<von Minckwitz> was a Middle German noble family. There's was also a Johannes von Minckwitz (1787–1857), a Saxon minister of foreign affairs.

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minckw...(Adelsgeschlecht)

However the chessplayer's name was (just) <Johannes Minckwitz>. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann...

Additional 'evidence': he was the editor of 4 German chess congress books (Krefeld 1871, Düsseldorf 1876, Köln 1877 and Frankfurt a.M. 1878)

Book cover: http://www.euroschach.de/Johannes-M... (note that above the Louis Paulsen portrait <herausgegeben <von>> J. Minckwitz means <published <by>> J. Minckwitz') which might be the reason for the confusion. ;)

portrait with his autograph <Johs. Minckwitz> (note: also no 'von'): http://www.ballo.de/Images/Minckwit...

= =

Space is at a premium on xtabs, and abbreviated collation names are more concise, and generally better.

But I completely agree with <whiteshark> here - <CG> is using the wrong name.

Let me check my files to see if I have a stubified copy of the tournament with round numbering - then I can just use SCID to produce a correct xtab and post that as well.

Here's the xtab from a version I labeled <ChessBase>:

<

Baden-Baden
Baden-Baden, 1870.07.18 - 1870.08.04

Age Nat Score An St Ne Bl Pa De Wi Ro Mi

---

1: Anderssen, Adolf 52 GER 11.0 / 16 XX 11 00 1= 11 1= 10 10 11 (+10 -4 =2)

2: Steinitz, William 34 AUT 10.5 / 16 00 XX 11 0= 11 11 11 =1 =0 (+9 -4 =3)

3: Neumann, Gustav Richard 31 GER 10.0 / 16 11 00 XX 1= 01 01 11 0= 11 (+9 -5 =2)

4: Blackburne, Joseph Henry 28 ENG 10.0 / 16 0= 1= 0= XX 10 11 1= == 11 (+7 -3 =6)

5: Paulsen, Louis 37 GER 7.5 / 16 00 00 10 01 XX 10 1= 1= =1 (+6 -7 =3)

6: De Vere, Cecil Valentine 24 ENG 6.5 / 16 0= 00 10 00 01 XX 01 11 01 (+6 -9 =1)

7: Winawer, Szymon 32 POL 6.5 / 16 01 00 00 0= 0= 10 XX 1= 11 (+5 -8 =3)

8: Rosenthal, Samuel 32 FRA 5.0 / 16 01 =0 1= == 0= 00 0= XX 00 (+2 -8 =6)

9: Minckwitz, Johannes 26 GER 5.0 / 16 00 =1 00 00 =0 10 00 11 XX (+4 -10 =2)

---
72 games: +24 =14 -34

>

(Too bad on the formatting ... maybe I'll start posting on my blog again)

<z> Thanks. But the manually made xtab in the intro of Baden-Baden (1870) is already correct (with 68 games + 3 missing + 19 forfeited = 90 games). Perhaps except for the sequence of games (which follows DSZ).

As for <Baden-Baden (1870)> I think <tt> was a little harsh assessing the entire intro as being "garbage".

There is likely a cultural adjustment needed beyond a straight translation of the language(*). I would say it like so...

<The intro certainly could be improved...>

Note the subtle use of the word certainly in the above!

After proper discussion and vetting of the facts, of course.

I'm going through <The Field>'s coverage (last night, and maybe at lunch if time allows). That's helpful since, even if Google does fairly well with German translation, it still comes up short on the occasional subtle detail.

BTW- if there are any factual inaccuracies in the Baden-Baden intro, those should be corrected immediately.

A caution, just in the news today:

We should endeavor to get the games in the order played. I believe the best ordering available would follow that of the DSZ coverage - but I have to recheck.

The question of round numbering arises.

Some players apparently played two games on the same day.

We probably should use compound numbering, <nn.mm>

We could use <nn> to represent an ordinal for the day, and <mm> = 1,2.

(<mm> = 1 would be most typical, and <nn> would exceed the number of players)

Or we could use <nn> to represent an opponent, and <mm> to be the 1st or 2nd encounter.

Of course, this brings up some questions I have about how <CG> and <Wikipedia> compare.

* * * * *

What is the function of a bio on <CG>?

Should it be more extensive than the wiki writeup, or less?

Why do you think the <CG> bio sucks? Just because it's too short?

Is there a bio on <CG> you like, and think could serve as a model?

What do you think of the Keres bio on wiki?

Any opinions about the <CG> picture? Or notable games? Or notable tournament selection? Or pronunciation guide?

Answering <zanzy's> questions:

1. To give a chess crowd a general historical framework for any particular player. It will be more extensive for better known and/or successful players.

2. The bio should be more extensive than the initial paragraph of Wiki, but shorter than the entire entry.

3. I don't think the Keres bio is great, but I don't think it's awful. It's shorter than it should be, but in fact, the Karpov bio was much shorter than that not too long ago.

4. Rashid Gibiatovich Nezhmetdinov

5. It's too long for a bio on this site. I do greatly like the tournament, match and head to head tables. I'd go so far as to say if we could eliminate the recounting of finishes in every new tournament for the current players, I wouldn't mind an updated table instead.

1) I also think mention of the players strengths/weaknesses should be made, as well as any innovations they've contributed to the game.

Additionally, I like to see mention of works they've published (maybe a standard link for authors going to bibliography page).

I like the standardized template of links to various places (internal and external) that <CG> provides.

2) I still wonder how to strike the balance between what wiki does and what <CG> can do to complement it.

I agree on the idea of <CG> being more concise. Certainly <CG> should be more complete in the sense of providing some biographical data for the multitude of players that wiki omits.

Something <CG> already does rather well thanks to the efforts of <stonehenge> and others.

3) RE: Keres, I tend to agree. Though I have some formatting issues.

The footnotes should just be 1,2,3... (rather than rusbase-1, etc - that confused me with the actual db name).

Also, I would like more whitespace here and there, e.g. listing the footnotes clearly in a table, one entry / line.

As for his wiki page, there's a lot of statements made where the references are lacking. It is really problematic.

BTW- for convenience it's nice to provide links to the bios in question (hint to <boomie>, who introduced the topic - might as well add <jif> too)

CG - Paul Keres

wiki - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_K...

4) Indeed, a quick read indicates this as an excellent model.

5) As mentioned above, I'm unhappy with the wiki bio - mostly due to the lack of good references for statements made about the controversial WWII period.

Another problem I've found on wiki is that it relies on historical info from various sources on the web - many of which have disappeared, leaving stale links.

6) I agree that Kere's pic is a great shot, but I detect a pronounced moire pattern on it.

Maybe it's my eye, but that bothers me. Usually this is a problem from a too low resolution scan. I'm sure the picture must exist without the problem - if not, a quick photoshop edit can fix it.

As for the pictures in general, I think most of us would prefer a contemporary picture of the player take precedent.

I'd like to see <CG> support a photo gallery - allowing the user to cycle through by clicking on the picture, as is generally done on many web sites these days.

Then we can watch Carlsen turn from boy to man, etc.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_KpbLclPCA...

(still a slight trace of moire in the upper left corner, but much better on my eyes)

The <ChessBase> version of the photo has the same problem as <CG>'s: