< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 3 ·
|Mar-05-07|| ||Jack Kerouac: <LASKERESHEVESKY> Interesting moniker.
Your english is fine.Would those be first editions?|
|Mar-05-07|| ||laskereshevsky: <Jack Kerouac:> no, the Lipsia and Paris were printed in the 1990...the Wien 1882 is a 1984 one...both EDITION OLMS ZÜRICH|
i have same first edition books, but a little more recent (1951,1948,1927,1922 etc..)
Im a book-worm ( or "library-rat"?!)
....in my sleeping room no tv but a bookcase...
The first editions, unfortunatly, usually are like "cult's objects"...i mean untouchables...too much delicate.
Thats cause, after the firsts ( a little expensive ) purchases of original books, i switched my attention to the more recent editions...
THANKS for your kindly words
|Mar-05-07|| ||Peligroso Patzer: Very interesting reading on this page for today's Player of the Day. I had always thought of Winawer as the guy who played 3. ... Bb4 in the French Defense variation of which he is the eponym and, as I had heard, not for considerations of pawn structure or central influence, but because he preferred Knights to Bishops. This always struck me as rather quaint, but it did not inspire an exalted assessment of Winawer's play. Thanks to the several very edifying comments other kibitzers have posted on this page, I am now able to understand that Winawer was a much greater talent than I had previously appreciated and that the following post (first on this page) is fully justified:|
<Sneaky: One of the great original thinkers of chess.>
|Mar-19-07|| ||Plato: I posted the following on the Ziggurat chessforum, where I'm involved in a grudge match against <RookFile> and I'm playing the French Winawer variation as Black. It's more relevant on this thread, so I will post it here as well:|
Even though I wouldn't compare his natural talent to Capablanca or Reshevsky, I do understand why you'd call him a "natural." In his very first major tournament (Paris 1867) he tied for second place with Steinitz, behind only Kolisch but ahead of many strong masters of the time! It was a double-round robin tournament, and nobody managed to get a plus score over Winawer! This ranks rather highly on the list of most impressive tournament debuts.
Paris seems to have been a good location for him, because his next success was as co-champion (with Zukertort) of the main tournament in Paris 1878. However, Zukertort beat him in the playoff match for first place, so Winawer's official result was 2nd place once again.
His most stunning success was in the Vienna 1882 super-tournament, where all of the top ten players in the world (except for #9 Rosenthal) were in attendance (http://db.chessmetrics.com/CM2/Sing...)! Winawer emerged as co-champion with Steinitz, and the playoff match between them was drawn at one win apiece. This was far and away the shining moment of Winawer's chess career; Vienna 1882 was by far the strongest tournament in history up to that time.
After this his results waned, with the one exception of his win in Nuremberg 1883, which was not nearly as strong as Vienna 1882 but there were still a number of strong players in attendance.
Regarding Winawer's style: I think of Winawer as an original thinker, because he was an important innovator in a number of openings. I think he was primarily a tactician; his main strength was that he was capable of super-sharp caculation. He was also one of the best endgame players of the 19th century, in my opinion.
|Mar-02-08|| ||Karpova: Wilhelm Steinitz: <[...] Anderssen once said to me: “To win a tournament, a competitor must in the first place play well, but he should also have a good amount of luck.” I quite agree with that, but it naturally follows that there must be also ill-luck in tournaments, of which many instances could be cited, notably that of Winawer, who, after having tied for first and second prizes in Vienna, and just a few weeks before he came out chief victor in Nuremberg, did not win in London a single prize out of eight (to include the special one for the best score against the prize-holders). All this would tend to show that, at least, a single tournament, especially one consisting of one round only, cannot be regarded as a test.’>
"International Chess Magazine", August 1886, page 236
Where he lived:
<Winawer, S.: Twerdaja [Twarda] 6, Warsaw, Poland (Ranneforths Schach-Kalender, 1915, page 55*).>
|Mar-02-08|| ||Open Defence: is it Simon or Seymon ?|
|Mar-02-08|| ||Karpova: <Open Defence>
I'd say "Szymon" since that's the spelling used on his gravestone.
