< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 12 OF 12 ·
|Mar-04-14|| ||thomastonk: <zanzibar> Addendum: Kalendovský published only one game between Réti and Weenink, the 1st match game.|
|Mar-11-14|| ||zanzibar: Thank you kindly for the info <thomastonk>. (Sorry for the delay in replying).|
I found 13 Reti-Weenink games on ChessTempo (CT). It's curious, nine are listed from 1928, one from 1920, and two from 1919. Here's a breakdown:
N . Date .... Event ................. Rounds
6 - 1928 .... Amsterdam m ...... 1,3,4,5,8,9
1 - 1928 .... Amsterdam m/6 .... ?
1 - 1928 .... Amsterdam VAS .... ?
1 - 1928 .... Amsterdam NED .... ?
1 - 1923 .... Scheveningen ...... 7
1 - 1920 .... Amsterdam .......... 4
1 - 1919 .... Amsterdam NED .... ?
1 - 1919 .... Rotterdam NED ..... -
I think the entire 1928 Amsterdam match is there somehow, but need help disentangling the confusion. I wonder about the early dates too.
Any more help would be appreciated (I'm also curious how the match was organized and sponsored).
The CT site's database is here:
There's no direct link, but a "Quick Search" on "Reti, Richard Weenink" puts up the games.
|Mar-13-14|| ||thomastonk: Hello, <zanzibar>!
<I think the entire 1928 Amsterdam match is there somehow,...> Why do you think so?
In fact, games 7 and 10 are missing. In other words: 8 games are there, one probably incomplete. The remaining 5 games belong to different events, which I've also collected two years back.
<I'm also curious how the match was organized and sponsored.> May I ask you what you are going to do with this information? A serious answer would take a lot of time.
|Mar-13-14|| ||zanzibar: I'm approaching the topic with the curiosity and naivety of a student. The fact of the matter is that I have a collection of interesting tactical problems - whose origins I'm attempting to determine.|
In the course of this investigative work I've become interested in various historical events. Additionally, I've also become interested in the representation, preservation and accuracy of the "chess record".
That means I'm exploring various big databases, both online (e.g. chessgames.com, 365chess.com, chesstempo.com) and downloadable (e.g. ICOfY, MillBase, RUSbase, etc.).
I have one position from the 1928 Reti-Weenink match in my tactical DB. That led me to learn about Weenink, and gladly, since I hadn't been aware of him beforehand.
Then, since Reti is such a seminal figure, I thought every one of his games against other masters must be online. Should be a simple matter, right? Right!?
But I discovered that, other than the implicit mention in CT collection, your forum post is the only mention of the match that I've seen on the net. Basically, it was generally unknown (even to Wikipedia!).
(A similar match that I've discovered, although not so unknown, is that between Pillsbury and H.N. Stone, won 5-2 by Pillsbury in 1890, in Boston. Pillsbury was just 18, and had only learned the game two years before:
I intend a trip to Pillsbury's hometown to see if I can locate a record of these games in their reference library. Otherwise I haven't been able to locate anything on the net)
As to the 1928 Reti match, I wonder why the entire match isn't available? I'm also curious as to why the games aren't duplicated in other collections besides chesstempo's (CT).
My hunch that the missing match games might be miscategorized on CT was because I found only one game from Amsterdam NED 1928 tournament listed - and so I assumed (apparently incorrectly) that it might belong to the match. I should perhaps be more careful, but I did qualify my supposition.
All my investigations are somewhat haphazard at the moment - guided by the collection of tactical problems I'm working from. I don't have an agenda, or a true passion guiding me, other than a respect for the game and the players.
But I can turn the question around, I suppose, and ask why you did so much work yourself not so long ago? Did you intend on publishing it in a book or article? Have you?
It seems to me that it's important enough to do so, and that you've invested a fair amount of time in doing the research to ensure accuracy.
|Mar-14-14|| ||Gypsy: < thomastonk: <zanzibar> There has been a ten game match Reti vs Weenink that was played from early November 1927 until the end of January 1928. Reti won with 6.5 :3.5. Two years ago I collected all the games, dates, conditions etc from newspaper reports (approx 25 sources). So, you can ask questions.|
Only one of the games (the 9th) is contained in Weenink's biography, and right now I cannot find Reti's biography by Kalendovsky. ...>
Kalendovsky's monograph gives the result of the match as +5 -2 =3 in favor of Reti. Kalendovsky also includes the first game of the match -- a thematic good-white-knight vs. bad-black-bishop endgame from French defense. In the endgame, Reti, commanding the white side, fairly instructively grinds down Weenink; the score is given without comments though.
|Mar-14-14|| ||Gypsy: <Karpova: ... (Vienna. Grandmaster Reti suffered a pitiable accident of late, which will probably chain him to the bed for many weeks. He fell and broke his femur and currently rests in the ambulance station Professor Hochenegg in the General Hospital.)>|
According to Kalendovsky, Reti was hit by a distracted Viennese motorist.
