< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1 OF 2 ·
|Oct-12-04|| ||Gypsy: <18.Re1?> is a theoretical inacuracy. Smyslov later introduced <18.Qd3!>.|
<20...Qh1+?> Chigorin (Novoye Vremya 1906; also Zlata Praha, Jul. 20, 1906) recomends <20...Rxf3!!>.
<42...Rh7?> Last place where Maroczy could have held the game. Chigorin recomends <42...Rd7!>.
<47.Ke6 g4 48.Ke7 1-0> This is disputed. Chigorin gives <47.e6 g4 48.e7 Re8 49.Ke6 g3 50.Kf7 1-0> as the actual finish of the game.
|Dec-02-05|| ||JG7: 50.Kf7 is given as the finish in O.Duras velky mistr sachove kombinace by louma Podgorny and Richter|
|Dec-02-05|| ||Calli: <JG7> This score must be wrong because White has the obvious 24.Qxg6+ and 25.Qh7# What do Podgorny and Richter give around move 33.|
|Dec-02-05|| ||Gypsy: <Calli> You are right, the score is a hash: The problem you mention is the result of <30.Bd2> instead of <30.Qd2>.
(The game gets back on track after <36.Qxd4>.)|
Another divergence from the game is a partial transposition on 9th and 10th moves: Database has <10.Bc2 O-O 11.Nbd2 f5>; should be <10.Nbd2 O-O 11.Bc2 f5>.
The sources are Louma at all., which follows Chigorin, and Kalendovsky (Oldrich Duras, 1997), which follows von Bardeleben. Chigorin is the source for <47.e6>, Bardeleben for <47.Ke6>.
|Dec-02-05|| ||Calli: Oops I meant 34.Qxg6+
<Gypsy> Thanks - I would suggest submitting a pgn even if the end is not absolutely sure. Anything that makes sense is better than what we have.
|Dec-02-05|| ||Gypsy: <Calli> Will do. I am kind of leaning towards the Bardeleben finnish: partly because of the 2 out of 3 principle; partly because Kalendovsky is the more recent source. I'll think of it some more, but Josef Louma's book was written in the era of stiff Stalinism and thus breaking a tie in favor of great Chigorin was back then certainly the safer decision.|
|Dec-02-05|| ||Calli: <Gypsy> do you have the last round Berstein-Maroczy game? Geza needed a win for the tournament, but lost and Schlechter won his first big one.|
|Dec-02-05|| ||Gypsy: <Calli> Sorry, I do not have it.|
|Dec-02-05|| ||Calli: Okay! It looks like we have less than 50 games from Ostend 1906 on Chessgames out of over 300 played.|
|Dec-02-05|| ||chessgames.com: Is that really true? We'll see what we can gather.|
|Dec-02-05|| ||Gypsy: <Calli> PGN corrected and sent.|
|Dec-02-05|| ||Calli: <chessgames.com> Tournament was huge:|
I haven't found a pgn yet.
|Dec-02-05|| ||Gypsy: Ostend 1906 had a very peculiar elimination structure, never before or since seen in another tournament. Result of the final was 1.Schechter (21/30) 2.Maroczy (20/30) 3.Rubinstein (19) 4-6.Bernstein Burn & Teichmann (18) 7.Marshall (16.5) 8.Janowski (16) 9.Perlis (14).|
|Dec-02-05|| ||Benzol: <Gypsy>, <Calli> Great work guys!|
<Calli> I get the impression from the link posted that the tournament book doesn't contain all of the games played in the event.
|Dec-02-05|| ||Calli: <Benzol> Probably not all 326 games survived but the book is 400+ pages, so it must have the vast majority of them. No pgn at the usual places...hmmm|
|Dec-02-05|| ||tamar: I am staggered by the size of this tournament. No wonder Schlechter died early and Maroczy retired from chess. I am watching to see if the pgn can be recovered.|
Perhaps this has been said before, but I would really like to see historical tournaments like Ostend 1906 have their own page.
Ideally then you could follow the tournament round by round and comment upon the unfolding drama.
|Dec-02-05|| ||Gypsy: <tamar: ... I would really like to see historical tournaments like Ostend 1906 have their own page.|
Ideally then you could follow the tournament round by round and comment upon the unfolding drama. >
That sounds like such a fun! It would put lots of chess into its historical context; observing the development of various ideas and so...
|Dec-02-05|| ||tamar: <Gypsy> <It would put lots of chess into its historical context; observing the development of various ideas and so...>|
You could also watch individual players,and see how they progressed.