Wife: Adela née Kerner
|Mar-02-08|| ||Open Defence: thanks <Karpova> ! that is the name I was looking for .. I incorrectly remembered it as Seymon .. thanks!!|
|Mar-05-08|| ||brankat: <chessgames.com> According to the inscription on the gravestone in the photo provided by <karpova> S.Winawer died on October, 29. 1919. Not January 12/1920 as stated in the Bio.|
|Mar-05-08|| ||brankat: Born a hundred and seventy years ago! Winawer, I mean. Not me. Although it is close :-)|
|Mar-05-08|| ||Karpova: Does anybody have reliable biographical information on Szymon Winawer?|
A google search revealed that there are almost all possibilities: Born Mar-06 or Mar-05; died Jan-12-1920, Nov-29-1919 or Oct-29-1919 according to <brankat>.
His gravestone is probably the most reliable evidence but it's strange that so many different dates are given (reminds me a bit of the Rubinstein-birthday discussion).
|May-04-08|| ||percyblakeney: <Does anybody have reliable biographical information on Szymon Winawer?>|
I suppose one of the most reliable sources should be the small book on Winawer by Tomasz Lissowski that was printed eight years ago (I don't have it and it is said to be hard to find). A review in pdf format:
|May-04-08|| ||Karpova: <percyblakeney>
Thanks very much! It says that Gaige's wrong with 1920.01.20 being the date of Winawer's death since he died on Nov-29, 1919.
|Mar-05-09|| ||laskereshevsky: today, 171 Years ago, born one of my favorite players....|
a fantastic natural chess-talent....
|Mar-23-09|| ||suenteus po 147: The last great tournament victory by Winawer: Game Collection: Nuremberg 1883|
|Mar-05-10|| ||bengalcat47: What is the exact name of Tomasz Lissowski's book on Winawer?|
|Mar-05-10|| ||percyblakeney: <What is the exact name of Tomasz Lissowski's book on Winawer?>|
|Jul-10-10|| ||GrahamClayton: Biography can be found here:
Review of "Syzmon Winawer":
|Jan-09-11|| ||jessicafischerqueen: <Winawer's> contribution to Polish chess history is discussed in part one of this documentary video:|
<Akiva Rubinstein and Polish Chess>
Now with voice-over narration.
|Mar-05-12|| ||brankat: R.I.P. master Winawer.|
|Mar-05-12|| ||Penguincw: R.I.P. Simon Winawer.|
|Sep-16-12|| ||Karpova: In 1887 at Warsaw, people were playing in the Cafe Bourse, Krolewskastraße. Among the chessplayers there were Simon, David and Hermann Winawer. |
From page 16 of the December 1887 'Wiener Schachzeitung'
|Sep-13-15|| ||kjr63: Who did Capablanca learned his endgames from? Perhaps Winawer
Winawer vs Tarrasch, 1896|
|Sep-13-15|| ||TheFocus: I would have thought Capa had access to Fine's book or something by Chernev.|
|Nov-12-15|| ||Lissowski: Dear Karpova,
>>> In 1887 at Warsaw, people were
>>> playing in the Cafe Bourse,
This is not true, I am sorry.
People were playing in the
Cafe Lourse, which was placed in the Saski (Saxon) Garden, not far from ulica (street) Krolewska.
The building, erected ca in 1820, was damaged during II WW and never rebuilt.
The resort sometimes was called "Kawiarnia Saska", see Horbaczynski's book on cafeterias of Warsaw.
Simon often visited Semadeni cafe at Teatralny Sqare, then it's another story...
>>> From page 16 of the December 1887 >>> 'Wiener Schachzeitung'
But the author, who even played a game against Simon, made a mistake.
There was a bourse in Warsaw, nota bene at Krolewska street as well, but no "Cafe de la Bourse".
Anyway, I'd like to thank you for your impressive input to the history of chess.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 3 ·