Indeed, Reti was out of commission a couple of months, returning to tournament play only in November to play in Schlechter Memorial, Vienna 1923. (1. Tartakower 9, 2. Reti 8.5, 3. Spielmann 7.5, 4-5. Gruenfeld and L. Steiner 7, ...)
|Mar-15-14|| ||thomastonk: <zanzibar> Thanks for the exhaustive answer. |
Before I turn to the match, I would like to write a few words on 'known' and 'unknown'. The online databases you mentioned do not represent what is known. They are only collections, and they are full of mistakes, too (and I don't talk about the moves ;-)).
You wrote <(even to Wikipedia!)>. That's funny. Wikipedia is - according to the leading official in my country - a good starting point for a research. For chess history it is often a bad starting point.
There are well researched books on tournaments and matches, and there the match Réti vs Weenink is listed, of course. But, like many other matches, it is not an important one. Weenink is unknown to most chess players nowadays, though his results at his peak were quite respectable.
The match was arranged by the VAS (Vereenigd Amsterdamsch Schaakgenootschap), then one of the two leading clubs in Amsterdam. The winner should be the first who reached 6.5 points, and some newspapers added that thereby the match would have between 7 and 13 games. You may draw your own conclusions, whether this means that a draw was possible. I've not seen a prize to be mentioned; the Dutch were quite discreet, I would say.
The games were first played weekly, i.e. November 9, 16, 23 and 30. Only the 5th game was played in December 1927, and all other games in January 1928.
The draw in 44 moves, which is denoted by "VAS" in the CT database, does not belong to that match.
The missing seventh game appeared already on January 9, 1928 in the newspapers, but here you have it with Weenink's comments: http://resolver.kb.nl/resolve?urn=d....
Here you'll find the missing 10th game, and Weenink's summary of the match: http://resolver.kb.nl/resolve?urn=d....
Also for <Gypsy>: from private communication I know that Kalendovsky knew all games of the match, and when he wrote his book the search was horrible time consuming. I think, he didn't found the second part of game 5, which is also not present in the CT database. But it is here: http://resolver.kb.nl/resolve?urn=d....
My research is completely based on this Dutch newspaper database, and hence everybody can do the same. Further details can possibly be found in the "Tijdschrift", the Dutch chess journal for the members of the chess association, which reported in 1928 about the match. I don't have access to this one.
|Apr-10-14|| ||Karpova: Very interesting Chess Note 8629, wherein Avital Pilpel (Haifa, Israel) reports of Alon Schab's finding of Reti's birth record. According to Pilpel, it appears that Reti's full name was <Richard Selig Réti>. |
|Apr-20-14|| ||Karpova: Reti won the unusual double round robin Winter tournament 1908/09 of the Vienna Chess Club. The first leg lasted until the end of January 1909, the second leg on February 20th, 1909. Apparently, the results of the two legs alone, together with the final result were awarded with prizes.|
1. R Reti 4.0
2-3. L Löwy 3.0
2-3. J Schenkein 3.0
4-5. P Meitner 2.0
4-5. A Albin 2.0
6. J Krejcik 1.0
1. A Albin 4.0
2. R Reti 3.5
3-4. P Meitner 2.5
3-4. L Löwy 2.5
5. J Krejcik 1.5
6. Schenkein 1.0
1. R Reti 7.0
2. A Albin 6.0
3. L Löwy 5.5
4. P Meitner 4.5
5. J Schenkein 4.0
6. J Krejcik 2.5
Source: 'Wiener Schachzeitung', June 1909, pp. 172-173
|Apr-21-14|| ||Karpova: Double round robin Club Tournament of the Vienna Amateur Chess Club, which ended in March 1909 (it lasted 3 months).|
1. R Reti 13.5
2. O Strobl 12.5
3. K Schuster 11.0
4-5. Berger 8.0
4-5. Tschinkel 8.0
6. Guttmann 6.5
7. Steiner 6.0
8. Soyka 5.0
9. Kravani 1.5
Reti with a dominating performance, scoring +13 -2 =1, conceding 1 draw against Guttmann and, curiously, losing both games to Tschinkel.
In the <Nebenturnier> with 8 players, Mautner and Haim shared 1st to 2nd prize, Meyersberg got 3rd prize.
