| 5th CCA Congress, Birmingham (1874) |
|
Birmingham, England (3-7 August 1874)
1 1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 Score Place/Prize
——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
1 Burn • 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 1st £12
2 Archdall 0 • 1 ½ 1 1 1 0 1 1 + 7½ 2nd £5
3 Ranken 0 0 • ½ 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 6½ 3rd-4th £2 10s
4 Wayte 0 ½ ½ • ½ 0 1 + 1 1 1 6½ 3rd-4th £2 10s
5 Thorold 0 0 1 ½ • ½ 0 + 1 1 1 6
6 Gossip 0 0 0 1 ½ • 0 1 1 + 1 5½
7 Fisher 0 0 0 0 1 1 • 1 0 1 1 5
8 Skipworth 0 1 0 - - 0 0 • 1 1 1 4
9 Martin 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 • 1 1 3
10 Halford 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 • … 0
11 Murray 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 … • 0
——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
12 Johnson … … … … … … … … … … … (absent)
——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
Unplayed games: (+) win, (=) draw, (-) loss, and (…) unscored.
Introduction
The prizes in Class 1 are open to provincial amateurs. The first prize will be of the value of £12, the second £5, the third £3, the fourth £2. A challenge prize will be given to the player who first wins three times the association's first prize in Class 1, the present guaranteed value—£30—to be raised to £40 (funds permitting). The winner (if the prize be of full value) to give the value of the annual class prize towards the fund for a new challenge prize. The meetings will be held in the Masonic Hall, and play will begin at six o'clock this evening. (1)
Synopsis
<August 3>
Skipworth beat Murray; Wayte drew Ranken. (2)
<August 4>
Burn beat Ranken, Martin, and Murray; Archdall drew Wayte, beat Martin; Ranken beat Gossip; Wayte beat Martin and Murray; Thorold drew Gossip; Fisher beat Skipworth, Halford, and Murray; Skipworth beat Martin and Halford. (3)
<August 5>
Burn beat Wayte, Fisher, Skipworth, and Halford; Archdall beat Thorold and Gossip; Ranken beat Martin and Murray; Thorold drew Wayte, beat Ranken, Halford, and Murray; Gossip beat Martin and Murray; Skipworth beat Archdall; Martin beat Fisher and Halford. (4)(5)
<August 6>
Burn beat Thorold; Archdall beat Fisher, Halford, Ranken, and Murray*; Ranken beat Fisher, Halford, and Skipworth; Thorold beat Martin; Wayte beat Fisher and Halford; Gossip beat Wayte, Skipworth and Halford*. Martin beat Murray. (6)(7)(8)
* Both Murray and Halford resigned. Murray is definitely recorded as forfeiting to Archdall, and Halford appears to have forfeited to Gossip. (13)(14)
<August 7>
Skipworth withdrew forfeiting to Wayte and Thorold; Burn beat Archdall and Gossip; Fisher beat Thorold and Gossip. (9)(10)(11)(12)
Conclusion
Mr. Burn, Liverpool, takes the 1st Prize, £12; Mr. Archdall 2nd Prize, £5; Mr. Ranken and Mr. Wayte equal, take the 3rd and 4th Prizes, £5. (13)
Notes
The cross table given in the Chess Players' Chronicle shows Murray forfeiting to Archdall, Burn, Halford and Gossip in his row and Halford forfeiting to Murray with the disposition of his games with Gossip and Wayte being left blank in his row. Messrs. Halford and Murray nought, both having resigned. (14)
Sources
(1) Birmingham Morning News, 1874.08.03, p5
(2) Birmingham Morning News, 1874.08.04, p4
(3) Birmingham Morning News, 1874.08.05, p5
(4) Birmingham Morning News, 1874.08.06, p4