Rubinstein for instance, was a couple of years away from his breakthrough years, but Ostend 1906 must have been like a giant chess academy for him.
Can you elaborate on the elimination structure a bit? Why was it so unusual?
|Dec-02-05|| ||Calli: <Tamar> It was whacky. Here goes, courtesy of Foster's Amos Burn book.|
Start: 36 players divided into 4 groups
1rst phase: 9 games
Group A played Grp B
Group C played Grp D
The bottom 3 players from each group were eliminated.
2nd phase: 6 games
A played C
B played D
Two more players from each group eliminated.
3rd Phase - 4 games
A vs D
B vs C
4th Phase - 3 games
Players played the other 3 in their own group.
The top nine players qualified for:
5th phase - 8 games
30 games for those who made the final!
|Dec-02-05|| ||Gypsy: The Ostende players were broken up into 4 groups of 9: In the I-st etape, group A played group B, and C played D. This means that every player of A played every player B, and so on. After the I-st eatape, the 3 lowest scoring players from each group dropped out. In the II-nd etape, A group played with C and B with D in the same manner. Two players from each group dropped out. In the III-rd etape, A played with D and B with C ... and(!) there was also a round-robin play of remaining four within each group. The best 8 were scheduled to play the finale for prizes. The points from all etapes and finale were added up. |
As you can imagine, the distribution of strenth was not equal, and some groups were retaining playes with lesser number of points than others. For instance, after II-nd etape Blackburne was elliminated with 9pt, while Swiderski with 7.5pt and Fahrni with 7pt moved onwards to etape III.
At the end, the finale was composed of 9 players: Maroczy (15.5) and Rubinstein (15) of Maroczy group; Marshall (14) , Teichmann (14), and Perlis (12.5) of Marshall group; Bernstein (14.5), Burn (14), and Janowski (13) of Bernstein group; and Schlechter (15) of Schlechter group.
The cummulative result after the final I gave above.
|Dec-02-05|| ||Calli: <Gypsy> oops! We duplicated info. I thought you were offline. But good points on the inequalities of the system.|
|Dec-02-05|| ||Gypsy: <Calli> I would have deleted my post, as your explanation is clearer, but I though it may be interesting to see how, and at what level, each finalist qualified. As for the eliminees, especially Blackburne seems to been unlucky by being in the strongest group and losing some tiebreaker to Bernstein (9pt) at the end of stage II. (Btw, Duras was in the same group and he got eliminated in the second round with 8pt.)|
Eight of those that got eliminated stayed around and played a 2-round thematic Rice Gambit tournament: 1.Duras 2.Marco 3-4.Blackburne & Leonhardt ...
|Dec-03-05|| ||euripides: This game makes me think of the original Marshall gambit game between Capablanca and Marshall. Very good stuff.|
|Dec-03-05|| ||Calli: "<tamar> ... I would really like to see historical tournaments like Ostend 1906 have their own page."|
It may be my imagination, but it seems that at least some of the headers are being cleaned up by CG. Less of those "New Orleans WCh" games. So perhaps there is movement in that direction. The real problem is the sad state of the historical record. Getting a full complement of games to a big tournament is pretty difficult. With missing games and bad scores, you would not be able to produce an accurate crosstable or a round by round progressive chart. Still, there are good tournament pgns available. Look at the work that Steve Etzel has done on CS1904. There are a couple of other nice ones around too. Starting with the 4 or 5 good files might get the ball rolling....
|Dec-03-05|| ||Gypsy: A good starting design of tournament pages would have the x-table (a visually rather compact object) with active fields of 0's and 1's. The field would be black (not active) if the game is missing or not yet linked up; blue (active) if the game is already available and linked.|
Conversely, games on the player pages could have indicators whether they already found its historic place.
I trust that the volunteer army of CG kibitzers would quickly sort out the initial mess, even hunted down missing games -- and have a ton of fun in the process.
Same for the round-by-round progress tables and other nicities and other add-ons.
Clearly, some tournaments would initially languish for attention. We all would want to sort out the Hastings, Ostendes, NYs, Carlsbads, Petersburgs, San Sebastians, AVROs and so on, first. Why not?
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1 OF 2 ·