[what is this?]

[what is this?]

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

San Remo (1911) <Introduction> This tournament was originally scheduled as a gambit tournament, with a women's tournament and a correspondence tournament appended to the main body. "International Gambit Tournament in San Remo. February 5th—March 5th, 1911. The felicitous idea that the honorary president of the Vienna Chess Club, Baron Albert von Rothschild, bestowed to all friends of lively combination play in 1903 by organizing the International Vienna Gambit Tournament will now, after many years, bear further fruit. The Casino Municipale in San Remo is organizing two international tournaments to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Kingdom of Italy. The tournament's organization has been entrusted to the German chess master Theodor von Scheve; his deputy is Colonel Count Fossati. The following is the text of the official program: Program of the international chess tournaments in the Casino Municipale in San Remo in honour of the 50th anniversary of the Kingdom of Italy. International Masters Tournament. The tournament begins on February 5th of this year at 2 p.m. with a meeting of the masters in the tournament hall of the Casino Municipale. Agenda: Reception of the masters, drawing of lots for the tournament rounds, and the election of an arbitration panel. The strongest players from all civilized countries are invited to take part in the international tournament. No distinction is made between professional players and lovers of the game, especially since, with a few exceptions, the most generous enthusiasm for the noble game prevails among professional players as well as among first-class amateurs. To make the games of the tournament as interesting as possible and for the benefit of theory, only gambit games are permitted, namely the openings described below: 1. King's Gambit of any kind, 2. Scotch Gambit with c2—c 3. 3. Evans Gambit. Black is obliged to capture the gambit pawn, but in the Scottish Gambit only the pawn on c3. The Master Tournament is expected to have 24 players, but the tournament management reserves the right to admit more players if there are a large number of registrations to avoid any inconvenience. One game will be played every day, except Sunday. Playing time is from 9:45 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. and from 3:00 to 5:00 p.m. or from 3:00 to 6:00 p.m. The tournament management reserves the right to make changes, particularly the release of some afternoons. The time limit is two hours for the first 40 moves, one hour for the next 20, and possibly one and a half hours for 30 moves. Everyone has to play a game with everyone else. The number of wins achieved is decisive for the prize decision. A draw counts as half a point. The tournament rules are those that were customary in recent international tournaments. In doubtful cases, as well as in the event of any disputes, the arbitration court will make the final decision with the consent of the tournament director. Legal recourse to assert alleged claims is not permitted. There is no stake, but 100 lire = 4 pounds = 80 marks must be attached to the final registration as a deposit, which will be refunded after the obligations have been fulfilled. The prizes are: 1st prize 2,500 lire and an honorary prize. (£15,000/$18,500 in 2025 value - ed) 2nd prize 1,500 3rd prize 1,000 4th prize 800 5th prize 600 6th prize 500 Independently of this, if a minimum of four Italian masters participate, the first will receive a special prize of 500, the second a special prize of 300 lire, and if at least two native French players participate, the first will receive a special prize of 500 lire. For particularly excellent play in individual games, some brilliancy prizes will be awarded. The tournament management retains ownership of the games played, but the right to publish them will be granted in appropriate cases. A women's tournament begins on March 5th. The first prize in this is 1000 lire (£6,000/$7,400 in 2025 value - ed) 2nd prize 1,500, the second 600, the third 400. Every lady who takes part receives a gift. There is no stake, but a deposit of 30 lire is required, which will be paid back after the obligations have been fulfilled. Registrations for both tournaments are requested as early as