Source: 'Wiener Schachzeitung', June 1909, pp. 175-176
|Dec-26-14|| ||TheFocus: <Reti is a brilliant type of artist, who battles not so much with his opponents, as with himself, with his own ideals and doubts> - Tartakower.|
|Dec-26-14|| ||TheFocus: <Reti studies mathematics although he is not a dry mathematician; represents Vienna without being Viennese; was born in old Hungary yet he does not know Hungarian; speaks uncommonly rapidly only in order to act all the more maturely and deliberately; and will yet become the best chessplayer without, however, becoming world champion> - Tartakower.|
|Jan-10-15|| ||visayanbraindoctor: Reti is known for his 'hypermodern' idea of controlling the center indirectly by pieces, and not necessarily by occupying it with pawns. In my view, this is the last great positional idea 'discovered' in chess. He was of Candidates level IMO.|
The importance of center, open files and diagonals, tempo, initiative and attack, piece activity, all types of combinations, play in the open game were already well known and applied by the likes of Anderssen and Morphy. Contrary to the narcissistic generational syndrome's fallacy that dynamic chess was only discovered after WW2.
The next important positional 'discovery' IMO was brought into conscious focus by Steinitz- the importance of pawn structure, weak squares and pawns, play in closed and semi-closed pawn structures.
Then came Reti's hypermodern idea of controlling the center indirectly by pieces from the flanks.
AFAIK, Reti was also one of the strongest blindfold players of all time, supplementing his income with simultaneous blindfold exhibitions. This at a time when blindfold chess required the condition of no sight of the board or man, which is much harder than the Amber style of pushing around imaginary pieces on a computer screen chess board. Anyone belittling Reti should try playing blindfold chess first, without sight of board or man, simultaneously over several boards.
Mention of Reti always reminds me of the following games against World Champions:
His double rook sacs vs Euwe.
Reti vs Euwe, 1920
Euwe vs Reti, 1920
The above games, featuring the rare double rook sac, were both played against a future world champion in the same year. Reti had astounding combination chess vision as well. Most chess players go through life never playing the double rook sac from either side. Yet Reti and Euwe create two in the same year. The odds are one out of the millions of classical games between two top level masters in the whole of chess history.
His memorable losses to Capablanca and Alekhine
Reti vs Capablanca, 1928
Reti vs Alekhine, 1925
|Feb-21-15|| ||SimplicityRichard: (visayanbraindoctor) And I might include: Reti v. Rubinstein (1919) Stockholm, King's Gambit. Aside from Reti's original 4th move (4.Qf3), my analysis using "Stockfish 5" revealed to me that Reti played near perfect moves (incredibly accurately, without errors) for the most part of the game in question. This prompted me to re-research Reti's play as I was amazed by such a degree of accuracy and originality especially in an opening such as the King's Gambit that branches into a profusion of rich variations right from outset.|
|Mar-23-15|| ||TheFocus: <The scheme of a game is played on positional lines; the decision of it, as a rule, is effected by combinations> - Richard Reti.|
|Mar-24-15|| ||TheFocus: <The pleasure to be derived from a chess combination lie in the feeling that a human mind is behind the game, dominating the inanimate pieces ... and giving them breath of life> - Richard Reti.|
|Mar-24-15|| ||TheFocus: <It is a profound mistake to imagine mistake to imagine that the art of combination depends only on natural talent, and that it cannot be learned. Every player knows that all (or almost all) combinations arise from a recollection of familiar elements> - Richard Reti.|
|May-01-15|| ||TheFocus: <Most chess players know, thanks to the study of master games, that two Bishops are stronger than two Knights or than Bishop and Knight, though very few know the reason for this advantage and how to turn it to account> - Richard Reti.|
|May-02-15|| ||TheFocus: <The majority of people imagine a chess master as being a townsman who passes his life in an atmosphere of smoke and play in cafés and clubs; a neurasthenic individual, whose nerves and brains are continually working at tension: a one-sided person who has given up his whole soul to chess> - Reti, Richard.|
|May-03-15|| ||TheFocus: <Chess is a fighting game which is purely intellectual and includes chance> - Richard Reti.|
|May-12-15|| ||TheFocus: <The essential disadvantage of the isolated pawn ... lies not in the pawn itself, but in the square in front of the pawn> - Richard Reti.|
|May-17-15|| ||TheFocus: <It is a delight to watch a young and gifted chess player. To him have come no sinister experiences; to him continual carping care is foreign. Therefore he loves the attack and the bold sacrifice; for theirin lies the shortest way to his ultimate objective> - Richard Reti.|
|May-19-15|| ||TheFocus: <Reti is the only grandmaster whose moves are often completely unexpected to me> - Alexander Alekhine.|
|May-19-15|| ||TheFocus: <Reti studies mathematics although he is not a dry mathematician; represents Vienna without being Viennese; was born in old Hungary yet he does not know Hungarian; speaks uncommonly rapidly only in order to act all the more maturely and deliberately; and will yet become the best chessplayer without, however, becoming world champion> - Savielly Tartakower.|
|May-26-15|| ||TheFocus: <It is a mistake to think that a combination is solely a question of talent, and that it cannot be acquired> - Richard Reti. |
Thanks, Richard. There may be hope for me yet.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 12 OF 12 ·