's effort should not go unnoticed, with wins over Janowski, Marshall, and Schlechter. If the tournament had been restricted to just the first six players, he would have won by a full point.

    As for games to look at, check out Maroczy vs H Suechting, 1905, Schlechter vs W John, 1905, and Janowski vs Alapin, 1905, all of which share a curious similarity.

    120 games, 1905

  9. Barmen Meisterturnier B 1905
    Part of the undercard for Game Collection: Barmen Meisterturnier A, this tournament was held from August 14-September 1, 1905, and featured the following players:

    John Washington Baird Horatio Caro Wilhelm Cohn Hans Fahrni Leo Fleischmann Forgacs Ignacy Kopa Francis Joseph Lee Benjamin Leussen Augustin Neumann Aron Nimzowitsch Julius Perlis A H Pettersson Alfred Ehrhardt Post David Przepiorka Arturo Reggio Wilhelm Schwan Rudolf Spielmann Rudolf Swiderski

    For the most part, this was a three-way race between Cohn, Swiderski and Forgacs, with occasional challenges from others. The first two were tied for the lead after round 9, but Cohn lost to Swiderski in round 10 and was always a bit behind after that.

    Forgacs, recovering from a slow start, caught Swiderski in round 11 and kept up until draws in round 14 and 15 left him a full point behind with two rounds to go, while Cohn and the hard-charging Perlis were another half-point back.

    Round 16 proved critical. Cohn fell to Spielmann, who found his form for this game after losing five in a row. Perlis, going up against tail-ender Pettersson (who had scored one draw in 15 games), slowly frittered away an endgame.

    That ended their challenges, which was unfortunate because the unstable Swiderski lost his last two games, collapsing much as he had at Game Collection: Coburg 1904. Forgacs kept his nerves, won his last two games, and took the tournament by a full point. table[
    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 Forgacs * 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 13.0 2 Swiderski * 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 12.0 3 W Cohn 1 0 * 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 11.5 4 Perlis 0 0 0 * 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 10.5 5 Neumann 0 1 0 * 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 10.5 6 Fahrni 0 0 0 * 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10.5 7 Reggio 0 1 0 1 * 0 0 1 1 1 1 9.5 8 Caro 0 0 1 0 * 1 1 0 1 1 1 9.5 9 Kopa 0 0 0 1 0 1 * 1 0 1 1 1 9.0 10 Lee 1 0 0 1 * 1 0 0 1 8.5 11 Spielmann 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 * 0 1 1 1 1 1 8.5 12 Post 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 * 0 1 1 8.0 13 Leussen 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 * 1 1 1 1 8.0 14 Przepiorka 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 * 7.0 15 Schwan 0 0 0 0 0 0 * 1 6.0 16 Nimzowitsch 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 * 1 1 6.0 17 J W Baird 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 * 1 3.5 18 A H Pettersson 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 * 1.5 ]table

    153 games, 1905

  10. Bath Beach 1909
    This six-player round robin decided the 22nd New York State Chess Association championship played July 26-30, 1909. It had a couple of notable features: the participation of famous masters Frank James Marshall and Charles Jaffe --and the fact that neither of them won it!

    Jaffe got off to a rocky start, losing in rounds one and three to Wilbur Lyttleton Moorman and Herbert Rosenfeld. Marshall allowed a draw to Otto Roething in round two, dropping a half-point behind Rosenfeld who began with three straight wins.

    Marshall temporarily restored normalcy by beating Rosenfeld in round four and winning the brilliancy prize in the process. However, in an ironic prequel to Havana 1913, Jaffe defeated Marshall in the last round as Rosenfeld claimed the title with a victory over Harlow Bussey Daly. table[
    1 2 3 4 5 6
    Rosenfeld X 0 1 1 1 1 4.0
    Marshall 1 X 0 1 1 3.5
    Jaffe 0 1 X 0 1 1 3.0
    Moorman 0 0 1 X 1 2.5
    Daly 0 0 0 X 1 1.5
    Roething 0 0 0 0 X 0.5
    ]table

    So who was Herbert Rosenfeld? He was a strong member of the Manhattan Chess Club, who on the basis of this result won a spot in the 1910 Anglo-American Cable Match on the strength of this victory. Unfortunately, his career was cut short by an untimely death in late 1913.

