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

Rosenthal - Wisker 1870/71 Match

Samuel Rosenthal5/9(+3 -2 =4)[games]
John Wisker4/9(+2 -3 =4)[games] Chess Event Description
Rosenthal - Wisker 1870/71

St. George's Chess Club, London, England; 12 December 1870—14 January 1871

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Score —————————————————————————————————— Rosenthal 0 ½ 0 1 ½ 1 ½ ½ 1 5 Wisker 1 ½ 1 0 ½ 0 ½ ½ 0 4 —————————————————————————————————— Format: Victor is the best of nine games, including draws. Time Control: 15 moves per hour. Prize: £20 to the winner, £5 to the loser.(5)

"Der St. George-Club hat auf Veranlassung des Herrn Hampton sofort einen Match zwischen dem englischen Champion Wisker und Herrn Rosenthal arrangirt und 20£ als Preis für den Sieger ausgesetzt."(1)

"Ein Mr. Hampton, Mitglied des St. George's Club, bemüht sich, einen Match zwischen dem Cup-Sieger (also Wisker) und Rosenthal zu Stande zu bringen, zu welchem Zwecke der St. George-Club £20 ausgesetzt hat."(2)

"Chess-Match at the St. George's Chess Club.—A short match, which promises to be an interesting one, was begun at the St. George's Chess Club, on Monday last, between Mr. Wisker, who lately won the B.C.A. Challenge Cup, and Mr. Rosenthal, a Continental player of high repute. Nine games in all are to be played, the winner of the majority to receive the chief prize and the loser to receive a solatium of lesser value. To prevent undue delay in the progress of the match, the competitors have agreed to a time limit of one hour for every fifteen moves, and have undertaken to play not less than three games each week from the commencement."(3)

"According to the terms of the match the competitors are to play 9 games, inclusive of draws."(4)

(1) Neue Berliner Schachzeitung, v7, November 1870, p321
(2) Schachzeitung, v26 n1, January 1871, p16
(3) Illustrated London News, 1870.12.17, p627
(4) Bell's Life in London, 1870.12.31, p9
(5) Schachzeitung, v26 n2, February 1871, p39

 page 1 of 1; 9 games  PGN Download 
Game  ResultMoves YearEvent/LocaleOpening
1. S Rosenthal vs J Wisker 0-1411870Rosenthal - Wisker 1870/71C51 Evans Gambit
2. J Wisker vs S Rosenthal ½-½261870Rosenthal - Wisker 1870/71C33 King's Gambit Accepted
3. S Rosenthal vs J Wisker 0-1461870Rosenthal - Wisker 1870/71C46 Three Knights
4. J Wisker vs S Rosenthal 0-1541870Rosenthal - Wisker 1870/71C45 Scotch Game
5. S Rosenthal vs J Wisker ½-½481870Rosenthal - Wisker 1870/71C84 Ruy Lopez, Closed
6. J Wisker vs S Rosenthal 0-1281871Rosenthal - Wisker 1870/71C33 King's Gambit Accepted
7. S Rosenthal vs J Wisker  ½-½361871Rosenthal - Wisker 1870/71C47 Four Knights
8. J Wisker vs S Rosenthal  ½-½371871Rosenthal - Wisker 1870/71A02 Bird's Opening
9. S Rosenthal vs J Wisker 1-0471871Rosenthal - Wisker 1870/71C78 Ruy Lopez
  REFINE SEARCH:   White wins (1-0) | Black wins (0-1) | Draws (1/2-1/2)  

Kibitzer's Corner
Premium Chessgames Member
  Chessical: The 'Schachzeitung' excerpt reads

'Chess in England. The competition between Wisker, this year's winner, in the Challenge Cup tournament and Samuel Rosenthal, mentioned in the January issue on p. 16, has happily come about and has already finished. The conditions were: the winner is whoever wins the majority of the nine games. The prize being £10 [sic], with £5 compensation to the loser. Games to be played on the premises of the St. George Club and at least three games must be completed each week. Time control: 30 moves in 2 hours.

The match started on December 10th and ended on 21st January. By then, both players had won two games each whilst four had been drawn. The ninth, the decisive and final game, resolved in favor of the Pole. Löwenthal knows is full of praise for both masters. Rosenthal's way of playing is lively, imaginative, clever; that of his opponent cautious, deep and thoroughly theoretically grounded.

Premium Chessgames Member
  MissScarlett: Why do we need the German commentary at all? What does it add? In this case, its match dates are wrong.
Premium Chessgames Member
  jnpope: <MissScarlett: Why do we need the German commentary at all?>

We probably don't. I think I had it in my research materials due to it being the only source that mentioned exactly how much the loser would get.

If someone wants to edit the material to make it more concise, have at it. I'm just a lowly researcher.

Jan-05-22  login:

'2 historians meet at a corner'

'Why do we need the German commentary at all? What does it add?'

[Chorus: Look up the definition of commentary to get your answer doofus]

'We probably don't.'

[Chorus already in agony: Fertig ist die Kiste!]

CG one-act play, 2022


Premium Chessgames Member
  jnpope: <login>, no, I get it. The text doesn't offer much that isn't covered by the other cited materials. I think I could just create a footnote at "£5 to the loser.[(5)]" and delete the entire quoted text. The footnote points the reader to the source and then all that text becomes truly superfluous at that point.
Jan-06-22  login:

'The footnote points the reader to the source and then all that text becomes truly superfluous at that point.'

Believe me when I say this is just not true for me at least.

That way pretty much everything bar any anecdotal evidence is obsolete. Excessive British newspaper archive (public branch) monologue write offs included. Not even touching severe problems lying in the very nature of all (human generated) sources that are not easy to spot without context.

Apparently your argumentation (in favour of footnotes) is not related to 'Why do we need the German commentary at all? What does it add?'. At least it does not decrease the absurdity of the opening statement (reading 'German' as placeholder for anything one has no clue about living on a mental island talking continental chess history all day long).

We disagree that CG gains much as dead (=passive structure) chess book index in key features. Rather expect anyone (me included) being able to interact with e.g. Chessical's fine translation without having to leave the site first. The whole point of what keeps the community going is casually questioned here [CG's typical excessively dramatic manner].

So your main focus seems more the 'technical' approach lacking a bit the interactive human part. Totally fine (live and let live) as long as that's not as distinguished from anyone else.

In short: Please do not alter pages in a way that interferes with already written postings or information based on peer pressure and/or an objective (restricting) viewpoint in the future - it is considered not cool. Then again it won't keep me awake at night, really nothing more to add.

Volonté générale

(natürlich auf Deutsch)



Jan-06-22  Absentee: <20£ als Preis für den Sieger ausgesetzt>


Premium Chessgames Member
  jnpope: < Please do not alter pages in a way that interferes with already written postings or information based on peer pressure and/or an objective (restricting) viewpoint in the future - it is considered not cool.>

This is nothing more than author's prerogative. I put it there, I took it away.

How do you feel about a gamescore that gets changed/corrected and suddenly an entire discussion, that may be pages long, is suddenly rendered pointless? Do we leave the faulty gamescore intact to justify the existence of comments in the thread? Probably not.

And what about cases where something in the bio box is a complete fabrication that ends up being refuted by research? Do you leave the lie intact to support commentary in the thread or do you edit the bio text to reflect the truth thereby making the commentary appear as some tangential non sequitur?

<MissScarlett> pointed out that the text was pointless and full of factual errors. The only piece of information that was worthwhile from that source was the inclusion of the amount to be given to the loser of the match. Upon consideration I felt that I didn't need to have that entire paragraph included to substantiate that single fact. Hence the change.

Sorry if that edit ruffles your feathers; being "cool" was never my forte.

May-04-22  Stolzenberg: A little Opening summary:

Bird's Opening, Dutch Variation (A03): 1 x

King's Gambit Accepted, Bishop's Gambit (C33): 2 x

Scotch Game, Steinitz Variation (C45): 1 x
Three Knights Game, Steinitz Defence (C46): 1 x
Four Knights Game, Scotch Variation (C47): 1 x

Evans Gambit Accepted (C51): 1 x

Ruy Lopez (C77): 2 x

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.
  8. Do not degrade Chessgames or any of it's staff/volunteers.

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 2001-2023, Chessgames Services LLC