Members · Prefs · Laboratory · Collections · Openings · Endgames · Sacrifices · History · Search Kibitzing · Kibitzer's Café · Chessforums · Tournament Index · Players · Kibitzing

London Tournament

Adolf Anderssen15/21(+14 -5 =2)[games]
Elijah Williams13.5/22(+13 -8 =1)[games]
Marmaduke Wyvill13/24(+12 -10 =2)[games]
Jozsef Szen12.5/17(+12 -4 =1)[games]
Howard Staunton11/22(+10 -10 =2)[games]
Hugh Alexander Kennedy10/19(+9 -8 =2)[games]
Bernhard Horwitz5/15(+4 -9 =2)[games]
James Swain Mucklow2/10(+2 -8 =0)[games]
Henry Bird1.5/4(+1 -2 =1)[games]
Johann Jacob Loewenthal1/3(+1 -2 =0)[games]
Lionel Kieseritzky0.5/3(+0 -2 =1)[games]
Samuel Newham0/2(+0 -2 =0)[games]
Karl Mayet0/2(+0 -2 =0)[games]
Edward Shirley Kennedy0/2(+0 -2 =0)[games]
Alfred Brodie0/2(+0 -2 =0)[games]
Edward Lowe0/2(+0 -2 =0)[games] Chess Event Description
London (1851)

Some of the main organizers of the tournament were Bledow (who had passed away by the time the final proposals could be arranged), von der Lasa, Kennedy and Staunton(1). They wanted a congress of competitive chess players at the start of the London World's Fair that could serve as an international and recurring chess meeting for the best players in Europe and the rest of the world(2). The tournament started in May of that year and proceeded to standardize issues such as consistent time-controls, rules and notation in a knock-out style format.

First Round Second Round Semi-final Final ---------- Anderssen 2½ Kieseritsky ½ Anderssen 4 Szen 2 Szen 2 Newham 0 ---------- Anderssen 4 Horwitz 2½ Staunton 1 Bird 1½ Staunton 4½ Staunton 2 Horwitz 2½ Brodie 0 ---------- Anderssen 4½ Williams 2 Wyvill 2½ Löwenthal 1 Williams 4 Mucklow 2 Mucklow 0 E Kennedy 0 Wyvill 4 ---------- Williams 3 H Kennedy 2 Mayet 0 Wyvill 4½ Wyvill 2 H Kennedy 3½ Löwe 0

Anderssen vs Kieseritzky, 1851, the famous Immortal Game, was played at the venue but was not part of the tournament.

References: (1) Wikipedia article: London 1851 chess tournament , (2) Wikipedia article: The Crystal Palace

Missing information: no dates

 page 1 of 1; 7 games  PGN Download 
Game  ResultMoves YearEvent/LocaleOpening
1. H Kennedy vs Szen ½-½571851LondonB45 Sicilian, Taimanov
2. Horwitz vs Bird ½-½541851LondonA10 English
3. Anderssen vs Kieseritzky ½-½551851LondonC39 King's Gambit Accepted
4. Staunton vs Horwitz ½-½351851LondonA10 English
5. Wyvill vs H Kennedy ½-½621851LondonA13 English
6. Wyvill vs Anderssen ½-½501851LondonD32 Queen's Gambit Declined, Tarrasch
7. E Williams vs Staunton ½-½371851LondonA43 Old Benoni
  REFINE SEARCH:   White wins (1-0) | Black wins (0-1) | Draws (1/2-1/2)  

Kibitzer's Corner
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 2 OF 3 ·  Later Kibitzing>
Jun-05-16  Calli: Another ILN column on 14 June reports the results of the second round. When combined with the previous link, we can at least date those games in the month of June, although without a specific day.


Jun-05-16  zanzibar: OK, I'll add the dates in where ever applicable - at least for the Z-base version.

I think a definite 2nd pass for the tournament is in order.

The question is when? My current trajectory was to finish Reichhelm's 50, and I'm only just finishing the Quintangular.

(London BCA, London Quint, Belfast (1892) all are missing from <CG>, so they get a priority bump)

Jun-05-16  zanzibar: Google books aside -

As concerns some of these elaborate Victorian illustrated works, like ILN, it's unfortunate that google books doesn't allow some kind of clipping.

I can't read the print, even at the full magnification allowed (which max's out too soon imo).

And downloading an ILN volumes requires almost 1 Gb of disk space - they're pigs.

One of my side projects was to go through a couple of volumes of ILN and pull out the chess clippings. I was thinking of maybe submitting them to Pope for the O'Keefe timeline.

But then <focus> said something that hurt my feelings and I lost focus.


Jun-05-16  zanzibar: RE: Dates...

I'm not even sure that it's ever going to be possible to record the dates for all the games in this tournament.

Even for someone with unlimited access to all biographical sources existent.

One has to ask if it's worthwhile to even begin such an undertaking.

For instance, such an undertaking is likely to undercover more questions than it answers.

Like <CG>'s round numbering...