    15 games, 1909

  11. Bright Side of Chess
    By Irving Chernev. Published 1948. Usual fun stuff, with anecdotes, quotations, games, studies, and problems. Captions to the games in this collection are Chernev's own.

    The games include 50 "Bright Games" and 15 "Immortal Games", split into "Five Classics" and "Ten Masterpieces of Brilliancy".


    65 games, 1845-1946

  12. British Championship, 1975, Morecambe
    The 1975 Britishi Championship was held in Morecambe, Lancashire, a seaside town in northwest England. Thirty-four players particiapted in an eleven-round Swiss System event.

    The results continued a trend in the British Championship. After Jonathan Penrose's run of ten championships in twelve years had been ended by Robert Wade in 1970, subsequent tournaments were won by players born after World War II. [1] Morecambe proved to be a repeat victory for 1973 Champion William Hartston, who celebrated his 28th birthday during the event with an important eighth-round victory (C W Pritchett vs Hartston, 1975).

    That win gave Hartston a full-point lead with 6.5/8, ahead of Louis De Veauce, Anthony Miles and Simon Webb. At 5.0 Were Maxwell Fuller, Owen Hindle, Craig Pritchett, and Jonathan Speelman. For the last three rounds, Hartston was content to play solid draws and let his pursuers knock each other off.

    Thus, in round nine Hartston drew with Webb, while De Veauce and Miles lost to Fuller and Speelman respectively and Hindle defeated Pritchett. In round 10, Hartston drew drew with Speelman, while Miles beat Fuller and Hindle fell to Webb. Those results left Hartston with 7.5, a half-point up on Webb going into the last round. Miles and Speelman at 6.5 and De Veauce, Fuller, Hindle, and Victor Knox on 6.0.

    The final round saw Hartston draw with Hindle. Webb had a chance to tie for first, but lost with Black against Fuller. The latter two players ties for second with Miles and De Veauce.

    [This version of the crosstable allows colors in each game to be determined. If the result (W, L, D) comes first, the player had White. If the result follows the opponent's number, the player had Black. For example, Hartston's first three results are win with Black vs. #30, draw with White vs. #12, win with Black vs. #5.] table[
    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1 William Hartston 30W D12 5 W D16 22W 3 W D 4 7 W 2 D D 6 D 9 8.0 2 Simon Webb 19D W23 7 D W18 6 W L 4 3 D 8 W D 1 W 9 5 L 7.0 3 Louis De Veauce D13 27W 12W W 6 7 W L 1 D 2 4 D L 5 15D 10W 7.0 4 Anthony Miles D32 13D W17 10D W 8 2 W 1 D D 3 6 L W 5 11D 7.0 5 Maxwell Leonard Fuller W33 8 D L 1 23D W29 D16 6 D W10 3 W 4 L W 2 7.0 6 Jonathan Speelman W28 18W W10 3 L L 2 11D D 5 22W W 4 1 D L 7 6.5 7 Craig William Pritchett W20 17W D 2 8 W L 3 10D 22W L 1 9 L D11 6 W 6.5 8 Jone Eric Littlewood 34W D 5 15W L 7 4 L W18 16W L 2 14D D12 22W 6.5 9 Owen M Hindle D29 28D D11 15D D17 27D W21 20W W7 2 L 1 D 6.5 10 Victor W Knox W14 25W 6 L D 4 16D D 7 D11 5 L W20 19W L 3 6.0 11 Jonathan Penrose 23D D26 9 D D12 13W D 6 10D D14 D15 7 D D 4 6.0 12 Alan Howard Perkins W31 1 D L 3 11D D27 17D D19 23D W22 8 D D15 6.0 13 Cafferty,Bernard 3 D D 4 19W L22 L11 29D 24D D18 27W W23 14D 6.0 14 Peter Hugh Clarke 10L L22 24D W30 26W W15 D20 11D D 8 21D D13 6.0 15 Brian Eley D27 21W L 8 D 9 34D 14L W28 W25 11D D 3 12D 6.0 16 Michael J Haygarth D25 32W D20 1 D D10 5 D L 8 17D D23 18D D21 5.5 17 Andrew John Whiteley 22W L 7 4 L W28 9 D D12 27D D16 21D D24 D18 5.5 18 Nigel Edward Povah 24W L 6 26W 2 L D23 8 L D31 13D W28 D16 17D 5.5 19 Michael Macdonald-Ross D 2 29D L13 21W W20 L22 12D W27 24D L10 23D 5.5 20 Nigel John Holloway 7 L W30 16D W34 19L W23 14D L 9 10L D25 24W 5.5 21 Roderick M McKay 26D L15 25D L19 30W W34 9 L 31W D17 D14 16D 5.5 22 Kenneth P Neat L17 14W W29 13W L 1 19W L 7 L 6 12L 26W L 8 5.0 23 John G Nicholson D11 2 L W32 D 5 18D 20L W33 D12 16D 13L D19 5.0 24 Alan Templeton Ludgate L18 31D D14 29L D28 32W D13 26W D19 17D L20 5.0 25 Ian Sinclair 16D L10 D21 27L W33 31D W29 15L L26 20D W34 5.0 26 Jeff Horner D21 11D L18 31D L14 33D 34W L24 25W L22 30W 5.0 27 Frank Parr 15D L 3 28D W25 12D D 9 D17 19L L13 32D D33 4.5 28 Paul R Kemp 6 L D 9 D27 17L 24D W30 15L W32 18L D33 D31 4.5 29 Rory O'Kelly 9 D D19 22L W24 5 L D13 25L 33D L30 34W D32 4.5 30 Moss McCarthy L 1 20L D33 14L L21 28L D32 W34 29W 31W L26 4.0 31 P J Lee 12L D24 34D D26 32D D25 18D L21 33D L30 28D 4.0 32 David John Sully 4 D L16 23L 33D D31 L24 30D 28L D34 D27 29D 3.5 33 Gerald Bonner 5 L L34 30D D32 25L D26 23L D29 D31 28D 27D 3.5 34 David Brine Pritchard L 8 33W D31 20L D15 21L L26 30L 32D L29 25L 2.5

    ]table
    -----

    <SOURCES>

    [1] "British Chess Champions 1904-2013", http://www.saund.co.uk/britbase/bri...

    This collection, crosstable, and observations were prepared using a file of games from BritBase, http://www.saund.co.uk/britbase/pg7.... Any furtherinformation would be welcomed.


    187 games, 1975

  13. Brussels World Cup, 1988
    The World Cup of 1988-1989 was an effort by the Grandmasters' Association (GMA) to establish a tournament circult of lucrative events for top grandmasters. Six events were held in all: Brussels 1988 (April 1-22), Game Collection: Belfort World Cup 1988 (June 14-July 3), Game Collection: Reykjavik World Cup 1988 (October 3-24), Game Collection: Barcelona World Cup 1989 (March 20-April 20), Game Collection: Rotterdam World Cup 1989 (June 3-24), and Game Collection: Skelleftea World Cup 1989 (August 12-September 3). Special thanks to <suenteus po 147> for quickly bulding collections for these tournaments.