possible. The closing date for the master tournament is January 27th, for Americans February 3rd." [(1)] <Last minute changes> The gambit tournament plan was dropped at the players' insistence and this generated some unfavourable comments in the chess press. "The Chess Congress at San Remo proved little better than a fiasco. None of the present-day masters put in an appearance, and, for the strange reason that none of those who did enter had been able to practise the gambits, the restriction on that point was withdrawn, which destroyed the last remaining interest in the meeting." [(2)] The British Chess Magazine opined that, "The San Remo Tournament has lost some of its interest. By the wish of the players, who urged that they had no time to prepare themselves, the Gambit condition has been abandoned; consequently, the Chess world is looking forward rather to the San Sebastian Tournament, which begins on Monday, where most of the best players of the world will be playing." [(3)] "The international tournament in San Remo, 6th February to 22nd February, 1911. The great prospect of a gambit tournament in San Remo, which had been opened up to us by v. Scheve's energy and enterprising spirit, could not be realized due to unfavourable conditions. The formal clash with the tournament in San Sebastian was detrimental. The fear that 24 to 30 participants might be admitted had a depressing effect on many, and some were prevented from doing so by their jobs or were unable to make it within the all-too-short deadline. So it came about that on 6th February only 11 participants started: Giuseppe de Biase (Fiume), Hans Fahrni (Munich), Leo Forgacs (Budapest), Isidor Gunsberg (London), Borislav Kostic (Budapest), M. Moishe Lowcki a.k.a. Lowtzky (Leipzig), Henry Pinkerton (Bristol), Dawid Przepiorka (Munich), Richard Reti (Vienna), Stefano Rosselli del Turco (Milan), Theodor von Scheve (Berlin, resp. San Remo). In such a short tournament, neither the participants nor the tournament management seemed comfortable with exposing themselves to the randomness of gambit play. Gambit playing was therefore left to the participants' free will and was only encouraged by the fact that the brilliancy prizes (500 L.) were to go primarily to gambit games." [(4)] Before the tournament began, "Friedrich Jakob (Muhlhausen) had entered for the tournament, but withdrew his name at the last moment, thus reducing the number of competitors to twelve." [(5)] <The unknowns - Signor E. De Biase and Mr Henry Pinkerton.> These two players were complete unknowns on the international scene. What little we know of De Biase, even his first name remains a mystery, comes from the investigations of the Italian chess historian Claudio Sericano [(6)]. <"De Biase was a mysterious chess character if we consider that his first name has not survived. He was invited to the great tournament by virtue of two “coffee-house” games won against the great masters Duras G de Biase vs Duras, 1909 and Schlechter Schlechter vs G de Biase, 1910. The contemporary records tell us of a "De Biase with a bright, communicative and friendly southern cheerfulness, accompanied by the fame of his victories over Duras and Schlechter", and then justify his unfortunate result (he shared last place with Pinkerton, only half a point in ten games for both of them) because, "De Biase then evidently found himself in poor physical condition, he could and should have achieved more in a demanding fight such as this one. He is a player who has an established reputation in the chess world and cannot attribute his failure to an excessive presumption of his own strength ". After this tournament, nothing more was heard of De Biase, but it is interesting to discover how this curious character managed to get an invitation to the first Italian international tournament. Let's go back a couple of years, to November 1909, when the Bohemian grandmaster Oldrich Duras made a three-day chess visit to Fiume, in Istria. Here the unthinkable happened, as the records tell: “As can be seen, the success of the worthy master (Duras) could not have been more complete, and would have been even a complete triumph, if it had not been somewhat attenuated by his defeat in a game played at the Caffè Grande against Mr. De Biase of Naples, our worthy fencing professor. This beautiful game, which lasted about three hours, was conducted by Professor de Biase in a truly masterly style with such clarity and accuracy that led to a stupendous culmination, truly worthy of admiration. A game that Duras himself declared one of the most beautiful he had ever played.”