< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
|Sep-12-08|| ||Domdaniel: Heh. Okay, not counting defaults or exploding cellphones, then ... ?|
|Sep-12-08|| ||whiteshark: <Domdaniel> Tie with
Korchnoi vs Spassky, 1948|
|Sep-12-08|| ||Domdaniel: <whiteshark> To be nit-picky: Korchnoi and Spassky never played a world title match with one another - just that Belgrade candidates final where Spassky analysed at the demonstration board ... and Ray Keene (weirdly) described him as "a middle-aged Marxist leprechaun".|
And, sadly, Viktor never held the title. Though he did beat Karpov in about 18 moves in their 1974 match.
|Sep-12-08|| ||whiteshark: I get the message <Domdaniel>! I thought that all 'rebuffed challengers' where included. I guess it's a syntax-thingy (allowing you to be nit-picky or gonerrhous). :D|
|Sep-12-08|| ||Domdaniel: I'll avert my eyes, and pretend that last word was 'generous'.|
|Sep-12-08|| ||whiteshark: Oops! Wasn't that the antique notation? I kind of thought like that.|
|Sep-12-08|| ||whiteshark: And I estimate for the same reason this doesn't qualify either: Zukertort vs Anderssen, 1865|
|Sep-12-08|| ||Phony Benoni: <domdaniel> I've checked all the World Champions (at least on the men's part of the turf) since Steiniz, and can't find another game that exactly satisfies your criteria. Another "loose fit" could be Steinitz vs Bird, 1866, if you feel that was a world championshp match.|
If you really want to extend this back a bit, maybe a few games of Ruy Lopez de Segura would qualify.
|Sep-12-08|| ||Calli: Doesn't anyone read previous posts :-D This game was in the "quick-play" tournament (probably rapid transit chess). Alekhine did beat Euwe in 20 moves in the regular tournament. Alekhine vs Euwe, 1921|
|Sep-13-08|| ||whiteshark: It seems that we have to check the database again!
A.m. Korchnoi vs Karpov, 1974 in 19 moves to start with...
|Sep-13-08|| ||sneaky pete: What about
Morphy vs Anderssen, 1858?
I would count that 1858 match as being for the world championship.
|Sep-13-08|| ||Phony Benoni: OK. I am now thoroughly confused. Let's go back to the original:|
"I presume this is the <(1)> shortest decisive game <(2)> between players who (subsequently or previously) played a match for the world championship <(3)> and/or both held the title?"
Condition <1> is easy to understand, now that forfeits and defaults have been excluded.
In Condition <2>, "players who ... played a match for the world championship" is ambigous; it doesn't necessarily mean they played each other. However, <Domdaniel> has since stated that that such was his intent.
Also, the clause "subsequently or previously" implies that the game to be found was <not> played in the WC match between the two players.
Condition <3> is also confusing. "Or" seems to be unnecessary, as no player has yet held the title without playing a match. (Karpov won the title by default, but played title matches later.)
Of course, "World Championship" needs to be defined. If it starts with Steinitz in 1886, then we are restricted to games among these players:
Steinitz--Lasker; Lasker--Capablanca; Capablanca--Alekhine; Alekhine--Euwe; Botvinnik-Smyslov; Botvinnik-Tal; Botvinnik-Petrosian; Petrosian-Spassky; Spassky-Fischer; Karpov-Kasparov; Kasparov-Kramnik
(I don't know whether to count all the recent "champions" who won their titles in tournament play.)
If the world championship goes back to 1851, Andersson--Morphy and Anderssoh--Steinitz could be added. Beyond that--in both directions--soneone else can decide.
Finally, the original statement made no restriction against "rapidplay" events. Should this be restricted to "serious" tournament/match play?
I've been watching Court TV too much lately.
|Sep-13-08|| ||sneaky pete: Thank you, counsellor, for clearing that up. Should the prosecution impeach rapidplay and similar non serious events, which seems proper to me, may I draw attention to exhibit
Euwe vs Fischer, 1957?|
|Sep-13-08|| ||DoctorD: "I've been watching Court TV too much lately."
Anything more than flipping past it with your remote is extremely brain-softening.
|Sep-13-08|| ||sneaky pete: <PB> The <or> in condition <3> is essential, it's meant to include any <... game between players ... who both held the title> (as long as they at some time also played a match for the title). |
So my example is legal, as would be a (serious) game between Steinitz and Kasparov, but not a game between Steinitz and Short, because Short, although he played a match for the world championship, never held the title.
Anand played and lost a match in 1995, but some people claim he later somehow won the title (without defeating the incumbent champion in a match). Would that make a miniature between Anand and Steinitz valid?
Certainly Kasimwhatshisname and the other Vegas-champions who never played a title match are out.
|Sep-13-08|| ||Phony Benoni: <sneaky pete> If we consider only players who held the world championship in the Steinitz to Kramnik line, then I don't find anything shorter than these 20-movers:|
Alekhine vs Euwe, 1921
Euwe vs Fischer, 1957
Tal vs Petrosian, 1962
If you want to include Morphy and Anderssen, then the Morphy vs Anderssen, 1858 game which you pointed out earlier would be a clear winner at 17 moves.
There's also a 20-move blitz game between Tal and Petrosian, and a couple of offhand 19-movers from Morphy and Anderssen.
|Mar-25-09|| ||WhiteRook48: sneaky|
|Jun-03-14|| ||solskytz: Lost by move 5? Perhaps not after 5...Bxc3 and 6...d5|
|Mar-26-16|| ||Stonehenge: Both players had 10 seconds per move.
Source: Nieuwe Rotterdamsche Courant, Oct 26 1921.
|Mar-02-19|| ||cjelli: Oh dear...
11. ... Kf8 with nothing decisive for White.
|Mar-03-19|| ||andrewjsacks: Amusing game.|
|Mar-03-19|| ||HeMateMe: this can't be real...a fake AA game, submitted later in life?|
|Mar-03-19|| ||Count Wedgemore: <HMM> No, it's real. But it was a blitz game, although call it slow blitz, they had 10 sec per move.|
Still, surprisingly poor play by Euwe. BTW, I think 5...Qe7 is the move that starts to land him in trouble. 5...d5 looks best.
|Jul-06-19|| ||FSR: Surely 11...Kf8 12.Re1 Nxf6 would have been a big improvement?|
|Jul-06-19|| ||jinkinson: Even the final position isn't lost for Black--after 12...c6 Black should be only slightly worse.|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·