1851.??.?? B20 20 (R1.1) 0-1 Kieseritsky -- Anderssen

1851.??.?? A10 54 (R1.1) = Horwitz -- Bird

1851.??.?? C44 15 (R1.1) 1-0 Staunton -- Brodie

1851.??.?? D00 62 (R1.1) 1-0 Mucklow -- Kennedy_ES

1851.??.?? C00 39 (R1.1) 0-1 Mayet -- Kennedy, Capt

1851.??.?? C01 44 (R1.1) 0-1 Loewenthal -- Williams

1851.??.?? C00 29 (R1.1) 0-1 Lowe -- Wyvill

1851.??.?? B44 64 (R1.1) 1-0 Szen -- Newham


Which, as I take it, we want to place all these games on Tues, 1851.05.27.

But consider the ILN 5/31 report of winners:


Anderssen over Kieseritzky. | Captain Kennedy over Mayet.

Szen " Newham. | Wyvill " Lowe.

Williams " Löwenthal. | Mucklow " E.S. Kennedy.

Horwitz " Bird. | Staunton " Brodie.


It gives Horwitz as winning over Bird. And the R1.2 session (Wed 5.28 (?)) reports these winners:


Anderssen over Kieseritzky. | Wyvill over Lowe.

Szen " Newham. | Mucklow " E.S. Kennedy

Löwenthal " Williams. | Staunton " Brodie.

Capt. Kennedy " Mayet. |


It looks like the Horwitz--Bird draw (the only one) took place then.

Horwitz won his lot, so one might assume he picked first move (White in our parlance, but colors were also picked by lot).

Well, I'll leave it to the interested reader, but given these games in the match:


fpair( Horwitz, Bird )

1851.??.?? A10 54 (R1.1) = Horwitz -- Bird

1851.??.?? C65 59 (R1.2) 1-0 Bird -- Horwitz

1851.??.?? B21 55 (R1.3) 1-0 Horwitz -- Bird

1851.??.?? B30 32 (R1.4) 0-1 Bird -- Horwitz


If the Horwitz--Bird win came first, then the game arrangement looks problematic if we want to place a Horwitz--Bird draw immediately following.

Jun-05-16  zanzibar: By the way, the ILN reports show up, almost verbatim in Staunton's tournament report. At least the part on drawing the lots(*).

Staunton was writing for the ILN at the time, correct?


(*) E.g. the footnote is readable about Brodie and E.S. Kennedy taking the places of Jaenisch and Shumoff, who were "momentarily expected".

Jun-05-16  Calli: <Staunton was writing for the ILN at the time, correct?>

He was the editor. There is the possibility that, given his organizing and playing duties, he had someone else do the ILN column during a busy period.

Zoom - I can go to Hathitrust for the same doc and zoom up on a touchscreen (with fingers).

Jun-05-16  zanzibar: Thanks <Calli> for the zoom advice.

Comparing the early ILN and TB coverage, it looks almost the same. I know that there was contemporaneous discussion that Staunton's editorial duties interfered with his playing.

Of course, Anderssen was the best at that time no matter how you slice it, I'm fairly sure - and EDOchess agrees:

Jun-06-16  zanzibar: OK, here's a list of games which <sneaky> has corrected:


Kieseritsky // Anderssen (R1.1, 1.2, 1.3 )

Newham--Szen R1.2

Kennedy_HA--Mayet R1.2

Szen--Anderssen R2.6

Anderssen--Stauton R3.1

Kennedy_HA--Szen R4.5

(Staunton--Williams R4.4)


Actually, I'm not quite sure if sneaky has corrected them all.

<CG> - can we get a chronological list of corrections applied to a game somewhere?

Jun-06-16  sneaky pete: <z> I only submitted official corrections for 3 games. The other two (apart from Kennedy vs Mayet) were Newham vs Szen (r1 g2) and Szen vs Anderssen (r2 g6). Newham vs Szen had 30... Bxf4+ 31.Rxf4? Rxf4 when 30... Rxf4 31.Rxf4 Bxf4+ was really played. Szen vs Anderssen had 25... Rxb2, but Staunton and Schachzeitung give 25... Re4.
Jun-06-16  zanzibar: <sneaky> I listed all the games with differences from my snapshot and the current <CG> tournament.

This is part of the difficulty with working with <CG> - it's a moving target.

I was hoping that the historical tournaments were fairly stable, but all the above changes are within the last six months.

Wish we could just click on a history button for any given game to see it's correction history.

But as it is, this diffs point out games to be investigated - i.e. finding the source games (TB + DSZ), and comparing CB, NIC, and 365 versions.

Jun-06-16  zanzibar: Quick update - <London (1851)> was incorporated into Z-base first, and wasn't subjected to the rigorous comparison with 365chess that's become a standard screening (when possible).

Over lunch I did a quick twin-delete of the main KO games (excluding the playoffs between dropouts - which are treated as separate tournaments by 365 and Z-base).

Quite a few more diffs show up - so it appears that an effort to research/resolve is required.

Normally I post the results in a form similar to this: (different tournament example)

The idea is to fold all the corrections back into <CG> when it finally modernizes to allow "bulk submissions".

Jun-06-16  zanzibar: <London (1851)> gets a shout-out from WBUR's Bill Littlefield, of <It's Only a Game> fame:

Something or another about brackets...

Jun-07-16  zanzibar: <sneaky pete> can I trouble to ask you if you're systematically going through all the Schachzeitung games and comparing to <CG>?

Otherwise, what is your procedure/criteria for reviewing games?

Jun-08-16  sneaky pete: <zanzibar> There is nothing systematic in what I do, it's all haphazardry. I wanted to take a new look at all the games from this tournament with Staunton as my guide. When I discovered he had clipped some games but gave a longer score, I looked elsewhere and found the alternate TB published in the 1852 Schachzeitung.

I think copied the games from another database that used SZ as primary source, but (this other database) added some new mistakes (like 59.Rg7 .. for 59.g7 ..) to the ones SZ had already made (like 21... QR to K's sq = Rae8 misread as 21... QR to Kt's sq = Rab8).

Jun-08-16  zanzibar: <sneaky> (and others...)

Hot off the press...

Please try to download this PGN if you would. It's the most up-to-date and correct version of the tournament, in my belief.

Jun-11-16  zanzibar: OK, just for chuckles, and because it seems reasonably correct, here is the dating of the games using the ILN reporting:

R1.1 = 1851.05.27

R1.2 = 05.28

then "at the termination of this sitting, hostilities were adjourned until Friday, ...".

R1.3 = 05.30

R1.4 = 05.31 (this is interpolated)

R2.x and R3.x = 1851.06.??

R4.x = 1851.07.??

There might be some uncertainty for end R3/beginning R4, but it's not too likely. Nor significant, as an inexact date might suggest some uncertainty of a day or two.

Now the question is, should Z-base actually adopt this dating?

Premium Chessgames Member
  MissScarlett: I'm correcting the first round result between Williams and Lowenthal from 2-0 to 2-1.
Premium Chessgames Member
  MissScarlett: <The ILN [of Saturday, May 31st] states that the 1st Rd pairings were picked randomly on Monday, May 26. The first day of play was Tuesday, the 27th. It appears that the second games were on Wednesday, the 28th. Although the day is not specifically stated, it's hard to imagine that there would already be a day off. Being a 2 out of 3 RD, six players were thus eliminated after only two days. The ILN (Staunton, I presume) laments the random pairings and the 2 of 3 format.>

Actually, only five players were eliminated, because Anderssen vs Kieseritzky, 1851 was drawn, requiring a third game. It's curious that the ILN reporter wouldn't know this, especially if it was Staunton.

Premium Chessgames Member
  MissScarlett: According to the <Northampton Mercury>, June 7th, round 2.1 was held on Monday, June 2nd.
Dec-09-16  zanzibar: <MissS> any info on dating rounds would be appreciated.

I don't think I ever folded the dates into Z-base, but it's never too late.

Premium Chessgames Member
  MissScarlett: <R1.1 = 1851.05.27

R1.2 = 05.28

then "at the termination of this sitting, hostilities were adjourned until Friday, ...".

R1.3 = 05.30

R1.4 = 05.31 (this is interpolated)>

I'm pretty certain these are correct. As you're probably aware, tournament chess on a Sunday was a no-no in Britain, at least, until maybe as late as WW2.

Dec-09-16  zanzibar: Yes, this was a fairly widespread convention for many of the early tournaments that I've researched.

I can't remember, off-hand, which tournament first had a top-level round on a Sunday.

Maybe the Dutch were first?


Premium Chessgames Member
  MissScarlett: More likely the French.
Premium Chessgames Member
  MissScarlett: <R2.x and R3.x = 1851.06.??

R4.x = 1851.07.??>

Yes, this is correct.

<There might be some uncertainty for end R3/beginning R4, but it's not too likely. Nor significant, as an inexact date might suggest some uncertainty of a day or two.>

Provincial papers were in the habit of unattributed copying of reports from bigger and better titles, and the necessary delay in recycling sometimes leads to confusion.

Dec-10-16  zanzibar: <MissS> yes, but I think I exhausted the ILN reportage for info.

So where else can hope reside?

It's unfortunate the coverage tampered off in the later stages of the tournament (at least, iirc, not having worked on this for awhile now).

Jump to page #    (enter # from 1 to 3)
search thread:   
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 2 OF 3 ·  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:

  1. No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.
  2. No spamming, advertising, duplicate, or gibberish posts.
  3. No vitriolic or systematic personal attacks against other members.
  4. Nothing in violation of United States law.
  5. No cyberstalking or malicious posting of negative or private information (doxing/doxxing) of members.
  6. No trolling.
  7. 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.

Please try to maintain a semblance of civility at all times.

Blow the Whistle

See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform a moderator.

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, 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 2001-2021, Chessgames Services LLC