> Henry Pinkerton was the Gloucestershire county champion [(7)] and his best tournament result to date was eighth place in the Second Class, Section A of the Fourth British Chess Federation Congress in 1907. In August 1911, he would come fourth in the British Chess Federation Major Open Tournament at Glasgow. He was described thus, "As a chess enthusiast he was well known amongst the Bristol Chess Circle before coming to settle in Hastings, where he soon became a stalwart of the Club well as one of its most regular attendants—possessing a fine natural talent for the game revelled in complicated open positions." [(8)] Their game, a draw, is lost, but we do know that, "De Biase playing against Pinkerton, had the advantage of the move. This was a Vienna opening, with <f4> and was adjourned after 45 moves in favour of De Biase." [(9)] <Crosstable:> table[ Fahrni * = = = 1 = 1 = 1 1 1 - 7.5 Lowtzky = * = 1 0 = 1 1 = 1 1 - 7.0 Forgacs = = * = = = = 1 = 1 1 - 6.5 Kostic = 0 = * = 1 = 0 1 1 1 - 6.0 Przepiorka 0 1 = = * = 0 1 = 1 1 - 6.0 Gunsberg = = = 0 = * 0 1 = 1 1 - 5.5 Reti 0 0 = = 1 1 * 0 = 1 1 - 5.5 Rosselli del Turco = 0 0 1 0 0 1 * = 1 1 - 5.0 Von Scheve 0 = = 0 = = = = * 1 1 - 5.0 De Biase 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 * = - 0.5 Pinkerton 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 = * - 0.5 ]table Final standings with prize money (in Francs) in brackets: 1. Fahrni 7.5 (2500) 2. Lowtzky 7.0 (1500) 3. Forgacs (1000) 4-5. Boris Kostics (shared 800+600) 4-5. Przepiorka (shared 800+600) 6-9. Gunsberg (shared 500+450+400) 6-9. Reti (shared 500+450+400) 6-9. Rosselli (shared 500+450+400) 6-9. Von Scheve (shared 500+450+400) then followed de Biase of Fiume and Pinkerton of Bristol. <Brilliancy prizes:> Fahrni 100 for his game against von Scheve, Reti 50 for Gunsberg vs Reti, Przepiorka and Gunsberg 50 each for their draw. At the closing ceremony, von Scheve was also awarded a needle in a precious metal embossed with brilliant-cut diamonds. <Women's tournament> "Following the masters’ contest at San Remo, Herr von Scheve arranged an international ladies’ tournament. The competitors were Countess Fossate (Turin), Countess Darlais (Paris), Madame Tiedge (Copenhagen), Mrs and Miss Sparlinger (Zurich), Miss Finn, Mrs Stevenson, Mrs Rentoul and Miss Cotton (London), and Miss Smith-Cunninghame (Edinburgh). Miss Finn won the first prize without losing a game, Miss Cotton took second prize, and Mrs. Rentoul third." [(10)] <Correspondence gambit tournament:> A two-round Gambit Correspondence Tournament announced by Th. von Scheve as a pendant to the San Remo contest has attracted 21 entries, of which, owing to paucity of means, only six are likely to be accepted. Each competitor will be permitted to consult with an outside player, whose name must be submitted. The permissible openings are confined to the King’s Knight and the Scotch Gambits. 120 days are allowed for the first 20 moves, thereafter 30 days for every 5 moves. A postcard record of the moves made is to be sent after every fifth move to Herr H. Ranneforth, Bambergerstr 50, Berlin, W. In order to prevent any game from being drawn out to too great length, the management reserves the right to declare won or drawn after the 30th move any game that clearly appears to bear such characteristics. In addition to three prizes of 150, 100 and 75 francs, the two best games will be awarded brilliancy prizes. Entrance fee, 25 francs. A returnable deposit of 25 francs is also required. Herr von Scheve’s address is Chemin Mont Allan 5, Nice." [(11)] One game has been found - Count Resseguier vs A Fritz, 1911. <Conclusion> The San Remo organizers' attempt to create a unique and exciting tournament backfired. The restrictive rules and the lack of top players and competition from a more prestigious event led to its failure. None of the leading chess masters of the day participated. Due to the extremely short notice the tournament's organizers allowed, it seems that players felt they did not have time to adequately prepare for such a specialized tournament. Eventually, this led to the rule being abandoned at the players' insistence at the last moment, further diminishing the tournament's appeal and credibility. Competition from the San Sebastian (1911), which was held around the same time, and which attracted most of the world's best players. This made San Remo a less attractive proposition for both players and spectators. Despite Von Scheve's energy and a reasonable prize fund, very few games have been preserved and the tournament left little impression. <Notes:> [(1)]. (Neue) Wiener Schachzeitung, January 1911. [(2)]. Illustrated London News - Saturday 4th March 1911. [(3)]. British Chess Magazine 1911, p.199. [(4)]. (Neue) Wiener Schachzeitung, April 1911. [(5)]. Belfast News Letter - Wednesday 8th February 1911. [(6)]. https://unoscacchista.com/2024/02/0... - sourced 10th January 2025. [(7)]. Cheltenham Examiner, Thursday 2nd March 1911. [(8)]. Hastings and St Leonards Observer, Saturday 5th August 1922. [(9)]. Manchester Courier, Wednesday 8th February 1911. [(10)]. British Chess Magazine 1911, p.147. [(11)]. British Chess Magazine 1911, p.199. The calculation of the prize totals was done by User: Karpova. Text by User: Chessical. 8 games, 1911 Sarapu - Purdy Match, Australasian Championship <Introduction:> This match of 10 games between the Australian (Cecil Purdy) and New Zealand (Ortvin Sarapu) champions for the "Championship of Australasia" was held in Auckland, New Zealand, during November 1952. It was organised and conducted by Auckland Chess League by authority of the New Zealand Chess Association. This was a hard-fought match between two master players (Purdy IM 1951, Sarapu IM 1966) of different styles; Purdy the stronger strategically and Sarapu tactically. <The players:> Sarapu (28 year's old) an Estonian who had arrived in only New Zealand two year's before was to be the dominant player in New Zealand for the next three decades. He won his national championship four times in a row in 1951-1955, and went onto twenty national titles in total. Purdy (47 year's old) had won the previous two Australian Championship, in 1949 at Melbourne and in 1951 at Brisbane. Purdy faced strong domestic challengers to his primacy, in particular from the Hungarian emigre master Lajos Steiner who won the Australian Chess Championship four times in 1945, 1946/47, and was to win again in 1952/53 and 1958/59, and Gregory Koshnitsky who was Australian champion in 1932-33 and 1938-39. The match was perhaps the end of Purdy's period of peak overt the board performances which commenced in the radio matches of the late 1940's, and he was not to win the Australian Championship again. Instead, he began to give more prominence to correspondence chess becoming the first Correspondence Chess World Champion (1950-53) <Background:> The match was suggested by Sarapu in September 1952. It would be the first first Australia-New Zealand chess match since the end of the Second World War. Originally, it was expected that it would take place in 1953 [1], but it appears that matters proceeded at a great pace. It was anticipated that a regular series of title matches between the champions of the two countries could become a regular event. The Australia Chess federation raised £70 (approx £1800/$3,000 in 2014) as their share of the expenses [2]. The "Championship of Australasia" did not, however, become a regular fixture. Perhaps, the costs and the logistic challenge of 1,300 miles/2,100 kms and four days travel by sea or a day in a turbo-prop flying boat with the mail deterred any repetition? <Schedule:> Game 1 - Monday, 10th November, 1952 2 - Tuesday, 11th November, 1952 3 - Wednesday, 12th November, 1952 4 - Thursday, 13th November, 1952 5 - Monday, 17th November, 1952 6 - Thursday, 20th November, 1952 7 - Sunday, 23rd November, 1952 8 - Monday, 24th November, 1952 9 - Wednesday, 26th November, 1952 10 - Sunday, 30th November, 1952 Adrian Errol Turner (1922-2005) was the umpire (‘resplendent in early Victorian side whiskers’) for the match [3] <Progress of the match> table[ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Sarapu 1 ½ 1 ½ 0 0 1 0 1 0 5.0 Purdy 0 ½ 0 ½ 1 1 0 1 0 1 5.0 ]table [Sarapu had White in the odd-numbered games.] With the match tied, they were declared co-champions. Progressive score: table[ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Sarapu 1 1½ 2½ 