[what is this?]

[what is this?]

<< previous | page 4 of 5 | next >>

Larsen - Olafsson <Introduction:> An eight-game playoff match for the Nordic Championship between Bent Larsen and Fridrik Olafsson held in Reykjavik, Iceland from 17th January to 1st February 1956. The match was hosted by the "Sjómannaskólanum" (Seaman's School) in the Háteigsveig suburb of Reykjavík [(1)] <The players> They had played four times previously, their first crossing of swords being at Junior World Championships in Birmingham, England, in 1951. Olafsson had won three of these games but had lost their last encounter in the Nordic Championship in Oslo in August 1955. Both players were 20 years old at the start of the match. Olafsson celebrated his 21st birthday on the 26th January. Although still a law student, by 1956 he had already been Icelandic champion twice (in 1952 and in 1953) and in 1953 he had come third in the World Junior Championship in Copenhagen where he had beaten Larsen (Larsen vs F Olafsson, 1953). Olafsson's first international tournament was Hastings (1953/54) where he came fourth equal. In 1954, Olafsson played in the Marianske Lazne - Prague Zonal Tournament coming sixth in a strong field and then in September he had played for Iceland in the Amsterdam Olympiad. During late November and early December 1955, he defeated the world championship candidate Herman Pilnik 5-1 in a match in Reykjavik. Olafsson then returned to Hastings Hastings (1955/56) this time to tie for first. These results augured well for the playoff for his tie with Larsen in the 1955 Nordic Championship. According to Larsen, "The year 1955 started with a partial failure; I only managed to share first place in the Copenhagen Championship (with Axel Nielsen e.d. )…After that, I took part in the Danish Championship and scored 10 out of a possible 11. In August I played in the Scandinavian Championship (Nordic – e.d.), which took place in Oslo, and although I didn’t play very well in all the games, I shared first place with Fridrik Olafsson who I beat in the last round … I flew (in January 1956 – e.d.) to Reykjavik where the tier for the Scandinavian Championship has to be decided by an eight-game match. In those days Olafsson was a national hero. He had beaten Herman Pilnik in a match and at Hastings (1955/56) shared first with Viktor Korchnoi. The enthusiasm on the island was fantastic; everyone followed our match with great interest. But what was wrong with Olafsson? I took the lead 3½-1½. But in the sixth game, I blundered in a position that was clearly drawn and I played very badly in the seventh. The situation was now 3½ points all with one game left and both of us were very nervous…” [(2)] Larsen arrived in Reykjavík on Sunday night (15th January) two days before the start of the match. Both players declared themselves optimistic about their chances to the Icelandic press. Olafsson admitted that Larsen would be a difficult opponent who did well in complex positions and in defence. "Larsen stated he was impressed by Olafsson's achievements in Hastings. He only had seen the game against Taimanov (F Olafsson vs Taimanov, 1955) which had appeared in a Swedish newspaper, and that it was very elegant. He said Friðrik's chess style was excellent being both bold and imaginative." [(3)] <The match arrangements> The first games were on Tuesday (17th) and Wednesday, with Thursday reserved for adjourned games (Game 1). The third game would take place on Friday (19th) and the was adjourned to continue on Sunday (21st). The fourth on Monday (23rd). There was then a three-day break with the fifth and sixth games being played on consecutive days (26th and 27th). The seventh game was on 31st January, and the final game was on the 1st February. The games were played in the evening, starting at 19:30 hours. Due to popular interest, queues were anticipated and a special bus service was laid on for the 9-mile drive to the venue. [(4)] The match manager was Áki Pétursson and tournament director Jón Einarsson [(5)] <Progress of the match> Larsen had white in the odd-numbered games. This was a hard-fought match with only one drawn game. table[ Round 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Total Larsen 1 0 1 ½ 1 0 0 1 4½ Olafsson 0 1 0 ½ 0 1 1 0 3½ ]table . <Progressive scores:> table[ Round 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Larsen 1 1 2 2½ 3½ 3½ 3½ 4½ Olafsson 0 1 1 1½ 1½ 2½ 3½ 3½ ]table . <The Games> [[Game 1]] Game 1 was on Tuesday 17th January 1956. [(6)] The hall was packed by an audience estimated to number 1,700 which spilled out into the corridors of the Sjómannaskólanum. The venue was intended to cater for 700-800 people. As result, half an hour after the start of the first game the doors had to be barred. Outside, there was a traffic jam and late-comers had to resort to peering through the windows at the spectacle. Guðmundur Arnlaugsson made a welcoming speech and then as Bent Larsen had white, the Danish Ambassador and famous women's rights activist Mrs. Bodil Begtrup ceremonially played his first move. The game was adjourned at 00:30 hours on move 41 with Olafsson having to play his last moves quickly to make the time control. He told the press that the result would probably be a draw. [(7)] Olafsson's prediction proved wide of the mark. Shortly after the resumption of play, he blundered and Larsen took full advantage: click for larger view <49...Rxd4?> to which Larsen replied <50.Qxf7+> Kh8 51.a5! Despite his significant advantage, Larsen had difficulties in transforming it into a victory. It is probable that both players were growing more nervous as the game proceeded. Larsen made several inferior moves, but Olafsson could not take advantage of these various opportunities to improve his prospects to secure a draw. [[Game 2]] 18th January 1956. Olafsson seized the lead with his first taste of the White pieces scoring a win in 31 moves. click for larger view Larsen played <25...Bb6?> fatally ignoring the imminent threats to his King. [[Game 3]] 19th January 1956. Once again the playing hall was packed out. The local hero was leading in the match and had just won a crushing victory. The game was adjourned at move 40 with the general opinion being that Larsen's had a spatial advantage but that the position was also very complex. click for larger view The game resumed on Sunday night. With <57.b6!> Olafsson's position finally disintegrated. [(8)][(9)] [[Game 4]] 23rd January 1956. After three decisive games, this was the first drawn game of the match. Olafsson played a cautiously and failed to obtain any advantage against the Sicilian Defence. Material was exchanged without altering the balance of the game and at move 32 a draw was agreed in an equal Rook and Pawns endgame. "Our guest has clearly been in excellent form...Larsen loves the fight, he plays quickly so that he rarely comes into time-trouble, uncompromisingly he creates problems for his opponent. Fridrik has in turn shown signs fatigue and hesitation. He has shown some good spells, but not the magnificent play we have been accustomed to. Whilst all the nervous tension and the interest surrounding the match has affected him, it has filled Bent Larsen with fighting spirit." [(10)] Gudmundur Arnlaugsson [[Game 5]] 26th January 1956. As in Game 1, Olafsson blundered in a near equal position. As Black in the Queen's Indian, he erred by swapping off pieces too quickly in trying to release Larsen's pressure on his position: click for larger view Olafsson played <23...c5?> but this lost the exchange to a long but straight-forward combination [24. Bxe5 Bxe5 25. Bxb7 Rxb7 26. Rde1 Rbe7 27. Nd5 Re6 28. Nc7] [[Game 6]] 27th January 1956. Olafsson had to win with the White pieces to have any chance of staying in the match. Larsen two points up with only three games to play seemed to be very happily placed. Yet, it appears that the nervous toll of the match suddenly affected him. This game was the first of two consecutive losses destroying his lead. Olafsson's English opening had not given him an advantage and the game seemed destined to be drawn at the adjournment. Suddenly, Larsen grabbed a pawn only to find that his Knight had no escape route click for larger view After <36...Nxe2?> and the simple reply 37.Bf1, Larsen could only sacrifice the piece for a second pawn. Olafsson soon won the pawn back and Larsen played on in a hopeless position before resigning on move 51. [[Game 7]] 31st January 1956. Olafsson had now clawed back to a point behind in the match, but he had Black. He had lost with the Black pieces in every game so far in the match. Olafsson did not play for safety-first but instead employed the aggressive Dutch Defence. This was not part of his normal repertoire and could be expected to be a surprise for his opponent. Olafsson built up an attack supported by two powerful Bishops which raked Larsen's King-side. Having compromised the dark squares around his King, Larsen was defeated by a decisive Bishop sacrifice. click for larger view <24... Bh3+!!> 25. Kxh3 Qh5+ 26. Kg2 Qxh2 mate. Many years later, Olafsson played a pendant to this game, another artistic King Side attack but this time exploiting the White squares around his opponent's King. O Rodriguez Vargas vs F Olafsson, 1978 [[Game 8]] 1st February 1956. Larsen chose this game for inclusion in his "Selected Games". The match score was tied so the final game was also the deciding game. The game followed an earlier Larsen victory E Paoli vs Larsen, 1954 from the Amsterdam Olympiad. Larsen employed the sharp, uncompromising and newly popular Sicilian, Najdorf, 6...e6 (B95). This counter-attacking variation had become popular with leading Soviet players in 1953-1954 and usually led to a decisive result. On the thirteenth move, Olafsson deviated from Paoli and the game proceeded sharply as an attack on the respective Kings on opposite flanks. click for larger view On move 22, Olafsson made a subtle error. Playing <22.g5> he allowed his opponent to play <22...e5!> with advantage. Larsen's play from then on was very energetic, whilst Olafsson lost the thread of the game and weakened his King's position. Larsen temporarily sacrificed his Queen, his active pieces winning the exchange and soon after the game. <Photographs of the players> https://timarit.is/view_page_init.j... http://skaksogufelagid.is/1956-einv... <Conclusion> On the 5th February at the “Sjálfstæðishúsinu” (Independence House, a conference hall and restaurant) in front of the Nordic Ambassadors, Larsen as the NordicChampion was presented with a cup from King Hákon of Norway and Olafsson as the runner-up received a "silver shell" from the City of Oslo. Both players also received a cash prize from the Chess League of Iceland for the match. [(11)] Larsen then stunned the chess world by becoming a grandmaster at the age of 20. He did this through his top score on Board One (14/18 = 77.8%) at the 12th Chess Olympiad in Moscow, September 1956. The young rivals played at Hastings (1956/57) where Larsen shared first place with Svetozar Gligoric half a point ahead of Olafsson who had the consolation of winning their individual game - Larsen vs F Olafsson, 1956 At Dallas (1957), Larsen took 4th place finishing a point ahead of Olafsson (6th place) and they each won one game against the other in this double round event. Olafsson directly qualified for the Portoroz Interzonal (1958) from the Wageningen Zonal coming second by half a point to Laszlo Szabo. Despite defeating Olafsson - F Olafsson vs Larsen, 1957 - Larsen, finished a half point behind his Icelandic rival. He consequently had to play an additional match against Jan Hein Donner, Donner - Larsen Zonal Playoff (1958) for the Zonal's final qualifying place. At Portoroz Interzonal (1958), Larsen finished a disappointing 16th but Olafsson came 5th-6th and advanced to Candidates' Final Tournament - Bled-Zagreb-Belgrade Candidates (1959) - so gaining the Grandmaster title. The Interzonal marked the beginning of a long fallow period for Larsen which lasted until the mid-1960s whilst Olafsson's activity subsided after 1959 as his legal work took precedence. <Notes:> [(1)]. "Tíminn", an Icelandic newspaper, 14th January 1956, p.1. [(2)]. "Bent Larsen's Best Games: Fighting Chess with the Great Dane", Bent Larsen, p.34 [(3)] "Tíminn", 17th January 1956 p.7. [(4)]. Details about the match arrangements: "Alþýðublaðið", an Icelandic newspaper, 14th January 1956, p.1. and "Vísir", an Icelandic newspaper, 16th January 1956, p.1. and 12. [(5)]. "Alþýðublaðið", 16th January 1956, p.8. [(6)]. "Alþýðublaðið", 14th January 1956, p.1. [(7)]. Alþýðublaðið, 18th January 1956, p.1., "Þjóðviljinn" 8th January 1956, p.12. and "Vísir", 18th January 1956, p.12. [(8)]. "Tíminn", 21st January 1956, p.1. [(9)]. "Morgunblaðið", 21st January 1956, p.16. [(10)]. Gudmundur Arnlaugsson (Icelandic champion in 1949), writing in "Þjóðviljinn", 29th January 1956 p.6. [(11)]. "Tíminn", 5th February 1956, p.7 8 games, 1956 Lasker - Chigorin - the Rice Gambit Match <Introduction> Isaac Rice, a millionaire and an extremely generous chess patron was fond of this variation of the Kieseritzky Gambit ("the Rice Gambit"): <1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 g5 4. h4 g4 5. Ne5 Nf6 6. Bc4 d5 7. exd5 Bd6 8. O-O> click for larger view Besides supporting general chess activity in the United States, Prof. Rice organised and financed thematic tournaments where this opening, named after him, had to be played. <He financed a match in Brighton England in 1903 to test out the variation with the world champion Emanuel Lasker having White in all six games (it might have been better if Mikhail Chigorin had had White given his attacking prowess). It took place from August 3rd to August 15th with Chigorin winning (+2, =3, -1). The gambit is considered dubious.> [(1)] The match started from the following position in all of the games: click for larger view For Chigorin's handling of the White side of the gambit (which he only appears to have played when sponsored to do so) see: Chigorin vs B Maliutin, 1905 Chigorin vs P Evtifeev, 1905 Chigorin vs K Rosenkrantz, 1905 <The Gambit's worth> The gambit was Rice's invention (1893) and he shared its early development with Samuel Lipschutz who played it in competition: Lipschutz vs I E Orchard, 1898 but he lavished a great deal of time on it and paid for professionals to play and analyze it. Alexander Alekhine wrote: "This move (8.0-0) suggested by Prof.I.L.Rice, has not, truth to tell, any theoretical value, since Black can revert to a variation of the Kieseritski Gambit, not unfavourable to him, by 8...0-0. Moreover, he runs no risk in accepting the temporary sacrifice of the Knight, since white as master practice has shown, cannot hope for more than a draw after a long and difficult struggle". Alekhine went on to say that the gambit does offer "a multitude of very complicated tactical possibilities" (Alekhine, My Best Games of Chess, Vol 1, game 32). Lasker himself wrote: <"White is not lost. Black must play exceedingly well not to fall into the numerous traps and to obtain a promising game. The positions which arise in the Rice Gambit give difficult problems to both the first and second player and lend themselves therefore to as fine strategy as a chessplayer might wish to see. The Rice Gambit will ever be a valuable asset for the analyst, the player and the student."> [(3)] After Rice's death, his widow organized a memorial thematic tournament, but thereafter in the absence of Rice's financial encouragement, the gambit was seldom played. <Progress of the match> table[ 1 2 3 4 5 6 ———————————————————————— Chigorin 0 1 ½ 1 ½ ½ 3½ Lasker 1 0 ½ 0 ½ ½ 2½ ———————————————————————— Format: Lasker had White in all the games. ]table <Progressive score> table[ 1 2 3 4 5 6 —————————————————————————————— Chigorin 0 1 1½ 2½ 3 3½ Lasker 1 1 1½ 1½ 2 2½ —————————————————————————————— ]table <The Games> The match proceeded in a cordial atmosphere. Lasker appears to have relied on an acquaintance, the Sussex player Mr. H. W. Butler to see to the practical arrangements. <Another experience Mr. Butler had with him (Lasker - e.d.) was on the occasion when Tchigorin and Lasker played the Rice Gambit games. He wired Mr. Butler to meet him and Tchigorin by a certain train, which he did, and Mr. Butler made all the arrangements for the match, such as supplying board and men and clocks, etc., and he was present at every game and nightly assisted in wiring off the moves and results. On this occasion, the trio of chess players each day did the town together and a happy time was spent."> [(2)] [[Game 1]] Lasker had an inferior position when Chigorin played a poor defensive move (23...Ng6?!). click for larger view Lasker's response in whipping up a winning King-side attack was superb. [[Game 2]] Chigorin won in 25 moves. Lasker's 16th move was the source of his problems. [[Game 3]] Lasker improved his opening, finding the best 16th move <16.Bd3!>. This was the first draw of the match. [[Game 4]] Chigorin innovated with <15...Re8!?> after playing <15...c6> previously. This avoided Lasker's innovation <16.Bd3!>. In the next game, Chigorin found the very strong <15...Qg6!> [[Game 5]] Lasker came very close to losing when faced with <15...Qg6!> , but drew after Chigorin failed to convert a promising but subtle winning manoeuvre: click for larger view [<30..Rd6!> 31.Qg1 Qg3+ 32.Kd2 Ne5] [[Game 6]] Chigorin did not repeat his excellent innovation <15...Qg6!>. Instead, he went back to the inferior <15...Re8!?> line. Neither player was particularly accurate, perhaps through weariness, and the game was drawn in 21 moves. <Notes> [(1)]. Quotation sourced from User: Benzol [(2)]. "Reading Observer", November 17th, 1917, p.7. [(3)]. "The Rice Gambit", Lasker 1910, - quoted from Winter "Professor Isaac Rice and the Rice Gambit" 2006 at https://www.chesshistory.com/winter... User: Chessical - original text and compilation. Thanks to User: OhioChessFan and User: perfidious for their improvements to the original text. 6 games, 1903 Lasker - Janowski Exhibition Match <Introduction> This was an exhibition match between the world champion Emanuel Lasker and David Janowski. The openings were prearranged as the Evans' Gambit (Evans Gambit (C52)) and the Bishop's Gambit (King's Gambit Accepted (C33)), obviously in expectation of combative play. Janowski arrived in Manchester on Monday 9th December and that evening accompanied Lasker to a 16-board simultaneous display in Sale on 9th December. Janowski "remained an onlooker during the performance, received a hearty welcome from the members of the club..." [(1)] This two-game match took place from Wednesday 11th to Friday 13th December 1901, in Manchester, England. It was sponsored and administered by the Manchester Chess Club, and took place at their premises at 6, Bank Street. This would be the second match Lasker had played in Manchester - Lasker - Miniati (1890) <Lasker> Despite being world champion, between 1901 and 1907 Lasker played little professional chess. He took part in two tournaments - Cambridge Springs (1904) and Trenton Falls 1906 (a Rice Gambit tournament with three minor masters) and contested two exhibition matches. This was the first of these two matches, the second being a six-game exhibition match featuring the Rice Gambit against Mikhail Chigorin in 1903 which Lasker lost (+1 -2 =3). At the end of 1901, Lasker was in Manchester as he had secured a temporary post as an assistant lectureship at Owens College (which was part of the University of Manchester). [(2)] He stated that he would be unable to play at Monte Carlo (1902) due to his new appointment. [(3)] <" His academic achievements particularly his dissertation and his Theory of Modules and Ideals (1905) should have been a sufficient basis for him to be offered a professorship at a good university. In Germany, however, he lacked a "Habilitation" (a qualification to lecture -ed.) while in England and the United States many academic posts were primarily lectureships with a large teaching load and with little time for research and travel...> [(4)] It appears that Lasker was supplementing his income by actively undertaking simultaneous displays in December 1901. The newspapers reported two local displays: a 22- board display in Burnley on 3rd December [(5)], a 16-board display in Sale [(6)] on 9th December and on 23rd December a 40-board display in Paris [(7)]. <Janowski> Janowski was making his first tour of England. After a lukewarm reception in London, Janowski gave simultaneous displays in Birmingham and Liverpool; he then spent two weeks in Manchester where he gave further simultaneous displays. [(8)] He does not seem to have enjoyed the experience: <M. Janowski is young and enthusiastic, and certainly one of the finest players in the world...M. Janowski nurses, we are told, some grudge against England, and ridicules English clubs and English players unsparingly...> [(9)] The period 1898-1914 was Janowski's most successful portion of his career. At the time of this match, he was 33 years old. Edo Chess shows him entering the top ten in 1896 and being 5th in 1902 [(10)] and Chessmetrics has the same assessment. [(11)] <Match organization> "An interesting impromptu contest of two games between Dr. E.Lasker and Mons. D. Janowski was promoted by and played under the auspices of the Manchester Chess Club on December 11th and 12th. The second game actually finished on the 13th, there being a little bit of play left on the 12th, at 10:30. A certain sum was guaranteed to the players by the committee of the club, and all the arrangements were left in the hands of Mr. J Burgess (president), Mr. Rhodes Marriot (vice-president), Mr. W.D.Bailey (hon. sec) and Mr. Fineberg. Notwithstanding that there was very little time at the disposal of the sub-committee to make and carry out their arrangements, the novel and interesting encounter proved a great success both financially and otherwise. Double the amount of the guarantee was raised and divided equally between the renowned masters. Both games were of a highly entertaining character, some fine play being shown by both exponents, Lasker maintaining his great reputation by winning the first and drawing the second game, although having had no serious chess for twelve months or more, whilst Janowski by his really fine play in the second game added considerably to his laurels. The moves of both games were recorded on a couple of wall boards, one of which was kindly lent by the Liverpool Chess Club. On the second day of the match the players, along with the sub-committee and some of the patrons, were photographed, but not as successfully as one could have wished (the light being bad). [(12)] The match attracted the notable attendance of the Lord Mayor Sir James Hoy and affluent patronage. "The two games played between M. Janowski and Dr. E. Lasker were watched by many interested spectators. There were four kinds of tickets given out, namely, patrons' tickets from 7s. 6d. (£32.82/$38 in 2022 value) upwards, tickets at 5s. (£21.45/$25), 2s. 6d. (£10.73/$12.50), and even 1s. (£.4.20/$4.90) tickets and all kinds of tickets found ready takers." [(13)][(14)] "THE MATCH BETWEEN DR. E. LASKER AND M. JANOWSKI. of which an announcement has previously been made will take place today and tomorrow (Thursday), at the rooms of the Manchester C. C, 6, Bank-Street. A committee, consisting of Messrs. J. Burgess, president, R. Marriott, the Northern Champion, and vice-president, W. D. Bailey, hon. secretary, and H. M. Fineberg, all of M.C.C, kindly took all arrangements into their hands. The cordial support of all leading Manchester chess amateurs has been given to the matter, and the Lord Mayor of Manchester has graciously consented to assist at the opening of the second game. Play will take place each day from 3—5 and 7—10 p.m. The two players have agreed to open with the Evans' Gambit or the Bishop's Gambit, lots to be drawn to determine which of the two openings is to be chosen." [(15)] <Progress of the match> Janowski had White in the first game. table[ 1 2 Lasker 1 ½ 1½ Janowski 0 ½ ½ ]table <Game One> "CHESS IN MANCHESTER. WORLD'S CHAMPION AGAINST THE CHAMPION OF FRANCE. Yesterday afternoon, at the rooms of the Manchester Chess Club, Bank-street, a grand exhibition match commenced between Dr. E. Lasher, chess champion of the world, and M. D. Janowski, chess champion of France. There were not many present at the opening, but the assembly included six members of the Manchester Ladies' Chess Club. Mons. Janowski won the toss, and opened with the Evans' gambit, an unusual opening for masters of the game. It was not until four o'clock that Dr. Lasker made headway. Then the game seemed to be in his favour. Up to five o'clock, however, it was pretty even, appeared to the spectator that had the advantage On the resumption of play at seven o'clock, M. Janowski seemed to lose still more ground, but subsequently, the game became more intricate, and a draw seemed imminent. Towards 9 o'clock queens were exchanged, but at ten o'clock Lakser had a rook and three pawns to his opponent's rook and one pawn. That being a losing ending, Janowski resigned at five minutes past ten." [(16)] <Game Two> "CHESS. EXHIBITION GAME AT THE MANCHESTER CHESS CLUB. The second match between Dr. E. Lasker and M. Janowski, chess champion of France, was played at the Manchester Chess Club yesterday. The opening adopted was the Bishop's Gambit, and M. Janowski the second player adopted the customary course of surrendering the gambit pawn. Dr. Lasker succeeded in obtaining the better position and ultimately came out of a series of exchanges with the gain of a pawn. At this point, M. Janowski, being pressed for time, had to make several moves in rapid succession, and his 29th move he gave his opponent the opportunity of winning a rook for a knight. Dr. Lasker, in endeavouring to secure further advantage, gave black an opportunity to sacrifice his queen for two pieces, and the result was that he remained with two rooks, a bishop, and five pawns, against queen, rook, and six pawns. In the fine play that followed Janowski recovered his lost ground, and after a series of exchanges was left with a rook and two pawns against rook and one pawn. At half-past ten, Dr. Lasker suggested that a draw should be agreed upon, but M. Janowski having, as he said, got into form and was anxious to proceed, and it was arranged for the players to meet again this afternoon and finish the game. The complete score will be published in the " Evening News," with notes by Dr. E. Lasker." [(17)] <Notes> [(1)]. "Manchester Evening News", (Manchester UK), 18th December 1901, p.5. [(2)]. "Cheltenham Examiner", (Cheltenham, UK), 1st January 1902 and "New York Clipper", (New York, USA) 20th December 1902, p.946. [(3)] "Manchester Evening News", (Manchester UK), 11th December 1901, p.4. [(4)]. As per Dr. Joachim Rosenthal in "Emanuel Lasker- Vol 1, Struggle and Victories: World Chess Champion For 27 Years", Edited by Richard Forster, Michael Negele, and Raj Tischbierek, Exzelsior Verlag, Berlin, 2018, chapter 5. [(5)]. "Manchester Courier", (Manchester UK) 5th December 1901 p.7. [(6)]. "Manchester Evening News", (Manchester UK), 18th December 1901, p.5. [(7)]. "Manchester Evening News, (Manchester UK), 26th December 1901, p.4. [(8)]. "The British Chess Magazine", December 1901 p.492. [(9)]. "Leicester Chronicle", (Leicester UK), 25th October 1902, p.3. [(10)]. http://www.edochess.ca/players/p487... [(11)]. http://www.chessmetrics.com/cm/CM2/... [(12)]. "The British Chess Magazine", January 1902, p.29. [(13)]. "Manchester Evening News", (Manchester UK), 18th December 1901. [(14)] Historic currency values - see https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/mon... [(15)]. "Manchester Evening News", (Manchester UK), 11th December 1901. [(16)]. "Manchester Courier and Lancashire General Advertiser", (Manchester UK), 12th December 1901. [(17)]. "Manchester Evening News", (Manchester UK), 13th December 1901. Original collection and text by User: Chessical 2 games, 1901 Lilienthal - Steiner <Introduction> This was a training match held in Budapest, in December 1934, as practice for Andre Lilienthal (23 years old), who had been invited to play in Hastings (1934/35). It was a six-game match with Lajos Steiner (31 years old) Steiner won +3 -1 =2. [(1)] "LAJOS STEINER DEFEATS ANDREAS LILIENTHAL" Prior to anticipating in the Hastings Tournament, Andreas Lilienthal, the talented young Hungarian master, played a short match of six games with Lajos Steiner in Budapest and the result was a win for Steiner by the score of 3 to 1 and 2 draws. This only confirms the fact that L. Steiner, despite his shy and retiring nature, which prevents him from securing the limelight as often as others, is one of the world's leading players." [(2)] <The players> Steiner was the Hungarian champion in 1931. He had abandoned his career as a mechanical engineer to play chess professionally. Throughout the 1930s he was a consistent prize winner in the smaller European tournaments. His best result was in the Kecskemet (1927) tournament where he tied for second with Aron Nimzowitsch half a point behind Alexander Alekhine. Lilienthal had emerged rapidly as a very strong player. He first gained international notice by winning the international tournament in Stubnianske Teplice (1930), ahead of Vasja Pirc and Salomon Flohr. He was second with Alekhine at Hastings (1933/34) and then won Ujpest (1934) outright, ahead of potential world championship contender Flohr and promising young players such as Stahlberg, Eliksases and Pirc. By the late 1930s, Lilienthal was an extremely strong grandmaster. Having emigrated to the Soviet Union in 1935, he shared first prize in the extremely strong the USSR Championship (1940) with Igor Bondarevsky and won the Moscow Championship 1939-40 outright. <Progress of the match> Steiner dominated the match, he was never behind and scored three wins to one. Lilienthal had problems in this match with the Black pieces, scoring (+0 =1 -2) with the French Defence. table[ 1 2 3 4 5 6 Lilienthal ½ 0 0 1 0 ½ 2 Steiner ½ 1 1 0 1 ½ 4]table <Progressive score> table[ 1 2 3 4 5 6 Lilienthal ½ ½ ½ 1½ 1½ 2 Steiner ½ 1½ 2½ 2½ 3½ 4]table <The Games> [[Game 1]] Lilienthal as Black, played the Burn variation of the French Defence dynamically and quickly equalised with an innovation on the ninth move. Steiner sacrificed a Knight for a perpetual check. [[Game 2]] This game, a Queen's Gambit Slav, followed an earlier Steiner game to move 14th (Pirc vs L Steiner, 1934) when Lilienthal diverged by playing more aggressively advancing in the centre. Late in the middle game, Steiner won a Pawn. This left a Knight and four Pawns against a Knight and three on the King-side. Steiner penetrated Lilienthal's position and won another Pawn and soon after the game. [[Game 3]] Once again Lilienthal defended with the French Defence, but he changed variations to the Classical. Although Steiner established a powerful Knight on <d6>, Lilienthal held the position until Steiner manoeuvred his Rook onto the eighth rank. Lilienthal was then unable to prevent the loss of material. Two points in arrears, Lilienthal now needed urgently to score with White in the next game. [[Game 4]] Steiner again defended with the Slav defence. Having come close to equalizing, he trapped his own Rook in the centre of the board. In the following tactics, he then lost a Knight and the game. [[Game 5]] Lilienthal returned to the Burn variation of the French Defence. This time, Steiner played a sharper line. Lilienthal defended extremely poorly and resigned in the face of a mate. click for larger view [[Game 6]] The last game of the match took place on the 6th December 1934. In his annotations, Steiner described it as a "very exciting game". Steiner defended with a QGD; having equalized he then played inaccurately. This allowed Lilienthal to develop a King-side attack against his King. Steiner sacrificed his Queen and escaped with a draw as Lilienthal missed the best line. <Notes> [(1)]. All the games were given in the February 1935 edition of "Chess Review" from p.28 -30 with some light annotations by Steiner. [(2)]. "Chess Review" February 1935, p.28 [User: Chessical- original collection and text.] 6 games, 1934 Liverpool vs Calcutta Telegraph Game <Introduction> This was a match by telegraph between two chess clubs: Liverpool (north-west England) and Calcutta (now Kolkata, West Bengal, India). Two games were played simultaneously (Games "A" and "B"), the match commencing on Thursday, 28th of October, 1880 and concluding in the following March. [(1)] Liverpool won 1½ to ½, and the match attracted popular interest, perhaps more for the innovative use of new technology than the for chess itself. [(2)] table[ Game A B Total Liverpool ½ 1 1½ Calcutta ½ 0 ½ ]table Liverpool Chess Club had a history of innovation. It played an early correspondence game with its great industrial neighbour some 35 miles distant - Manchester - Manchester CC vs Liverpool CC, 1825. In 1861, Liverpool Chess Club once again innovated, this time with transmission of the moves by telegraph in a match against the Dublin Library Club. [(3)] <Technology and cost> This was the first game transmitted by telegraph between continents. This match used the most advanced technology and engineering of its time. The match was being played between two cities 7,500 nautical miles apart. By standard letter post, there would at most only have been four moves a year played as a letter from London took 44 days to reach Calcutta. The secure cable route to India and Australia had been completed in 1872 by a number of British firms. [(4)] In July 1865, the British telegraph companies agreed to consolidate their tariffs [(5)]. This served to reinforce a monopoly and the transit (international) price remained high as the companies protected their profits [(6)]. Consequently, from 1871 to 1886, rates averaged 4s 6d (four shillings and six pence) a word [(7)]. This was extremely expensive and in 2015, the relative value of four shillings and sixpence would be <£20.20/or approx. $26.20 per word>. [(8)] To keep the match from being prohibitively expensive a special code had to be devised. <Rutherford Code: "Hodie mihi, cras tibi"> The problem of transmitting chess moves could not be resolved by using digits (e.g. 5254 for <e4>) as since the International Telegraph Convention 1872, there was a prohibition on cryptographic telegrams. <"Article 9: Messages in plain language must offer an intelligible sense in any one of the languages used in the territories of the contracting States, or Latin... The following messages are considered as secret: Those which are composed of figures or of secret letters..."> [(9)] The regulations did allow a loophole of using steganographic techniques with Latin words and grammar. Telegraphic dictionaries were published to save the sender money. Several used formulas to turn phrases into single Latin words sometimes as a straightforward metonymic or by creating a composite term by combining roots and inflections following a protocol. These words compressed messages as they represented to the informed recipient a meaning distinct from their original usage. [(10)] The Liverpool club member William Rutherford, created such a code which expressed the move chosen in the form of a Latin word. [(11)] "The telegrams cost each Club about £30 (£2,693/$3,493 in 2015 values), but would have cost several times as much, had it not been for an ingenious code invented by Mr. W.W. Rutherford, a member of the Liverpool Club, by which any two moves combined could be sent in a single word." [(12)] The total cost of transmitting the moves of the match was about a quarter of an experienced clerk's annual wage. [(13)] The coding system was complex and cumbersome relying on using a protocol to create Latin words based on a table of Latin prefixes and suffixes. Yet, the code appears to have worked, there being only one miscommunication in the score of both matches: “Telegraphic Match between Liverpool and Calcutta. We are informed by the Hon. Secretary of the Liverpool Club, that a slight interruption has occurred on the 9th move of the Liverpool game. The telegram was interpreted <Kt to Q B 3>, whereas it should have been <Kt to Q R 3>.” [(14)] . <The conception> Dear SIRS,—I have pleasure in informing you that a Telegraphic Match has commenced between this Club and Calcutta, the first moves having been exchanged. The moves are wired by a code system specially constructed for this match by W. Rutherford, one of our own members, and by which the combination of any two moves can be sent in a single word. Chess-players will appreciate its ingenuity when they consider that the possible number of combinations which have to be provided for are considerably over half-a-million, and yet it can be worked with a code of 3,000 words. The match is free from all stringent conditions, but it is understood the moves are to be sent within forty-eight hours after receipt of each message, and there is no money stake or other consideration involved in the result. The match was first suggested by Mr. Robert Steel, a valued member of our Club and one of our strongest players, now resident in Calcutta, where he is assisted in it by two natives and one Anglo-Indian, all, we believe, very strong players. On the Liverpool side it is conducted by a consulting committee, the final decision on each move resting with a selected five. The nearest approach to this enterprise was the celebrated match between London and Vienna, which took over two years to finish. We hope to bring this to a conclusion in about three months, and should the code system succeed, which we have no reason to doubt, it will probably be the means of popularising telegraphic matches, particularly between countries where the code of wiring is moderate, as between England and America, and thus give more frequent opportunities of testing the strength of the best players of distant lands, who have rarely now a chance of meeting each other. I enclose the moves as far as made, but of course no comment will be made upon them pending the completion of the games. Very truly yours, Sam. Weight, Hon. Sec. [(15)] “The first moves in the encounter were wired on the 28th October last (1880 – e.d.), and with the exception of an unfortunate mistake on the part of Calcutta in telegraphing the wrong move, the play has proceeded very rapidly and without a hitch. No money stake is involved, there is nothing but Honour to be won; conditions and stipulations are noticeable only by their absence … The committee for conducting the match on the Calcutta side consists of Robert Steel, a valued member of the Liverpool Club, now resident in Calcutta, by whom the match was originally suggested, assisted by two natives of the Baboo Caste, and one Anglo-Indian, all strong players. On the Liverpool side the final decision of each moves rests with a selected five members of the Club. The time limit is 48 hours between the receipt and despatch of the moves” [(16)] Unfortunately for the Calcutta team, their leading player left for England whilst the match was in progress. “The Liverpool-Calcutta match game has been delayed for three weeks due to the absence from town of Calcutta players ...” [(17)] "Telegraphic Match between Liverpool and Calcutta. Calcutta left their King in check for a considerable time owing to the absence of some of the Calcutta players, and we have only two additional moves to record. Mr. Robert Steel, the captain of the Bengal team, arrived in England, and has already engaged in battle with Messrs. Joseph Blackburne and Leopold Hoffer." [(18)] <Contemporary reaction> “Telegraphic Match between Liverpool and Calcutta. The leading topic of Chess conversation is this interesting contest, first on account of the great difficulties which had to be surmounted in finding a system of communicating the moves at a moderate expenditure, without taxing the liberality of the combatants too severely; and second, on account of the well-established reputation of both Clubs as regards skill. We may, therefore, legitimately expect two very interesting games. Chess unlike art critics are not severe on those "arch-abomination” of steam and electricity, and look with admiration on the inventors of the locomotive and telegraph, in spite of the little smoke of the former and the perverted taste of the companies to attach their wires to ungainly poles instead of Ionic columns. Why do not art critics set the first example by declining to avail themselves of our ordinary means of locomotion, and sending their strangely-penned epistles to courteous invitations from art societies by pigeon-carriers? We subjoin the able and kind communication of the Hon. Sec. of the Liverpool Chess Club, who promised to keep us au courant of the progress of the match.” [(19)] <The Games> . <Game A> Calcutta - Liverpool This was sharply contested and ended in a draw after 36 moves. Calcutta had the advantage but dissipated it in the last few moves. After 34 moves: click for larger view Calcutta played <35.Be4> and after 35...Rxe4 36. Nxe4 "The draw here offered by Calcutta was accepted by Liverpool." Johannes Zukertort and Hoffer believed that Calcutta's 35th move had " Throw(n) away all the advantage obtained by fine and skilful play: White must win without much difficulty with <35 Bf3> Re3 36. Qd7 g4 "(the) continuation intended by Liverpool" — 37. Qxg4 Rg8 38.Nd7" <Game B> Liverpool - Calcutta Liverpool, sacrificed a pawn on their sixth move, "This hazardous sacrifice frees completely White's game and turns out well. We do not think, how ever, that it would prove sound against a careful and judicious defence." [(21)] The Calcutta players were neither careful and judicious. They seemed oblivious to the impending threats to their King, instead they artlessly manoeuvering their Knights. With the crushing <16.Ne5> the game was terminated: click for larger view One possible continuation being: 16.Ne5 fxe5 17.Qh5+ g6 18.Qxe5 b5 19.Nxb5 Nxe5 20.Nd6+ Ke7 21.dxe5 Qc8 22.Rf7+ Kd8 23.Rd1 Bd5 24.Nxc8 Kxc8 <Considerations> Apart from the interest in the games, it represents the harnessing of new technology. This is a powerful example of how information technology affected all aspect of lives long before the Internet. Telegram allowed chess to be reported much more promptly and great master games leaped across the world's newspapers in a few days. Two significant developments were: Steinitz - Chigorin Telegraph Match (1890) , whose alliance of chess and technology captured the imagination of the popular press; and Game Collection: Anglo-American Cable Matches, 1896-1911 whose games proceded across the Atlantic Ocean at a rate of 20 moves per hour. . <"Tomorrow the hearts of the civilized world will beat in a single pulse, and from that time forth forevermore the continental divisions of the earth will, in a measure, lose those conditions of time and distance which now mark their relations."> [(22)] . <Notes> [(1)] "Portsmouth Evening News", 15th March 1881, p.3. [(2)] See, for example, "Dundee Evening Telegraph", 8th November 1880, p.2.; and "St.Louis Globe Democrat", Game 198, 6th February 1881. [(3)] "Liverpool Chess Club: A Short Sketch of the Club from Its First Meeting", J. S. Edgar, 1893. p.22. It took place "at the offices of the British and Irish Magnetic Telegraph Company", see "Freeman's Journal", Tuesday 12th November 1861, p.3. [(4)] "Distant Writing, A History of the Telegraph Companies in Britain between 1838 and 1868", Stephen Roberts. http://distantwriting.co.uk [(5)] "Distant Writing, A History of the Telegraph Companies in Britain between 1838 and 1868", Stephen Roberts. http://distantwriting.co.uk [(6)] "Telegraphic Imperialism: Crisis and Panic in the Indian Empire, c.1830-1920", Deep Kanta Lahiri Choudhury, p.131. [(7)] Reporting the Raj: The British Press and India, C. 1880-1922, Chandrika Kaul, p.32. [(8)] Measuringworth.com - https://www.measuringworth.com/ - This calculation is based upon Purchasing Power using the percentage increase in the RPI from 1880 to 2015. [(9)] http://www.itu.int/dms_pub/itu-s/ot... - see p.16. [(10)] http://www.jmcvey.net/cable/scans.htm [(11)] "One of the chief difficulties in the beginning of the match lay in the cost, the charge being 4s. 7d. a word. The minimum message that can be sent is three words . Two of these are required for the addresses, and Mr Rutherford has contrived a code by which, in the remaining word, the move in both games can be sent in one message, thus reducing the cost to the lowest fraction...the code invented by Mr Rutherford has three thousand words, which enables the players to communicate every move they make ..." Hartford Weekly Times (Connecticut, USA), December 2nd 1880, p.3. Sir William Watson Rutherford was a prominent Liverpool politician and later Lord Mayor and then a member of parliament for the city. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sir_W... [(12)] "Liverpool Chess Club: A Short Sketch of the Club from Its First Meeting", J. S. Edgar, 1893. p.26-27. Modern value calculated using https://www.measuringworth.com/ (see supra note 8). Edgar states the number of members to be 67 in 1880 (supra p.88) so in 2015 values, each member would have had to contribute about £40. [(13)] Annual wages of telegraphic clerks, £114 (maximum = £11,132/$14,439 in 2015 value); Post Office sorters, £130 (maximum = £12,694/$16,464 in 2015 value), "Huddersfield Chronicle", Monday 4th July 1881, p.4. An assistant clerk in Dublin (16-20 y.o.) earned £40 per annum (£3,906/$5,066 in 2015 value) - see example "Dublin Daily Express", Saturday 14th August 1880, p.2. Modern values calculated using https://www.measuringworth.com/ (see supra note 8). [(14)] “The Chess Monthly”, 1881, p.131. The error occurred in Game “B” move 9. [(15)] “The Chess Monthly”, 1881, p.100. [(16)] “British Chess Magazine”, February 1881, p.49-50. "Baboo" seems to refer to an English speaking Indian clerk. [(17)] “British Chess Magazine”, March 1881, p.75. [(18)] “The Chess Monthly”, 1881, p.195-196. [(19)] “The Chess Monthly”, 1881, p.100-101. [(20)] “The Chess Monthly”, 1881, p.240. [(21)] “The Chess Monthly”, 1881, p.171. [(22)] "The Times (London)", (c.1858) cited in James Adams, ‘Dawn of the Cyber Soldiers’, "Sunday Times", 15th October 1995. . <Game Score for Game "A"> “British Chess Magazine”, April 1881, p.129-130. “The Chess Monthly”, Game 125, 1881, p.237. <Game Score for Game "B"> “British Chess Magazine”, February 1881, p.49-50. “The Chess Monthly”, 1881, p.171. "St.Louis Globe Democrat", Game 198, 6th February 1881. 2 games, 1880 MacDonnell - Mackenzie 1862/63 (1862) Background: This was the second of two matches played between these two players within a year, and was played between December 1862 and January 1863. Mackenzie had lost the first match in the summer of 1862. The exact score of that match is not clear. The Illustrated London News quotes a letter from MacDonnell giving his combined result against Mackenzie (after the second match) as +10-10=4 in which case Mackenzie's score for the first match was +4-7=3. Mackenzie gained his revenge defeating MacDonnell by +6-3=1. The Illustrated London News of 20 Dec. 1862 (p. 654) states this match took place at the Grand Cigar Divan in London (now know as Simpson's in the Strand). The match: When this match was played, it represented a very high level encounter indeed. The players were of similar strength and in their prime, Mackenzie being 25 years old and his opponent 32. They were both in a group of elite players who strength at the time was just under that of the leading masters: Paulsen, Anderssen, Kolisch, Steinitz. Chessmetrics has MacDonnell as 6th and Mackenzie as 13th in the world at the time. Mackenzie's rated strength, however, was to increase significantly with regular tournament practice as a professional player in the USA, whilst MacDonnell, who was a priest, did not match his erstwhile opponent's improvement. Character: This was a strongly fought match, and featured interesting new ideas. MacDonnell's defence in game 8 and 10 prefigured Chigorin and the Hyper-Moderns. Progress of the match: MacDonnell led 3-2 after 5 games but then could make only one draw in the remainder of the match. Of the two players, he made the most egregious blunders, but also played the more inventively in defence. Mackenzie : 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1/2 1 = 6.5 MacDonnell: 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1/2 0 = 3.5 The chronology of the match as given in "The Era" is: 14 December 1862: MacDonnell 1, Mackenzie 1, draws 0 21 December 1862: MacDonnell 3, Mackenzie 3, draws 0 04 January 1863: MacDonnell 3, Mackenzie 5, draws 1. 10 games, 1862-1863 Marshall versus Tarrasch Match, Nuremberg 1905 After defeating David Janowski (Paris 1905) by a score of +8-5+4, Marshall issued a challenge to Tarrasch. The match between the then 8th (Marshall) and 3rd strongest players in the world, would be won by the first player to score eight wins. Marshall's credentials as an elite player had been made out through his performance at the very strong Game Collection: Cambridge Springs 1904 tournament. This he had won by a two points margin, ahead of World Champion Emanuel Lasker who came second equal (+9=4-2) with Janowski. Marshall had also beaten the world champion in their first individual game at Paris 1900. Tarrasch 1 = = = 1 = 1 1 0 1 = = = 1 = 1 1 - 12/17 Marshall 0 = = = 0 = 0 0 1 0 = = = 0 = 0 0 - 5/17 The 42 year old Tarrasch demolished his 27 year old challenger in his third strongest career rating performance, and what would be his best rating achievement after 1900. Tarrasch went onto two further very good performances in Game Collection: Ostend 1905 and Game Collection: 0, but there then began a lengthy albeit slow decline down the rankings. Marshall was about to hit his peaks years which lasted up to around 1918. <Match conditions:> The playing venue was the Kleine Saal (Small Hall) of the "Rosenau" in Nuremberg, Germany. The stakes were 2,000 Marks each side, and the winner to take it all. The winner being the first to win 8 games, but if the player were tied at 7 wins each, the match would then be drawn and the stake divided. The match was played five days in the week: Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, Friday and Saturday. Play begun 11 am and continued until a 5 pm adjournment,recommencing again at 8 pm. If play continued until 11 pm, the match director had to decide the arrangement of the further adjournment depending on the expected length of the remainder of the game. If a game was adjourned for a second time, then only this and no other game would be played on the next playing day. Each player was allowed to take three breaks during the match; every break has to be announced until 10:30 am of the playing day, and then that day would be a free day. <Times:> The time the players took is given in the book of the match. The fourth column indicates <M> if Marshall consumed significantly more time, <T> if Tarrasch did, and <=> if roughly equal. The time-control was a reflective 3 hours for the first 40 moves, thereafter one hour for the next 14 moves. Game Tarrasch Marshall 1.: 3:08 3:40 M 2.: 1:25 1:57 M 3.: 2:20 2:45 M 4.: 2:55 3:08 = 5.: 3:17 3:12 = 6.: 4:42 4:01 T 7.: 3:03 3:10 = 8.: 3:35 4:11 M 9.: 2:57 2:46 = 10.: 2:16 2:56 M 11.: 0:59 1:22 M 12.: 3:17 3:06 = 13.: 3:08 3:11 = 14.: 3:03 3:14 = 15.: 2:53 2:57 = 16.: 2:51 2:47 = 17.: 1:56 1:44 = Tarrasch declared in the match book that he would have still enjoyed playing even without a time limit. The comparatively long reflection time was soon the subject of an article by [unknown player] in the Pittsburg Dispatch in September part of which is reprinted in the Brooklyn Daily Eagle on October 1. The Brooklyn Daily Eagle report speaks of the disappointment of Marshall's supporters at the results do far and states "Evidently the unusual time limit...an almost unheard of condition is telling against the Brooklynite". It then quotes Napier speaking of Marshalls "concession" regarding the time-control. In a long paragraph of what is special pleading, he contrasts Marshall's "Happy blend of spontaneity, vital keenness and enthusiasm" with Tarrasch's genius "if such it really be...(which is) an infinite capacity for taking pains". Napiers conclusion is the public want exciting games played by "men rather than machines" Marshall's "wayward imaginative games" rather than his opponent's "approximate perfection played with with day clocks!" Ironically, Tarrasch reported that Marshall was regularly in time trouble, so the additional time available did not improve his play. <The publication of the games>. The match was notable in that the players attempted to restrict the publication of the games. "The world of chess will be disappointed to learn that the games scores have not been published; they will appear only after the match in in a German language booklet,with the notes of Mr Tarrasch." - La Stratégie, 19 October 1905 Tarrasch reported that his club gave 500 Marks for Marshall's travel expenses and "compensation" , and that 600 Marks was given by the Deutsche Schachbund (DSB), whose president Professor Gebhardt came to Nuremberg for the match's negotiations. Gebhardt's only condition was the match book, should be given free to every contributing member of the DSB. In the"Deutsche Schachzeitung" 1905, p 352, Gebhardt stated that the copies of the match book were already been sent to DSB members (November 12th, 1905). In the foreword, Tarrasch wrote that the manuscript had been completed only one week after the match; "This will reassure those of you who were dissatisfied during the match that you did not get to see the games. Why should a Chess Artist provide his best as a free service? Anyone who wants to see the games may buy the book, it is cheap enough. I won't let myself be a 'scrounger'". This quote from the foreword is the only indication of monetary interests; everything else looks like "delayed publication" in order to make the match book something special for the members of the DSB (see for example the quote from "La Strategie" in http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/...). The games (or in some cases only fragments) appeared, however, before the match book. Games 3-8 were printed by the "Brooklyn Daily Eagle" on October 15, and games 9-15 on October 25. German newspapers ("Berliner Lokal-Anzeiger" and "Münchener Neuste Nachrichten") published reports and at least fragments, which were reprinted in the Dutch "De Telegraaf" on October 13 and 25. The "Wiener Schachzeitung" published no games until the match book had been published (but in the January issue of 1906,two thirds of the games in the WSZ are games commented on by Tarrasch in his notes for the "Berliner Localanzeiger" User: thomastonk contributed considerable original text and valuable documentary research for the above from Wiener Schachzeitung and various newspapers of the period. 17 games, 1905 Match - Mecking v Fier - 2009 The match, a trial of Youth - Alexandr Fier - versus Experience Henrique Mecking, took place in Sao Paulo, Brazil, 23rd-27th September 2009, in the theatre of the Santa Cruz High School. The organizers of the event provided live webcam coverage and analysis by IM Mauro Guimaraes de Souza. This was a match of four games with a time control of 90 minutes + 30 seconds/move. The match director was André Serroni. The arbeiter was Internationald Arbeiter Alexandru Sorin Segal [(1)] At the time, it was between Brazil's first and fifth-rated players, with Mecking's rating some 102 points below his opponent. The match was drawn 2-2. table[ 1 2 3 4 Wins ————————————————————————————————— Mecking 0 1 ½ ½ 2 Hilario Ta Fier 1 0 ½ ½ 2 ————————————————————————————————— ]table Notes: [(1)]. https://rodrigodisconzi.blogspot.co... Short video excerpt of the first game match - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dT5... 4 games, 2009 Mieses - Napier (1905) <Introduction> This match between Jacques Mieses and the British Champion William Napier took place from the 8th to 20th March 1905, in the Queen's Hotel, on the seafront at Hastings, England, which had also been the venue for the famous Hastings (1895) tournament. The match was organised as part of the Hastings Chess Club's Twelfth Chess Festival and was deliberately designed to encourage spectacular and aggressive chess, "In order to prevent the ever-recurring Queens and Ruy Lopez being the only examples of play, selected openings are to be used, each master taking alternately the attack and defence." [(1)] "The Committee of the Hastings Chess Club has arranged for the annual Festival to be held in the Queen's Hotel, from Wednesday, March 8th, until Monday, March 20th, both inclusive. This year the chief event will be a most interesting and important match between Mr W. E. Napier (British Champion) and Herr J. Mieses, the famous and brilliant German master. The players have selected the Bishops, Danish, Evans and Vienna gambits and the Ruy Lopez openings, and will play two games of each, making a total of ten games in the match. Play will be from 10.0 a.m. to. 1.0 p.m., and from 3.0 to 7.0 p.m. every day, with the exception of Saturday, March 11th, when each master will play three games against the first-class players of the Club, consulting together and will give simultaneous performance against the Club." [(2)] This match replaced the former format of master and amateurs consultation games. "Departing from the course hitherto adopted at these gatherings of consultation games, between masters with members of the Club as consultants, this year the main feature of the Hastings Festival is a match of ten games between the British master, Mr W. E. Napier, and the German expert, Herr J. Mieses, of Leipsic." [(3)] This innovation caused a degree of friction between the committee and some of the members of the Hastings club. “Much disappointment has been expressed several members of the Chess Club at not seeing the name of Mr Joseph Blackburne the well-known and greatest English master, mentioned in connection with the forthcoming Festival. It is greatly be hoped that the Committee will still be able to arrange for the additional attraction of an engagement this favourite, for a portion the time at all events." Mr Blackburne is doubt very popular with local chessists, and his absence from the approaching Festival ... will be regretted by a number of people. But the Committee of the Chess can hardly be blamed for arranging a change of such importance in the engagement two such masters as Napier and Mieses and for the rest, the question resolves itself into a financial consideration. If the friends of Mr Blackburne would like to meet the expense of engaging him, no doubt the Committee will be glad to again include him in the Festival programme." [(4)] "It appears that the organisation of the Festival has not given entire satisfaction to members of the Hastings Club. One of its oldest supporters writes to us complaining about the changed arrangements whereby the match between Napier and Mieses was substituted for the consultation games between Masters and Amateurs, which have always been popular feature the meeting. Our correspondent writes: “Many of us especially feel that the committee has acted ungenerously in, for the first time for many years, leaving out the old and popular English master, Mr Blackburne, from the programme. His residence at Hastings some years ago, and assistance in the Congress of and other matters largely contributed to raising the Hastings Club its present prominent position.” The committee's sudden change of programme without consulting the subscribers seems to generally resented by the club. We should, however, be sorry to hear of any serious dissension arising in this vigorous and hitherto thoroughly united organisation and it will be hoped that having expressed their protest, the discontented members will allow the matter to pass. No one can suppose that any slight intended Mr Blackburne who has always been on the best of terms with the club." [(5)] The above criticism now seems rather carping. Blackburne it was noted "was an interested spectator of the play on Saturday" [(6)]. The Committee did manage to arrange subsidiary to the match both a simultaneous display of 22 boards and four consultation games each involving both masters. "HASTINGS CHESS FESTIVAL. The Saturday afternoon was most boisterous, the attendance was, therefore, less than expected, and only four consultation games between members and the two masters were played. Herr Mieses won both his games, Mr Napier won one, but had to yield to the combined efforts of Messrs. Dobell, Mann, Ginner, and Stephenson a splendidly-fought game. The evening had cleared up, and a full attendance showed the great interest taken in the play of the two masters, who conducted simultaneously twenty-two games, each master taking the round alternately. This method was a considerable handicap to the two players, as, not consulting, they sometimes undid the work of the preceding move, which gave the members a more hopeful chance; thus on one board Napier played the Kt from Q5, and then Mieses in his round played the from to again, Napier played the Kt from to a very strong move, but on his next round found that Mieses had not seen his idea, and had consequently returned the Kt to B3. Although there were such little drawbacks, the masters won on fifteen boards, drew with Messrs. Dobell, J. E. Watson, R. Lucas, and G. Womersley, but had to succumb to the three players, E. E. Middleton, junior, Angelo Lewis, and A, J. Price. The whole function was almost a chess conversation, enjoyable and interesting alike to the onlookers as well as the players. " [(7)] <Napier> The 24-year-old William Napier was a British born American master who cut short his playing career to concentrate instead on the insurance business. As a result, he is probably best remembered for a famous fighting loss against Emanuel Lasker, Lasker vs W E Napier, 1904, at Cambridge Springs (1904). Napier was at the beginning of the twentieth century a challenger to Marshall to become the premier American player displacing the ailing Pillsbury He crushed Frank Marshall by 8½ to 2½ - Napier - Marshall (1896) - in 1896. He also came a long way in front of Marshall when he took second place at Game Collection: 1901 Buffalo. Marshall was ahead of him at by two places and 1½ at Monte Carlo (1902), but Napier won the brilliancy prize for his game against Mikhail Chigorin - W E Napier vs Chigorin, 1902. Marshall outpaced him at Cambridge Springs (1904). Although Napier was a long way down the field finishing 13th, scoring +3 -7 =5, he won the second brilliancy prize for his game against John Finan Barry [(8)]. He played better and came fifth at the very strong German Chess Federation Congress - 13th DSB Congress, Hanover (1902), scoring +7 -4 =6. In July 1904, Napier competed in the City of London Chess Club's National Tournament, where he shaded out Richard Teichmann by half a point to win first Prize. Napier then tied for first the Britsh Championship held in August 1904 and then won the play-off in January 1905 against Henry Atkins. In February 1905, Napier went to Glasgow to play Teichmann who had been barred from the Championship on the grounds of nationality. "The champion England, who had only last month gained his laurels by defeating Mr H. E. Atkins at Hastings, was immediately asked to play a match by Mr R. Teichmann. Mr Napier accepted the challenge, and a match of five games up at the Glasgow Chess Club was commenced yesterday." [(9)] "The match between Teichmann and Napier at the Glasgow Chess Club has ended in a decisive victory for Teichmann, who won live games, lost one and drew five. We expected Teichmann to win, but not by such a majority, and are quite at a loss to suggest any good reason, why Napier, is beyond doubt strong and accomplished player, should have been so badly beaten." [(10)] "The Teichmann-Napier match ended badly for the British champion who lost the games played on Friday and Saturday and thus suffered defeat five games to one. This result gives Teichmann strong claim be considered the best player now resident in England. The same time Napier was clearly not at his best, and the loss of the two first games seems have quite discouraged him. Napier now commences an engagement with Mieses, at Hastings, with whom ten games are to be played at five openings selected by the two masters. This match is the chief event of the 12th Annual Festival of the Hastings Club …” [(11)]. <Mieses> The 40-year-old German master Jacques Mieses was a regular player in the prestige European events with seventeen years of tournament experience. The first decade of the twentieth century saw his peak performances [(12)]. He had a dashing and vigorous style of play preferring open games such as the Scottish, Vienna and the Danish Gambit. The historical rating analyses of Edo Chess and Chessmetrics shows that Napier was slightly the higher-rated and that their relative strength was not disproportionate. All of the games appeared in the <Hastings and St. Leonards Observer> of the 11th, 18th and 25th of March. <Progress of the match> table[ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mieses 1 ½ 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 ½ 5 Napier 0 ½ 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 ½ 5]table . <Progressive score> table[ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mieses 1 1½ 1½ 1½ 1½ 2½ 3½ 3½ 4½ 5 Napier 0 ½ 1½ 2½ 3½ 3½ 3½ 4½ 4½ 5]table . <The Games> . Napier lost the first game after miscounting in a drawn pawn ending. Yet it was Mieses who had to recover from a poor start to the match; at the halfway point he was two games down to Napier. Mieses made decisive blunders early in Games 3 and 5 and he also lost a difficult, but potentially drawn, ending in Game 4. Mieses pulled himself level in the second half despite a blunder in Game 8 which led to one of the shortest defeats of his career. Mieses responded in Games 6 and 7 by stirring up complications and won twice in short but not entirely accurate order. Napier was presented with a gift point in Game 8 and achieved a winning position in the ending of Game 9 only to make a simple blunder and lose. The final game, with Napier as White, followed Pillsbury vs Lasker, 1896. There was a flurry of exchanges which led to a quick draw and a drawn match. "The ten games in the match between Napier and Mieses yielded equal honours — five each. Owing to the restricted openings the games were below the usual strength of these masters. A match without restrictions, leaving the players to freedom their wall, would probably have better results. There were also at the festival a number of consultation games, some of a very high order. We give one, in which Napier and Blackburne, who were each assisted by several local amateurs, were opposed. White: Blackburne, Chapman, Seyers Black: Napier, Middleton, Mann. 1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Bc4 d5 4.Bxd5 Qh4+ 5.Kf1 g5 6.Qf3 c6 7.Qc3 f6 8.Nf3 Qh5 9.Bxg8 Rxg8 10.Qxf6 Be7 11.Qc3 g4 12.Ne1 Be6 13.d4 Rf8 14.Nd2 Nd7 15.b4 Nb6 16.a4 f3 17.g3 Qh3+ 18.Kf2 Bd6 19.e5 Bd5 20.exd6 0–0–0 21.d7+ Kxd7 22.Ne4 Bxe4 23.Bf4 Nd5 24.Qc5 Rxf4 25.b5 Rf6 26.Qxa7 Qh6 27.bxc6+ Ke8 0-1. click for larger view . [(13)] Herr Mieses proved less fortunate against Mr Blackburne, Mieses / Middleton / Mann vs Blackburne / Chapman / Skyrme, 1905 [[Game 1]] Napier began very well in his match with Mieses. He lost, it is true, the first game — a Vienna of a particularly interesting character, with nice play on both sides — and only succeeded in drawing with the first move. In the next couple of games, however, the young British champion showed to advantage, and succeeded in winning with the Evans Gambit — the opening previously agreed upon — both with the White and Black forces. [(14)] click for larger view [[Game 2]] "The second game of the series ten to be played between these two masters was contested at the Queen’s Hotel, Hastings, yesterday. Napier, having the move, played the second Vienna Game. The middle play was rather interesting but led to the exchange of pieces, which produced a long end-game. After 60 moves a draw resulted. The next opening taken will be the Evans Gambit." [(15)] [[Game 3]] "The third game of the match between Napier and Mieses at Hastings was a lively Evans Gambit, in which the give-and-take spirit of attack and counter-attack was fully maintained. Napier won twenty-four moves." [(16)] click for larger view Mieses' retreat <17.Qc2?> allowed Napier a vital attacking tempo with <17..Nd4> [[Game 4]] "Napier and Mieses did not take part in match game on Saturday, but yesterday the fourth game was played. Napier, with the Evans Gambit, obtained a good attack, and ultimately won, though Mieses might perhaps have drawn. Scores: Napier, 2; Mieses, 1; drawn, 1." [(17)] "On Monday, the two Masters met for their fourth encounter when Mr Napier opened Evans Gambit, very smart and energetic play left the game in a critical position at the raid-day adjournment; the afternoon play was a very clever demonstration of the manoeuvring of Bishop and pawns against Knight and pawns." [(18)] Mieses could not hold a difficult ending where his Knight was outclassed by the Bishop in an ending with widely spaced pawns. click for larger view [[Game 5]] "The fifth game, Bishop’s Gambit, also ended in favour of Napier, who forced exchanges in an advantageous position, and won after a long endgame. The sixth game was won Mieses. In the Danish gambits played the seventh and eighth games a win each was scored, the attack succeeding each time. Thus with two games to play score stood at Napier Mieses 34, drawn." [(19)] "The fifth game of the series now being played at Hastings between these two masters was Bishop’s gambit. An exchange of Queens and minor pieces by Mieses left the British champion with a better end game position, and this he won after a long struggle, leaving the scores:—Napier, 3 wins; Mieses, 1; drawn, 1." [(20)] [[Game 6]] "The sixth game, a Bishop's Gambit, and the seventh, a Danish Gambit, were both won by Mieses, making the score three all. Mieses is justly famed for his skill and prowess in conducting the very fascinating attack in this Gambit. In the seventh game, played on Thursday, he did himself full justice and made such capital use of a slight chance Napier gave him that he won the game in twenty-five moves." [(21)] [[Game 7]] "Mieses is justly famed for his skill and prowess in conducting the very fascinating attack in this Gambit. In the seventh game, played on Thursday, he did himself full justice and made such capital use of a slight chance Napier gave him that he won the game in twenty-five moves." [(21)] "The seventh match, played on Thursday, saw the introduction of the Danish Gambit, to which Herr Mieses had given special study, having played it in past tournaments with much success. The attack was beautifully maintained by White. After <10.f3>, Black never had a chance to repel White's pressure, although he endeavoured to institute a counter-movement, it availed little and Black resigned at close of the morning sitting." [(22)] [[Game 8]] "The eighth game was contested on Friday and a grave oversight on Herr Mieses' part brought the end almost before onlookers had realised that the game was developed. It extended to only 15 moves and well illustrates the danger of making an immaterial capture before developing the Queen's-side.."[(23)] click for larger view Mieses had played a very sharp and ultimately unsound defence, by playing <15...Nxg3?> he overlooked a forced mate after <16.Qg6!>. [[Game 9]] "These masters played the ninth game their match on Saturday. In defending Ruy Lopez, Napier obtained a very good game and was left in the ending with a pawn up. Playing to win he committed an oversight and Mieses won — Napier 4, Mieses 4, drawn 1. The last game, which will be played today, will likewise be Ruy Lopez."[(24)] [[Game 10]] "With the tenth game, played yesterday at the Queen's Hotel. Hastings, the match between the British champion and Herr Mieses terminated. The opening was a Ruy Lopez, defended by Napier with the Berlin defence. He tried hard to produce a complication, but even positions resulting draw was agreed to. The final score is — Napier 4. Mieses 4, drawn 2." [(25)] <Contemporary reaction> "The series of games displayed some fine chess. Mr Napier, however, was not at his best. He has probably had too much hard chess in the past ten months, having played no less than 145 match games during this period, more than enough to try the nervous energy of the most robust of men." [(26)] This comes very close to special pleading. Napier soon after won a match with Marshall, commencing on the 29th April in London, "to test the Rice Gambit". [(27)] Mieses himself had been on a busy schedule touring Scandinavia, Germany and Holland giving simultaneous exhibitions. [(28)] <Notes> (1). "Hastings and St. Leonards Observer", Saturday 11th March 1905, page 7. (2). "Hastings and St. Leonards Observer", Saturday 4th March 1905, page 1. (3). "Hastings and St. Leonards Observer", Saturday 11th March 1905, page 7. (4). "Hastings and St. Leonards Observer", Saturday 4th March 1905, page 6. (5). "Morning Post", Monday 13th March 1905, Page 5. (6). "Hastings and St Leonards Observer", Saturday 18th March 1905, page 8. (7). "Hastings and St Leonards Observer", Saturday 18 March 1905, page 8. (8). "American Chess Bulletin", November 1904, page 127. (9). "Sheffield Daily Telegraph", Wednesday 15th February 1905, page 12. (10). "Weekly Irish Times", Saturday 25th March 1905, page 11. (11). "London Daily News", Saturday 11th March 1905, page 11. (12). See http://www.edochess.ca/players/p483... and also http://www.chessmetrics.com/cm/CM2/... (13). "Belfast News Letter", Thursday 30th March 1905, page 4. (14). "Hampshire Telegraph", Saturday 1st April 1905, page 9. (15). "Sheffield Daily Telegraph", Friday 10th March 1905, page 12. (16). "Pall Mall Gazette", Saturday 18th March 1905, page 10. (17). "Sheffield Daily Telegraph", Tuesday 14th March 1905, page 12. (18). "Hastings and St Leonards Observer", Saturday 18th March 1905, page 8. (19). "Hampshire Telegraph", Saturday 1st April 1905, page 9. (20). "Sheffield Daily Telegraph", Wednesday 15th March 1905, Page 12. (21). "Pall Mall Gazette", Saturday 18th March 1905, page 10. (22). "British Chess Magazine", April 1905, page 146. (23). "British Chess Magazine", April 1905, page 146. (24). "Lancashire Evening Post", Monday 20th March 1905, page 4. (25). "Yorkshire Post and Leeds Intelligencer", Tuesday 21st March 1905, page 9. (26). "British Chess Magazine", April 1905, page 146. (27). "British Chess Magazine", April 1905, page 197. Original collection compiled by User: MissScarlett Text by User: User: Chessical. The Blackburne consultation game is newly found has been added to the database. 10 games, 1905 Mieses - Taubenhaus <Introduction:> This match of five games took place in Glasgow from 23rd to 27th March 1895. It came about due to the serendipitous coincidence of the two masters being available and the willingness of a well-supported local club to sponsor a match between them. Accordingly, it was organised at extremely rapid notice by the Glasgow Chess Club under its president Georges Emile Barbier. Mieses won by: +2 =2 -1. That this match was regarded as an noteworthy event is shown by all the games being annotated by both the "Deutsche Schachzeitung" and by James Mason in the "British Chess Magazine of May 1895. [(1)] <The players:> Jacques Mieses 1894-95 was a busy period for Mieses. He drew a match with Carl Walbrodt. (+5, =3,-5) in Berlin (May-June 1894). Mieses then played in the extremely strong 9th DSB Congress, Leipzig (1894) (3rd-14th September, 1894) coming 10th out of 18. He had then toured Russia giving simultaneous displays, before travelling to Paris to play a match with David Janowski (8th January to 4th February 1895). Mieses then crossed the English Channel to play a short match against Richard Teichmann in London (16th - 21st February 1895) which he lost by +1 =1 -4. A month later he played this match, Mieses next professional engagement would be Hastings (1895). Jean Taubenhaus Taubenhaus was a minor master of Polish origin, who emigrated to France in the early 1880's. His professional life was centred on the Café de la Régence, Paris, with the exception of 1893 to 1895 when he competed in the United States and then in Cuba. There he played Andres Vazquez in Havana winning by +4 =5 -1. (30th December 1894 - 11th or 12th January 1895) [(2)] Taubenhaus' income appears to have been more from lessons and simultaneous games than matches or tournaments. He was in transit to from Havana to Paris when approached to play this match by local enthusiasts. <Contemporary reports:> "Herr Mieses terminated his engagement at the Edinburgh Chess Club on Thursday of last week, by playing 14 simultaneous games, winning eleven, and losing three ... He arrived at the Glasgow Chess Club on the afternoon of Friday, the 22nd inst. where Taubenhaus happened to be, he having arrived there on his way home from Havana. Herr Taubenhaus is a Polish Player, long resident in Paris, where he played chess professionally at the celebrated chess rendezvous, the Café de la Régence. He has played in international tournaments and in matches with first-class players, and has proved himself to be a player of the foremost rank. The presence together in Glasgow of two such strong players as Mieses and Taubenhaus suggested the idea of getting up a short match of five games between them. £10 was speedily gathered, of which £6 goes to the winner and £4 it to the loser. (about £640/$800 for the winner and £420/$540 for the loser in 2017 value - e.d.) The match, commenced on Saturday last, and finished on Wednesday. Mieses won with a score of 2 wins, 1 loss, and 2 draws." [(3)] “The most interesting event of the month was the short match of five games between Messrs. Mieses and Taubenhaus. The latter gentleman arrived from America, on Thursday, March 21st; the former from Edinburgh, on Friday the 22nd. Preliminaries were arranged and play was started on Saturday (23rd March – e.d.), in a match of five games, for prizes offered by the Glasgow Club. In the first game, a Ponziani, opened by Taubenhaus, Mieses scored a fine win; the second, a Vienna, and the third, a Ruy Lopez, were drawn. In the fourth game, a Vienna, Mieses gave his opponent the opportunity of winning but Taubenhaus failed to avail himself of it and eventually lost. click for larger view (Mieses had just captured the <a> pawn, both players missing the imminent peril to his King after <32...Rxg2> 33. Rf5 (or 33. Rxg2 Qh3+) 33...Qg6 - e.d.) The last game, a Ruy Lopez, was won by Taubenhaus, the score thus standing : Mieses 2, Taubenhaus 1, 2 games drawn … In addition to the match, both gentlemen engaged some of the best Glasgow talent with almost unvaried success, and they have rendered themselves very popular in Glasgow.” [(4)] <Score:> table[ Round .......... 1 2 3 4 5 Total Mieses 1 ½ ½ 1 0 3 Taubenhaus 0 ½ ½ 0 1 2 ]table Progressive scores: table[ Round .......... 1 2 3 4 5 Mieses 1 1½ 2 3 3 Taubenhaus 0 ½ 1 1 2 ]table <Notes:> [(1)] "British Chess Magazine", May 1895, p.229-234. and "Deutsche Schachzeitung", volumes 50-51, May 1895, p.136-139. [(2)] "British Chess Magazine", March 1895, p.114; for more detail see http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/... [(3)] "Liverpool Mercury", Saturday 6th April 1895, p.7. [(4)] "British Chess Magazine", April 1895, p.166. See: http://www.edochess.ca/matches/m108... 5 games, 1895 Mieses vs Teichmann, 1895 <Introduction:> This match took place in 16th - 21st February 1895, in London. Richard Teichmann defeated Jacques Mieses by +4 =1 -1. The "British Chess Magazine" reported on this match in its March 1895 edition. <Teichmann:> Teichmann, aged 26, was living in London, making his living as a linguist and playing in tournaments. He returned to Germany to achieve his best result to date at the 9th DSB Congress, Leipzig (1894) - gaining third place behind Siegbert Tarrasch and Paul Lipke. The "Deutsches Wochenschach und Berliner Schachzeitung" of September 23, 1894 stated: "The third prize winner, R. Teichmann from London, is a well-known master in Berlin circles. (...) If he did not achieve the world-wide glory of his Berlin colleague Lasker, he nevertheless gained an excellent place in London's chess circles and won the first place there in championships...his personality is calm, quiet, and thoughtful, so is his play, which persistently and surely follows a thought out plan, and he seldom endangers himself though precipitancy." [(1)] <Mieses:> In 1894-95, Mieses was coming up to thirty years old. He undertook an extremely hard schedule of matches, exhibitions and tournaments across Europe. In May-June 1894 in Berlin, he drew a match with Carl Walbrodt (+5, =3,-5) [(2)] Mieses then played in the extremely strong 9th DSB Congress, Leipzig (1894) (3rd-14th September, 1894) coming 10th out of 18. He had then toured Russia giving simultaneous displays, leaving Russia on the 1st December 1894 [(3)] and from the 8th January to 4th February 1895 he was in Paris where he won a match against Janowski.[(4)] Before leaving to play Teichmann in London, on February 6th Mieses gave a four game blindfold display. [(5)] . "<Match: Mieses v. Teichmann> After his drawn contest with David Janowski, in Paris, Herr Jacques Mieses visited London, and a match was speedily arranged between him and the talented Herr Richard Teichmann, who is now looked upon as one of the foremost London players. The agreement for the match was signed on the 14th February, the following being the conditions: umpire, Sir George Newnes. Bart., M.P.; [(6)] the winner to be he who scores first four games; drawn games to count one-half each after two draws shall have occurred; one game to be played each day (Sundays excepted), adjourned games to be played off the following morning; the first game to be played on Saturday, at the British Chess Club, thereafter at the Metropolitan Chess Club, Ironmonger Lane, on Mondays, Thursdays, and Saturdays, at half-past six to eleven p.m.; and at the British Chess Club on Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Fridays, from three to seven, and from half-past eight till the conclusion of the game; time limit 20 moves an hour; stakes, £25 a-side. (about £2,650.00/$3,350 in 2017 value). Play was begun on the 16th February, at the British Chess Club. Herr Teichmann had the move in the first game, which Mieses defended with the "Two Knights", and a carefully played game ensued and ended in a draw. The second game was contested at the Metropolitan Club, on February 18th. Herr Mieses adopted an inferior variation of the Vienna opening, of which Teichmann soon took advantage, so much so that in the "mid-game" he might have forced the win much quicker than the forty- first move, as actually occurred.... The third game was played at the British Chess Club, on the 19th February. Teichmann adopted the Ruy Lopez, and early got a strong attack. which he pushed vigorously. Misses on the contrary looked too eagerly after Pawns, and lost thereby a Knight and soon after the game. Score . Teichmann 2, Mieses 0. drawn 0. The fourth game was also played at the British Chess Club on the both February. Herr Mieses adopted the Vienna, and a splendidly contested game resulted. Teichmann got a cramped game in the early stages, and at the both move, when the game was adjourned, was a Pawn behind. On resuming play Mieses pressed his advantage and compelled Teichmann to resign on the 57th move. The fifth game was played at the Metropolitan Club, on the 21st February. Teichmann again played the Ruy Lopez, and a very drawish looking game resulted; Mieses, however, tried hard to force a win and thereby ran some risks. At 11 p.m., an adjournment took place, the game being in a critical state. On resuming play at the British Chess Club, on the following day, Teichmann won speedily. Score: Teichmann 3, Mieses 1, drawn. The sixth and final game was commenced at the British Chess Club, on the 22nd February. The opening was the Vienna, and after to moves had been played it was adjourned in a fairly even position. On the resumption of play, the next day, at the Metropolitan, Mieses soon got into difficulties, and by an unsound sacrifice of the exchange speedily got a lost game, and resigned on the 43rd move. Final score: Teichmann 4, Mieses 1, drawn 1. To some extent this may be regarded as a model match within its own limits. It was quickly arranged, the stakes were moderate, and the time spent in playing it was short. In our opinion chess would benefit more by a series of such matches, than by one elaborate affair where weeks, or even months, are spent in preliminary negotiations, where the conditions are involved to a degree, and where the play extends over an unconscionably long time. Teichmann's play has been exactly what his best friends hoped it would be, sound, cautious, and steady, and he thoroughly deserves his victory. It has certainly added to his widening reputation, and he now stands in the front rank of players resident in this country. Mieses' play has been somewhat disappointing, and his ordinary dash seemed to some extent to have deserted him; but to this Teichmann's cautious and sound style no doubt contributed. Mieses was evidently both over-trained and over-worked.'" [(7)] <Contemporary reaction:> "Almost immediately after the end of the struggle with Janowski, Mieses went to London to compete with R. Teichmann. The latter is known to our readers as the third prize winner of the last year in Leipzig International Championship Tournament. His playing style stands in direct contrast to the Janowski's and Mieses by emphasising the slow and cautious rather than combinational fireworks à la Morphy. The acquisitive tactics of modern school seem the more appropriate to achieve practical success, for the most beautiful sacrificial combinations unfortunately all too often have the peculiarity of failing due to some inconspicuous defensive move, with their spontaneous inspiration going up in fruitless smoke, shamefully leaving their progenitor in the lurch. In contrast to the healthy, sober, consistently solid game of Teichmann, Mieses' lively combinational style had a hard time , and only once in the six games did the Leipzig Master secure victory, whilst one game was drawn. As far as his opponent is concerned, he would have been better to have taken a longer break before he contested the match..." [(8)]. <Score:> table[ Round ..........1 2 3 4 5 6 Total Mieses ½ 0 1 0 0 0 1½ Teichmann ½ 1 0 1 1 1 4½ ]table Progressive scores: table[ Round ..........1 2 3 4 5 6 Mieses ½ ½ 1½ 1½ 1½ 1½ Teichmann ½ 1½ 1½ 2½ 3½ 4½ ]table . <Notes:> [(1)]. Quoted by http://www.schachbund.de/news/genug... [(2)]. "London Evening Standard", Monday 4th June, 1894, p.7. [(3)]. "Deutsche Schachzeitung", No.1, January 1895, p.27-28. [(4)]. "Deutsche Schachzeitung", No.3, March 1895, p.91. [(5)]. "Deutsche Schachzeitung", No.3, March 1895, p.94. [(6)]. Sir George Newnes, (13 March 1851 – 9 June 1910) was a prominent newspaper and magazine publisher and Liberal politician. [(7)]. "British Chess Magazine", March 1895, p.121. [(8)]. "Deutsche Schachzeitung", No.3, March 1895, p.92-93. Original collection and text by User: Chessical 6 games, 1895 Najdorf v Trifunovic <The players:> This twelve game match between Najdorf and Trifunovic took place in July 1949, when both players were 38 years old. They had played each other five times previously with Najdorf scoring two victories to one defeat and with two draws. Petar Trifunovic was a leading Yugoslav player, and at this point in his career he had been three times national champion (1945, 1946, and jointly in 1947). His International Master title had been awarded in 1950 and he would secure the Grandmaster title in 1953. In the post-war decade he was playing at his peak. Trifunovic had proved himself to be a strong grandmaster as his solid result of ninth ahead of Gligoric (+ 3 - 2 = 10) in the very strong Chigorin Memorial, Moscow (1947) had shown. Beside this match against Najdorf, Trifunovic's greatest career performances were the Treybal Memorial tournament, Prague (1946) [1], and the Dubrovnik Olympiad [2] where he scored 10/13 which was the best performance on Board 3. [3]. His playing strength declined from the mid 1950s but only slowly, and he usually gained mid table results even in strong tournaments; he was second to Botvinnik at Noteboom Memorial (1965). He continued to play strongly in the Yugoslav championships being third in 1960, champion in 1961 and third again in the 1963. He played for Yugoslavia in the Olympiads his last being Varna 1962. After the war, Miguel Najdorf emerged as an elite player by tying for 4th–5th at Groningen (1946) with 11½/19. Indeed, the decade after the war was the most successful period of his chess career [4]. His consistent run of high positions in very strong tournaments led him to be awarded the Grandmaster title in 1950. Najdorf was especially active coming to Europe to maximise his chances of playing in the relatively few top tournaments of the time against world-class grandmasters. He was on the cusp of being a world championship candidate, but controversially he was denied the opportunity in 1948. It was only due to a late change to FIDE regulations that Najdorf was not allocated Reuben Fine 's declined and vacant place at the FIDE World Championship Tournament (1948). Originally the 17th FIDE Congress at Winterthur (July 1946) stipulated that if the winners of the tournaments in Groningen (Botvinnik) and Prague (Nadjorf) were not already qualified, one of these tournament winners would be allocated a place in the forthcoming response world chess championship tournament. <"They shall play a match in Prague ...The winner of that match shall be added to the list of participants. If one of the winners is already on the list of participants, the other shall automatically qualify">. [5] At the next FIDE congress (The Hague, 30th July - 2nd August 1947) , however, this was amended so that no extra player would be added. Coming up to the present match Najdorf had greater tournament opportunities than Trifunovic. In Argentina Nadjorf competed in a series of tough tournaments usually involving Ståhlberg and Erich Eliskases. Nadjorf came first a half point ahead of Ståhlberg at Mar del Plata (1947), second a half point behind Ståhlberg at Buenos Aires\La Plata (1947), second a half point behind Ståhlberg at Buenos Aires (1948), first at Buenos Aires\La Plata (1948) and had beaten Julio Bolbochan (Argentine champion in 1946 and 1948) in a match in Buenos Aires (1949) by 5½ to 4½. Abroad, he was second to Reuben Fine at New York (1948) but went onto draw a match with him in early 1949(+2=4-2). Nadjorf came first at Venice (1948) [7] ahead of Euwe, and his only slight dip in performance was coming fourth at Mar del Plata (1948)[8] On paper Nadjorf was the favourite in this match. There was no doubt that he would be very tough competition for Trifunovic. In 1946, Nadjorf had dominated the Treybal Memorial tournament, Prague (1946), ahead of both Gligoric and Trifunovic. In 1948 at the Saltsjobaden Interzonal (1948), he had again outpaced the top Yugoslavs - Gligoric, Pirc and Trifunovic. Nadjorf's form and tough schedule continued beyond this match. He won at Amsterdam (1950), with 15/19 (+11 -0 =8), ahead a very strong field including: Reshevsky, Ståhlberg, Gligoric, Pirc, Euwe and his current opponent Trifunovic (+4 -2 =13). Before returning home to Argentina, Nadjorf was the highest scoring non-Soviet player at the Budapest Candidates (1950) (April 7th - May 18th, 1950). Then he scored equal first on Board one at the Dubrovnik Olympiad (20th August - 11th September 1950). Nadjorf kept up this impressive run by trip against strong Yugoslav opposition (including their promising young players) despite their home advantage in the Bled tournament (September 24th - October 15th, 1950)[9] <The organization:> In 1949, as part of a plan to develop their leading players (Gligoric, Pirc and Trifunovic) by providing top-flight competition (Ståhlberg, Euwe and Najdorf) and to underline the cultural progress of their state, the Yugoslav state sponsored matches against leading international grandmasters. Soviet or other Eastern European opposition was not available as from 1948 Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union were involved in an increasingly bitter political and diplomatic dispute. This was the third of such matches; and in 1950, the Yugoslav state would finance the Chess Olympiad in Dubrovnik. <Duration>: This match of twelve games between Najdorf and Trifunovic took place in 1949 Opatija (Abbazia), a sea-side resort in western Croatia, Yugoslavia. It commenced on Thursday 7th July, and ended on Saturday 23rd July, 1949. [10] <Schedule:> Game 1 - Opatija - Thursday, 7th July 1949 Game 2 - Opatija - Friday, 8th July 1949 Game 3 - Opatija - Sunday, 10th July 1949 Game 4 - Opatija - Monday, 11th July 1949 Game 5 - Opatija - Wednesday, 13th July 1949 Game 6 - Opatija - Thursday, 14th July 1949 Game 7 - Opatija - Saturday, 16th July 1949 Game 8 - Opatija - Sunday, 17th July 1949 Game 9 - Opatija - Tuesday, 19th July 1949 Game 10 - Opatija - Wednesday, 20th July 1949 Game 11 - Opatija - Friday, 22nd July 1949 Game 12 - Opatija - Saturday, 23rd July 1949 <Progress:> The match was tied at +1 =10 -1. Najdorf blundered one game but had chances to win two others which he failed to do. Overall, Trifunovic did well to hold the match to a draw. Nadjorf was White in the odd numbered games. table[ Round 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Najdorf .....0 ½ 1 ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ Trifunovic...1 ½ 0 ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ]table Progressive scores: table[ Round 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Najdorf .....0 ½ 1½ 2 2½ 3 3½ 4 4½ 5 5½ 6 Trifunovic...1 1½ 1½ 2 2½ 3 3½ 4 4½ 5 5½ 6 ]table <The games:> Nadjorf lost as White in the first game. He appears to suddenly have panicked in the face of his oppponent's three connected passed pawns bearing down on him: click for larger view Nadjorf equalised the match in Game 3 which was the one of only two King pawn openings, and a particularly fine king-side attack. Nadjorf could have added to his score in Game 4 when Trifunovic unnecessarily weakened his K-side, but Nadjorf missed a key move and his opponent held on to draw with two pawns against a Knight. In Game 5, Nadjorf outplayed Trifunovic and won two pawns, but in a Rook and Pawns ending he was not precise enough and after a long struggle he had to concede a draw. Having survived a crisis, Trifunovic conserved his strength with a quick draw as White in Game 6, and equalised efficiently in Game 7 using the Sicilian Defence. After this, neither player appears to have wanted to play particularly sharply but instead Games 8, 9 and 10 were cautiously played. The last two games were little more than the formalities being concluded. <Notes:> [1] http://www.thechesslibrary.com/file... [2] http://www.olimpbase.org/1950/1950i... [3] http://www.chessmetrics.com/cm/CM2/... [4] http://www.chessmetrics.com/cm/CM2/... [5] "Najdorf: Life and Games", Batsford Ltd (30 April 2005), Tomasz Lissowski, Adrian Mikhalchishin, and Miguel Najdorf , ISBN-13: 978-0713489200, p.27 [6] Game Collection: WCC: FIDE WCC Tournament 1948 [7] http://www.thechesslibrary.com/file... [8] http://www.thechesslibrary.com/file... [9] http://www.thechesslibrary.com/file... [10] All dates for the games have been taken from http://www.argedrez.com.ar/ListadoP... <Thanks> To the following: User: FSR and User: crawfb5 for checking through the original text for errors User: zanzibar for finding additional material. ... 12 games, 1949 Napier - Teichmann <Introduction> This was a match between the German Richard Teichmann and the Anglo-American British Champion William Napier. In February 1905, Napier went to Glasgow, Scotland, to play Teichmann who had been barred from the 1904 British Championship on the grounds of nationality. Although Teichmann had resided in Britain since 1892 as a German citizen he was deemed to be ineligible. "The Champion of England, who had only last month gained his laurels by defeating Mr Henry Atkins at Hastings (British Championship - ed), was immediately asked to play a match by Mr R. Teichmann. Mr Napier accepted the challenge, and a match of five games up at the Glasgow Chess Club was commenced yesterday." [(1)] "It was natural enough that Napier after besting Henry Atkins in the tie match for the British championship should be challenged by Teichmann who was excluded from the Federation Tournament by reason of foreign birth. Napier speedily consented to play, but unexpected difficulties presented themselves in the choice of meeting in London. Again a provincial club came to the rescue, and a most interesting contest between these famous masters commenced last week at Glasgow. Napier's record is well known. He is a very young man and since his arrival in England last autumn he must have been almost satiated with victory. In the National tournament at the City of London Chess Club he came out first, half a point above Teichmann; but in the Rice Gambit tournament at the London Criterion Teichmann, a master of much experience, whose health has not always permitted him to do full justice to his powers, was well ahead." [(2)] Teichmann's health problem at this time was his eyesight. He was blind in one eye and suffered periodically from problems with his remaining eye. <Conditions> The match was for five games up, draws not counting, was for a stake of £50, presented by Mr F. G. Naumann, president of the British Chess Federation. Glasgow Chess Club guaranteed a further sum to both masters. The £50 purse would be worth about £6,100 or $7,900 in 2020. For an approximate comparison, the average annual British earnings in 1908 were £70 [(3)] <Background> Play started on 14 February and by 4th March Teichmann had emerged victorious with a score of +5, -1, =5. Napier had tied for first in the inaugural British Championship held in August 1904 and then had won the play-off in January 1905 against Henry Atkins. The match was apparently first intended to be played in London but this fell through [(4)]. Teichmann had strong connections with the Glasgow Club for whom he had provided coaching in 1901 - 1902. "The expected interesting match between Napier and Teichmann commenced this week at Glasgow. The match was the outcome of an offer made by Mr F. G. Naumann, the president of the British Chess Federation, to provide a purse for a trial of skill between the first champion of the Federation and Mr Teichmann. The energy required to provide these two players with hospitality to play their match seems to have been too much effort or a strain for any club in England. The players, therefore, accepted the proffered hospitality of the Glasgow chess players, with whom Teichmann has always been a favourite, to play their match there." [(5)] <Teichmann> "Of Mr Teichmann, need only said that he occupies a position the front rank living masters chess and that his style of play is bright, and all times scholarly. It is a chess education to lose few games him, and nothing can do an amateur more good! He is “all-round” master of chess, a fine theoretician, and one of the greatest authorities the problem art, being a clever composer, and a remarkably quick solver the most complex positions. As regards “Chess Openings,” Mr Teichmann is a walking edition the “German Handbook” - which “Handbook,” it may be mentioned, is the most voluminous treatise. In blindfold-playing his grip of positions is as accurate as it is comprehensive. A certain English chess editor, during Teichmann’s recent match with Mr Francis Lee, wrote: <“There can little doubt that Teichmann is the strongest player now living England. If anyone has doubts on the point, he need only play over any of the games by the master, and these doubts will be removed.”> This is high praise, superlative indeed, but it close to the truth, if eliminate the consideration of Dr Emanuel Lasker. Mr Teichmann has, by the way, many of the characteristics the great champion, and has made a name for himself as a deep analyst, and erudite annotator of games. The pages of the “British Chess Magazine” contain many annotations from his pen and these will always found instructive and thoroughly reliable. Needless to say. Mr Lee was defeated in the match above referred to." [(6)] <Napier> William Napier had sprung to attention by crushing Frank Marshall by 8½ to 2½. In July 1904, Napier competed in the City of London Chess Club's National Tournament, where he shaded out Richard Teichmann by half a point to win first prize. Napier then tied for first the British Championship held in August 1904 and then won the play-off in January 1905 against Henry Atkins. <Progress of the match> "Much interest has been taken in this match at Glasgow Chess Club by West of Scotland amateurs, the games having been keenly followed by numerous spectators. Both masters have shown novel lines of play in the openings, and the chess has been as sparkling possible in such contest, and generally of great educative value to the onlookers." [(7)] Napier had White in the odd-numbered games. After an early blunder in Game 1, Napier was behind for the rest of the match. When two points down, Napier rallied and took the fifth game. Four draws then ensued, but Teichmann then won Games 10 and 11 to take the match. In this match, Napier had an unfortunate tendency to blunder early in the game. Napier lost three games as White in less than 25 moves. table[ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Napier 0 ½ 0 0 1 ½ ½ ½ ½ 0 0 3½ Teichmann 1 ½ 1 1 0 ½ ½ ½ ½ 1 1 7½]table . <Progressive score> table[ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Napier 0 ½ ½ ½ 1½ 2 2½ 3 3½ 3½ 3½ Teichmann 1 1½ 2½ 3½ 3½ 4 4½ 5 5½ 6½ 7½]table . <The Games> . [[Game 1]] Tuesday 14th February 1905 "The first game was a Queen’s pawn opening of an eventful character. Napier got into a bad position, from which he could not extricate himself without loss, and resigned after 19 moves." [(8)] In the first game played on Tuesday, a Q P game, Napier early went wrong in the opening and lost in nineteen moves. The fact that a learned and studious player like Napier can be overthrown in one of the commonest and most practised openings, shows the great possibilities there are in opening play when handled by a master." [(9)] click for larger view Napier playing aggressively posted his Rook on <h3>, but completely overlooked the strength of <19...R(f)d8>. There is no winning attack on the <h> file and returning the Rook to <e3> runs into <20 ..Nf4> [[Game 2]] Thursday 16th February 1905 "The second game played on Thursday resulted more evenly. Napier adopted the Berlin Defence to the Ruy Lopez, and after forty moves the game was drawn." [(10)] "The second game was opened by Teichmann with the Ruy Lopez, and a rather tame development on White's part enabled Napier to set up a strong counter-attack. Matters, indeed, looked very promising for a time for the young British champion, but Teichmann defended correctly, and on the thirty-ninth move the game was agreed drawn in a position of hopeless equality." [(11)] [[Game 3]] Friday 17th February 1905 "The third game of the match at Glasgow ... was a Queens (pawn) opening, in which Teichmann got a strong counter-attack with <Qa5>, and won in twenty-four moves. Teichmann defended using the newly fashionable Cambridge Springs Defence to the Queen's Gambit. He had twice practised it at Cambridge Springs (1904), Marshall vs Teichmann, 1904 and Schlechter vs Teichmann, 1904 How he played White in this line can be seen in Teichmann vs O Chajes, 1923 Napier, despite also playing at Cambridge Springs, appears to have been put off balance. click for larger view He played <12.e6?> and after <12...Bxe6> <13.Be5?> which left his game in ruins after <13...Nb3>. [[Game 4]] Saturday 18th February 1905 The fourth game, another Ruy Lopez, with the Berlin defence, was lost by Napier in thirty-two moves." [(13)] [[Game 5]] Monday 20th February, resumed Tuesday 21st February 1905. "The fifth game of the match began on Monday. Napier, with a Queen’s opening, obtained for the first time an advantage. The game was adjourned after 52 moves. Play was resumed yesterday evening, and Napier scored his first victory in 72 moves." [(14)] "In the fifth game, a Queen’s opening, Napier for the first time established a superiority. Teichmann refused to avail himself of drawing chances and lost." [(15)] click for larger view With <63...Kg3?> Teichmann lost; taking the Bishop should have drawn. [[Game 6]] Thursday 23rd February 1905. "The sixth game of this match at Glasgow was a Ruy Lopez, again defended by Napier with <3...Nf6>. Teichmann played a spirited game and gave up a piece for an attack. Napier gave the piece back, and with bishops of opposite colours remaining the game was drawn." [(16)] The opening could also be described as a Four Knights game in which Teichmann expertly played an extremely sharp line of defence. A year later, Rudolf Spielmann , despite his great combinational powers, misplayed and lost in a mere 16 moves in this variation, in P Leonhardt vs Spielmann, 1906 The position after eight moves stood as: click for larger view After only 23 moves the game was drawn. Napier could have played on being a pawn up in an opposite coloured Bishop's ending but with the pawn protected on <c7>. Instead, despite his two-point deficit in the match, he apparently decided that it would be waste of his strength to test his opponent any further. [[Game 7]] Saturday 25th February 1905. "The seventh game of the match was opened by Napier with some novel variations of the Queen's pawn game. The innovation did not result very well, but a draw was the outcome of a critical ending. Score: Teichmann. 3. Napier 1, drawn 3." [(17)] Napier played the Exchange Queen's Gambit with an early <f4> to create a Stonewall pawn structure. click for larger view Teichmann played cleverly and energetically, with <9...Ng4> 10. 0-0 f6! and soon had the initiative. Napier was on the defensive for the whole of the game and had to fight hard for a draw. [[Game 8]] Tuesday 28th February 1905. "The eighth game of the match was played at the Athenaeum, Glasgow, yesterday evening. Teichmann, playing the Ruy Lopez, obtained a slight advantage in position, but with care, Napier equalised matters, and a draw resulted in 30 moves. Scores: Teichmann, 3 wins; Napier, 1." [(18)] Napier played the old Steinitz Defence to the Ruy Lopez in an unusual and passive manner with an early <Kh8>. click for larger view Teichmann had early pressure but decided to exchange off into a drawn game and the players shook hands after 29 moves. [[Game 9]] Thursday 2nd March 1905 (assumed from the previous order of the match) " a correctly played game, and useful specimen for textbooks." [(19)] After three successive draws, Napier needed to secure a win and chose to play the King's Gambit. Teichmann declined the gambit and Napier employed Rezso Charousek 's rarely seen variation with <3.Qf3>. The resulting position left little opportunity for either player and both played solidly towards an expected draw after 30 moves. [[Game 10]] Friday 3rd March 1905. "Victory of Teichmann. The score at three to one in favour of Teichmann, fewer than four successive draws occurred in this match. The spell was at last broken on Friday in the tenth game, a Lopez, which Napier defended with <a6>, followed by <c5>. Napier committed an oversight, and he resigned on the 35th move." [(20)] In this game, Teichmann marched his King to victory on <f6>! Unlike Game 8, Napier showed his aggressive intentions as Black by playing an early <f5> thrust in the Ruy Lopez. Napier was outplayed in this game. [[Game 11]] Saturday 4th March 1905. "In the eleventh and final game, played on Saturday, Napier risked a gambit. Teichmann, with a Falkbeer defence, obtained a strong counter-attack, and won the game and the match." [(21)] Teichmann accepted Napier's second King's Gambit of the match with the Falkbeer Counter-Gambit. Napier misplayed the opening and his King was left vulnerable in the centre. Teichmann soon won two pawns and pursued his opponent's hapless King to <c4> whereupon Napier resigned. "During his Scotch visit Mr Napier has made many friends in Glasgow, and Mr Logan, on behalf of the Glasgow Club, made a neat little speech on the conclusion of the match, expressing the pleasure Mr Napier’s presence had afforded the members. Mr Teichmann remains in Glasgow for another fortnight." [(22)] <Contemporary reaction> The commentators of the time had generally expected Teichmann to win, but not by such a margin. Indeed, there was perplexity as to why Napier, who was undoubtedly a powerful and accomplished player, should have been so badly beaten. "The Teichmann-Napier match ended badly for the British champion ... This result gives Teichmann strong claim be considered the best player now resident in England. The same time Napier was clearly not at his best, and the loss of the two first games seems have quite discouraged him.” [(23)] "If it may not be taken as altogether unexpected that Teichmann should have won the match, it will be a surprise that should have achieved so decided a victory; that is to say, judging by the figures. But those who have read the games will admit that Napier, for some reason which we do not know, must have been quite out of form. He not only seems to have been unable to make an effort (of which he is fully capable), but he committed oversights from which his published games are generally free." [(24)] "We think it is only fair, however, to say that Mr Napier, like so many other young players, does not realise the fact that there are limits of a physical nature which should deter anyone from trying to play too much chess in so short a space of time as he has tried to do. The winner has given us very fine proot of his powers. To defeat a first-class player by such overwhelming score is a great feat, which forcibly points to the suggestion that Teichmann may perhaps make a better opponent for Marshall than Janowski has done." (see Janowski - Marshall, 2nd Match (1905)) [(25)] "Without the least desire to diminish the merit of decisive a victory, is nevertheless felt that a better stand was expected to be made Napier, who won two tournaments last summer in very good style." [(26)] "Bon Voyage to Napier who is returning to the United States! This brilliant young master has had some astonishing successes since he came to these shores last summer. Indeed, there has only been one serious check to his victorious career his defeat in his match at Glasgow with Teichmann, against whom he failed to chew anything like his true form. His victories in the National Tournament at the City of London Chess Club and at the Hastings Federation Congress will be remembered, while the next winner of the British Amateur Cup will prize it the more became of the name of Napier last inscribed thereon. Napier will probably not play in the Ostend Tournament, but we shall doubtless hear much of him in future in Master chess and may perhaps be able to congratulate him personally someday on further victories." [(27)] <Notes> [(1)]. "Sheffield Daily Telegraph" Wednesday 15th February 1905, page 12. [(2)]. "Woolwich Gazette", Friday 24th February 1905, page 6. [(3)]. https://www.parliament.uk/business/... [(4)]. “Bristol Times and Mirror”, Saturday 4th February 1905, page 11. [(5)]. "Pall Mall Gazette", Saturday 18th February 1905, page 12. [(6)]. "Linlithgowshire Gazette", Friday 22nd November 1901, page 7. [(7)]. "Falkirk Herald", Wednesday 1st March 1905, page 8. [(8)]. "Sheffield Daily Telegraph" Wednesday 15th February 1905, page 12. [(9)]. "Pall Mall Gazette", Saturday 18th February 1905, page 12. [(10)]. "Pall Mall Gazette", Saturday 18th February 1905, page 12. [(11)]. "Woolwich Gazette", Friday 24th February 1905, page 6. [(12)]. "Pall Mall Gazette", Saturday 25th February 1905, page 12. [(13)]. "Pall Mall Gazette", Saturday 25th February 1905, page 12. [(14)]. "Sheffield Evening Telegraph", Wednesday 22nd February 1905, page 4. [(15)]. "Pall Mall Gazette", Saturday 25th February 1905, page 12. [(16)]. "Sheffield Daily Telegraph" Friday 24th February 1905, page 11. [(17)]. "Yorkshire Post and Leeds Intelligencer", Monday 27th February 1905. [(18)]. "Sheffield Daily Telegraph" Wednesday 1st March 1905, page 9. [(19)]. “Northern Whig”, Thursday 9th March 1905, page 3. [(20)]. "Sheffield Daily Telegraph", Monday 6th March 1905, page 11. [(21)]. "Lancashire Evening Post", Monday 6th March 1905, page 5. [(22)]. "Falkirk Herald", Wednesday 8th March 1905, page 8. [(23)]. "London Daily News", Saturday 11 March 1905, page 11. [(24)]. "The Field", Saturday 11th March 1905, page 32. [(25)]. "Pall Mall Gazette", Saturday 11th March 1905, page 12. [(26)]. "London Evening Standard", Tuesday 7th March 1905, page 9. [(27)]. "Woolwich Gazette", Friday 12 May 1905, page 7. Original collection and text by User: Chessical. Games 1,2,5,6,7,8,9 and 11 were submitted to the Database to complete the match record. 11 games, 1905 Nimzowitsch - Stahlberg <Introduction> This was a match of eight games between Gideon Stahlberg (26 y.o.) and Aron Nimzowitsch (47 y.o.). It took place in Gothenburg (Sweden), 4th to 12th February 1934. The match was announced in the January 1934 edition of "Tidskrift för Schack". [1] "On the 4th February a match of international importance begins in Gothenburg. Through the efforts and sacrifice of Gothenburg Chess Association terms have been reached with the illustrious Grandmaster Nimzowitsch for a match against Ståhlberg. Nimzowitsch's glittering tournament successes will be too familiar to require detailed enumeration to our readers. He is considered as one of the world's top five players and has at times been mentioned as an aspiring world champion candidate. It will therefore be of great interest to see how Ståhlberg will perform. The match will consist of eight games; as over the winter Ståhlberg has shown good form in tournaments, Nimzowitsch will certainly be prepared to face stiff resistance. After the conclusion of this match, it is possible to Nimzowitsch will participate in small tournament in Stockholm or take on Stoltz in a match. The Grandmaster will also provide some simultaneous exhibitions, which is why we urge interested clubs to sign up for his tour. The price is 75 Swedish Kronor per match (£3.86/$5.60 or £250/$362 in 2016 value [2]). Furthermore, Nimzowitsch, if desired, will give a lecture (in Swedish!) before start of the games on an appropriate topic." <Nimzowitsch> Nimzowitsch had played very little competitive chess in the preceding year. He had participated in no grandmaster tournaments since Bled (1931). The early 1930s was a period of diminished economic and chess activity in general but in particular for Nimzowitsch. He did not play in any tournaments in 1932. He was conspicuously absent from both London (1932) and Bern (1932) . In 1933, he only took part in a match against the Danish player Erik Andersen (Aarhus 1933) and then in the "Mixed Masters Tournament" (May-June). This was to provide practise for members of the Danish team before the Olympiad at Folkestone. [3] Gosta Stoltz and Ståhlberg were invited from Sweden to provide additional master strength opposition. This would be Nimzowitsch and Ståhlberg's first and only meeting before their match. Nimzowitsch narrowly won the tournament by a half point from Stoltz. He unexpectedly had lost against Jens Enevoldsen - J Enevoldsen vs A Nimzowitsch, 1933 - and was a pawn down against Ståhlberg but managed to obtain a draw. <Ståhlberg> Ståhlberg was to become Sweden's strongest player in the 1930s – 1960s. He had won Swedish championship outright in 1929, defeating Allan Nilsson, and had shared the title with Gösta Stoltz in 1931. Ståhlberg was to qualify twice as world championship candidate (in 1950 and 1953). Ståhlberg was one of several Swedish players supported by the patronage of the chairman of the Swedish Chess Federation Ludvig Collijn. This enabled him to gain precious experience in a series of matches when international opportunities, apart from Olympiads (The Hague 1928, Hamburg 1930 and Prague 1931), were limited. Ståhlberg had only competed in a handful of small international tournaments. In Stockholm 1930, he was fourth of seven in a strong field but he was unsuccessful at Swinemunde 1930 where he had come eighth in a field of ten. At the "Mixed Masters Tournament" (Copenhagen May-June, 1933), Ståhlberg came third of eight behind Nimzowitsch and Stoltz. Nimzowitsch regarded Ståhlberg as a rather colourless player and may, therefore, have later underestimated him. [4] Ståhlberg had greater match experience. Apart from his two matches for the Swedish championship, he had played Efim Bogoljubov (Stockholm, April 1930) in a match which he had had lost (+0=1-3). [5] Ståhlberg's development and talent finally became evident to the wider chess world when he defeated Rudolf Spielmann 5-3 (Stockholm, January 1933). Defeating Nimzowitsch would greatly bolster his reputation and his career. <Timetable> All the games were played in the premises of the Gothenburg Chess Association. Game 1 - Sunday, 4th February 1934 Game 2 - Monday, 5th February 1934 Game 3 - Tuesday, 6th February 1934 Game 4 - Wednesday, 7th February 1934 Game 5 - Friday, 9th February 1934 Game 6 - Saturday, 10th February 1934 Game 7 - Sunday, 11th February 1934 Game 8 - Monday 12th February 1934 [6] <The progress of the match> table[ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Nimzowitsch 1 ½ 0 1 0 0 0 ½ 3 Ståhlberg 0 ½ 1 0 1 1 1 ½ 5 ]table Progressive score: Nimzowitsch collapsed in the second half of the match, losing three games in succession. table[ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Nimzowitsch 1 1½ 1½ 2½ 2½ 2½ 2½ 3 Ståhlberg 0 ½ 1½ 1½ 2½ 3½ 4½ 5 ]table Ståhlberg was White in the odd numbered games. <Nimzowitsch's own account> "Ståhlberg a new Grandmaster!" After the first half of my match against Ståhlberg I had a clear lead of 2½ to 1½ points. My play was by no means devoid of ideas and so I did not seem to be in danger. At worst, I felt not entirely sure of myself in my treatment of openings, but this inconvenience seemed to me, or at least I assumed this at the time, to be amply outweighed by my superior technique. In the second half of the match I was shown the truth. Namely, it illustrated that my weakness in the openings was greater than expected and neither was I consistently the stronger player in terms of technique. So, I lost the fifth game in the very opening, but I lost the sixth and seventh games because I failed tactically in defence. In the sixth game, I incidentally committed a blunder in a clearly drawn position and I had to resign immediately. In Ståhlberg's command of his own game, I especially noted a new and very happy mixture consisting of methodical positional play and a new fresh and cheerful determination. He has this felicitous mix to thank for his win in the fifth game. Ståhlberg also played well when manoeuvering, as in the endgames of the third and seventh games. I found his way of mastering complications to be most impressive. The sharpest move would rarely escape his attention and his attacks were full of surprising twists. I therefore have no hesitation in stating that despite his young years, Gideon Ståhlberg, must be included in the corps of Grandmasters. I congratulate the Swedish chess community on its preeminent player and I am eager to see his further results in matches and tournaments." [7] In "Tidskrift för Schack" (January 1931, p.7-8) Ståhlberg annotated the game A Nimzowitsch vs C Ahues, 1930, Frankfurt (1930). Nimzowitsch used his formidable combinative vision for positional ends, and Ståhlberg commented: "A characteristic Nimzowitsch game. Nimzowitsch, in my opinion, is no brilliant strategist, but a shrewd and experienced tactician. He does not love, as Spielmann does, battle on the open battlefield; but he understands how by "guerrilla war" ("guerillakrig"), to exhaust and weaken the enemy, and when he then strikes, it is done with great precision. His combinations are, as in this game, less the result of a logical attacking game than through cleverly exploiting shortcomings in the enemy's mode of warfare". <The Games> From his comments and play, it is apparent that Nimzowitsch was dissatisfied with the results of his openings. This may have encouraged him to play sharply in the middlegame, but was unable to demonstrate a consistent tactical superiority over Ståhlberg. In the endgame, Ståhlberg had the greater stamina and Nimzowitsch made more unforced errors probably through fatigue and lack of top level practise. Ståhlberg was well prepared in the opening and was not over-awed by his opponent. His technique in the ending was impressive in games 3 and 7, and his skill in attack was exhibited in in game 5. [[Game 1]] Nimzowitsch won with Black against one of Ståhlberg's favoured systems: Nimzo-Indian, Spielmann Variation (E22). Nimzowitsch played aggressively sacrificing a pawn on the King-side. He later managed to force his <d> pawn through to win. [[Game 2]] Ståhlberg equalised efficiently against Nimzowitsch’s “calling card” against the French Defence - French, Advance (C02). The game was drawn at an early stage at Ståhlberg's suggestion. This was a clear indication that Ståhlberg was well prepared for Nimzowitsch and that it had a depressing effect on his opponent. [[Game 3]] Nimzowitsch stated he voluntarily gave up the exchange for attacking chances rather than have to defend an inferior endgame. click for larger view After <24.Nxc5!>, Ståhlberg's accurate play denied Nimzowitsch the opportunity for tactical redemption. Ståhlberg reached an ending with the exchange for a pawn which he won. [[Game 4]] Ståhlberg had almost equalised on the Black side of a QGD, when he miscalculated and allowed Nimzowitsch to establish a Rook on his seventh rank. This was probably Nimzowitsch's most impressive win of the match, a short and sharp attack. [[Game 5]] Followed the first ten moves of the third game. After Ståhlberg's <11.g3> click for larger view Nimzowitsch appears to have lost faith in his opening play, he wrote: "Suddenly Black sees himself driven into the water in a light kayak with masses of drift ice striking him on all sides. One can't endure the collision and yet the collision is unavoidable". [8] With Nimzowitsch's pieces cut off from the defence of his King, Ståhlberg created a very effective King-side attack [[Game 6]] Nimzowitsch lost a piece with an "atrocious" blunder click for larger view He played <28.R(1)d2?> overlooking that with <28...f5!> White's Knight could only flee annihilation by abandoning the Rook. [[Game 7]] Nimzowitsch played very sharply as Black. Rather than safely castling on the K-side, he went all-out for a win. click for larger view Ståhlberg could have won with the simple <40.Rxg7> click for larger view but instead his <40.g4?!> let his opponent have unwarranted counter-play. In the ensuing long ending, Nimzowitsch could not hold Ståhlberg. [[Game 8]] Nimzowitsch played a quiet opening and his unambitious approach gave him no advantage. As the match had already been decided, neither player had much incentive to play on. <Postscript> This match appears to have finally opened up the doors of international chess to Ståhlberg. He was now invited to major tournaments, and was busy in the following months at: Ujpest (Budapest), May 1934, Zuerich (1934) , July 1934, and Moscow (1935) , February-March 1935. Nimzowitsch came second in the "Six Player" Tournament (Stockholm, February - March 1934). Competing in this small double-round tournament of Swedish players, he lost games to Erik Lundin and Stoltz. This resulted in a disappointing second place behind Lundin. His last grandmaster tournament was Zuerich (1934), where he finished mid table (+6 -3 =6), but a point ahead of Ståhlberg. They drew their game - Stahlberg vs A Nimzowitsch, 1934. At the end of 1934, Nimzowitsch's health collapsed, he was bedridden for three months before dying on 16th March 1935 at the age of 48. <Notes> [1] See - http://www.schack.se/tfsarkiv/histo... [2] "From Appreciation to Depreciation - the exchange rate of the Swedish Krona, 1913 - 2008", Jan Bohlin, ["In June 1933 the Riksbank decided to peg the krona to sterling at 19.40. The peg was maintained until the outbreak of the Second World War."] - see http://www.riksbank.se/Upload/Dokum... [3] Tournament report in "Tidskrift för Schack", June-July 1933. See - http://www.schack.se/tfsarkiv/histo... [4] See "Aron Nimzowitsch 1928-1935: Annotated Games & Essays", Aron Nimzowitsch and Rudolf Reinhardt, p.282 [5] "Tidskrift för Schack", May 1930 and "Tidskrift för Schack", June 1930. [6] Dates from an article on the match written by Nimzowitsch in "Weiner Schach Zeitung", Nr.4, February 1934, p.54. The date of Game 4 has been found on: http://www.chesslund.com/uploaded/2... [7] Translation by User: Chessical from the German original in "Weiner Schach Zeitung", Nr.4, February 1934, p.54. [8] Note from "Skakbladet 1934" p.36-37 quoted in "Aron Nimzowitsch 1928-1935: Annotated Games & Essays", Aron Nimzowitsch and Rudolf Reinhardt, p.290. <Original sources on-line> The February 1934 issue of "Tidskrift för Schack", http://www.schack.se/tfsarkiv/histo... has a report with all the games, pp. 25-26, 29-35 (the games) & p.38. Games 1-7 have commentaries by Ståhlberg and Game 8 has comments by Nimzowitsch. The March 1934 issue of "Tidskrift för Schack", http://www.schack.se/tfsarkiv/histo..., contains an article by Nimzowitsch on "Chess in Sweden" which briefly mentions Ståhlberg, pp. 57-58. ["Ståhlberg, played excellently against me. His openings were deeply thought out, and even in the play-offs (endings? - ed), he showed a mature mastery..."] 8 games, 1934 Ostend 1906 <Introduction> The guys at Ostend did things in the grand style. Ostend (1905) was a double-round 14-player tournament for twenty-six rounds in all, and the 1907 event was a six-player, quadruple round-robin Championship section and a thirty-player Master group. But those events were run along usual lines. The event held from June 5th - July 12th, 1906, featured a novel sectional organizational system devised by Isidor Gunsberg, who directed the play. Gunsberg explained everything in a long article in the <Manchester Guardian>, reprinted by A.J.Gillam in his book on the tournament [(1)]. It was based on sound principles derived from his thirty years of experience as a practical player. The idea was logical, well-thought-out, and had never been tried: <"The Masters' Tourney Thirty-six players took part in this competition -- a number very considerably of any previously gathered together in a similar tourney. Various new practices were embodied in the rules governing this completion. In the long and hard experience which my career as a chess player for thirty years has vouchsafed to me, I had formed certain ideals, and as I was placed in power I honestly and conscientiously endeavored to put ideals which I had conceived into practical execution, even though by so doing I should, whilst trying to benefit others, created the inevitable difficulties for myself which the introduction of any novel idea to such a sensitive and nervous constituency as the competitors in a chess tournament generally produces. I strongly disapprove of the practice of conducting a tournament on the basis of giving a few prizes to the foremost players in a tournament and leaving the bulk to go away empty-handed. Of course, the best players deserve the highest reward; yet at the same time, there is a vast amount of good work done by many excellent players who just fail to win any of the higher prizes. In fact, the tournament itself would be no tournament without these strong players. The rank and file are just as necessary to chess life, and do just as good service, as the pawns in a game, especially when it is considered that the master who proves himself the King of the Tournament today may have to take his place amongst the pawns tomorrow".> In short: + The first four stages of the tournament had the players divided into four groups (A to D) + In the first stage, group A played B and C played D. The lowest three scorers in each group were then eliminated. + In the second stage, group A played C and B played D. The lowest two scorers in each group were then eliminated. + The third stage now had four groups of four players. group A played D and B played C. This completed the round-robin across all the groups. No players could be eliminated in this section. + In the fourth stage, the group members played the other masters in their own group. The seven lowest players were then eliminated. + The nine players with the highest overall scores advanced to the fifth and final stage which was an all-play-all. Whilst the elaborate system may have appealed in theory, in practice, it proved unpopular with the competitors. "It may be added that as the tournament proceeds the objections of the players, whether among the successful ones or not, to the peculiar arrangements adopted increase. It is safe to say that after this trial the sectional system will never again be adopted." [(2)] One correspondent described the system as a "weary pilgrimage to the shrine of first honours" [(3)]. The main problem with the sectional system was put by the "British Chess Magazine thus: "It would certainly seem an injustice that some players should be compelled to retire whose scores are higher than others in different sections".[(4)] One grave flaw in the system was the difficulty in trying to balance the strength of the groups. Balla in Group A was an unfortunate victim of the group system. Despite scoring five points (+2-1=6) he was eliminated. Yet, Wolf (3.5 points in Group D); Chigorin (4.0 points in Group D); Spielmann (4.5 points in Group C); and Swiderski (4.5 points in Group D) went through with lower scores. Additional prizes had to be added at the last minute when it became evident that the scores of some of the players who would be eliminated were practically equal. <Group A> Zoltan von Balla, Ossip Bernstein, Joseph Blackburne, Amos Burn, Oldrich Duras, Walter Montagu Gattie, David Janowski, Paul Leonhardt, Gerard Oskam <Group B> Wilhelm Cohn, Hans Fahrni, Leo Forgacs, Walter John, Paul Johner, Georg Marco, Geza Maroczy, Akiba Rubinstein, Peter Petrovich Saburov <Group C> Moritz Lewitt, Boris Maliutin, Frank Marshall, Jacques Mieses, Julius Perlis, Ehrhardt Post, Rudolf Spielmann, Hugo Suechting, Richard Teichmann <Group D> Mikhail Chigorin, Arturo Reggio, Georg Salwe, Carl Schlechter, Vladimir Sournin, Rudolf Swiderski, Jean Taubenhaus, Heinrich Wolf, Eugene Znosko-Borovsky ----- This collection will contain the available games of the tournament, and provide crosstables and a brief recap of the play in each stage, For a more detailed list of pairings, results, and standings, see Game Collection: Ostend 1906 -- Details of Games and Results Stage 1, played from June 5-14, consisted of two nine-round Scheveningen-style tournaments, in which the players of Group A played all the members of Group B and Group C met Group D. The bottom three scores in each group were removed from the tournament, while the other six advanced to Stage 2. Ties for the final advancement slot were resolved by the <Berger system>, a forerunner of what is known as Sonnenborn-Berger today. <RESULTS OF STAGE 1> table[ Group A (44.0) B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 Jo Ma Fa Ru Jo Ma Co Fo Sa A1 Burn 1 1 1 0 ½ ½ 1 1 1 7.0 Advanced A2 Janowski 1 0 ½ 1 1 ½ 1 1 1 7.0 Advanced A3 Leonhardt 0 ½ 0 1 ½ 1 1 1 1 6.0 Advanced A4 Bernstein 1 0 0 ½ 1 1 0 1 1 5.5 Advanced A5 Blackburne 0 0 ½ ½ 1 1 1 ½ 1 5.5 Advanced A6 Balla 0 ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ 1 ½ 1 5.0 Advanced A7 Duras 0 1 1 0 0 ½ 1 ½ 1 5.0 Eliminated A8 Oskam 0 0 0 0 0 ½ 0 ½ 1 2.0 Eliminated A9 Gattie 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1.0 Eliminated ]table There was a real fight for the last slot. Burn led Duras by a half-point going into the last round. With Duras slated to face the powerful Maroczy, it seemed Balla would be advancing when he took a short draw, but Duras vs Maroczy, 1906 sent him to the sidelines. This was unfortunate, as his 5.0 points would have advanced easily in any other group. But then, if he had been in one of the other groups, he might not have scored five points. table[ Group B (37.0) A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 Bu Ja Le Be Bl Ba Du Os Ga B1 Johner 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 6.0 Advanced B2 Maroczy 0 1 ½ 1 1 0 ½ 1 1 6.0 Advanced B3 Fahrni 0 ½ 1 1 ½ 0 ½ 1 1 5.5 Advanced B4 Rubinstein 1 0 0 ½ ½ 1 ½ 1 1 5.5 Advanced B5 John ½ 0 ½ 0 0 1 ½ 1 1 4.5 Advanced B6 Marco ½ ½ 0 0 0 ½ ½ ½ 1 3.5 Advanced B7 Cohn 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 3.0 Eliminated B8 Forgacs 0 0 0 0 ½ ½ ½ ½ 1 3.0 Eliminated B9 Saburov 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 Eliminated ]table Certainly not so strong as Group A. Maroczy was the only established master, as Rubinstein was still building his reputation. Johner's performance was a surprise but was soon shown to be a flash in the pan. Cohn fell short of qualifying, but found a striking finish as White against Oskam: click for larger view <22.Bb8!> encouraged resignation, the point being <22..>Rxb8 23.Qxb8!>. table[ Group C (43.5) D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6 D7 D8 D9 Sc Zn Sa Sw Ch Ta Wo So Re C1 Perlis 0 0 1 ½ 1 1 1 1 1 6.5 Qualified C2 Marshall ½ 1 0 1 0 ½ 1 1 1 6.0 Qualified C3 Teichmann 1 ½ ½ 0 ½ ½ 1 1 1 6.0 Qualified C4 Mieses 0 1 ½ 0 1 1 0 1 1 5.5 Qualified C5 Suechting ½ ½ 0 ½ 1 1 0 1 ½ 5.0 Qualified C6 Spielmann ½ 0 ½ 1 ½ 0 ½ ½ 1 4.5 Qualified C7 Post 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 4.0 Eliminated C8 Lewitt ½ 0 0 0 1 ½ ½ 0 ½ 3.0 Eliminated C9 Maliutin 0 0 0 ½ 0 1 ½ 0 ½ 2.5 Eliminated ]table This looked like a very powerful group, and Perlis' surprising first-place finish gave him enough momentum to reach the final stage. The race at the bottom was not close, Spielmann having clinched the final spot before a last-round loss. table[ Group D (37.5) C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 Pe Ma Te Mi Su Sp Po Le Ma D1 Schlechter 1 ½ 0 1 ½ ½ 1 ½ 1 6.0 Advanced D2 Znosko-Borovsky 1 0 ½ 1 ½ 1 1 1 1 6.0 Advanced D3 Salwe 0 1 ½ ½ 1 ½ 0 1 1 5.5 Advanced D4 Swiderski ½ 0 1 1 ½ 0 0 1 ½ 4.5 Advanced D5 Chigorin 0 1 ½ 0 0 ½ 1 0 1 4.0 Advanced D6 Taubenhaus 0 ½ ½ 0 0 1 1 ½ 0 3.5 Declined D7 Wolf 0 0 0 1 1 ½ 0 ½ ½ 3.5 Advanced D8 Sournin 0 0 0 0 0 ½ 0 1 1 2.5 Eliminated D9 Reggio 0 0 0 0 ½ 0 1 ½ 0 2.0 Eliminated ]table Znosko-Borovsky's performance was a surprise and he stayed in the running for most of the first four stages. Chigorin lost his first four games, but the pace was slow enough for him to catch up and advance. Taubenhaus qualified for Stage 2 on tiebreak but declined his spot in favor of Wolf. <Overall scores after Stage 1> 7.0: Burn, Janowski 6.5: Perlis 6.0: Johner, Leonhardt, Maroczy, Marshall, Schlechter, Teichmann, Znosko-Borovsky 5.5: Bernstein, Blackburne, Fahrni, Mieses, Rubinstein, Salwe, 5.0: Duras, Suechting 4.5: John, Spielmann, Swiderski 4.0: Chigorin 3.5: Marco, Wolf --- Intergroup play continued in Stage 2, with Group A vs. Group C and Group B vs. Group D. Scores were carried over, and final placement was based on the total of points scored in the first two stages. In each group, the bottom two scores were removed. Ties were resolved using the Berger system, based on results in both stages. <Stage 2 Results> table[ Group A (64.0) C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 Stage Prev Total Ma Te Pe Sp Mi Su A1 Burn 0 ½ 1 1 ½ ½ 3.5 7.0 10.5 Advanced A2 Leonhardt ½ 1 ½ ½ ½ 1 4.0 6.0 10.0 Advanced A3 Janowski 0 0 1 ½ 0 1 2.5 7.0 9.5 Advanced A4 Bernstein 1 ½ ½ 0 1 ½ 3.5 5.5 9.0 Advanced A5 Blackburne ½ 0 1 ½ ½ 1 3.5 5.5 9.0 Eliminated A6 Duras 0 1 0 0 1 1 3.0 5.0 8.0 Eliminated ]table Once again Group A set the fastest pace, resulting in Blackburne being eliminated with a score that would have advanced easily in any other group. Duras needed another miracle to survive and did his part magnificently in Duras vs Teichmann, 1906, but this time failed to advance when Bernstein and Blackburne also won in the last round. Janowski faded somewhat after his strong showing in Stage 1. table[ Group B (53.0) D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6 Stage Prev Total Sc Sa Zn Sw Wo Ch B1 Maroczy ½ ½ 0 1 1 1 4.0 6.0 10.0 Advanced B2 Rubinstein ½ 0 ½ 1 1 1 4.0 5.5 9.5 Advanced B3 Johner 0 1 ½ 0 0 ½ 2.0 6.0 8.0 Advanced B4 Fahrni 0 0 1 0 0 ½ 1.5 5.5 7.0 Advanced B5 John ½ 0 ½ 1 0 ½ 2.5 4.5 7.0 Eliminated B6 Marco 0 ½ ½ 0 1 0 2.0 3.5 5.5 Eliminated ]table Maroczy and Rubinstein were clearly the class of this group, with Johner and Fahrni fading in the face of tougher competition. table[ Group C (59.5) A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 Stage Prev Total Bu Le Ja Be Bl Du C1 Marshall 1 ½ 1 0 ½ 1 4.0 6.0 10.0 Advanced C2 Teichmann ½ 0 1 ½ 1 0 3.0 6.0 9.0 Advanced C3 Perlis 0 ½ 0 ½ 0 1 2.0 6.5 8.5 Advanced C4 Spielmann 0 ½ ½ 1 ½ 1 3.5 4.5 8.0 Advanced C5 Mieses ½ ½ 1 0 ½ 0 2.5 5.5 8.0 Eliminated C6 Suechting ½ 0 0 ½ 0 0 1.0 5.0 6.0 Eliminated ]table Mieses was the biggest name eliminated here, Spielmann catching him with a strong stage. Perlis faded, but went through tranks to his strong first stage. table[ Group D (57.5) B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 Stage Prev Total Ma Ru Jo Fa Jo Ma D1 Schlechter ½ ½ 1 1 ½ 1 4.5 6.0 10.5 Advanced D2 Salwe ½ 1 0 1 1 ½ 4.0 5.5 9.5 Advanced D3 Znosko-Borovsky 1 ½ ½ 0 ½ ½ 3.0 6.0 9.0 Advanced D4 Swiderski 0 0 1 1 0 1 3.0 4.5 7.5 Advanced D5 Wolf 0 0 1 1 1 0 3.0 3.5 6.5 Eliminated D6 Chigorin 0 0 ½ ½ ½ 1 2.5 4.0 6.5 Eliminated ]table Schlechter came on strongly, tying with Burn for the overall lead. Znosko-Borovsky also fell off from his Stage 1 pace. Wolf won 3 of his last 4 games, but it was too late by then. Blackburn, in the high-scoring Group A, had the misfortune to be eliminated despite having more points than four other players from the other groups who advanced to the next stage. <Overall scores after Stage 2> 10.5: Burn (Advanced) 10.0: Leonhardt (Advanced), Maroczy (Advanced), Marshall (Advanced) 9.5: Janowski (Advanced), Rubinstein (Advanced) 9.0: Bernstein (Advanced), Teichmann (Advanced), Blackburn 8.5: Perlis (Advanced), Johner (Advanced), Spielmann (Advanced), Duras, Mieses 7.0: Fahrni (Advanced), John 6.0: Suechting 5.5: Marco ----- Stage 3 saw the final phase of intergroup play with four players in each group, Group A - Group D and Group B vs. Group C. There were no eliminations following Stage 3. Instead, following Stage 4 the group designations were dropped and the nine players with the highest overall scores advanced to the finals in Stage 5 <Results of Stage 3> table[ Group A (72.0) D1 D2 D3 D4 Stage Prev Total Sc Sa Zn Sw A1 Janowski 0 1 1 1 3.0 9.5 12.5 A2 Bernstein 1 1 1 0 3.0 9.0 12.0 A3 Burn 0 ½ 0 1 1.5 10.5 12.0 A4 Leonhardt 0 0 0 ½ 0.5 10.0 10.5 ]table table[ Group B (61.5) C1 C2 C3 C4 Stage Prev Total Te Ma Pe Sp B1 Maroczy ½ 1 ½ ½ 2.5 10.0 12.5 B2 Rubinstein ½ 1 ½ 1 3.0 9.5 12.5 B3 Fahrni ½ ½ ½ 1 2.5 7.0 9.5 B4 Johner 0 0 0 ½ 0.5 8.0 8.5 ]table table[ Group C (67.0) B1 B2 B3 B4 Stage Prev Total Ma Ru Fa Jo C1 Teichmann ½ ½ ½ 1 2.5 9.0 11.5 C2 Marshall 0 0 ½ 1 1.5 10.0 11.5 C3 Perlis ½ ½ ½ 1 2.5 8.5 11.0 D4 Spielmann ½ 0 0 ½ 1.0 8.0 9.0 ]table table[ Group D (65.5) A1 A2 A3 A4 Stage Prev Total Ja Be Bu Le D1 Schlechter 1 0 1 1 3.0 10.5 13.5 D2 Salwe 0 0 ½ 1 1.5 9.5 11.0 D3 Znosko-Borovsky 0 0 1 1 2.0 9.0 11.0 D4 Swiderski 0 1 0 ½ 1.5 7.5 9.0 ]table <Overall Scores after Stage 3 > 13.5: Schlechter 12.5: Janowski, Maroczy, Rubinstein 12.0: Bernstein, Burn 11.5: Marshall, Teichmann 11.0: Perlis, Salwe, Znosko-Borovsky 10.5: Leonhardt 9.5: Fahrni 9.0: Spielmann, Swiderski 8.5: Johner ------------------- <Stage 4> This stage, held from June 29th - July 2nd, consisted of play within each group that completed the round-robin among the remaining players. The top nine overall scorers are advanced. It is not clear if the leader within each group advanced, but in the event, there were three qualifiers from Groups A and C, two from Group B, and one from Group D. Swiderski made a spirited effort to qualify by sweeping Group D, but fell a half-point short. Maroczy was also perfect in Group B while Group C was a tie-breaker's nightmare. The big surprise of Group A was Janowski's collapse, foreshadowing his poor performance in the finals. <Results of Stage 4> table[ Group A A1 A2 A3 A4 Stage Prev Total A1 Bernstein X ½ 1 1 2.5 12.0 14.5 Advanced A2 Burn ½ X ½ 1 2.0 12.0 14.0 Advanced A3 Janowski 0 ½ X 0 0.5 12.5 13.0 Advanced A4 Leonhardt 0 0 1 X 1.0 10.5 11.5 Eliminated ]table table[ Group B B1 B2 B3 B4 Stage Prev Total B1 Maroczy X 1 1 1 3.0 12.5 15.5 Advanced B2 Rubinstein 0 X 1 ½ 1.5 12.5 14.0 Advanced B3 Fahrni 0 0 X 1 1.0 9.5 10.5 Eliminated B4 Johner 0 ½ 0 X 0.5 8.5 9.0 Eliminated ]table table[ Group C C1 C2 C3 C4 Stage Prev Total C1 Marshall X ½ 0 1 1.5 11.5 13.0 Advanced C2 Teichmann ½ X ½ ½ 1.5 11.5 13.0 Advanced C3 Perlis 1 ½ X 0 1.5 11.0 12.5 Advanced C4 Spielmann 0 ½ 1 X 1.5 9.0 10.5 Eliminated ]table table[ Group D D1 D2 D3 D4 Stage Prev Total D1 Schlechter X 0 1 ½ 1.5 13.5 15.0 Advanced D2 Swiderski 1 X 1 1 3.0 9.0 12.0 Eliminated D3 Znosko-Borovsky 0 0 X 1 1.0 11.0 12.0 Eliminated D4 Salwe ½ 0 0 X 0.5 11.0 11.5 Eliminated ]table <Overall Standings after Stage 4> 15.5: Maroczy 15.0: Schlechter 14.5: Bernstein 14.0: Burn, Rubinstein 13.0: Janowski, Marshall, Teichmann 12.5: Perlis --- 12.0: Swiderski, Znosko-Borovsky 11.5: Leonhardt, Salwe 10.5: Fahrni, Spielmann 9.0: Johner ----- Stage 5 was played from July 3rd-12th, consisting of a round-robin among the remaining nine players (who thus played a double round-robin within themselves). Maroczy came in with the lead and promptly won his first two games to stretch it to 1.5 points. However, he was unable to win another game for the rest of the tournament. Schlecter steadily made his way to the top, and had a point lead going into the last round; however, he also had the bye in that round. This gave Maroczy a chance to catch up, but he grew disconcerted by time pressure, missed a simple winning shot, and went on to lose. <Results of Stage 5> table[ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Prev Total 1 Schlechter X ½ 1 ½ ½ ½ 1 1 1 6.0 15.0 21.0 2 Maroczy ½ X ½ ½ 0 ½ ½ 1 1 4.5 15.5 20.0 3 Rubinstein 0 ½ X ½ 1 ½ ½ 1 1 5.0 14.0 19.0 4 Teichmann ½ ½ ½ X 0 1 1 1 ½ 5.0 13.0 18.0 5 Bernstein ½ 1 0 1 X 0 ½ ½ 0 3.5 14.5 18.0 6 Burn ½ ½ ½ 0 1 X ½ 0 1 4.0 14.0 18.0 7 Marshall 0 ½ ½ 0 ½ ½ X ½ 1 3.5 13.0 16.5 8 Janowski 0 0 0 0 ½ 1 ½ X 1 3.0 13.0 16.0 9 Perlis 0 0 0 ½ 1 0 0 0 X 1.5 12.5 14.0 ]table The following crosstable displays the results for all thirty-six players. Players in the Fifth Stage, who played each other twice during the tournament have the results displayed in the order played. A minus sign (-) indicates the two players did not meet. Ties are broken by the Berger system, a forerunner of the Sonnenborn-Berger system, by taking into account the scores of each defeated and drawn opponent. table[ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total SB 1 Schlechter ** ½½ ½1 0½ 0½ 1½ ½1 11 11 0 1 ½ 1 ½ 1 1 - - 1 ½ - - ½ 1 - 1 - ½ - 1 - - - - - - 21.0/30 2 Maroczy ½½ ** 1½ ½½ 10 0½ 1½ 11 ½1 1 0 ½ ½ ½ 1 1 1 0 - - 1 1 - - - 1 - ½ - 1 - - - - - - 20.0/30 3 Rubinstein ½0 0½ ** ½½ ½1 1½ 1½ 01 ½1 1 ½ 0 0 1 1 ½ ½ 1 - - 1 1 - - ½ - - - - - - - - 1 1 - 19.0/30 4 Teichmann 1½ ½½ ½½ ** ½0 ½1 ½1 11 ½½ 0 ½ ½ 0 ½ ½ 1 1 0 - - ½ 1 - - - - ½ - - - - 1 1 - - - 18.0/30 233.50 5 Bernstein 1½ 01 ½0 ½1 ** ½0 1½ 1½ ½0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 - - 1 1 - - ½ 1 - - - - 0 - 1 - - - - 1 18.0/30 223.25 6 Burn 0½ 1½ 0½ ½0 ½1 ** 0½ ½0 11 1 0 ½ 1 1 1 1 - - ½ ½ - - ½ ½ - - - - 1 - 1 - - - - 1 18.0/30 208.75 7 Marshall ½0 0½ 0½ ½0 0½ 1½ ** 1½ 01 1 1 0 ½ 1 ½ 1 ½ 1 - - 0 1 - - - - ½ - - - - 1 1 - - - 16.5/30 8 Janowski 00 00 10 00 0½ ½1 0½ ** 11 1 1 1 0 ½ ½ 1 - - 0 1 - - 1 ½ - - - - 1 - 1 - - - - 1 16.0/30 9 Perlis 00 ½0 ½0 ½½ ½1 00 10 00 ** ½ 0 1 ½ 0 ½ 1 0 1 - - 1 1 - - - - 1 - - - - 1 1 - - - 14.0/30 10 Swiderski 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 ½ * 1 1 ½ 0 1 1 - - 1 0 - - ½ 1 - 0 - 1 - ½ - - - - - - 12.0/22 133.75 11 Znosko-Borovsky 0 1 ½ ½ 0 1 0 0 1 0 * 1 1 1 0 ½ - - 0 ½ - - ½ ½ - 1 - 1 - 1 - - - - - - 12.0/22 127.75 12 Salwe ½ ½ 1 ½ 0 ½ 1 0 0 0 0 * 1 ½ 1 0 - - ½ 1 - - 1 ½ - 0 - 1 - 1 - - - - - - 11.5/22 127.00 13 Leonhardt 0 ½ 1 1 0 0 ½ 1 ½ ½ 0 0 * ½ 0 0 - - ½ ½ - - 1 1 - - - - 1 - 1 - - - - 1 11.5/22 114.50 14 Spielmann ½ ½ 0 ½ 1 0 0 ½ 1 1 0 ½ ½ * 0 ½ ½ 1 - - ½ ½ - - - - 0 - - - - ½ 1 - - - 10.5/22 119.75 15 Fahrni 0 0 0 ½ 1 0 ½ ½ ½ 0 1 0 1 1 * 1 ½ 0 - - ½ 0 - - ½ - - - - - - - - 1 1 - 10.5/22 106.50 16 Johner 0 0 ½ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ½ 1 1 ½ 0 * 1 1 - - ½ 0 - - 1 - - - - - - - - 1 1 - 9.0/22 72.00 17 Blackburne - 0 ½ 0 - - ½ - 1 - - - - ½ ½ 0 * - ½ 1 - - 1 1 - - - - 1 - ½ - - - - 1 9.0/15 69.25 18 Duras - 1 0 1 - - 0 - 0 - - - - 0 1 0 - * 1 0 - - 1 ½ - - - - 1 - ½ - - - - 1 8.0/15 69.75 19 Mieses 0 - - - 0 ½ - 1 - 0 1 ½ ½ - - - ½ 0 * - 1 0 - - - - 1 - - - - 1 1 - - - 8.0/15 67.50 20 John ½ - - - 0 ½ - 0 - 1 ½ 0 ½ - - - 0 1 - * ½ 0 - - ½ - - - - - - - - 1 1 - 7.0/15 21 Chigorin - 0 0 ½ - - 1 - 0 - - - - ½ ½ ½ - - 0 ½ * - 0 1 - 1 - 0 - 1 - - - - - - 6.5/15 56.50 22 Wolf - 0 0 0 - - 0 - 0 - - - - ½ 1 1 - - 1 1 - * 1 0 - 0 - ½ - ½ - - - - - - 6.5/15 48.75 23 Suechting ½ - - - ½ ½ - 0 - ½ ½ 0 0 - - - 0 0 - - 1 0 * - - - 1 - - - - 1 ½ - - - 6.0/15 24 Marco 0 - - - 0 ½ - ½ - 0 ½ ½ 0 - - - 0 ½ - - 0 1 - * ½ - - - - - - - - ½ 1 - 5.5/15 25 Balla - ½ ½ - - - - - - - - - - - ½ 0 - - - ½ - - - ½ * - - - 1 - ½ - - - - 1 5.0/ 9 26 Post 0 - - - - - - - - 1 0 1 - - - - - - - - 0 1 - - - * 0 - - - - 1 0 - - - 4.0/ 9 27 Taubenhaus - - - ½ - - ½ - 0 - - - - 1 - - - - 0 - - - 0 - - 1 * ½ - 0 - - - - - - 3.5/ 9 28 Lewitt ½ - - - - - - - - 0 0 0 - - - - - - - - 1 ½ - - - - ½ * - - - 0 ½ - - - 3.0/ 9 23.00 29 Cohn - - - - 1 0 - 0 - - - - 0 - - - 0 0 - - - - - - 0 - - - * - - - - 1 1 - 3.0/ 9 21.00 30 Maliutin 0 - - - - - - - - ½ 0 0 - - - - - - - - 0 ½ - - - - 1 - - * - 0 1 - - - 3.0/ 9 14.75 31 Forgacs - - - - 0 0 - 0 - - - - 0 - - - ½ ½ - - - - - - ½ - - - - - * - - ½ 1 - 3.0/ 9 13.00 32 Sournin - - - 0 - - 0 - 0 - - - - ½ - - - - 0 - - - 0 - - 0 - 1 - 1 - * - - - - 2.5/ 9 33 Reggio - - - 0 - - 0 - 0 - - - - 0 - - - - 0 - - - ½ - - 1 - ½ - 0 - - * - - - 2.0/ 9 8.50 34 Oskam - 0 0 - - - - - - - - - - - 0 0 - - - 0 - - - ½ - - - - 0 - ½ - - * - 1 2.0/ 9 4.25 35 Gattie - 0 0 - - - - - - - - - - - 0 0 - - - 0 - - - 0 - - - - 0 - 0 - - - * 1 1.0/ 9 36 Saburov - - - - 0 0 - 0 - - - - 0 - - - 0 0 - - - - - - 0 - - - - - - - - 0 0 * 0.0/ 9 ]table <Prizes and the prize fund> One of Gunsberg's primary aims was to ensure that all of the players receive some recompense for participating in the tournament even if they fell outside of the prizes. <"At the farewell banquet. M. Pécher (President Tournament Committee) in the chair, M. Marquet, the lessee of the Kursaal, was present, as well as the prize-winners and the Committee. M. Marquet distributed the prizes, and, in complimenting MM. Pécher and De Lannoy upon the success of the Congress promised to endow next year's Congress with 40,000 fr. MM. Pécher responded for the Committee and Mr. Hoffer for the Foreign Committee and the Masters. It might be added that ...950 fr. have been distributed at the conclusion of the first part of the tournament, 1,545 fr. at the second stage, and 2,100 fr. at the third stage... Special remunerations for exceptional games and additional prizes have been provided by donations from Professor Rice, 700 fr.; Mr. F. G. Naumann, 600 fr.; Baron Rothschild of Vienna. 5001 fr.; MM. Pécher, 200 fr.; and 100 fr. each from Herren Oppenheim, Hallgarten, Rosenfeld, and from Professor Reinhold Begas of Berlin, and Baroness Greindl of Ghent; and 50fr. each from Mr. W. M. Gattie, Herr Oskarm, Signor Reggio. and M. Subouraff."> [(5)] The tournament committee paid for board and lodgings. The prize winners' rewards were then calculated using the <Tietz system> devised by Viktor Tietz the Carlsbad tournaments' organizer. The prize fund allocate to the prizewinners was in proportion to the points they collectively accrued against the total number of possible points. The remaining money left in the prize fund (board and lodgings and prizewinners having already been apportioned) was divided amongst the non-prize winners. They received about 25 francs (£1) per game (£130 or $155 in 2022 values). <The prize winners> 1st: Schlechter (4,000 francs, £160 and a gold medal). Schlechter's prize would be the equivalent of £20,700 or $24,640 in 2022 values [(6)]. It appears that Schlechter did not submit any of his games for subsidiary prizes. . <Schlechter was the one competitor who accepted all things and all arrangements with equanimity amounting almost to indifference. Everything was right for him and nothing amiss, and this man, who apparently paid such little regard to his interests, was the winner of the first prize. Schlechter also showed us the generous side of his nature by declining to compete for any of the brilliancy prizes, for which he undoubtedly would have had the best chance. "I have won enough", he said. "Let others get something too."> [(7)] The well-known chess journalist Leopold Hoffer considered Schlechter vs Janowski, 1906 Schlechter's best game in the tournament and well worthy of a brilliancy prize. 2nd: Maroczy (2,500 francs, £100) 3rd: Rubinstein (1,500 francs, £60) 4th-6th: Bernstein, Burn, Teichmann (each 833 francs, £33) 7th: Marshall (600 francs, £24) 8th: Janowski (500 francs, £20) 9th: Perlis (400 francs, £16) <The exceptional games prizes> Blackburne vs W John, 1906 (125 francs) Janowski vs Salwe, 1906 (125 francs) Swiderski vs Marshall, 1906 (125 francs) Burn vs P Johner, 1906 (100 francs) Maroczy vs Blackburne, 1906 (100 francs) P Leonhardt vs H Suechting, 1906 (50 francs) H Wolf vs G Marco, 1906 (50 francs) Janowski vs J Mieses, 1906 (50 francs) J Perlis vs Salwe, 1906 (50 francs) A Reggio vs E Post, 1906 (50 francs) Swiderski vs Spielmann, 1906 (50 francs) Spielmann vs Taubenhaus, 1906 (50 francs) H Wolf vs W John, 1906 (50 francs) Burn vs Znosko-Borovsky, 1906 (50 francs) <Venue> <"The tournament took place in Club Privé within The Kursaal, part of a substantial complex of halls and pavilions on the Ostend seafront. The rooms which were at the disposal of last year's tournament not being available, M. Marquet placed the magnificent atrium of the Privat Club in the Kursaal at the disposal of the players. It is a lofty circular of noble dimensions, which even the rich Casino at Monte Carlo cannot rival. The staircase in the centre, constructed entirely of onyx, is a chef-d'oeuvre (a masterpiece - e.d) of architecture in itself. The players are arranged around the hall, which is simply an ideal one for chess players. All the players had to be duly elected members of the private club under the rules."> [(8)] <Missing games> There is no complete tournament book. Georg Marco, the editor of the "Wiener Schachzeitung", published one volume of games, but he was unable to complete the project and the many game scores have subsequently been lost. The games had to be found by painstakingly scouring newspaper columns, most of the work being done by A.J.Gillam and Nick Pope. <Other tournaments> Ostende 1906 was a true festival of chess. There were two amateur tournaments, a woman's tournament, a Rice Gambit Tournament, and a Patron's tournament. <Contemporary reaction:> Apart from criticism of the cumbersome and exhausting <sectional> pairing system, there was a note of optimism that many strong younger players were establishing themselves (although the British press lamented the lack of any British player emerging who would eventually match the stature of Joseph Blackburne). <"When the games of this competition are published in full there will be a rich treat in store for chess players. There has not been tournament late years in which so many smart and brilliant encounters have occurred as in this competition. Anyone passing from board to board can easily divine the cause of the sprightly character of the play. The young and beardless competitors predominate in this tournament. Paul Johner, a member of the Manhattan Chess Club, New York, is only eighteen years of age, and he was paired against Herr Oldrich Duras, a famous Bohemian problem composer, also a young man. Johner won brilliantly. Then again Leo Forgacs, formerly known as Fleischmann, though not much over twenty, has proved himself a very dangerous opponent...Rudolf Spielmann is another youthful player, who plays a very strong game, and will very likely hold his own through the various stages of this competition. Ossip Bernstein and Walter John and several others are all young men - some of the competitors even call them boys - but they all play very good chess. Another one in the young brigade, who but for this tournament would, perhaps, have remained a stranger to international chess, is Dr. Julius Perlis Vienna."> [(9)] <"A review of the whole tournament produces mixed emotions. The organization was open to debate as the knock-out system can be counted as a failed experiment - too many injustices happen within it... Among the games we know of, very few are really first class...Some games, especially between the strongest players, give the impression of unusual nervousness and strong variations in attitude. The percentage of won games by the victor (70%) is rather low. This shows that none of the masters excelled, but also proves that play was not consistent, perhaps because of the many weaker players who took part in the early stages. Of the young players, Akiba Rubinstein excelled, whereas Bernstein was not able to fulfill the hopes of his friends. David Janowski and Frank Marshall achieved far less than might have been expected. The achievement of the senior master Amos Burn was splendid..."> [(10)] As for the victor O Bernstein vs Schlechter, 1906, according to the tournament's organizer Gunsberg: <"He displayed combinative powers and imaginative enterprise of the highest order. Nothing can be imagined more different than the strategy which he adopted at Ostend to his former Fabian [(11)] conduct of play. Game after game Schlechter won under 30 moves and in the most most beautiful style, and with an ease which clearly marks him out as a great master of the art of chess. Take, for example, his game against Rubinstein - Rubinstein vs Schlechter, 1906. Like in many other games there seemed nothing the matter with the position after about 20 moves; in fact, Rubinstein himself confessed that he was devoting a great deal of time to meditating as how he could avoid the draw. Half a dozen moves later he resigned. He had a lost game, but was totally unsuspicious of the fine piece of combative strategy which Schlechter evolved out of an apparently sterile position."> [(12)] <Notes> [(1)]. "Ostende 1906", A. J. Gillam, Caissa Editions, 2005. "The Masters' Tourney" extract is from p.62-63. [(2)]."Weekly Journal" (Hartlepool, UK), Friday 6th July 1906, p.11. [(3)]. "Westminster Gazette" (London, UK), Saturday 16 June 1906 p.18. [(4)]. "British Chess Magazine", July 1906, p.298. [(5)]. "Westminster Gazette" (London, UK), Saturday 21st July 1906, p.14 [(6)]. See https://www.in2013dollars.com/ [(7)]. Isidor Gunsberg in the "The Year Book of Chess 1907", quoted in Gillam ibid p.68. [(8)]. "The Field" (London, UK), Saturday 9th June 1906, p.56. [(9)]. "Weekly Irish Times" (Dublin, Ireland), Saturday 23rd June 1906, p.18 [(10)]. Extract from "Münchner Neueste Nachrichten",(Munich, Germany) July 15th 1906, quoted in Gillam ibid p.433. [(11)]. A reference to the Roman statesman and general Quintus Fabius Maximus Verrucosus. He was known as Cunctator, "The Delayer", arising from the strategy he employed against Hannibal during the Second Punic War [(12)]. Gunsberg quoted in "Carl Schlechter! Life and times of the Austrian Chess Wizard." Warren Goldman, Caissa Editions, 1994. p. 242. [The credit for this collection belongs to User: Phony Benoni. This is a cloned collection using the original work of the late User: Phony Benoni (David Moody). Before he died, David Moody uploaded the missing games to the database, compiled the results round by round and built the cross-tables. He also had written an unfinished draft of the introductory text. I - User: Chessical - have lightly edited his text and then added some further material. Thanks to User: chesshistoryinterest for his corrections to the first draft and suggestions for improvements in presenting the results.] 231 games, 1906 Ostend 1906 -- Details of Games and Results The numbers are those assigned by Gillam ("Ostende 1906 International Chess Tournament", Caissa Editions, 2005). A single asterisk following an entry represents a game score from Gillam which is not yet in the database and will be submitted. Two asterisks following an entry (**) indicate a game for which neither Gillam nor <CG> has a score. No asterisks indicate a game already in the <CG> database. Games 1-326 (stages 1 - 5) have been checked to see if they are in the database. Game Collection: Ostend 1906 is the working file containing games in the <CG> database. --- <ROUND 1 (Stage 1, Round 1, Tuesday, June 5)> [[Group C]] vs. [[Group D]] 1 Suechting 1 Chigorin 2 Mieses 1 Reggio 3 Spielmann 1/2 Schlechter 4 Marshall 1 Sournin 5 Post 0 Znosko-Borovsky 6 Maliutin 1/2 Wolf 7 Perlis 1 Salwe 8 Lewitt 0 Swiderski 9 Teichmann 1/2 Taubenhaus <Scores after ROUND 1> [[Group A]]: Total, 4.5/9 1.0: Blackburne, Janowski, Leonhardt 0.5: Balla, Burn, Duras 0.0: Benstein, Gatie, Oskam [[Group B]]: Total, 4/5/9 1.0: Fahrni, Maroczy, Rubinstein 0.5: Forgacs, John, Marco 0.0: Cohn, Johner, Saburov [[Group C]]: Total, 55/9 1.0: Marshall, Mieses, Perlis, Suechting 0,5: Maliutin, Spielmann, Teichmann 0.0: Lewitt, Post [[Group D]]: Total, 3.5/9 1.0: Swiderski, Znosko-Borovsky 0.5: Swiderski, Taubenhuas, Wolf 0.0: Chigorin, Reggio, Salwe, sournin <Top Scorers overall> 1.0: Blackburne, Fahrni, Janowski, Leonhardt. Maroczy, Marshall, Mieses, Perlis, Rubinstein, Spielmann, Swiderski, Znosko-Borovsky [[Group A]] vs. [[Group B]] 10 Blackburne 1 Cohn 11 Duras 1/2 Marco 12 Gattie 0 Maroczy 13 Burn 1/2 John 14 Bernstein 0 Fahrni 15 Janowski 1 Johner 16 Oskam 0 Rubinstein 17 Leonhardt 1 Saburov 18 Balla 1/2 Forgacs --- <ROUND 2 (Stage 1, Round 2, Wednesday, June 6)> [[Group C]] vs. [[Group D]] 19 Schlechter 0 Teichmann 20 Swiderski 0 Spielmann 21 Taubenhaus 1/2 Marshall 22 Znosko-Borovsky 1 Mailutin 23 Wolf 1 Suechting 24 Reggio 1/2 Lewitt 25 Sournin 0 Post 26 Salwe 1/2 Mieses 27 Chigorin 0 Perlis [[Group A]] vs. [[Group B]] 28 Maroczy 0 Burn 29 Johner 1 Blackburne 30 Saburov 0 Oskam 31 Cohn 0 Duras 32 Forgacs 0 Bernstein 33 Marco 1 Gattie 34 Fahrni 1/2 Janowski 35 Rubinstein 1/2 Balla 36 John 1/2 Leonhardt <Scores after ROUND 2> [[Group A]] (10.0/18) 1.5: Burn, Duras, Janowski, Leonhardt 1.0: Balla, Bernstein, Blackburne, Oskam 0.0: Gattie [[Group B]] (8.0/18) 1.5: Fahrni, Marco, Rubinstein 1.0: John, Johner, Maroczy 0.5: Forgacs 0.0: Coh, Saburov [[Group C]] (11.0/18) 2.0: Perlis 1.5: Marshall, Mieses, Spielmann, Teichman 1.0: Post, Suechting 0.5: Lewitt, Maliutin [[Group D]] (7.0/18) 2.0: Znosko-Borovsky 1.5: Wolf 1.0: Swiderski, Taubenhaus 0.5: Reggio, Salwe, Schlechter 0.0: Sounin <Top Scorers overall> 2.0: Perlis, Znosko-Borovsky 1.5: Burn, Duras, Fahrni,, Janowski, Leonhardt. Marco, Marshall, Mieses, Rubinstein, Spielmann, Teichman, Wolf --- <ROUND 3 (Stage 1, Round 3, Thursday, June 7)> [[Group C]] vs. [[Group D]] 37 Teichmann 0 Swiderski 38 Perlis 1 Wolf 39 Mieses 1 Chigorin 40 Post 0 Taubenhaus 41 Spielmann 1 Reggio 42 Maliutin 0 Sournin 43 Marshall 1/2 Schlechter 44 Suechting 1/2 Znosko-Borovsky 45 Lewitt 0 Salwe [[Group A]] vs. [[Group B]] 46 Leonhardt 1/2 Maroczy 47 Duras 0 Johner 48 Balla 1 Saburov 49 Gattie 0 Cohn 50 Oskam 0 John 51 Janowski 1 Forgacs 52 Burn 1/2 Marco 53 Blackburne 1/2 Fahrni 54 Bernstein 1/2 Rubinstein <Scores after ROUND 3 3> [[Group A]] (14.0/27) 2.5: Janowski 2.0: Balla, Burn, Leonhardt 1.5: Bernstein, Blackburne, Duras 1.0: Oskam 0.0: Gattie [[Group B]] (13.0/27) 2.0: Fahrni, John Johner, Marco, Rubinstein 1.5: Maroczy 1.0: Cohn 0.5: Forgacs 9.0: Saburov [[Group C]] (15.0/27) 3.0: Perlis 2.5: Mieses, Spielmann 2.0: Marshall 1.5: Suechting, Teichmann 1.0: Post 0.5: Lewitt, Maliutin [[Group D]] (12.0/27)27 2.5: Znosko-Borovsky 2.0: Swiderski, Taubenhaus 1.5: Salwe, Wolf 1.0: Schlechter, Sournin 0.5: Reggio 0.0: Chigorin <Top Scorers overall after Round 3> 3.0: Perlis 2.5: Janowski, Mieses, Spielmann, Znosko-Borovsky 2.0: Balla, Burn, Fahrni, John, Johner, Leonhardt,Marco, Rubinstein, Swiderski, Taubenhaus --- <ROUND 4 (Stage 1, Round 4 (Friday, June 8)> [[Group C]] vs. [[Group D]] 55 Taubenhaus 0 Maliutin 56 Schlechter 1 Post 57 Swiderski 0 Marshall 58 Reggio 0 Teichmann 59 Salwe 1/2 Spielmann 60 Chigorin 0 Lewitt 61 Wolf 1 Mieses 62 Znosko-Borovsky 1 Perlis 63 Sournin 0 Suechting [[Group A]] vs. [[Group B]] 64 Rubinstein 0 Janowski 65 Saburov 0 Bernstein 66 John 1/2 Balla 67 Maroczy 1 Oskam 68 Marco 0 Leonhardt 69 Cohn 0 Burn 70 Johnere 1 Gattie 71 Duras 0 Fahrni 72 Forgacs 1/2 Blackburne <Scores after Round 4> [[Group A]] (20.0/36) 3.5: Janowski 3.0: Burn, Leonhardt 2.5: Balla, Bernstein. Duras 2.0: Blackburne 1.0: Oskam 0.0: Gattie [[Group B]] (16.0/36) 3.0: Johner 2.5: John, Maroczy 2.0: Fahrni, Marco, Rubinstein 1.0: Cohn, Forgacs 9.0: Saburov [[Group C]] (20.5/36) 3.0: Marshall, Perlis, Spielmann 2.5: Mieses, Suechting, Teichamnn 1.5: Lewitt, Maliutin 1.0: Post [[Group D]] (15.5/36) 3.5: Znosko-Borovsky 2.5: WOlf 2.0: Salwe, Schlechter, Swiderski, Taubenhaus 1.0: Sournin 0.5: Reggio 0.0: Chigorin <Top Scorers overall after ROUND 4> 3.5: Janowski, Znosko-Borovsky 3.0: Burn, Johner, Leonhardt, Marshall, Perlis, Spielmann, 2.5: Balla, Bernstein, Duras,Mieses, John, Maroczy, Swiderski, Suechting, Teichmann, Wolf --- <ROUND 5 (Stage 1, Round 5, Saturday, June 9)> Missing games, indicated by two asterisks (**), begin to appear in this round. [[Group C]] vs. [[Group D]] 73 Perlis 1 Sournin** 74 Marshall 1 Reggio** 75 Teichmann 1/2 Salwe** 76 Mieses 1 Znosko-Borovsky 77 Suechting 1 Taubenhaus 78 Spielmann 1/2 Chigorin** 79 Post 1 Swiderski 80 Lewitz 1/2 Wolf** 81 Maliutin 0 Schlechter [[Group A]] vs. [[Group B]] 82 Janowski 1 Saburov 83 Bernstein 1 John 84 Balla 1/2 Maroczy 85 Oskam 1/2 Marco 86 Leonhardt 1 Cohn 87 Duras 1/2 Forgacs** 88 Blackburne 1/2 Rubinstein** 89 Gattie 0 Fahrni** 90 Burn 1 Johner <Scores after Round 5> [[Group A]] (26.0/45) 4.5: Janowski 4.0: Burn, Leonhardt 3.5: Bernstein 3.0: Balla, Duras 2.5: Blackburne 1.5: Oskam 0.0: Gattie [[Group B]] (19.0/45) 3.0: Fahrni, Johner, Maroczy 2.5: John, Marco, Rubinstein 1.5: Forgacs 1.0: Cohn 0.0: Saburov [[Group C]] (27.0/45) 4.0: Marshall, Perllis 3.5: Mieses, Spielmann, Suechting 3.0: Teichmann 2.0: Lewitt, Post 1.5: Maliutin [[Group D]] (18.0/45) 3.5: Znosko-Borovsky 3.0: Schlechter, Wolf 2.5: Salwe 2.0: Swiderski, Taubenhaus 1.0: Sournin 0.5: Chigorin, Reggio <Top Overall Scores after ROUND 5> 4.5: Janowski 4.0: Burn, Leonhardt, Marshall, Perlis 3.5: Bernstein, Mieses, Spielmann, Suechting, Znosko-Borovsky --- <ROUND 6 (Stage 1, Round 6. Monday June 11)> [[Group C]] vs. [[Group D]] 91 Reggio 1 Post 92 Taubenhaus 0 Perlis 93 Znosko-Borovsky 1 Lewitt 94 Salwe 1 Marshall 95 Sournin 0 Miese* 96 Wolf 1/2 Spielmann 97 Swiderski 1/2 Maliutin 98 Chigorin 1/2 Teichmann 99 Schlechter 1/2 Suechting [[Group A]] vs. [[Group B]] 100 Maroczy 1 Bernstein 101 Johner 1 Leonhardt 102 Cohn 1 Oskam 103 Forgacs 1 Gattie 104 Fahrni 0 Burn 105 Saburov 0 Blackurne 106 John 0 Janowski 107 Rubinstein 1 Duras 108 Marco 1/2 Balla <Scores after Round 6> [[Group A]] (29.5/54) 5.5: Janowski 5.0: Burn 4.0: Leonhardt 3.5: Balla, Bernstein, Blackburne 3.0: Duras 1.5: Oskam 0.0: Gattie [[Group B]] (24.5/54) 4.0: Johner, Maroczy 3.5: Rubinstein 3.0: Fahrni, Marco 2.5: Forgacs, John 2.0: Cohn 0.0: Saburov [[Group C]] (31.0/54) 5.0: Perllis 4.5: Mieses 4.0: Marshall, Spielmann, Suechting 3.5: Teichmann 2.0: Lewitt, Maliutin, Post [[Group D]] (23.0/54) 4.5: Znosko-Borovsky 3.5: Salwe, Schlechter, Wolf 2.5: Swiderski 2.0: Taubenhaus 1.5: Reggio 1.0: Chigorin, Sournin <Top Overall Scores after ROUND 6> 5.5: Janowski 5.0: Burn, Perlis 4.5: Mieses, Znosko-Borovsky 4.0: Johner, Leonhardt, Maroczy, MarshallSpielman, Suechting --- <ROUND 7 (Stage 1, Round 7, Tuesday, June 12)> [[Group C]] vs. [[Group D]] 109 Mieses 1 Taubenhaus 110 Maliutin 1 Reggio 111 Post 1 Salwe 112 Teichmann 1 Wolf 113 Perlis 0 Schlechter 114 Marshall 0 Chigorin 115 Spielmann 0 Znosko-Borovsky 116 Lewitt 0 Sournin 117 Suechting 1/2 Swiderski [[Group A]] vs. [[Group B]] 118 Duras 1 Saburov 119 Balla 1 Cohn 120 Bernstein 1 Marco 121 Blackburne 1 John 122 Burn 1 Forgacs 123 Gattie 0 Rubinstein 124 Oskam 0 Johner 125 Leonahrdt 0 Fahrni 126 Janowski 0 Maroczy <Scores after Round 7> [[Group A]] (34.5/63) 6.0: Burn 5.5: Janowski 4.5: Balla, Bernstein, Blackburne 4.0: Duras, Leonhardt 1.5: Oskam 0.0: Gattie [[Group B]] (28.5/63) 5.0: Johner, Maroczy 4.5: Rubinstein 4.0: Fahrni 3.0: Marco 2.5: Forgacs, John 2.0: Cohn 0.0: Saburov [[Group C]] (35.5/63) 5.5: Mieses 5.0: Perllis 4.5: Suechting, Teichmann 4.0: Marshall, Spielmann 3.0: Maliutin, Post 2.0: Lewitt [[Group D]] (27.5/63) 5.5: Znosko-Borovsky 4.5: Schlechter 3.5: Salwe, Wolf 3.0: Swiderski 2.0: Chigorin, Sournin, Taubenhaus 1.5: Reggio <Top Overall Scores after ROUND 7> 6.0: Burn 5.5: Janowski, Mieses, Znosko-Borovsky 5.0: Johner, Maroczy, Perlis 4.5: Balla, Bernstein, Blackburne, Rubinstein, Schlechter, Suechting, Teichmann --- <ROUND 8 (Stage 1, Round 8, Wednesday, June 13)> [[Group C]] vs. [[Group D]] 127 Schlechter 1 Mieses 128 Salwe 1 Maliutin** 129 Chigorin 1 Post** 130 Swiderski 1/2 Perlis** 131 Wolf 0 Marshall** 132 Znosko-Borovsky 1/2 Teichmann** 133 Reggio 1/2 Suechting** 134 Sournin 1/2 Spielmann** 135 Tabuenhaus 1/2 Lewitt** [[Group A]] vs. [[Group B]] 136 Rubinstein 1 Burn 137 Johner 1 Balla 138 Maroczy 1 Blackburne 139 Forgacs 0 Leonhardt 140 John 1 Duras 141 Saburov 0 Gattie 142 Fahrni 1 Oskam 143 Cohn 1 Bernstein 144 Marco 1/2 Janowski* <Scores after Round 8> [[Group A]] (37.0/72) 6.0: Burn, Janowski 5.0: Leonhardt 4.5: Balla, Bernstein, Blackburne 4.0: Duras 1.5: Oskam 1.0: Gattie [[Group B]] (35.0/72) 6.0: Johner, Maroczy 5.5: Rubinstein 5.0: Fahrni 3.5: John, Marco 3.0: Cohn 2.5: Forgacs 0.0: Saburov [[Group C]] (39.0/72) 5.5: Mieses. Perlis 5.0: Marshall, Suechting, Teichmann 4.5: Spielmann 3.0: Maliutin, Post 2.5: Lewitt [[Group D]] (33.0/72) 6.0: Znosko-Borovsky 5.5: Schlechter 4.5: Salwe 3.5: Swiderski, Wolf 3.0: Chigorin 2.5: Sournin; Taubenhaus 2.0: Reggio <Top Overall Scores after ROUND 8> 6.0: Burn, Janowski, Johner, Maroczy, Znosko-Borovsky 5.5: Mieses, Perlis, Rubinstein, Schlechter 5.0: Fahrni, Leonhardt, Marshall, Suechting, Taubenhaus --- <ROUND 9 (Stage 1, Round 9, Thursday, June 14)> [[Group C]] vs. [[Group D]] 145 Perlis 1 Reggio 146 Marshall 1 Znosko-Borovsky 147 Teichmann 1 Sournin** 148 Mieses 0 Swiderski 149 Suechting 0 Salwe 150 Spielmann 0 Taubenhaus 151 Post 1 Wolf 152 Lewitt 1/2 Schlechter 153 Maliutin 0 Chigorin [[Group A]] vs. [[Group B]] 154 Janowski 1 Cohn 155 Burn 1 Saburov 156 Leonhardt 1 Rubinstein 157 Bernstein 1 Johner 158 Blackburne 1 Marco 159 Balla 1/2 Fahrni 160 Duras 1 Maroczy 161 Oskam 1/2 Forgacs 162 Gattie 0 John --- <ROUND 10 (Stage 2, Round 1, Friday, June 15> [[Group B]] vs. [[Group D]] 163 Johner 1 Salwe 164 Maroczy 1 Swiderski 165 Fahrni 1 Znosko-Borovsky 166 Rubinstein 1 Wolf** 167 John 1/2 Schlechter** 168 Marco 0 Chigorin [[Group A]] vs. [[Group C]] 169 Spielmann 1/2 Janowski 170 Mieses 1/2 Burn** 171 Teichmann 1 Blackburne 172 Perlis 1/2 Leonhardt** 173 Suechting 1/2 Bernstein 174 Marshall 1 Duras** <Scores after Round 10> [[Group A]] (2.0/6, Total 46.0/87) 7.5: Burn, Janowski 6.5: Leonhardt 6.0: Bernstein 5.5: Blackburne 5.0: Duras [[Group B]] (4.5/6; Total 41.5/87)) 7.0: Johner, Maroczy 6.5: Fahrni, Rubinstein 5.0: John 3.5: Marco [[Group C]] (4.0/6; Total 47.5/87) 7.0: Marshall, Perlis, Teichmann 6.5: Suechting 6.0: Mieses 5.0: Spielmann [[Group D]] (1.5/6; Total 39.0/87) 6.5: Schlechter 6.0: Znosko-Borovsky 5.0: Chigorin 5.5: Salwe 4.5: Swiderski 3.5: Wolf <Overall Scores> 7.5: Burn, Janowski 7.0: Johner, Maroczy, Marshall, Perlis, Teichmann 6.5: Fahrni, Leonhardt, Rubinstein, Schlechter 6.0: Bernstein, Mieses, Znosko-Borovsky 5.5: Blackburne, Salwe Suechting 5.0: Chigorin, Duras, John, Spielmann 4.5: Swiderski 3.5: Marco, Wolf <ROUND 11 (Stage 2, Round 2, Saturday, June 16)> [[Group B]] vs. [[Group D]] 175 Swiderski 1 JOhner** 176 Wolf 0 Maroczy** 177 Chigorin 1/2 Fahrni** 178 Schlechter 1/2 Rubinstein** 179 Znosko-Borovsky 1/2 JOhn** 180 Salwe 1/2 Marco** [[Group A]] vs. [Group C] 181 Janowski 0 Mieses 182 Burn 1 Perlis 183 Blackburne 11/2 Marshall** 184 Leonhardt 1 Teichmann 185 Bernstein 0 Spielmann 186 Duras 1 Suechting <Scores after Round 11> [[Group A]]: 3.5/6 (round), 5/12 (Stage). 49.5/93) (total) 8.5: Burn 7.5: Janowski, Leonhardt 6.0: Bernstein, Blackburne, Duras [[Group B]] 3.0/6 (round),7.5/12 (stage), 44.5/93 (total) 8.0: Maroczy 7.0: Fahrni, Johner, Rubinstein 5.5: John 4.0: Marco [[Group C]] 2.5/6 (round), 6.5/12 (stage), 50.0/93 (total) 7.5: Marshall 7.0: Mieses, Perlis, Teichmann 6.0: Spielmann 5.5: Suechting [[Group D]]: 3.0/6 (round), 4.5/12 (stage), 42.0/93 (total) 7.0: Schlechter 6.5: Znosko-Borovsky 6.0: Salwe 5.5: Chigorin, Swiderski 3.5: Wolf <Overall Scores> 8.5: Burn 8.0: Maroczy 7.5: Janowski, Leonhardt, Marshall 7.0: Fahrni, Johner, Mieses, Perlis, Rubinstein, Schlechter, Teichmann 6.5: Znosko-Borovskyt 6.0: Bernstein, Blackburne, Duras, Salwe, Spielmann 5.5: Chigorin, John, Suechting, Swiderski 4.0: Marco 3.5: Wolf <ROUND 12 (Stage 2, Round 3, Tuesday June 18)> [[Group B]] vs. [[Group D]] 187 Johner 0 Wolf** 188 Fahrni 0 Salwe** 189 Marco 0 Swiderski 190 Rubinstein 1/2 Znosko-Borovsky 191 John 1/2 Chigorin**; 192 Maroczy 1/2 Schlechter [[Group A]] vs. [[Group C]] 193 Suechting 0 Blackburne 194 Perlis 0 Janowski 195 Mieses 0 Bernstein 196 Spielmann 1 Duras** 197 Spielmann 1/2 Burn** 198 Marshall 1/2 Leonhardt <Scores after Round 12> [[Group A]]: 4.0/6 (round), 9.5/18 (Stage). 53.5/99) (total) 9.0: Burn 8.5: Janowski 8.0: Leonhardt 7.0: Gernstein, Blackburne 6.0: Duras [[Group B]] 1.5/6 (round), 9.0/18 (stage), 46.0/99 (total) 8.5: Maroczy 7.5: Rubinstein 7.0: Fahrni, Johner 6.0: John 4.0: Marco [[Group C]] 2.0/6 (round), 8.5/18 (stage), 52.0/99 (total) 8.0: Marshall 7.5: Teichmann 7.0: Mieses, Perlis, Spielmann 5.5: Suechting [[Group D]]: 4.5/6 (round), 9.0/18 (stage), 46.5/99 (total) 7.5: Schlechter 7.0: Salwe, Znosko-Borovsky 6.5: Swiderski 6.0: Chigorin <Overall Scores> 9.0: Burn 8.5: Janowski, Maroczy 8.0: Leonhardt, Marshall 7.5: Rubinstein, Schlechter, Teichmann 7.0: Bernstein, Blackburne, Fahrni, Johner, Mieses, Perlis, Salwe, Spielmann, Znosko-Brorvsky 6.5: Swiderski 6.0: Chigorin, Duras, John 5.5: Suechting 4.5: Wolf 4.0: Marco <ROUND 13 (Stage 2, Round 4, Monday, June 19)> [[Group B]] vs. [[Group D]] 199 Salwe 1 John** 200 Schlechter 1 Johner** 201 Wolf 0 Marco 202 Znosko-Borovsky 1 Maroczy** 203 Swiderski 1 Fahrni** 204 Chigorin 0 Rubinstein** [[Group A]] vs. [[Group C]] 205 Leonhardt 1 Suechting 206 Burn 0 Marshall 207 Janowski 0 Teichmann 208 Duras 1 Mieses** 209 Blackburne 1/2 Spielmann** 210 Bernstein 1/2 Perlis** <Scores after Round 13> [[Group A]]: 3.0/6 (round), 12.5/24 (Stage). 56.5/105) (total) 9.0: Burn, Leonhardt 8.5: Janowski 7.5: Bernstein, Blackburne 7.0: Duras [[Group B]] 2.0//6 (round), 11.0/24 (stage), 48.0/105 (total) 8.5: Maroczy, Rubinstein 7.0: Fahrni, Johner 6.0: John 5.0: Marco [[Group C]] 3.0/6 (round), 11.5/24 (stage), 55.0/105 (total) 9.0: Marshall 8.5: Teichmann 7.5: Perlis, Spielmann 7.0: Mieses 5.5: Suechting [[Group D]] 4.0/6 (round), 13.0/24 (stage), 50.5/105 (total) 8.5: Schlechter 8.0: Salwe, Znosko-Borovsky 7.5: Swiderski 6.0: Chigorin 4.5: Wolf <Overall Scores> 9.0: Burn, Leonhardt, Marshall 8.5: Janowski, Maroczy, Rubinstein, Schlecter, Teichmann 8.0: Salwe, Znosko-Borovsky 7.5: Bernstein, Blackburne, Perlis, Spielmann, Swiderski 7.0: Duras, Fahrni, Johner, Mieses 6.0: Chigorin, John 5.5: Suechting 5.0: Marco 4.5: Wolf <ROUND 14 (Stage 2, Round 5, Wednesday, June 20)> [[Group B]] vs. [[Group D]] 211 Maroczy 1 Chigorin 212 Marco 0 Schlechter* 213 Rubinstein 0 Salwe 214 Fahrni 0 WOlf 215 John 1 Swiderski 216 Johner 1/2 Znosko-Borovsky [[Group A]] vs. [[Group C]] 217 Marshall 1 Janowski 218 Teichmann 1/2 Bernstein 219 Suechting 1/2 Burn 220 Perlis 1 Duras 221 Spielmann 1/2 Leonhardt 222 Mieses 1/2 Blackburne <Scores after Round 14> [[Group A]] 2.0/6 (round), 14.5/30 (Stage). 58.5/111) (total) 9.5: Burn, Leonhardt 8.5: Janowski 8.0: Bernstein, Blackburne 7.0: Duras [[Group B]] 2.5//6 (round), 13.5/30 (stage), 50.5/111 (total) 9.5: Maroczy 8.5: Rubinstein 7.5: Johner 7.0: Fahrni, John 5.0: Marco [[Group C]] 4.0/6 (round), 15.5/30 (stage), 59.0/111 (total) 10.0: Marshall 9.0: Teichmann 8.5: Perlis 8.0: Spielmann 7.5: Mieses 6.0: Suechting [[Group D]] 3.5/6 (round), 16.5/30 (stage), 54.0/111 (total) 9.5: Schlechter 9.0: Salwe 8.5: Znosko-Borovsky 7.5: Swiderski 6.0: Chigorin 5.5: Wolf <Overall Scores> 10.0: Marshall 9.5: Burn, Leonhardt, Maroczy, Schlechter 9.0: Salwe, Teichmann 8.5: Janowski, Perlis, Rubinstein, Znosko-Borovsky 8.0: Bernstein, Blackburne, Spielmann 7.5: Johner, Mieses, Swiderski 7.0: Duras, Fahrni, John 6.0: Chigorin, Suechting 5.5: Wolf 5.0: Marco <ROUND 15 (Stage 2, Round 6, Thursday, June 21)> [[Group B]] vs. [[Group D]] 223 Salwe 1/2 Maroczy 224 Znosko-Borovsky 1/2 Marco** 225 Chigorin 1/2 Johner** 226 Swiderski 0 Rubinstein 227 Schlechter 1 Fahrni 228 Wolf 1 John [[Group A]] vs. [[Group C]] 229 Janowski 1 Suechting 230 Blackburne 1 Perlis 231 Leonhardt 1/2 Mieses 232 Duras 1 Teichmann 233 Bernstein 1 Marshall 234 Burn 1 Spielmann <Scores after Round 15> [[Group A]]: 5.5/6 (round), 20.0/36 (Stage). 64.0/117) (total) 10.5: Burn 10.0: Leonhardt 9.5: Janowski 9.0: Bernstein, Blackburne 8.0: Duras [[Group B]] 2.5//6 (round), 16.0/36 (stage), 53.0/117 (total) 10.0: Maroczy 9.5: Rubinstein 8.0: Johner 7.0: Fahrni, John 5.5: Marco [[Group C]] 0.5/6 (round), 16.0/36 (stage), 59.5/117 (total) 10.0: Marshall 9.0: Teichmann 8.5: Perlis 8.0: Mieses, Spielmann 6.0: Suechting [[Group D]] 3.5/6 (round), 20.0/36 (stage), 57.5/117 (total)4 10.5: Schlechter 9.5: Salwe 9.0: Znosko-Borovsky 7.5: Swiderski 6.5: Chigorin, Wolf <Overall Scores> 10.5: Burn, Schlechter 10.0: Leonhardt, Maroczy, Marshall 9.5: Janowski, Rubinstein, Salwe 9.0: Bernstein, Blackburne, Teichmann, Znosko-Borovsky 8.5: Perlis 8.0: Duras, Johner, Mieses, Spielmann 7.5: Swiderski 7.0: Fahrni, John 6.5: Chigorinm Wolf 6.0: Suechting 5.5: Marco ----------------- <ROUND 16 (Stage 3, Round 1 Saturday, June 23)> [[Group B]] vs. [[Group C]] 235 Maroczy 1 Marshall 236 Fahrni 1 Spielmann 237 Johner 0 Perlis** 238 Rubinstein 1/2 Teichmann** [[Group A]] vs. [[Group D]] 239 Schlechter 1 Burn 240 Znosko-Borovsky 0 Janowski** (position after W21) 241 Salwe 1 Leonhardt** 242 Swiderski 1 Bernstein <Scores after Round 16> From this point on standing within groups is irrelevant, since the final elimination after Stage 4 will be based on the total score. The top nine qualify for the final stage. 11.5: Schlechter 11.0: Maroczy 10.5: Burn, Janowski, Salwe 10.0: Leonhardt, Marshall, Rubinstein 9.5: Perlis, Teichmann 9.0: Bernstein, Znosko-Borovsky 8.5: Swiderski 8.0: Fahrni, Johner, Spielmann <ROUND 17 (Stage 3, Round 2 Monday, June 25)> [[Group B]] vs. [[Group C]] 243 Marshall 0 Rubinstein 244 Teichmann 1 Johner** 245 Perlis 1/2 Fahrni** 246 Spielmann 1/2 Maroczy** [[Group A]] vs. [[Group D]] 247 Burn 0 Znosko-Borovsky 248 Bernstein 1 Schlechter 249 Janowski 1 Salwe 250 Leonardt 1/2 Swiderski** <Scores after ROUND 17> 11.5: Janowski, Maroczy, Schlechter 11.0: Rubinstein 10.5: Burn, Leonhardt, Salwe, Teichmann 10.0: Bernstein, Marshall, Perlis, Znosko-Borovsky 9.0: Swiderski 8.5: Fahrni, Spielmann 8.0: Johner <ROUND 18 (Stage 3, Round 3 Tuesday, June 26))> [[Group B]] vs. [[Group C]] 251 Johner 0 Marshall** 252 Fahrni 1/2 Teichmann 253 Rubinstein 1 Spielmann** (position only) 254 Maroczy 1/2 Perlis** [[Group A]] vs. [[Group D]] 255 Swiderski 0 Janowski 256 Schlechter 1 Leonhardt** 257 Salwe 1/2 Burn 258 Znosko-Borovsky 0 Bernstein** <Scores after ROUND 18> 12.5: Janowski, Schlechter 12.0: Maroczy, Rubinstein 11.0: Bernstein, Burn, Marshall, Salwe, Teichmann 10.5: Leonhardt; Perlis 10.0: Znosko-Borovsky 9.0: Fahrni, Swiderski 8.5: Spielmann, 8.0: Johner <ROUND 19 (Stage 3, Round 4 Wednesday, June 27)> [[Group B]] vs. [[Group C]] 259 Marshall 1/2 Fahrni** 260 Spielmann 1/2 Johner** 261 Perlis 1/2 Rubinstein** 262 Teichmann 1/2 Maroczy** [[Group A]] vs. [[Group D]] 263 Janowski 0 Schlechter 264 Leonhardt 0 Znosko-Borovsky 265 Burn 1 Swiderski 266 Bernstein 1 Salwe <Scores after ROUND 19> 13.5: Schlechter 12.5: Janowski, Maroczy, Rubinstein 12.0: Bernstein, Burn 11.5: Marshall, Teichmann 11.0: Perlis, Salwe, Znosko-Borovsky 10.5: Leonhardt 9.5: Fahrni 9.0: Spielmann, Swiderski 8.5: Johner <ROUND 20 (Stage 4, Round 1, Friday, June 29)> [[Group A]] 267 Janowski 0 Bernstein 2681 Burn 1 Leonhardt [[Group B]] 269 Johner 1/2 Rubinstein** 270 Fahrni 0 Maroczy** [[Group C]] 271 Perlis 1 Marshall 272 Spielman 1/2 Teichmann** [[Group D]] 273 Salwe 1/2 Schlechter** 274 Swiderski 1 Znosko-Borovsky** <Overall Standings after ROUND 20> 14.0: Schlechter 13.5: Maroczy 13.0: Bernstein, Burn, Rubinstein 12.5: Janowski 12.0: Perlis, Teichmann 11.5: Marshall, Salwe 11.0: Znosko-Borovsky 10.5: Leonhardt 10.0: Swiderski 9.5: Fahrni, Spielmann 9.0: Johner The top nine qualify for the Finals in Stage 5. <ROUND 21 (Stage 4, Round 2, Saturday, June 30)> [[Group A]] 275 Leonhardt 1 Janowski 276 Bernstein 1/2 Burn** [[Group B]] 277 Fahrni 0 Rubinstein** (position ony) 278 Maroczy 1 Johner [[Group C]] 279 Marshall 1 Spielmann 280 Perlis 1/2 Teichmann** [[Group D]] 281 Schlechter 1 Znosko-Borovsky 282 Salwe 0 Swiderski** <Overall standings after ROUND 21> 15.0: Schlechter 14.5 Maroczy 14.0: Rubinstein 13.5: Bernstein, Burn 12.5: Janowski, Marshall, Perlis, Teichmann 11.5: Leonhardt, Salwe 11.0 Swiderski, Znosko-Borovsky 9.5: Fahrni, Spielmann 9.0: Johner The top nine qualify for the Finals in Stage 5. <ROUND 22 (Stage 4, Round 3, Monday, July 2)> [[Group A]] 283 Leonhardt 0 Bernstein 284 Burn 1/2 Janowski** [[Group B]] 285 Rubinstein 0 Maroczy** 286 Johner 0 Fahrni** [[Group C]] 287 Teichmann 1/2 Marshall** 288 Spielman 1 Perlis** [[Group D]] 289 Swiderski 1 Schlechter 290 Znoskl-Borovsky 1 Salwe** (position after B16) <Overall Standings after ROUND 22> 15.5: Maroczy 15.0: Schlechter 14.5: Bernstein 14.0: Burn, Rubinstein 13.0: Janowski, Marshall, Teichmann 12.5: Perlis -------------- 12.0: Swiderski, Znosko-Borovsky 11.5: Leonhardt, Salwe 10.5: Fahrni, Spielmann 9.0: Johner The top nine qualify for the Finals in Stage 5. <ROUND 23 (Stage 5, Round 1, Tuesday, July 3)> 291 Rubinstein 1 Bernstein 292 Teichmann 1/2 Schlechter** 293 Perlis 0 Burn** 294 Maroczy 1 Janowski Marshall-bye <Scores after Round 23> 16.5/23: Maroczy 15.5/23: Schlechter 15.0/23: Burn*, Rubinstein 14.5/23: Bernstein 13.5/23: Teichmann 13.0/22: Marshall 13.0/23: Janowski 12.5/13 : Perlis <ROUND 24 (Stage 5, Round 2 Wednesday, July 4)> 295 Janowski 0 Rubinstein 296 Perlis 0 Maroczy** 297 Marshall 1/2 Burn 298 Schlechter 1/2 Bernstein** Teichmann-bye <Scores after Round 24> 17.5/24: Maroczy 16.0/24: Rubinstein, Schlechter 15.5/24: Burn 15.0/24L Bernstein 13/5/23: Teichmann 13.5/23: Marshall 13.0/24: Janowski 12.5/24: Perlis <ROUND 25 (Stage 5, Round 3, Thursday, July 5)> 299 Marshall 1/2 Maroczy 300 Rubinstein 1 Perlis 301 Schlechter 1 Janowski 302 Bernstein 1 Teichmann Burn-bye <Scores after Round 25> 18.0/25: Maroczy 17.0/25: Rubinstein, Schlechter 16.0/25: Bernstein 15.5.24: Burn 14.0.24: Marshall 13.5/24: Teichmann 13.0/25: Janowski 12.5/25: Perlis <ROUND 26 (Stage 5, Round 4, Friday, July 6)> 303 Schlechter 1 Perlis 304 Teichmann 1 Janowski 305 Rubinstein 1/2 Marshall** 306 Burn 1/2 Maroczy** Bernstein-bye <Scores after Round 26> 18.5/26: Maroczy 18.0/26: Schlechter 17.5/26: Rubinstein 16.0/25: Bernstein, Burn 14.5/25: Marshall, Teichmann 13.0.25: Janowski 12.5.25 Perlis <ROUND 27 (Stage 5, Round 5 Saturday, July 7)> 307 Burn 1/2 Rubinstein** 308 Schlechter 1 Marshall 309 Teichmann 1/2 Perlis** 310 Bernstein 1/2 Janowski Maroczy-bye <Scores after Round 27> 19.0/27: Schlechter 18.5/26: Maroczy 18.0/27: Rubinstein 16.5/26: Bernstein, Burn 15.0/26: Teichmann 14.5/26: Marshall 13.5/27: Janowski 13.0: Perlis* <ROUND 28 (Stage 5, Round 6, Monday, July 9)> 311 Burn 1/2 Schlechter** 312 Marshall 0 Teichmann 313 Perlis 1 Bernstein** 314 Maroczy 1/2 Rubinstein** Janowski-bye <Scores after Round 28> 19.5/28: Schlechter 19.0/27: Maroczy 18.5/28: Rubinstein 17.0/27: Burn 16.5/27: Bernstein 16.0/27: Teichmann 14.5/27: Marshall 14.0/28: Perlis 13.5/27: Janowski <ROUND 29 (Stage 5, Round 7 Tuesday, July 10)> 315 Janowski 1 Perlis 316 Schlechter 1/2 Maroczy 317 Marshall 1/2 Bernstein** 318 Burn 0 Teichmann** (second (?) adjourned position) Rubinstein-bye <Scores after Round 29> 20.0/29: Schlechter 19.5/28: Maroczy 18.5/28: Rubinstein 17.0/28: Bernstein, Burn, Teichmann 15.0/28: Marshall 14.5/28: Janowski 14.0/29: Perlis <ROUND 30 (Stage 5, Round 8, Wednesday, July 11)> 319 Janowski 1/2 Marshall** 320 Burn 1 Bernstein 321 Maroczy 1/2 Teichmann** 322 Rubinstein 0 Schlechter Perlis-bye <Scores after Round 30> 21.0/30: Schlechter 20.0/29: Maroczy 18.5/29: Rubinstein 18.0/29: Burn 17.5;19: Teichmann 17.0/29: Bernstein 15.5/29: Marshall 15.0/29: Janowski 14.0/29: Perlis <ROUND 31 (Stage 5, Round 9, Thursday, July 12)> 323 Marshall 1 Perlis** 324 Bernstein 1 Maroczy 325 Teichmann 1/2 Rubinstein 326 Janowski 1 Burn Schlechter-bye <Results of Stage 5> table[ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Prev Total 1 Schlechter X ½ 1 ½ ½ ½ 1 1 1 6.0 15.0 21.0 2 Maroczy ½ X ½ ½ 0 ½ ½ 1 1 4.5 15.5 20.0 3 Rubinstein 0 ½ X ½ 1 ½ ½ 1 1 5.0 14.0 19.0 4 Teichmann ½ ½ ½ X 0 1 1 1 ½ 5.0 13.0 18.0 5 Bernstein ½ 1 0 1 X 0 ½ ½ 0 3.5 14.5 18.0 6 Burn ½ ½ ½ 0 1 X ½ 0 1 4.0 14.0 18.0 7 Marshall 0 ½ ½ 0 ½ ½ X ½ 1 3.5 13.0 16.5 8 Janowski 0 0 0 0 ½ 1 ½ X 1 3.0 13.0 16.0 9 Perlis 0 0 0 ½ 1 0 0 0 X 1.5 12.5 14.0 ]table table[ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total SB 1 Schlechter ** ½½ ½1 0½ 0½ 1½ ½1 11 11 0 1 ½ 1 ½ 1 1 - - 1 ½ - - ½ 1 - 1 - ½ - 1 - - - - - - 21.0/30 2 Maroczy ½½ ** 1½ ½½ 10 0½ 1½ 10 ½0 1 0 ½ ½ ½ 1 1 1 0 - - 1 1 - - - 1 - ½ - 1 - - - - - - 21.0/30 3 Rubinstein ½0 0½ ** ½½ ½1 1½ 1½ 01 ½1 1 ½ 0 0 1 1 ½ ½ 1 - - 1 1 - - ½ - - - - - - - - 1 1 - 19.0/30 4 Teichmann 10 ½½ ½½ ** ½0 ½1 ½1 11 ½½ 0 ½ ½ 0 ½ ½ 1 1 0 - - ½ 1 - - - - ½ - - - - 1 1 - - - 18.0/30 233.50 5 Bernstein 1½ 01 ½0 ½1 ** ½0 1½ 1½ ½0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 - - 1 1 - - ½ 1 - - - - 0 - 1 - - - - 1 18.0/30 223.25 6 Burn 0½ 1½ 0½ ½0 ½1 ** 0½ ½1 11 1 0 ½ 1 1 1 1 - - ½ ½ - - ½ ½ - - - - 1 - 1 - - - - 1 18.0/30 208.75 7 Marshall ½0 0½ 0½ ½0 0½ 1½ ** 1½ 01 1 1 0 ½ 1 ½ 1 ½ 1 - - 0 1 - - - - ½ - - - - 1 1 - - - 16.5/30 8 Janowski 00 00 10 00 0½ ½1 0½ ** 11 1 1 1 0 ½ ½ 1 - - 0 1 - - 1 ½ - - - - 1 - 1 - - - - 1 16.0/30 9 Perlis 00 ½0 ½0 ½½ ½1 00 10 00 ** ½ 0 1 ½ 0 ½ 1 0 1 - - 1 1 - - - - 1 - - - - 1 1 - - - 14.0/30 10 Swiderski 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 ½ * 1 1 ½ 0 1 1 - - 1 0 - - ½ 1 - 0 - 1 - ½ - - - - - - 12.0/22 133.75 11 Znosko-Borovsky 0 1 ½ ½ 0 1 0 0 1 0 * 1 1 1 0 ½ - - 0 ½ - - ½ ½ - 1 - 1 - 1 - - - - - - 12.0/22 127.75 12 Salwe ½ ½ 1 ½ 0 ½ 1 0 0 0 0 * 1 ½ 1 0 - - ½ 1 - - 1 ½ - 0 - 1 - 1 - - - - - - 11.5/22 127.00 13 Leonhardt 0 ½ 1 1 0 0 ½ 1 ½ ½ 0 0 * ½ 0 0 - - ½ ½ - - 1 1 - - - - 1 - 1 - - - - 1 11.5/22 114.50 14 Spielmann ½ ½ 0 ½ 1 0 0 ½ 1 1 0 ½ ½ * 0 ½ ½ 1 - - ½ ½ - - - - 0 - - - - ½ 1 - - - 10.5/22 119.75 15 Fahrni 0 0 0 ½ 1 0 ½ ½ ½ 0 1 0 1 1 * 1 ½ 0 - - ½ 0 - - ½ - - - - - - - - 1 1 - 10.5/22 106.50 16 Johner 0 0 ½ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ½ 1 1 ½ 0 * 1 1 - - ½ 0 - - 1 - - - - - - - - 1 1 - 9.0/22 72.00 17 Blackburne - 0 ½ 0 - - ½ - 1 - - - - ½ ½ 0 * - ½ 1 - - 1 1 - - - - 1 - ½ - - - - 1 9.0/15 69.25 18 Duras - 1 0 1 - - 0 - 0 - - - - 0 1 0 - * 1 0 - - 1 ½ - - - - 1 - ½ - - - - 1 8.0/15 69.75 19 Mieses 0 - - - 0 ½ - 1 - 0 1 ½ ½ - - - ½ 0 * - 1 0 - - - - 1 - - - - 1 1 - - - 8.0/15 67.50 20 John ½ - - - 0 ½ - 0 - 1 ½ 0 ½ - - - 0 1 - * ½ 0 - - ½ - - - - - - - - 1 1 - 7.0/15 21 Chigorin - 0 0 ½ - - 1 - 0 - - - - ½ ½ ½ - - 0 ½ * - 0 1 - 1 - 0 - 1 - - - - - - 6.5/15 56.50 22 Wolf - 0 0 0 - - 0 - 0 - - - - ½ 1 1 - - 1 1 - * 1 0 - 0 - ½ - ½ - - - - - - 6.5/15 48.75 23 Suechting ½ - - - ½ ½ - 0 - ½ ½ 0 0 - - - 0 0 - - 1 0 * - - - 1 - - - - 1 ½ - - - 6.0/15 24 Marco 0 - - - 0 ½ - ½ - 0 ½ ½ 0 - - - 0 ½ - - 0 1 - * ½ - - - - - - - - ½ 1 - 5.5/15 25 Balla - ½ ½ - - - - - - - - - - - ½ 0 - - - ½ - - - ½ * - - - 1 - ½ - - - - 1 5.0/ 9 26 Post 0 - - - - - - - - 1 0 1 - - - - - - - - 0 1 - - - * 0 - - - - 1 0 - - - 4.0/ 9 27 Taubenhaus - - - ½ - - ½ - 0 - - - - 1 - - - - 0 - - - 0 - - 1 * ½ - 0 - - - - - - 3.5/ 9 28 Lewitt ½ - - - - - - - - 0 0 0 - - - - - - - - 1 ½ - - - - ½ * - - - 0 ½ - - - 3.0/ 9 23.00 29 Cohn - - - - 1 0 - 0 - - - - 0 - - - 0 0 - - - - - - 0 - - - * - - - - 1 1 - 3.0/ 9 21.00 30 Maliutin 0 - - - - - - - - ½ 0 0 - - - - - - - - 0 ½ - - - - 1 - - * - 0 1 - - - 3.0/ 9 14.75 31 Forgacs - - - - 0 0 - 0 - - - - 0 - - - ½ ½ - - - - - - ½ - - - - - * - - ½ 1 - 3.0/ 9 13.00 32 Sournin - - - 0 - - 0 - 0 - - - - ½ - - - - 0 - - - 0 - - 0 - 1 - 1 - * - - - - 2.5/ 9 33 Reggio - - - 0 - - 0 - 0 - - - - 0 - - - - 0 - - - ½ - - 1 - ½ - 0 - - * - - - 2.0/ 9 8.50 34 Oskam - 0 0 - - - - - - - - - - - 0 0 - - - 0 - - - ½ - - - - 0 - ½ - - * - 1 2.0/ 9 4.25 35 Gattie - 0 0 - - - - - - - - - - - 0 0 - - - 0 - - - 0 - - - - 0 - 0 - - - * 1 1.0/ 9 36 Saburov - - - - 0 0 - 0 - - - - 0 - - - 0 0 - - - - - - 0 - - - - - - - - 0 0 * 0.0/ 9 ]table ----- The nine players in the final stage wound up playing a double-round tournament among themselves, one of Gunsberg's ideas in using this system. Here are the results of that tournament within a tournament: table[ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Total S/B 1 Schlechter ** 0½ ½½ ½1 0½ 1½ ½1 11 11 10.5/16 2 Teichmann 1½ ** ½½ ½½ ½0 ½1 ½1 11 ½½ 10.0/16 75.50 3 Maroczy ½½ ½½ ** 1½ 10 0½ 1½ 11 ½1 10.0/16 73.75 4 Rubinstein ½0 ½½ 0½ ** ½1 1½ 1½ 01 ½1 9.0/16 5 Bernstein 1½ ½1 01 ½0 ** ½0 1½ 1½ ½0 8.5/16 6 Burn 0½ ½0 1½ 0½ ½1 ** 0½ ½0 11 7.5/16 7 Marshall ½0 ½0 0½ 0½ 0½ 1½ ** 1½ 01 6.5/16 8 Janowski 00 00 00 10 0½ ½1 0½ ** 11 5.5/16 9 Perlis 00 ½½ ½0 ½0 ½1 00 10 00 ** 4.5/16 ]table The method of pairing also meant that the sixteen players in Stages 3 and 4 would play a round robin amongst themselves by the end of round 22. (They had also played seven games against players who had been eliminated.) As a curiosity, here is the crosstable for that "tournament": table[ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total S-B 1 Maroczy * ½ 1 0 1 ½ 1 1 0 1 1 ½ ½ ½ ½ 1 10.0 2 Schlechter ½ * 0 1 ½ 0 0 ½ 1 1 1 ½ ½ 1 1 1 9.5 3 Bernstein 0 1 * ½ ½ ½ 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 ½ 1 1 9.0 63.75 4 Burn 1 0 ½ * 0 ½ 1 0 0 ½ 1 ½ 1 1 1 1 9.0 62.50 5 Rubinstein 0 ½ ½ 1 * ½ 1 1 ½ 0 1 0 1 ½ 0 ½ 8.0 60.50 6 Teichmann ½ 1 ½ ½ ½ * 0 ½ ½ 1 ½ ½ ½ ½ 0 1 8.0 59.50 7 Swiderski 0 1 1 0 0 1 * 0 1 0 1 1 0 ½ ½ 1 8.0 57.00 8 Marshall 0 ½ 0 1 0 ½ 1 * 1 1 ½ 0 1 0 ½ 1 8.0 57.00 9 Znosko-Borovsky 1 0 0 1 ½ ½ 0 0 * 0 0 1 1 1 1 ½ 7.5 53.75 10 Janowski,David 0 0 0 ½ 1 0 1 0 1 * ½ 1 ½ 1 0 1 7.5 51.25 11 Fahrni 0 0 1 0 0 ½ 0 ½ 1 ½ * 0 1 ½ 1 1 7.0 12 Salwe ½ ½ 0 ½ 1 ½ 0 1 0 0 1 * ½ 0 1 0 6.5 50.00 13 Spielmann ½ ½ 1 0 0 ½ 1 0 0 ½ 0 ½ * 1 ½ ½ 6.5 48.75 14 Perlis,Julius ½ 0 ½ 0 ½ ½ ½ 1 0 0 ½ 1 0 * ½ 1 6.5 45.75 15 Leonhardt ½ 0 0 0 1 1 ½ ½ 0 1 0 0 ½ ½ * 0 5.5 16 Johner 0 0 0 0 ½ 0 0 0 ½ 0 0 1 ½ 0 1 * 3.5 ]table A crosstable of the scores in the intergroup play of stages 1-3: table[ A B C D Total A **** 44.0 20.0 8.0 72.0 B 37.0 **** 8.5 16.0 61.5 C 16.0 7.5 **** 43.5 67.0 D 7.0 20.0 37.5 **** 64.5 ]table 1 game, 1906 Petrosian - Huebner Candidates Quarterfinal 1971 Played in Seville, Spain, May 13th - 23rd 1971. <The players:> The favourite to win the match was Tigran Petrosian who had been the 9th World Chess Champion from 1963 until 1969. "...if Petrosian is physically well prepared, the young German won't be able to put much of a fight up against him". (Mikhail Botvinnik) [1] Although extremely strong tactically, Petrosian tended to prefer positional maneuvering to outright combinational play. In the opinion of Max Euwe : "Petrosian is not a tiger that pounces on its prey, but rather a python, that smothers its victim, or a crocodile, waiting for hours for a convenient moment to land a decisive blow. Petrosian is an outstanding strategist". [2] Robert Huebner was relatively unknown and had only gained his International Grandmaster's title at Palma de Mallorca Interzonal (1970) five months before. He had come joint second with Vlastimil Hort in the Athens zonal tournament of 1969. He shared second place (behind Bobby Fischer) with Efim Geller and Bent Larsen in the interzonal tournament Palma de Mallorca Interzonal (1970). According to William Hartston "(Huebner’s) perfectionist and rather pessimistic approach, however, prevented him from reaching the very top".[3] This seems particularly apt in relation to this match. Despite his evident talent, he did not seem to believe he could win the match, and said so openly. "He is quite modest and said that he is satisfied to make a 50% score (at the Palma de Mallorca interzonal 1970 - ed). He said that he is not very well acquainted with the openings and needs more practice in the international arena...His success has not gone to his head. He does not want to become a professional chess master because he thinks that would take all the fun out of chess. He would prefer to remain a "Burger" and enjoy chess only on his vacations. <He believes that he has not very good chances in the candidates right now because of his lack of experience>". (Pal Benko) [4]. Huebner had emerged as an elite player in a short period of three years. His strength was not yet fully appreciated, partly through his own self-deprecation. In an interview with Bent Larsen and Boris Spassky in November 1970, neither named him as one of the "best younger players". Instead, both mentioned Henrique Mecking and Walter Browne as the best young western players. [5] They had only played one previous game, Huebner vs Petrosian, 1971 ; Petrosian had won a pawn but Huebner had held a long ending. <Personnel:> Arbiter Harry Golombek assisted by Carlos Flores and Alfonso Campoy. Match sponsorship was provided by the "Caja de Ahorros de Sevilla" (Seville Savings Bank). Petrosian's second: GM Alexey Suetin (who was also his long-term trainer).[6] Huebner's second: IM Hans-Joachim Hecht (who was also his long-term trainer). <The venue and the conditions:> The final location for the match was decided with only weeks to go before its commencement. Huebner had expected to and wanted to play in Holland. Spain was a late choice and the German Federation had opposed the move. Moreover, the Soviet Federation had rejected the initial venue - a classroom in the university's Faculty of Law. [7] Although both teams checked the playing hall out prior to the match (as a result the air conditioning was serviced to quieten it down), they did not realise how much ambient noise would intrude from a busy thoroughfare outside the venue. The playing room was beneath pavement level. The noise both from outside and from the spectators disturbed and distressed Huebner more than Petrosian. The latter had poor hearing and used a hearing aid which he could switch off. "Petrosian was not affected by the sound but Huebner became more and more agitated and more and more distressed by the noise of the pounding feet overhead".[8] Despite Hubner requesting that further games be played in another room, Petrosian refused to move. [9] <The progress of the match:> "Petrosian tried to exclude risk and conquer his opponent with as little expenditure of energy as possible and by capitalizing on his vast match experience, his knowledge and his technique". (Boris Spassky) [10] table[ Petrosian 2640 ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ 1 ½ 5½ Huebner...2590 ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ 0 ½ 4½ ]table <Game 1> In the first game, Petrosian chose to defend in a passive manner. Petrosian instigated a chain of exchanges but Hubner retained the initiative and had good chances of winning. After Huebner missed two promising lines, Petrosian manoeuvred expertly to secure a draw. <Game 2> Petrosian, with White, gained an advantage with pressure against Huebner's Queen-side. Huebner held on and the game was drawn at the adjournment. <Game 3> "Hubner tried to blend two systems against the Sicilian, one with <Bc4> and the other with <f4>. This was an over-ambitious programme which Hubner was not to repeat. Petrosian freed his position and even gained the initiative..." [11] Huebner extricated himself from his problems brilliantly: click for larger view <21.Bc4!!> sacrificing his Queen for a Rook and Bishop in order to create a stronghold. <Game 4> Petrosian's cautious opening resulted in Huebner achieving rapid equality, and both players were content with a peaceful draw. <Game 5> A draw in only fourteen moves after Huebner achieved nothing from the opening. Petrosian was gaining the psychological initiative in the match. He had achieved his <safety first> strategy of waiting for his opponent to make a mistake. He would successfully repeat this strategy in his next Candidates match <Game 6> A draw in fifteen moves but taking 2 hours and 47 minutes! Huebner equalised with an unexpected 8th move. During this game, Huebner was first disturbed by sounds from outside of the playing hall, as a large number of pedestrians were passing overhead on their way to a local derby soccer match. [12] <Game 7> Petrosian offered a draw on move 19 which Huebner rejected. Then "Hubner offered a draw on move 25 which Petrosian rejected. Hubner in severe time trouble lost a piece on move 39 and resigned a move later". [13] click for larger view <39.Qc2??> loses the bishop, <39.Rb4> is equal. This loss from a drawn position precipitated the sudden and unexpected end of the match. <Hubner's withdrawal:> "In the 7th game the noise once again arose after one and a half hours of play, during the rush-hour in Seville. I informed Mr.Golombek that I was disturbed, but he took no action. With the advantage of hindsight I think now that I should have stopped play at this point and refused to play on in the match unless the room were changed. But at this stage my position was very advantageous, so I was unable to resolve on this course. Because of the noise I consumed more time than usual and on move 39 I blundered away a piece in a drawn position. During this game Mr.Golombek passed a statement from the Organisers to my second, Hecht, which described my protest from Game 6 as an attack of hysteria and which accused me of impolite behaviour towards the organisers. In addition they claimed that my protests were without foundation. Now it became clear to me that the rather cool attitude of the organisers from the very first towards me had been no accident (no rooms when we arrived at the hotel, delay of two days in Seville before they made contact with me, and so on). Since it was also clear that the organisers would do nothing to fulfill my justified demands, I decided not to play on and to leave Seville. In a final discussion I wanted to give the Organisers the opportunity to explain and excuse their behaviour, but they insisted on their previous statement and only calumniated me further… ...I would like to say that I do not blame Judge Golombek, who was in a difficult position, exposed to severe pressure from the Organisers and from the Soviet Delegation. I have compiled a detailed list of my complaints and submitted this to F.I.D.E., and in addition I have demanded a replay of the match under fair sporting conditions".(Huebner) [14] The German Chess Federation's president Ludwig Schneider accordingly lodged an official complaint after Huebner had telephoned him about his withdrawal from the match.[15] <Reaction:> The Soviet view was that Huebner had no practical chance to win the match when he had withdrawn. The Spanish newspaper "ABC", under the headline "Hubner's withdrawal has not surprised Soviet experts" quoted the Soviet international arbeiter Yakov Rokhlin . He highlighted Petrosian's "impregnable style" and stated: "It would take phenomenal talent, nerves of steel and great experience to attempt to defeat the former champion twice in three games...young Huebner has no such qualities...His only consolation is that Hubner achieved an honourable result in a difficult creative dispute, although he is 20 years younger than his opponent". [16] Petrosian stated; "I am not convinced of the reasons given for the withdrawal of my opponent. The example of the eccentricities of the young Fischer has spread into the values of youth today". [17] Newspaper reports also stated that Golombek and the local match organisers had tried to dissuade Huebner from withdrawing but they could not change his mind. Instead, he was prepared to suffer the consequences both "moral and financial" of his abandonment of the match. [18] According to the report in "Jaque" [19] Huebner's sudden and unexpected departure was not well-received in Seville; "The regrettable stance of the German, has left a bad taste in the mouths of the numerous Seville fans who did not deserve this un-sportsmanlike way of going on". <Outcome:> Overall, however, there had been general amazement for the strength of opposition Huebner had offered to Petrosian; the match had opened the world's eyes to Huebner's strength. Petrosian now faced Korchnoi, who had decisively beaten Efim Geller, in the Candidates Semi-Final match held in Moscow, July 1971. <Book of the match;> "Match de candidatos para el campeonato del mundo de ajedrez : Petrosjan-Hübner, Sevilla, Mayo de 1971", Federación Sevillana de Ajedrez, 1971. <Sources:> Compiled from the original games collection - Game Collection: WCC Index (Petrosian-Huebner 1971) - created by User: Hesam7 Dates for the games from contemporary newspaper reports in "ABC" and "British Chess Magazine", August 1971. [1] "Chess", vol.36, no.627-8, June 1971, p.263 [2] Euwe, quoted in "Garry Kasparov on my Great Predecessors, Part 2" p.180. [3] Hartston(1996), "The Guinness Book of Chess Grandmasters", p. 200. [4] Pal Benko, "Chess Life and Review, March 1971,p.125-126. [5] "Chess", vol.36, no.617-8, December 1970, p.103 [6] "Jaque", no.4, July 1971, p.2. [7] "ABC", 16 April 1971, p.65. [8] "British Chess Magazine", August 1971, No.8, Vol XCI, p.234 [9] "ABC", 25th May 1971, p.69. [10] Spassky, "Chess Life and Review, September 1971, p.493. [11] Golombek, "British Chess Magazine", August 1971, No.8, Vol XCI, p.232 [12] "The Canberra Times" Wednesday 30 June 1971, p.23 [13] "British Chess Magazine", August 1971, No.8, Vol XCI, p. 235. [14] "British Chess Magazine", August 1971, No.8, Vol XCI p.282 [15] "ABC" 25th May 1971, p.69. [16] "ABC", 26th May 1971, p.57. [17] "Edición del Wednesday", 26 May 1971, p.23 [18] "Edición del Wednesday", 26 May 1971, p.23 [19] "Jaque", no.4, July 1971, p.2. 7 games, 1971 Pilnik - Fridrik Olafsson 1955 <Introduction:> The first of two matches held in Reykjavik. This match, comprising of six games was from 24th November to 7th December 1955. Game 1 24th November 1955 Game 2 27th November 1955 Game 3 29th November 1955 Game 4 4th December 1955 Game 5 6th December 1955 Game 6 7th December 1955 [[(1)]] <The players> Herman Pilnik was en route from Gothenburg Interzonal (1955) as part of a circuit of European tournaments. He had become a Grandmaster in 1952 and had just tied for the 7-9th place along with Miroslav Filip and Boris Spassky and so had qualified for Amsterdam Candidates (1956) in the spring of 1956. Fridrik Olafsson was the emerging young superstar of Icelandic chess. At the age of 17 he had won the Icelandic Chess Championship in 1952 at his first attempt; the next year he won the championship again and also the Nordic Chess Championship. He qualified for the World Under 20 Championship final in Copenhagen, 1953, where he secured third place. He had played in his first international tournament at Hastings (1953/54) where he came fourth equal. In 1954, Olafsson played in the Marianske Lazne - Prague Zonal Tournament coming sixth. His first major international tournament victory was a shared first with Viktor Korchnoi at Hastings 1955–56. <The match arrangements> The match was held at the restaurant and night club Þórscafé on Laugavegur 105 or Hverfisgata 116 (there were entrances either street) in the Hlemmur district of Reykjavik [[(2)]] <Progress of the match> Pilnik had white in the odd-numbered games. This was a one-sided match with Olafsson winning 5-1 with four wins and two draws. The games were all played to win and were all sharp and combinational in character. table[ Round 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total Pilnik ½ 0 0 ½ 0 0 1 Olafsson ½ 1 1 ½ 1 1 5 ]table . <Progressive scores:> table[ Round 1 2 3 4 5 6 Pilnik ½ ½ ½ 1 1 1 Olafsson ½ 1½ 2½ 3 4 5]table <The Games> [[Game 1]] In the first game, Pilnik played a favourite system against Olafsson's Sicilian defence. Pilnik had the initiative with pressure against Olafsson's backward <d> pawn. Pilnik was unable to break through with his King-side attack, and a draw was agreed in a double rook and pawns endgame. [[Game 2]] The second game too was a Sicilian Najdorf defence using the latest theory. Olafsson with White played aggressively castling queenside. Later analysis showed that he was too ambitious. Pilnik gained the advantage but in a very sharp position, he kept missing decisive continuations. Eventually, click for larger view with <34...Rg3?> the tables turned and Olafsson won in short order. [[Game 3]] Olafsson defended with a Petrov defence, which was not part of his normal repertoire. He equalised easily, but once again he played extremely sharply and dangerously. click for larger view <13..Bxf3> would have kept the game on normal lines, but instead, with the confidence of youth, Olafsson played <13...g5?!>. Pilnik played too passively and Olafsson outplayed him, his attack smashing through on the king-side. [[Game 4]] Olafsson played the first and only English opening of the match. Pilnik, with two successive losses on his score, threw his <h> and <g> pawns forward. Olafsson should have won, but at the critical juncture missed click for larger view <31.Rh6!>, and this time it was Pilnik who was superior in navigating the complications to achieve a draw. <"Friðrik achieved a much better position in the fourth game but fell into a draw in a massive time scramble. Thus, the position was 3-1 to Fridrik in the match, so Pilnik had to win the two last games to catch up with his young opponent. But it went by another way: Friðrik played with the Grandmaster like a cat with a mouse and won both the games!"> [[(3)]] [[Game 5]] The third Sicilian of the match. Pilnik, as White, played a system with a king-side fianchetto and tried to build up a Kingside attack in the manner of the Closed Sicilian. click for larger view Pilnik could not land a decisive blow and ended up a pawn down with an insecure king. The ending was hopeless, but Pilnik played it out. Olafsson could have won more quickly, but the eventual result was never in doubt. Pilnik was now three games down. [[Game 6]] Despite being three games down. Pilnik was still fighting hard. He defended using a favourite system - the King's Indian. As in games two and three, the player's employed the latest opening theory. Pilnik had won a fine game using this line against the King's Indian, Samisch (E81) the year before - M Czerniak vs Pilnik, 1954. The variation Pilnik chose in this game left him in a compromised king but no corresponding benefit. Despite a desperate offer of the exchange, he had no counterplay and Olafsson confidently won. Olafsson's reputation was bolstered in defeating a world championship candidate although he remained an amateur preferring a career in law. Pilnik, although he had lost the match, left with a wife! He met Anna Erla Magnúsdóttir, and in December 1955, she moved with him to the Netherlands temporarily and then to Argentina. [[(4)]] Pilnik was not put off Iceland by the result of this match and in 1957 there would be a rematch. <Notes:> [[(1)]] http://skaksogufelagid.is/1955-einv... [[(2)]] https://glatkistan.com/2017/07/03/t... [[(3)]] "Morgunblaðið" quoted by http://skaksogufelagid.is/1955-einv... [[(4)]] "Vikan", 1987, issue 39, p.28 6 games, 1955 Pilnik - Olafsson 1957 <Introduction> This match played in Reykjavik in March 1957, was proposed by Herman Pilnik [[(1)]] during a visit to Iceland for the Reykjavik tournament in July. It was his opportunity to revenge his comprehensive 5 to 1 loss in Pilnik - Olafsson (1955). Once again, the two players played sharply in a ferocious match, with only one drawn game, but this time the result was much closer. Fridrik Olafsson had been in good recent form at the Moscow Olympiad and at Hastings (1956/57) Pilnik had finished last in the extremely strong Amsterdam Candidates (1956) (+1 -9 =8) but he rebounded and had come second at Beverwijk 1956 <Progress of the match> The match was of six games, if the match was tied at that stage two more games would be played. [[(1)]] Pilnik had white in the odd-numbered games. table[ Round 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Total Pilnik 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 ½ 3½ Olafsson 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 ½ 4½ ]table <Progressive scores:> table[ Round 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Pilnik 1 1 2 2 3 3 3 3½ Olafsson 0 1 1 2 2 3 4 4½ ]table <The Games> [[Game 1]] In a Ruy Lopez, Olafsson was outplayed from an equal position by Pilnik. Olafsson shed a pawn and then a second for no compensation as Pilnik pressed on with his attack. [[Game 2]] This was the longest game of the match, a marathon of 105 moves. This time it was Pilnik who was outplayed, but deep into the ending. click for larger view . Pilnik lost his passed pawn and then sacrificed his knight for a R v R+B ending. Pilnik held on for a long time but finally made a fatal move on move 98 click for larger view with <98...Rh4> which allowed Olafsson to weave a mating net. [[Game 3]] This is probably the best-known game of the match as Olafsson's blunder lost him a drawn game. By exchanging Queen's he was unable to deal with White's passed pawns on either wing and was a tempo short to queen his own passed <e> pawn successfully. click for larger view The score was now 2-1 in favour of Pilnik. [[Game 4]] After the longest game of the match came the shortest. Pilnik suddenly lost the thread of the game. Olafsson smashed through to Pilnik's king with a queen sacrifice ending the game in only 24 moves. click for larger view [[Game 5]] Olafsson as black equalized using the Dragon variation of the Sicilian Defence, but once again a mistaken exchange of Queens led to problems, in this case, his Rook being trapped on the king-side. click for larger view Despite losing the exchange, Olafsson fought on. When Pilnik returned the exchange for two powerful connected pawns on the king-side, the result was never in doubt. Pilnik now led 3-2 and would win the match if he could win the next game as black. [[Game 6]] This game resembled Game 4. Having lost the preceding game, Olafsson sprung back with a quick win against the Sicilian Defence. Once again Pilnik was overrun on the king-side. Pilnik seemed to have problems defending positions where his king was vulnerable click for larger view After <20..g6?>, Olafsson broke through in quick order. It seems surprising that he suffered such defeats in both games 4 and 6 as the Sicilian was his primary defence in his repertoire. The score was now equal and the match went into overtime. [[Game 7]] Olafsson defence with the Alekhine Defence, which was not one of his usual defences. He had introduced a novelty in the 1955 match by deploying a Petrov and now he repeated his psychological ploy. Both players followed what is still mainline theory and the position was dynamically equal when Pilnik blundered away a pawn. He had to defend a Rook and pawn ending a pawn down, but despite both players queening pawns, his King was driven towards a mating net. [[Game 8]] In the final game, Pilnik with black again chose the Sicilian despite his lack of success with this defence so far in the match. He used the Richter-Rauzer variation and secured equality. He could not achieve any more and as material was exchanged his chances of tying the match slowly faded away. The game was drawn after 71 moves giving Olafsson the match. <Notes:> [[(1)]]. http://skaksogufelagid.is/1957-einv... User: Chessical - original text and compilation. 8 games, 1957 Prague Candidates Reserve Playoff (1956) <Background:> This match arose from the Gothenburg Interzonal (1955) where Georgy Ilivitsky (34) and Ludek Pachman (31) and both scored +1, and shared 10-11th places. FIDE decided that this tie had to be resolved. If one of the players in Amsterdam Candidates (1956) had withdrawn, the winner of this match would have taken his place. (1) In the end, however, no substitutes were to be required. The Interzonal was scheduled to begin on the 27 March -and this play-off match took place in a mid-winter Prague, Sunday 8th - Tuesday 17th January 1956. (2) Fortunately, the weather was unusually mild (3). The match was held in two prestigious venues in the Czech capital: the auditorium of the Charles University Law Faculty (4) - http://www.prf.cuni.cz/res/dwe-gall... - with any adjournments being played in the clubhouse for the "State Committee for Physical Education and Sport". Designed by the architect Eduard Hnilička it is a key building of 1920's "modern classicism" - http://www.palacymca.cz/foto/ymca1.... This had been the Prague YMCA building (Na Poříčí 12, Prague New Town) (5) but was taken over in 1951 by the Communist government's "Central Committee of the Czechoslovak Union of Physical Education" (6). A "training tournament" consisting of young Czech players: Henryk Fabian, Vaclav Brat, Jiri Vesely, Jiri Podgorny, Karel Urbanec, Antonin Vyslouzil, Milan Bartosek, and Milos Altschul took place during this match. (7) <The participants:> Chessmetrics has Ilivitsky at 37th and Pachman 19th in the world ratings at the time. (8) Georgy Ilivitsky 's career was largely confined to internal Soviet events. An engineer by profession, he became an IM in 1955 and was twice Russian champion in 1948 and 1949. Ilivitsky was tenth in the USSR Championship (1948), and fourteenth in the USSR Championship (1952). His chess activity and playing strength was at its peak in the mid 1950's where he played at grandmaster level. Ilivitsky was fifth in the extremely strong USSR Championship (1955) which was also a zonal tournamant. This qualified him for the Gothenburg Interzonal (1955) Ilivitsky's second was IM Vladimir Alatortsev (9) a strong master who had acted as the second for Vasily Smyslov in the FIDE World Championship Tournament (1948). It is significant that Alatortsev was also an important Soviet chess official, in 1954 he had been appointed as the Chairman of the All-Union chess section. Ludek Pachman - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lud%C4... - had been Czechoslovak champion in 1946 and 1953, and had become a GM in 1954. In 1956, he brought out his "Moderne Schachtheorie" three volume series and he was a leading openings expert of the time. He took part in four successive interzonals from 1948 to 1958. He qualified for Gothenberg, by winning the Prague Zonal tournament 1954 scoring 15/19 <Progress of the match:> table[ Round 1 2 3 4 5 6 Ilivitsky, Georgy (USSR)IM ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ 1 3½ Pachman, Ludek (CZH) GM ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ 0 2½ ]table The games commenced at 4 pm. <Game 1> - Game 1 - Sunday, 8th January 1956 - played in the auditorium of the Charles University Law Faculty (10). This was a carefully played game in which Pachman as White could not achieve any significant advantage from the opening. <Game 2> - Game 2 - Monday, 9th January 1956 - played in the auditorium of the Charles University Law Faculty (11). Pachman played a line of the Nimzo-Indian which was topical in 1956-57 and quickly equalised. Neither player attempted to outplay the other and a draw was rapidly agreed in 18 moves. <Game 3> - Thursday 12th January 1956 - played in the auditorium of the Charles University Law Faculty (12) - http://www.prf.cuni.cz/res/dwe-gall.... This was the first substantial game of the match. The players had rested on Tuesday 10th and Wednesday 11th January (13). Ilivitsky chose a King's Indian defence, and the players employed cutting edge theory. Ilivitsky was under some pressure and the game was adjourned on move 42. It was resumed on Saturday 14th January in the clubhouse of the State Committee for Physical Education and Sport. Ilivitsky held the endgame of Bishop and Pawns a pawn down (14). <Game 4> - Friday 13th January - played in the auditorium of the Charles University Law Faculty (15) Ilivitsky's English opening secured a spatial advantage and some pressure along the <c> file. The position became locked by pawn chains and a draw was agreed. Ilivitsky had not made anything of his two Whites so far, and the balance of the match was lightly in Pachman's favour. <Game 5> Sunday, 15th January - played in the auditorium of the Charles University Law Faculty (16). The game was adjourned and resumed on Monday, 16th January at clubhouse of the State Committee for Physical Education and Sport (17). Pachman as White, having achieved nothing with <1.d4> changed to <1.e4>. Ilivitsky replied with a Sicilian system that Isaac Boleslavsky had been championing in 1956-57. Pachman built up considerable pressure and Ilivitsky had to defend sharply. He sacrificed a pawn although this denuded his King of pawn cover. A hard game was agreed drawn although Pachman had the better chances. <Game 6> - Tuesday, 17th January - played in the auditorium of the Charles University Law Faculty (18). Pachman chose a Dutch, Classical Variation (A96) , with <7...a5> and played a pawn sacrifice that was considered to lead to equality. Ilivitsky, however, played an innovation that had a powerful effect on Pachman. Pachman played a poor move <13...Be6?> which gave his opponent a significant advantage. Ten year's later, Bent Larsen improved Black's play - Reshevsky vs Larsen, 1966 . Ilivitsky won a second pawn and the game in short order. <After the match:> Pachman became a leading European Grandmaster. He played in six Interzonal tournaments and represented Czechoslovakia in eight consecutive Chess Olympiads. Ilivitsky's triumph faded away quickly. He did not qualify for the 1955 Soviet Championship coming ninth in the semi-final, and Ilivitsky was not to play in any important international tournament outside of the Soviet Union. <Notes:> [ (1). "De Waarheid, (Holland) - 12th January 1956, p.4. and "Új Szó", (Hungary) - 2nd January 1956, p.18. (2). "Chess Results, 1956-1960", ed. Gino Di Felice, McFarland & Co Inc, p.81. (3). http://weatherspark.com/history/323... (4). "Rudé Právo", (Czechoslovakia), 16th January 1956, p.6 and "Rudé Právo", 18th January 1956, p.4 (5). "Rudé Právo", 14th January 1956, p.6 and "Rudé Právo", 15th January 1956, p.6. (6). See: http://www.palacymca.cz/palac-ymca.... and http://paternoster.archii.cz/pn-pal... (7). "Rudé Právo", 9th January 1956, p.6. (8). http://www.chessmetrics.com/cm/CM2/... (9). "Rudé Právo", 7th January 1956, p.4 (10). "Rudé Právo", 9th January 1956, p.4. (11). "Rudé Právo", 10th January 1956, p.4. (12). "Rudé Právo", 10th January 1956, p.4. (13). "Rudé Právo" 10th January 1956, p.4. (14). "Rudé Právo", 14th January 1956, p.6 and "Rudé Právo", 15th January 1956, p.6. (15). "Rudé Právo", 13th January 1956, p.4. (16). "Rudé Právo", 15th January 1956, p.6. (17). "Rudé Právo", 15th January 1956, p.6. (18). "Rudé Právo", 17th January 1956, p.4. ] <Sources:> User User: Tabanus provided translations of the match report using material he found and transcribed from the "Institute of Czech Literature" (http://www.ucl.cas.cz/en/). This has an archive of digitized copies of "Rudé Právo" ("The Red Right") which was the official newspaper of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia. This provided a valuable and complete account of the match, confirming the dates of the games. 6 games, 1956

<< previous | page 4 of 5 | next >>