< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
|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?
|Dec-03-05|| ||tamar: <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. 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.active fields of 0's and 1's.>|
That sounds like a workable idea. Or chessgames could list the names of the participants in blue under the scoretable, and by clicking it would bring up the available games for that player.
The real challenge is getting the scoresheets to match each tournament. Often the location box is the least reliable bit of information. Some of Ostend are under Ostend 1906, but Marshall-Spielmann is listed as It 1906, for example. Cleaning up the scoresheets would be the first order.
Tournaments where all the information is known should be relatively easy, like Hastings 1895.
|Dec-03-05|| ||tamar: <Calli> Which tournament above all others would you start with? |
I would lean toward London 1851, partly because it could serve as a page to discuss tournament formats in general
Tournaments, rather than individual players, show the trends of the time- the openings which are popular, the time controls, and the innovations to combat draws.
And now I should shut up, because this is really a good demonstration by Duras of how to make a bishop with pawns beat a rook.
|Dec-03-05|| ||Calli: <tamar> "Cleaning up the scoresheets would be the first order."|
Yes, I think the interface can be improved at any point, but the data must be correct. The old garbage in, garbage out principle. There are excellent crosstables available but not , as we are proposing here, backed by a database. That is, we would generate the tables from the actual games. You need scores, rounds and results. Dates for each game would be nice too. Also, missing games must be in the DB with just the result and no moves.
I think Hastings 1895, Cambridge Springs, New York 1889, AVRO , St.Pete's 95-96 and 1914 all have pretty good pgns available.
<Gypsy> You may be right. the project could attract a lot of interest.
|Dec-30-05|| ||Calli: <tamar> <Gypsy> FYI - The tournament book for Ostend 1906 is finally out. Only a 100 years late! http://uscfsales.com/item.asp?cID=4...|
|Dec-30-05|| ||An Englishman: Good Evening: <Calli>, my first choice for a tournament would be Zurich 1953.|
As for our current game, White's King becomes much too powerful after 42...Rh7; 43.Rxh7,Kxh7. Although it still looks bad, does Black have any drawing chances after 42...Raa8?
|Dec-31-05|| ||Calli: <An Englishman> "any drawing chances after 42...Raa8?" Not really because with D8 controlled by the Bishop, White simply marches the King down to d6 and d7 and pushes the c pawn. Better though is 42...Rd7|
|Dec-31-05|| ||tamar: <Calli> Ostende 1906 Tournament Book looks interesting with 455 pages. Any idea of how many games it includes? |
The brief review on BCM said Tony Gillam gathered much of his information from old newspaper accounts.
|Jan-01-06|| ||vonKrolock: Wonderfull news about Ostend 1906 - ninety nine years after the Tournament, the Book - it could be so spectacular as the appearance of the Leipzig 1894 Book in 1982 (by K. Whyld) - if only ALL the scores where found... Well, Whyld's task was greatly easened: The complete set of scoresheet was preserved by providential German collectors (i recall H. Wagner and M. Blümich among them) - but with Ostend it was quite different, i can supse: the scoresheets are lost... so the research work was surely huge...|
|Jan-01-06|| ||Maroczy: I have a Dover paperback titled: Lesser-Known Chess Masterpieces 1906-1915. There are 335 games with games 7-35 from Ostend, June 1906. ISBN 0-486-25710-X for anyone interested in buying it.|
|Jan-01-06|| ||Calli: <tamar> I don't see the number of games in the book mentioned anywhere. May have to wait for a longer review like on Chess Cafe. Maybe the vendors are advertising a bit before they actually get the shipment since its pretty easy to look inside once they have it and they would likely have mentioned it. Surely with 445p, you would expect over 80% of the games.|
|Jan-01-06|| ||tamar: thanks (Calli) I am really tempted to buy it, but the lack of mention of the number of games makes me think there might have been a big problem getting most of the scores. |
It really was an extra-ordinary tournament for Duras, who was 23 acc to Jeff Sonas site.
Here are his numbers for Duras:
Overall Results +6 (6.5/7, 93%)
Actual Results v Rated Players +5 (5/5, 100%) vs 2646-rated opposition
Performance Rating 2779 Results + or - Predicted +3.1
In fact he outperformed Schlechter according to Sonas system, who only achieved a 2736 PR but won the tournament.
|Mar-21-06|| ||Calli: <tamar> Recent review says book has 220 games out of the 326. Original book by Marco was 72 games from the first four rds. Another 80 could be obtained from various game collections. Therefore about 60 or 70 in the book are "new".|
|Mar-21-06|| ||marcwordsmith: Why did Black resign? Doesn't he have at least a draw after 48. . . g3? If White is to stop the g pawn from queening, he must play 49. e6 immediately. So then 49. . . g2 50. Bd4, Rf4 51. Bg1, Rf1 and I see Black chasing White's bishop back and forth, if he has nothing better.|
|Mar-21-06|| ||Cyphelium: <marcwordsmith> You're right, but see the post from 12/10 2004 by <Gypsy> at the bottom of the page for an alternative ending to the game, which makes more sense.|
|Mar-21-06|| ||marcwordsmith: Thank you, Cyphelium. Peculiar "misprint" this.|
|May-07-06|| ||tamar: Taylor Kingston reviews "Ostende 1906" in the latest chesscafe-http://www.chesscafe.com/Reviews/bo...|
Anyone buy one yet?
|Aug-19-07|| ||psmith: <Gypsy> Analysis of Chigorin's 20...Rxf3+, using Fritz 5.32 as analysis aid:
21. gxf3 Rf8 22. Be4 dxe4 23. Qb3+ Kh8 24. Ke2 Qh2+ 25. Kd1 exf3 wins.|
But after 22. Ke2 instead it is far from obvious that Black is winning -- 22... Bxf3+ 23. Kd2 Bxd1 24. Raxd1 seems unclear to me (and = to Fritz). Does Chigorin have further analysis?
(There are other interesting variations, e.g. after 20...Rxf3+ 21. gxf3 Qh2 22. fxg4 g2+ 23. Ke2 g1/Q+ 24. Kd3 Qgg3 25. Rg1, White is winning...)
|Aug-20-07|| ||psmith: On further reflection, it seems to me that Black is better after 20...Rxf3+ 21. gxf3 Rf8 22. Ke2 Bxf3+ 23. Kd2 Bxd1 24. Raxd1 h5! For example 26. Rh1 Qg4 27. Bb3 c6 28. Rdg1 Rf4! leads to a winning position for Black. The two passed pawns are too powerful.|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·