(5) Birmingham Daily Post, 1874.08.06, p8
(6) Birmingham Daily Mail, 1874.08.06, p3
(7) Birmingham Morning News, 1874.08.07, p5
(8) Birmingham Daily Post, 1874.08.07, p8
(9) Birmingham Daily Mail, 1874.08.07, p3
(10) Birmingham Morning News, 1874.08.08, p5
(11) Birmingham Daily Post, 1874.08.08, p5
(12) Birmingham Daily Post, 1874.08.10, p7
(13) Chess Players' Chronicle, Supplement, v4 n4, August 1874, p1 (cross table)
(14) City of London Chess Magazine, v1 n8, September 1874, p186
|
|
| page 1 of 1; 18 games |
 |
 |
| Game |
| Result | Moves |
Year | Event/Locale | Opening |
| 1. W Wayte vs C Ranken |
| ½-½ | 40 | 1874 | 5th CCA Congress, Birmingham | C48 Four Knights |
| 2. Burn vs C Ranken |
 | 1-0 | 22 | 1874 | 5th CCA Congress, Birmingham | C45 Scotch Game |
| 3. W Martin vs W Wayte |
| 0-1 | 43 | 1874 | 5th CCA Congress, Birmingham | C53 Giuoco Piano |
| 4. J Halford vs A B Skipworth |
| 0-1 | 28 | 1874 | 5th CCA Congress, Birmingham | C01 French, Exchange |
| 5. A B Skipworth vs B W Fisher |
| 0-1 | 35 | 1874 | 5th CCA Congress, Birmingham | A30 English, Symmetrical |
| 6. Burn vs W Martin |
| 1-0 | 35 | 1874 | 5th CCA Congress, Birmingham | C53 Giuoco Piano |
| 7. Burn vs J Halford |
| 1-0 | 43 | 1874 | 5th CCA Congress, Birmingham | C41 Philidor Defense |
| 8. A B Skipworth vs Burn |
| 0-1 | 25 | 1874 | 5th CCA Congress, Birmingham | C11 French |
| 9. W Wayte vs Burn |
| 0-1 | 34 | 1874 | 5th CCA Congress, Birmingham | C11 French |
| 10. W Wayte vs E Thorold |
| ½-½ | 50 | 1874 | 5th CCA Congress, Birmingham | C46 Three Knights |
| 11. A K Murray vs C Ranken |
| 0-1 | 23 | 1874 | 5th CCA Congress, Birmingham | C50 Giuoco Piano |
| 12. Burn vs B W Fisher |
| 1-0 | 53 | 1874 | 5th CCA Congress, Birmingham | C10 French |
| 13. J Halford vs W Wayte |
| 0-1 | 23 | 1874 | 5th CCA Congress, Birmingham | C56 Two Knights |
| 14. A B Skipworth vs C Ranken |
| 0-1 | 25 | 1874 | 5th CCA Congress, Birmingham | C46 Three Knights |
| 15. Burn vs E Thorold |
| 1-0 | 46 | 1874 | 5th CCA Congress, Birmingham | C45 Scotch Game |
| 16. B W Fisher vs C Ranken |
| 0-1 | 34 | 1874 | 5th CCA Congress, Birmingham | C50 Giuoco Piano |
| 17. W Wayte vs B W Fisher |
| 1-0 | 36 | 1874 | 5th CCA Congress, Birmingham | C46 Three Knights |
| 18. Burn vs Gossip |
| 1-0 | 18 | 1874 | 5th CCA Congress, Birmingham | C45 Scotch Game |
|
| page 1 of 1; 18 games |
|
|
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Jul-24-25
 | | MissScarlett: <August 7 Skipworth withdrew> I'm saying nothing. |
|
Jul-24-25
 | | jnpope: Not even... consistent? |
|
| Jul-25-25 | | stone free or die: Gravity is watching! |
|
| Jul-30-25 | | chesshistoryinterest: <jnpope>
Greatly appreciating all the work you are doing on events like this.May I, with respect, query your analysis of the defaults for this event. Minor stuff first:
In his <Chess Tournament Crosstables>, Gaige did not give a source for his table on this event. However, in his 1992 revised version (crosstable still the same) in the Gaige archives, he did, giving his source as: "The Chess Players' Chronicle, 1874, August Supplement". So you are likely correct in supposing that Di Felice also probably used this source - unless he just simply stole the table from Gaige! In your Synopsis:
For August 4: You have <Gossip beat Thorold> If fact, your source says he drew with him, which is also what your crosstable says.
For August 6, I would add "Rankin beat Fisher and Skipworth". For the two main newspapers reporting on the event, need to establish a timeline: it seems to me, at least in the latter stages of the event, that the <Birmingham Morning News> covers results up to about 11:45 pm on the day prior to publication; while the <Birmingham Daily Post> covers results up to the end of the first session of play (ie 3pm) on the same day as publication. Now, for the game Halford-Wayte (which you initially had as a default), you give a playing date of 5 August 1874. I cannot see where you get this date from. It's not given in the two sources for the game (Illustrated London News, 29 August 1874, or Chess Players' Chronicle 1874, pp146-7). Nor is it mentioned in your Synopsis for 5 August 1874, nor in your sources (4) and (5) for that date.
And if we look at the scores given in the <Birmingham Daily Post>, 6 August 1874, that is up to 3pm on 6 August 1874, we have:
Wayte at +2-1=3, and these consist of wins over Martin and Murray, a loss to Burn, and draws with Archdall, Ranken, Thorold.
Halford at +0-5=0, consisting of losses to Burn, Thorold, Fisher, Skipworth, Martin.
Therefore, the game Halford-Wayte cannot have been played on 5 August, and must have been played on 6 August.
Therefore, one of the players who withdrew from the tournament did actually play on 6 August (and after 3pm). So it's a question of when on 6 August Halford and Murray withdrew from the tournament. And the first report showing the withdrawals (ie both with 9 losses) is <The Birmingham Morning News>, 7 August 1874. So that is about 11:45pm, 6 August. So both these players could have been playing games up to then. (continued next post) |
|
| Jul-30-25 | | chesshistoryinterest: (continued from previous post)
A lot of results come in on 6 August; and the schedule must mean that on at least one day, 3 games were played - so it could be on 6 August. Also, adjournments could have been played off; or it is possible that Halford and Murray could have had adjournments pending when they withdrew from the tournament, which would count as played games (not turning up to an adjournment). Therefore it is possible that Halford and Murray could have had up to three played game results from 3pm to 11:45pm on 6 August (Fisher did). Therefore, some of the games you claim as defaults may not have been - we simply cannot tell from the newspaper reports. So we need to go back to the crosstable given in 'The Chess Players' Chronicle', August 1874 Supplement to see if anything can be established. There are two definite errors in the table ie that Burn-Murray is a default; and that Gossip-Murray is a default. So the table is a bit too generous with defaults. But just because the table has a couple of errors, it doesn't necessarily mean that the whole table is chock full of errors. In particular, there is no indication that the games the table gives as played weren't.
So I would tamper with this table as little as possible. So where the table says Halford played Archdall and Rankin; and Murray played Martin, I would believe it - these games could have been played over the board from 3pm to 11:45pm on 6 August. I would also believe the table saying that Murray defaulted to Archdall and that Halford-Murray is a double default. The most unclear case would be Halford-Gossip. The table has a blank for Halford here, so either a '0' or 'r' could go in. I'm inclined to think this one is a default - perhaps the compilers of the table ascribed a win by default by Gossip to the wrong player who withdrew from the tournament - that is Murray instead of Halford. Also Halford already has enough on his plate for the 3pm -11:45pm on 6 August time period. What is Forster's take on this table? Judging from what Edwards on Edo says, it looks like the only difference that Forster has from Di Felice is that Burn-Murray is not a default. From the above, my differences with Di Felice/Gaige would be (1) Burn-Murray is not a default (2) Halford, not Murray, defaults to Gossip. My differences with you would be (1) Halford-Archdall is a played game, not a default (2) Halford-Rankin is a played game, not a default (3) Murray-Martin is a played game, not a default. Thoughts? |
|
| Jul-30-25 | | chesshistoryinterest: I found one more game: Fisher-Burn 0-1, 35 (Liverpool Weekly Albion, 15 August 1874, page 7). That makes 8 Burn games. Would be interesting to know what Burn games Forster has in his book. |
|
Jul-30-25
| | MissScarlett: <I found one more game: Fisher-Burn 0-1, 35 (Liverpool Weekly Albion, 15 August 1874, page 7)> There's an unfortunate mix-up on that page which gives two games from the Birmingham congress. The Fisher-Burn game is from the handicap tourney but it's marked as being for the Cup (i.e., the Class I event), and vice versa with the Burn - Halford game (Burn vs J Halford, 1874). Forster has eight Burn games from the Class I tourney - the score for Fisher - Burn coming from a 19th century manuscript. |
|
Jul-30-25
| | MissScarlett: <Fisher-Burn 0-1, 35> B W Fisher vs Burn, 1874 Another confusion comes from the <Liverpool Weekly Albion> of August 29th, p.7. The score is given of <Halford - Skipworth, 0-1, 27> from Class I at Birmingham but we already have that game (J Halford vs A B Skipworth, 1874) from the October 1874 <Chess Players' Chronicle> (edited by Skipworth himself) with a different score. These gentlemen didn't play each other in the Handicap event. |
|
Jul-30-25
| | jnpope: <chesshistoryinterest: Thoughts?> Many, but at this point I'm going back through my notes and spreadsheet to see where I botched certain things. It definitely looks like I may have deleted some of the wrong verbs (beat vs drew) when I was trying to remove duplicate results reported on earlier days in the synopsis section (those daily reports seem to be a continuous amalgam of results making it difficult to weed out). I'll run through all the data one more time.
Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I shall report back later. |
|
Jul-30-25
| | jnpope: <chesshistoryinterest: Thoughts?> I think I discovered at least one flaw. I was also using information from the <Birmingham Daily Mail>, which I had assumed was publishing results from the prior day, but I just saw "Play commenced this morning at ten o'clock and was carried on until three o'clock, when the usual adjournment took place. The score stood as follows:" (1874.08.06, p3), which clearly indicates that newspaper was being published mid-day and not just giving totals from the prior day's play. I'm re-running things taking this half-day shift in the timeline into account... again, I will report back once I've recomputed things. |
|
| Jul-31-25 | | chesshistoryinterest: <MissScarlett>
Thanks for the clarification, apologies for wrong game; I didn't think to check the Handicap. Nice to see that the Fisher-Burn game in the main Congress has survived as well. The two different Halford-Skipworth games is a bit of a conundrum. It certainly makes things difficult when source material is incorrect. |
|
Jul-31-25
| | jnpope: I went through everything one more time, three games have been re-dated (two Ranken games and the Halford-Wayte game). (More coming in regard to the forfeits) |
|
Jul-31-25
| | jnpope: After taking the half-day shift into account here is what I came up with in regard to forfeits. After the mid-day intermission on the 6th, assuming the <Birmingham Daily Mail> report to be correct, I have the following still needing to be played by Murray and Halford:
Murray: Archdall and Halford.
Halford: Archdall, Ranken, Gossip, and Murray.
The <Birmingham Daily Post> report of the scores at the end-of-day on the 6th show both having complete schedules (nine losses each, apparently the double-forfeit not counting at this point).
Thanks to the <Birmingham Daily Mail>, my best-fit theory is that both Murray and Halford played on the morning of the 6th (Murray vs Martin and Halford vs Wayte) and both resigned from the event before the resumption of play that evening. If they had withdrawn on different days I would have expected one of them to have recorded a loss and the other a win in the daily tabulations. Presuming some of the forfeit data is correct in the CPC table we have Halford forfeiting to Archdall and Gossip, leaving Ranken as an open question, and Murray with an open question in regard to Archdall. Now it is completely within the realm of possibility that Murray played Archdall and Halford played Ranken at the start of the evening session and both decided to withdraw at that point, however, I think the players withdrew during the intermission between sessions. I suspect this for a few reasons: (1) the intermission gives time for introspection to make that decision; (2) withdrawing at this time still gives each man time to catch the train out of town; (3) both have complete schedules at the end-of-day report in the <Birmingham Daily Post>. Now, how far should we trust the CPC table? It was clearly created by the editor, Skipworth, who had also withdrawn from the event, so I'm not sure if he had all of the pertinent information when he tried to construct his table, which would most likely explain whey he gave Murray forfeits against Burn and Gossip (when daily reports show they had played on the 4th and 5th respectively) and why Halford has blanks in the table for his games against Gossip and Wayte, i.e. I think Skipworth painted himself into a corner when filling out his table and just stopped trying to figure it out! |
|
Jul-31-25
| | jnpope: The event bio and xtab have been updated with last night's research. |
|
| Aug-02-25 | | chesshistoryinterest: Hi jn, I have just about worked my reply out, addressing everything you mentioned, but don't have time to complete as I have to go out for the rest of the day. So I'll get back in a day's time. |
|
Aug-02-25
| | jnpope: Take your time. I still haven't recovered from my late night reassessment and rewrite. |
|
| Aug-03-25 | | chesshistoryinterest: Ok. I have checked your Synopsis. I agree with all of it. Except you have a glitch here for August 4: <Archdall drew Wayte, beat Martin; Ranken beat Gossip; Wayte drew Archdall, beat Martin and Murray> You repeat the Archdall-Wayte draw result. In the games, you have not yet corrected the date of the Halford-Wayte game from August 5 to August 6. When writing my original post on this event, I somehow mixed up the copies I printed out of Birmingham Daily Post and the Birmingham Daily Mail. Consequently, parts of the second part of my post would not have made sense. So I have completely redone my analysis. To lay a bit of groundwork, I comment on various parts of your post: You say: <Thanks to the <Birmingham Daily Mail>, my best-fit theory is that both Murray and Halford played on the morning of the 6th (Murray vs Martin and Halford vs Wayte)> I agree. You say: <Now, how far should we trust the CPC table? It was clearly created by the editor, Skipworth, who had also withdrawn from the event, so I'm not sure if he had all of the pertinent information when he tried to construct his table, which would most likely explain whey he gave Murray forfeits against Burn and Gossip (when daily reports show they had played on the 4th and 5th respectively) and why Halford has blanks in the table for his games against Gossip and Wayte> The blanks are a mystery - he has one for Fisher against Gossip as well. Yet in each case, in the opponent's row, he has the result. So they do not look as though they are because of missing information. As regards his "forfeit" of Murray to Gossip, I think he may have confused which of the two tournament withdrawees Gossip won by default against (as I previously said). The "forfeit" of Murray against Burn is a mystery - maybe it's just a typo. You say: < After the mid-day intermission on the 6th, assuming the <Birmingham Daily Mail> report to be correct, I have the following still needing to be played by Murray and Halford:
Murray: Archdall and Halford.
Halford: Archdall, Ranken, Gossip, and Murray.>
I am quite mystified by what you say here. The <Birmingham Daily Mail, 6 August 1874> says Halford's score at this point is 0/8; and Murray's score is 0/9. So that would leave Halford just 2 games to play; and Murray just 1. This is important. (Continued next post) |
|
| Aug-03-25 | | chesshistoryinterest: (continuing from previous post)
Looking at Murray first:
His score in the <Birmingham Daily Post, 6 August 1874> ie as at 11:45pm on 5 August, is 0/7. According to the results given in the <Birmingham Morning News>, 4-6 August, the remaining three players he still has to play are Martin, Archdall and Halford. By 3pm on the 6th, his score is 0/9 with Halford still to play. So results have come in for him against Martin and Archdall. According to Skipworth's table, Murray lost to Martin over the board and defaulted to Archdall. No one disputes the loss by default to Archdall. Murray cannot have withdrawn from the tournament up to that point, otherwise he would be given 0/10, but he must withdraw later that day. He also withdraws from the Handicap that day (loss by default to Shorthouse in the losers' bracket in Round 2, which was played 6 August). So Murray is sorted out, and in agreement with what you have. Now to Halford:
His score in the <Birmingham Daily Post, 6 August 1874> ie as at 11:45pm on 5 August, is 0/5. According to the results given in the <Birmingham Morning News>, 4-6 August, the remaining five players he still has to play are Wayte, Archdall, Rankin, Gossip, Murray. By 3pm on the 6th, his score is 0/8. The two then left to play are Murray and one other. One observes that Gossip's score in the <Birmingham Daily Mail, 6 August 1874> (+2-2=1) does not change from that in the <Birmingham Daily Post, 6 August 1874>. That means Gossip did not have a result in the first session of 6 August, so did thus not play Halford to a result then. That means that Halford must have played Wayte, Archdall, Rankin by 3pm, 6 August (perhaps one or two of them were completion of adjournments). It is very much to be noted at this point that a default to Gossip has NOT been given at this point. This means that Halford is STILL IN THE TOURNAMENT as at 3pm on 6 August. And so his results against Archdall and Rankin have occurred while he is STILL IN THE TOURNAMENT. Therefore supposed defaults to Archdall and Rankin cannot ascribed as a result of Halford withdrawing from the tournament. That removes the main basis for supposing that Halford may have defaulted to Archdall and Rankin. There is thus no reason to disbelieve Skipworth's table (which looks 95% correct anyway) when it says Halford-Archdall and Halford-Rankin are played games.
So to conclude, my opinion is that the weight of evidence is strongly in favour of Halford-Archdall and Halford-Rankin as being played games and I would recommend that the Skipworth table not be altered in this respect. |
|
| Aug-03-25 | | chesshistoryinterest: In case it helps, I give my full analysis here. We have a good number of game results in the <Birmingham Morning News> on 4,5,6 August 1874. One result in the 6th is clearly wrong, saying "Shoroll" (Thorold) beat Burn. We have to discard this. Comparing with the totals given in the <Birmingham Daily Post>, 6 August 1874, we are short +0-0=1 for Wayte; +1-0=1 for Thorold; +0-1=0 for Halford. Thus it must be Wayte-Thorold 0.5-0.5 and Thorold-Halford 1-0. We thus have complete results up to 11:45pm on 5 August 1874. Then comparing the difference in totals given in <Birmingham Daily Mail 6 August 1874> from <Birmingham Daily Post, 6 August 1874> and using a process of elimination, I get:
Halford loses to Archdall, Rankin, Wayte (as there is no change to Gossip's score; and the Halford-Murray double default has not yet arisen;
Murray loses to Martin and Archdall;
Archdall must also beat Fisher;
Thorold must lose to Burn;
Wayte must beat Fisher (as Skipworth defaults to Wayte later);
And therefore Ranken must beat Skipworth.
That gets us to 3pm, 6 August 1874.
Then comparing the difference in totals given in <Birmingham Daily Post 7 August 1874> from <Birmingham Daily Mail, 6 August 1874> and using a process of elimination, I get:
Halford loses to Gossip;
Martin must lose to Thorold;
Archdall must beat Rankin;
Rankin must beat Fisher;
And therefore, Gossip must beat Wayte and Skipworth.
This gets us to 11:45pm, 6 August 1874.
This leaves for 7 August 1874:
Burn beats Archdall and Gossip;
Fisher beats Thorold and Gossip;
Skipworth defaults to Wayte and Thorold;
The double default Halford-Murray goes in. |
|
| Aug-03-25 | | chesshistoryinterest: The games:
It looks like you are using your Synopsis to date the games entered on Chessgames.com. But this Synopsis relates to when the games ended, not when they started. My understanding is that we must enter the date the game started, not when it finished, maybe by an adjournment the next day.
So, for example, 5 games should have been begun on the evening of 3 August 1874. But the <Birmingham Morning Post, 4 August 1874> says "Several of last night's games were not finished" and then gives only 2 results from games that were: Skipworth-Murray 1-0; Wayte-Rankin 0.5-0.5. So 3 of the games that started on the 3rd must have been adjourned and completed on the 4th, you have as dated as 4 August 1874. Unfortunately, it seems impossible to determine when games that may have been adjourned could have started. Having a bye each round does not help either. So, frustratingly, some of the games may have to be entered with a '?' for the day date. The ones that can be determined, I would say are:
Wayte-Rankin 3 August;
Martin-Wayte 4 August (as Wayte already plays Rankin on the 3rd);
Halford-Skipworth 4 August (as Skipworth already plays Murray on the 3rd);
Skipworth-Fisher 4 August (as Skipworth already plays Murray on the 3rd);
Burn-Rankin 4 August (at 22 moves, too short to have been an adjournment).
Skipworth-Burn 5 August (at 25 moves, too short to have been an adjournment);
Murray-Rankin 5 August (at 23 moves, too short to have been an adjournment);
Halford-Wayte 6 August (at 23 moves, too short to have been an adjournment). (This game you currently still have in as 5 August (as noted in earlier post));
Skipworth-Rankin 6 August (at 25 moves, too short to have been an adjournment);
Burn-Gossip 7 August (at 18 moves, too short to have been an adjournment).
The rest of the games I don't think we can be sure about. For example, Burn-Martin might be an adjournment with game having started on the 3rd. But not necessarily, as Burn could have had the bye on the 3rd. Maybe a couple more could be determined if you knew what the draw was. But the two games given for 3rd August don't seem to fit a Berger draw. (Maybe it's nitpicking too much?)
------------ Great to see that Missy put in the correct Burn-Fisher game. -------------- For the Handicap, I noticed two errors in your table:
(1) In Section A, Round 2, you have <Newham +1=0-0 Player 7> 'Player 7' looks like Skipworth, so this is presumably a computer glitch.
(2) In Section A in the losers' group, Round 2, Shorthouse beating Murray should be a win by default. (See eg <Birmingham Morning News>, 7 August 1874, page 5.) |
|
Aug-03-25
| | jnpope: <When writing my original post on this event, I somehow mixed up the copies I printed out of Birmingham Daily Post and the Birmingham Daily Mail. Consequently, parts of the second part of my post would not have made sense. So I have completely redone my analysis.> Well, I'm on my third swing now! Good thing is I have a color-coded grid that has the play days mapped out, so this shouldn't take too long to see if my third pass matches your second pass (I think I'm starting early enough to not get loopy). I was able to rewind things to the end of Aug 5th with only two game results needing to be deduced as we have text reports through the 5th that nearly match the totals given in the <Birmingham Daily Post>'s report (Aug 6th) of the scores and the end of the night of the 5th; the two deductions are Thorold's draw with Wayte and Thorld's win over Halford. So I'm starting at the morning of the 6th so it shouldn't take me long. |
|
Aug-03-25
| | jnpope: <chesshistoryinterest>, keep in mind these were not tournaments played in "rounds", players were able to set their own schedules, so trying to fit these tournaments into "rounds" will drive you insane. Players played whomever was available on their schedule. So trying to calculate which games were adjourned is an impossible task, as even a short game could have started at 11pm but was adjourned after 45 minutes and resumed the next day. I don't think we have any choice other than working with the date/time a game was recorded as completed. Anything else is just widely speculative. |
|
Aug-03-25
| | jnpope: <I am quite mystified by what you say here. The <Birmingham Daily Mail, 6 August 1874>> I was looking at the wrong damn report (again!). |
|
Aug-04-25
| | jnpope: <For the Handicap, I noticed two errors in your table: (1) In Section A, Round 2, you have <Newham +1=0-0 Player 7> 'Player 7' looks like Skipworth, so this is presumably a computer glitch. (2) In Section A in the losers' group, Round 2, Shorthouse beating Murray should be a win by default. (See eg <Birmingham Morning News>, 7 August 1874, page 5.)> Fixed. |
|
| Aug-04-25 | | chesshistoryinterest: <I don't think we have any choice other than working with the date/time a game was recorded as completed. Anything else is just widely speculative.>
That's fine. In that case there are only the two games finishing on 3 August that can be given a known start date time. So it comes down to what is the policy at Chessgames.com? Is the date given strictly supposed to be a starting date of the game or not? If it is, then putting in dates for all the other games is giving them a false accuracy and they should be given a '?' for the day part of the date instead. So what is the policy? Is it strict starting date, or is there some latitude? |
|
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
|
|
|
NOTE: Create an account today
to post replies and access other powerful features which are available only to registered users.
Becoming a member is free, anonymous, and takes less than 1 minute! If you already have a username,
then simply login login under your username now to join the discussion.
|
Please observe our posting guidelines:
- No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.
- No spamming, advertising, duplicate, or gibberish posts.
- No vitriolic or systematic personal attacks against other members.
- Nothing in violation of United States law.
- No cyberstalking or malicious posting of negative or private information (doxing/doxxing) of members.
- No trolling.
- The use of "sock puppet" accounts to circumvent disciplinary action taken by moderators, create a false impression of consensus or support, or stage conversations, is prohibited.
- Do not degrade Chessgames or any of it's staff/volunteers.
Please try to maintain a semblance of civility at all times.
NOTE: Please keep all discussion on-topic.
This forum is for this specific tournament only. To discuss chess or this site in general,
visit the Kibitzer's Café.
|
Messages posted by Chessgames members
do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors.
All moderator actions taken are ultimately at the sole discretion of the administration. |
Spot an error? Please suggest your correction and help us eliminate database mistakes!
Copyright 2001-2025, Chessgames Services LLC
|
Kibitzing
