|Dec-09-14|| ||TheFocus: From a simul in Moscow, Russia on March 30, 1914.
Lasker scored +27=12-2.
|Nov-09-17|| ||hemy: This game was played in BERLIN, not in Moscow.
"... Zabludowski - Riga gegen
den Weltmelster ..."
"... gespielt zu Berlin 1914.
Weis: Dr. E. Lasker. Schwarz: J. Zabludowski. ..."
Source: an article of Aron Nimzowitsch in "Rigasche Rundschau" November 29, p5.
|Nov-10-17|| ||Tabanus: Wrong date perhaps? If Lasker vs O Bernstein, 1914 was played the day before in Moscow.|
|Nov-10-17|| ||Magpye: Ken Whyld's Lasker book say Moscow, and has simultaneous displays listed for March 25, 28, 29 and 30.|
I go with Moscow because Lasker had been in Moscow since early March.
Nimzowitsch was wrong about Berlin.
|Nov-10-17|| ||hemy: wrong date|
|Nov-10-17|| ||MissScarlett: Whyld's game source is <Schachmeisterpartien 1914 Kagan p.105>. That's <Schachmeisterpartieen des Jahres 1914> by Bernhard Kagan, to be more precise. There are 120 pages across two volumes; the first, it seems, was published in 1914, the second in 1915. The reference to page 105 indicates this game appeared in vol.2, which implies it was played in the latter half of 1914. |
If Nimzo, writing in November, is correct about the location being Berlin, it could suggest that the simul occurred recently, around October or November. Whyld's book lists no such occasion in Berlin, then or at any time in 1914, but his records are by no means exhaustive.
Another complication is that Kagan is not the book's sole author - game annotations by others, including Nimzo, appear. Indeed, Nimzo's notes, from the <Rigasche Rundschau>, for his game vs. Alapin, appear in volume 2, pp.101-102, only a few pages from Whyld's reference to this Lasker game: http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/...
Is it possible then that Nimzo's <Rigasche Rundschau> notes, cited by <hemy> above, also appear in <Schachmeisterpartieen>? If so, is the dating/location error down to Nimzo, Kagan or Whyld?
|Nov-10-17|| ||hemy: In my reference to the Nimtzowitsch article in "Rigasche Rundschau" from November 29, p5. missing the year - 1919.
|Nov-10-17|| ||MissScarlett: Now he tells me....ach!|
|Nov-10-17|| ||hemy: the date was embedded in filename... (Rigasche_Rundschau_29 Nov_1919_Page5.pgn)|
|Nov-10-17|| ||MissScarlett: Yes, I see that...now. But not at 6.30 this morning. That the game was dated simply <Berlin 1914> should've raised a flag. I'll concede, say, 10% of the blame.|
As things stand, and unless someone can locate <Schachmeisterpartieen des Jahres 1914> or another source, I think <Simul (1914), Berlin GER (?)> will suffice.
|Nov-10-17|| ||Magpye: <I think <Simul (1914), Berlin GER (?)> will suffice.>|
Again, I will point that Lasker was engaged in exhibition games against Alekhine and Bernstein (one on March 29th), and simultaneous exhibitions, in MOSCOW in March 1914.
He did not jet off to Berlin to play a simultaneous.
Berlin is incorrect. And that is final.
|Nov-10-17|| ||hemy: <Maqpye> is right. Nimzowitsch stated wrong location.|
I found an article "Chess King in Moscow" in archive of the Russian newspaper "Раннее утро" ("Early morning") from March 31, 1914.
Yesterday in the Hunting Club took place the last session of the "chess king" E. Lasker, who played in a simultaneous game against 41 opponents.
Started at 8 pm, the game started at a rapid pace, and the opponents were knocked out one after another in two hours.
At 12 o'clock in the morning a small incident took place: Lasker, tired of the last match with Bernstein and Alekhine and simultaneous play with the best Moscow chess players, at that time completely lost his strength and declared that he could not continue playing with so many opponents, especially , that it was found out that instead of 37 chess players, as it was stated at the beginning, 41 people played with him.
After the talks with Lasker, organizers came to a compromise: the game will continue until 2 am, and by this time chess players O.S. Bernstein and A.A. Alekhin will decide which of the unfinished games is considered won, what lost and what ended in a draw.
After 5 hours of play Lasker won 27 games, lost 2 (Zabludovsky and Tyukhtin) and 12 games ended in a draw.
|Nov-11-17|| ||MissScarlett: <Again, I will point that Lasker was engaged in exhibition games against Alekhine and Bernstein (one on March 29th), and simultaneous exhibitions, in MOSCOW in March 1914.>|
The point is, or, rather, was, that Whyld was mistaken as to date and location. Is this idea too difficult?
|Nov-11-17|| ||MissScarlett: <Nimzowitsch stated wrong location.>|
A circumstance more likely if he was writing years, and not weeks or months later.
There remains the issue of whether Moscow and Berlin Zabludowskis are one and the same.
|Nov-11-17|| ||Magpye: <Missie> <The point is, or, rather, was, that Whyld was mistaken as to date and location. Is this idea too difficult?>|
In this case, Whyld was right. Is that idea too difficult to understand?
|Nov-11-17|| ||hemy: <Maqpye>
<Whyld was right. Is that idea too difficult to understand?>
It is not about understanding, it is about to find out if Whyld was right.
|Nov-11-17|| ||ughaibu: Was Whyld right? Tomatoes.|
|Nov-11-17|| ||MissScarlett: He may have been right, but he could have been wrong. I'm not accepting anything ex cathedra.|
|Nov-11-17|| ||hemy: <ughaibu> It is easier to assume that someone is right than to find the confirmation. |
In this case Nimzowitsch was wrong about location, but he provided link between the Zabludowski from Moscow to the student from Riga.
It is also possible that "Berlin" is a clue that the same player was living in Berlin in 1919, so he was the one why played against Reshevski.
|Nov-11-17|| ||ughaibu: <It is easier to assume that someone is right than to find the confirmation.>|
Easy peasy Japanesy, wash your hair with lemon squeezy.
How is ease of doing relevant?
|Nov-11-17|| ||hemy: <ughaibu> I will try to explain you.|
When you have conflicting data from
different sources, the relevant way is to make research from original publications.
It is an essence of academic research.
Easy way is to take something as a fact, assuming that the author never make mistakes.
Your remarks are fanny, but not serious and not relevant.