    The twenty-five invited players were: Ulf Andersson, Alexander Beliavsky, Jaan Ehlvest, Johann Hjartarson, Robert Huebner, Anatoly Karpov, Garry Kasparov, Viktor Korchnoi, Ljubomir Ljubojevic, Predrag Nikolic, Jesus Nogueiras, John Nunn, Lajos Portisch, Zoltan Ribli, Valery Salov, Gyula Sax, Yasser Seirawan, Nigel Short, Andrei Sokolov, Boris Spassky, Jonathan Speelman, Mikhail Tal, Jan Timman, Rafael Vaganian, and Artur Yusupov. Each played in four of the six events, with his best three results counting in the World Cup standings.

    At Brussels, 17 World Cup players were invited, local player Luc Winants participating to provide an even number of players. However, Vaganian withdrew after four rounds due to the death of his brother. The games (draws against Tal, Portisch, Beliavsky, and Timman) are given in the collection, but do not appear in the tournament crosstable.

    Speaking of which:
    table[
    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
    1. Karpov * = 1 = 0 = = 1 1 = = 1 = 1 1 = 1 11.0 2. Salov = * 1 = 1 = = = = = = = 1 = = = 1 10.0 3. Ljubojevic 0 0 * 1 = = 1 = 1 = = 1 1 = = = = 9.5 4. Nunn = = 0 * 1 = = = = 1 = = = = = 1 1 9.5 5. Beliavsky 1 0 = 0 * = = = = 1 = = 1 1 = = 1 9.5 6. Andersson = = = = = * = = = = = = 1 = 1 = = 9.0 7. Portisch = = 0 = = = * = 0 = 1 1 = = = 1 1 9.0 8. Speelman 0 = = = = = = * 1 = = = = = 1 0 1 8.5 9. Sokolov 0 = 0 = = = 1 0 * 0 1 = = = = 1 1 8.0 10 Tal = = = 0 0 = = = 1 * = 0 0 1 = 1 = 7.5 11 Nikolic = = = = = = 0 = 0 = * = = 0 1 = 1 7.5 12 Timman 0 = 0 = = = 0 = = 1 = * = = 0 1 1 7.5 13 Seirawan = 0 0 = 0 0 = = = 1 = = * = 1 = 1 7.5 14 Nogueiras 0 = = = 0 = = = = 0 1 = = * 0 = 1 7.0 15 Korchnoi 0 = = = = 0 = 0 = = 0 1 0 1 * 0 1 6.5 16 Sax = = = 0 = = 0 1 0 0 = 0 = = 1 * 0 6.0 17 Winants 0 0 = 0 0 = 0 0 0 = 0 0 0 0 0 1 * 2.5 Vaganian = = = = ]table

    World Cup points were awarded only for results between World Cup players. To understand this, it is helpful to redo the touranment table by including only World Cup playars: table[
    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Pts Cup 1. Karpov * = 1 = = 0 = 1 = 1 = 1 = = 1 1 10.0 27.5 2. Salov = * 1 = = 1 = = = = = = 1 = = = 9.0 25.0 3. Ljubojevic 0 0 * 1 = = 1 = = 1 = 1 1 = = = 9.0 25.0 4. Nunn = = 0 * = 1 = = 1 = = = = 1 = = 8.5 22.0 5. Andersson = = = = * = = = = = = = 1 = = 1 8.5 22.0 6. Beliavsky 1 0 = 0 = * = = 1 = = = 1 = 1 = 8.5 22.0 7. Portisch = = 0 = = = * = = 0 1 1 = 1 = = 8.0 19.5 8. Speelman 0 = = = = = = * = 1 = = = 0 = 1 7.5 18.0 9. Tal = = = 0 = 0 = = * 1 = 0 0 1 1 = 7.0 16.0 10 Sokolov 0 = 0 = = = 1 0 0 * 1 = = 1 = = 7.0 16.0 11 Nikolic = = = = = = 0 = = 0 * = = = 0 1 6.5 13.0 12 Timman 0 = 0 = = = 0 = 1 = = * = 1 = 0 6.5 13.0 13 Seirawan = 0 0 = 0 0 = = 1 = = = * = = 1 6.5 13.0 14 Sax = = = 0 = = 0 1 0 0 = 0 = * = 1 6.0 10.0 15 Nogueiras 0 = = = = 0 = = 0 = 1 = = = * 0 6.0 10.0 16 Korchnoi 0 = = = 0 = = 0 = = 0 1 0 0 1 * 5.5 8.0 ]table

    The number at the end of each line is the number of Grand Prix points awared. There were three sources of these:

    (1) The number of points scored against other World Cup players;

    (2) Place points, ranging from 17 for first place to 1 for 17th. If players tied for a place, the respective points were divided equally;

    (3) If a tournament had fewer than 17 World Cup players, an extra 1/2 point was given for each game less than 16 played.

    So Karpov received 10 points for his score, 17 points for finishing sole 1st, and an extra 1/2 point for playing only 15 games, hence a total of 27.

    Salov and Ljubojevic each received 9 game points, 15.5 place points for splitting second (16 points) and third (15 points), and got their 1/2-point bonus for playing only 15 games, for a total of 25.

    Note that Korchnoi, who finished ahead of Sax in the general crosstable, actually wound up with fewer Grand Prix points since he scored fewer points against World Cup players.

    The most points a player could win in one tournament was 33, Kasparov coming closest to this by scoring 29 at Belfort.

    <Source>: "World Cup chess : the Grandmasters Grand Prix" / Lubomir Kavalek. North Pomfret, Vt. : Trafalgar Square Publishing, 1990. 0-943955-31-9


    140 games, 1988

  14. Carlsen's Mate
    There was a time you couldn't open a chess page on the Internet without seeing this position from the last game of Carlsen - Karjakin World Championship (2016)


    click for larger view

    When Carlsen gloriously won game,s et and match with<50.Qh6+>.
    The furor has died down now, but I'm going to call this

    <Carlsen'ts Mate>

    on the off change that the name will stick and I will look like a prophet. The examples given here will predate Carlsen, of course, but that's how these things go. You don't really suppose that Legall was the fir to play Legall's Mate, or that Boden was the first to play Boden's Mate, or Smothered the first to play Smothered Mate, do y9u?

    5 games, 1904-2010

  15. Centennial games: 1917-2017
    Games celebrating their 100th birthday in 2017. In many cases their long life is attributable to the fact that databases never die, but there is undoubted a gem or two worthy of GOTD status.
    49 games, 1917

  16. Chess Quiz
    Fred Reinfeld again. 300 positions, first published by McKay in 1945.

    Sources are not given except for an occasional player name. These games can be hard to find, since Reinfeld would sometimes use a variation instead of the game continuation (for instance, see No. 9). This should not be surprising. After all, Reinfeld was a great admirer of Alekhine.

    64 games, 1857-1939

  17. Chess Review 1933
    Missing games to be submitted:

    22) Bornholz, Robert L - Schwartz, Edward [B72]
    Manhattan CC Championship New York, NY, 01.1933
    [Chess Rewview, 1933:Feb.15 (horowitz)]

    1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 d6 6.Be2 g6 7.Be3 Bg7 8.Qd2 0-0 9.f3 d5 10.exd5 Nxd5 11.Nxc6 bxc6 12.Nxd5 cxd5 13.c3 Bb7 14.h4 Qc7 15.h5 Rfd8 16.hxg6 hxg6 17.Bh6 Bf6 18.0-0-0 d4 19.c4 a5 20.Kb1 Ba6 21.Qc2 Rac8 22.Rc1 d3 23.Bxd3 Rb8 24.Bxg6 Rxb2+ 25.Qxb2 Bxb2 26.Bh7+ Kh8 27.Kxb2 Rb8+ 28.Kc2 Qxc4+ 0-1


    24 games, 1932-1933

  18. Chicago International 1979
    -----

    <Sources>

    "Chess Life & Review, October 1979, p.554.

    4 games, 1979

  19. Chicago Masters Tournament, 1926
    <27th Western Championship Chicago, Illinois
    August 21-September 2, 1926>

    Throughout its first quarter century, the Western Chess Association had officially restricted its annual championship to "Western" players. The definition of "Western" was always quite broad; originally it had meant the US and Canada west of Pennsylvania, then evolved into most anybody except New Yorkers. In 1925, all such restrictions removed and the WCA welcomed its first players and champions from New York as it made plans to become a fully national organization.

    Originally, the plan was to be an association of individual members as outlined by a letter sent out by WCA Secretary Samuel D Factor and published in the <Brooklyn Daily Eagle> of October 22, 1925:

    <"Dear Sir:

    "For the past 26 years, the Western Chess Association has been a leading factor in maintaining and increasing a lively interest in chess throughout the West and Middle West.

    "Its annual tournaments, where the championship of the association is decided, have invariably brought out an exceptionally high class of players.

    "At the 26th annual meeting, held at Cedar Point, Ohio, Sept. 3, 1925, it was unanimously voted to increase the field and scope of the association by making it a national organization in place of a sectional.

    "The Western Chess Association has therefore reorganized as a national institution with membership open to all chess players in the United States and Canada.

    "It is the duty of every chess player to give to this organization both his moral and finanical support.

    "Dues are $1 per year.

    "As a member of the Western Chess Association, you will be entitled to vote, either in person or by proxy, on all questions pertaining to the policy of the association, and in addition you will receive each year the Western Chess Association Year Book, which will contain scores of the games played in the championship tournaments.

    "Our slogan is 10,000 members.

    "This can be reached if you and your friends, chess players, will fill out enclosed applications and mail in now.

    "Fraternally yours,

    "SAMUEL D. FACTOR, Secretary/Treasurer">

    However, this must have proved unwieldy, since by the time of the 1926 Western Championship a new proposal was on the table. This would establish the "National Chess Association of the U. S. A.", which was to take over governance on the national level. The Western Chess Association was to remain a "division" of the larger organization, continuing its programs on a regional basis. In addition, administrative layers to the NCA by involving local clubs or "chapters" and establishing the office of "Regional Vice President" to represent the national association on a local basis.

    Obviously, the WCA would remain an important part of the national federation, as its President, Maurice Kuhns of Chicago, was also organizing the larger group. What soon became The National Chess Federation would endure, but eventually did little more than strictly national duties such as selecting teams for the Olympiad. The Western Chess Association operated on a smaller scope until the early 1930s, when a new generation of young masters began coming to the Western Championship in search of competition and the WCA began thinking nationally again.

    For this year, however, the Western Chess Association was able to host an important Masters Tournament in addition to the Western Championship, both held at the Hotel LaSalle in Chicago from August 21-September 2, 1926.

    The Masters Tournament included a number of major national figures, including six former Western champions, the current US Champion, and a stray foreign grandmaster in Geze Maroczy who was working the U.S. circuit that year. The turnout for the Western Championship was of course considerably weakened, but included a number of faithful attendees and a future star in Herman Steiner.

    Technically, the Masters tournament does not belong in a US Open historical collection. But it was a major US event with an exciting finish, and almost all the games are available as opposed to nearly none from the Western itself. I have to talk about something. Besides, this will provide a chance to specify which games were from which tournament.

    <Masters Tournament> table[
    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 1 Frank James Marshall X 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 8.5 2 Geza Maroczy 0 X 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 8.0 3 Carlos Torre-Repetto 1 1 X 0 1 0 1 1 1 8.0 4 Charles Jaffe 1 X 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 7.5 5 Abraham Kupchik 0 1 X 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 7.5 6 Isaac Kashdan 0 0 X 1 1 0 1 1 1 7.0 7 Samuel D Factor 0 0 1 0 0 X 1 1 1 1 6.5 8 Edward Lasker 1 0 0 0 0 X 1 1 1 0 1 6.0 9 Adolf Jay Fink 0 0 0 1 0 0 X 1 1 5.0 10 Newell William Banks 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 X 1 4.5 11 Oscar Chajes 0 0 0 0 0 0 X 1 1 4.0 12 Jackson Whipps Showalter 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 X 0 3.0 13 Lewis J Isaacs 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 X 2.5 ]table

    -----
    <Sources>

    <American Chess Bulletin>, September/October 1926, p. 109-112.

    <Brooklyn Daily Eagle>, June 3, 1926; July 29, 1926; October 22, 1925; September 16, 1926

    <Chess Results 1921-1930> / Gino di Felice, p. 136-138.

    -----

    <PREVIOUS>: Game Collection: US Open 1925, Cedar Point = 26th Western Champ.

    <NEXT>: Game Collection: US Open 1927 Kalamazoo = 28th Western Champ.

    <SEE ALSO>: Game Collection: US Open Tournament Index


    74 games, 1926

  20. City Club Invitational (London, 1900)
    City Club Masters/Amateurs
    London, England
    April 5-May 5, 1900

    They don't make clubs like that any more. The City Club of London was used to holding tournaments, and in 1900 came up with the idea of inviting several leading British masters and prominent amateur players to see how the lesser lights would hold up.

    The Masters: Joseph Henry Blackburne, Isidor Gunsberg, Francis Joseph Lee, James Mason, Richard Teichmann, Louis van Vliet

    The Amateurs: [bad player ID], Thomas Francis Lawrence, Rudolf Johannes Loman, Samuel Passmore, Thomas Physick, Arthur Ernest Tietjen, William Ward

    Blackburne started well by winning his first four games, but stumbled badly with only two draws in his next five. Teichmann then took a comfortable lead, but Mason made up ground until he was only a half-point behind going into their last round game. However, this turned into a relatively short draw, while Gunsberg closed fast to catch Mason for a share of second place.

    table[
    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3
    1 Teichmann * = 1 1 = 0 1 1 = 1 1 1 1 9.5
    2 Mason = * 1 = 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 9.0
    3 Gunsberg 0 0 * 1 1 = 1 1 1 1 1 = 1 9.0
    4 Ward 0 = 0 * = 1 1 = 1 1 1 1 1 8.5
    5 Van Vliet = 1 0 = * 1 = = 1 = 1 = 1 8.0
    6 Blackburne 1 0 = 0 0 * = = 1 1 1 1 1 7.5
    7 Lawrence 0 0 0 0 = = * 1 1 1 0 1 1 6.0
    8 Lee 0 0 0 = = = 0 * 0 = 1 1 1 5.0
    9 Loman = 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 * 0 1 1 1 4.5
    10 Tietjen 0 0 0 0 = 0 0 = 1 * 0 1 1 4.0
    11 Jones 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 * 1 = 3.5
    12 Physick 0 0 = 0 = 0 0 0 0 0 0 * 1 2.0
    13 Passmore 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 = 0 * 1.5
    ]table

    An excellent showing for Ward, while Blackburne had to be somewhat disappointed with his result.

    <PRIZES>:
    table[
    1st: Teichmann 20
    2nd-3rd: Mason, Gunsberg 12
    4th: Ward 8
    5th: Van Vliet 6
    6th: Blackburne 4
    7th: Lawrence 2
    ]table

    79 games, 1900-1917

<< previous | page 1 of 16 | next >>

SEARCH ENTIRE GAME COLLECTION DATABASE
use these two forms to locate other game collections in the database

Search by Keyword:

EXAMPLE: Search for "FISCHER" or "HASTINGS".
Search by Username:


NOTE: You must type their screen-name exactly.


home | about | login | logout | F.A.Q. | your profile | preferences | Premium Membership | Kibitzer's Café | Biographer's Bistro | new kibitzing | chessforums | Tournament Index | Player Directory | Notable Games | World Chess Championships | Opening Explorer | Guess the Move | Game Collections | ChessBookie Game | Chessgames Challenge | Store | privacy notice | advertising | contact us
Copyright 2001-2017, Chessgames Services LLC