3 3 3 4 4 5 5 5.0 Purdy 0 ½ ½ 1 2 3 3 4 4 5 5.0 ]table The match was an exciting struggle with Sarapu taking an early two point lead only for Purdy to win two in succession to level the score. Sarapu won the seventh game and ninth games but Purdy twice managed to catch up despite the pressure of having to win the last game of the match. <Reaction:> Gregory Koshnitsky provides a contemporary view of the match: "The indecisive result of the first Australasian championship is not in any way an indication of the course of the memorable match. Sarapu's flying start (2 wins) indicated a possible walk-over and gave much concern to Australian backers of their champion. Purdy's splendid rally which levelled the score after six games was followed by a cut-throat finish in which both players kept winning with the White pieces. The match was closely followed on both sides of the Tasman, and the result (5-5) should give satisfaction to the many admirers of these two fine players. From Purdy's point of view the fifth game was of special significance, as it was the first game he won. It was also the only game of the match won with the Black pieces".[4] ... Official booklet: "C.J.S. Purdy, champion of Australia, correspondence champion of Australia, versus O. Sarapu, champion of New Zealand, 1951-52" Published: Auckland : Auckland Chess League, 1952 [5] ... Many thanks to User: Benzol who found the missing scores - Games 2,3, and 9 - to complete the record of the match . [1 "The Advertiser", Saturday 13th September 1952, p.10] [2 Gregory Koshnitsky writing in "The Sunday Herald", Sunday 31 August 1952, p.11.] [3 http://www.boxhillchess.org.au/e200... ] [4 "The Sunday Herald", Sunday 14 December 1952, p.15] [5 http://trove.nla.gov.au/work/561587... 10 games, 1952 Schlechter - Janowski <Introduction> The match was planned to be of 14 games. It was organized by Viktor Tietz on behalf of Carlsbad Chess Club. The match ran from June 2nd to June 25th, 1902. [1] <The venue> Carlsbad (Karlovy Vary) had benefited from the growth of tourism, railways and the fashion for spa cures. "Carlsbad is about eight hours by rail from Berlin and Vienna, and within easy reach of most of the continental capitals. It possesses, perhaps, the best train service of any continental resort. The scene at Carlsbad in the early morning is very curious. As early as four o’clock the first "cure guests” take their stations at the springs, and by six o’clock a huge crowd of, perhaps 10,000 people is assembled. In order prevent confusion they are lined up in single file each of the eighteen springs, and the queues are sometimes nearly a mile in length. Everybody carries little glass fastened on a strap. At a spring a bevy of young girls are in attendance to fill your glasses with the hot water, and it is gratifying to notice that rank or station are of no account. If working man comes before a peer his glass is filled first. Anyone staying in Carlsbad must register his name, address, and occupation, and visitors are divided into two classes — “bathers" and ”tourists”. If you stay longer than eight days you are considered a bather, and you are noted in the daily renter. You will, also, have to pay small tax, which gives you the privilege of drinking the waters and visiting the concerts free of charge. The season at Carlsbad begins on April 1st and lasts till November; but invalids go all the year round to drink the waters. Drinking constitutes the principal part of the cure, but bathing, exercise, and judicious dieting all play their parts." [2] Carlsbad was fashionable and attracted a rich and cosmopolitan clientele. During the 1902 season it hosted such luminaries as: The Shah of Iran [3], Mr. Elihu Root , the American Secretary of State for War [4], and Congress of Natural Philosophers And Physicians [5] <The organizer> Chess in Carlsbad benefited from the energy of Viktor Tietz , who as a city councillor convinced his colleagues that this would provoke interest in Carlsbad and promote its reputation as a leading European resort. In 1902 he resigned as a tax inspector and dedicated himself to promoting chess. [6] Dr. Josef Schindler noted in the tournament book of the Braunau (Broumov) Congress (1925): "The ancient, rich spa town on the River Teplá with its vibrant and diverse interests was the appropriate stage for Tietz, the great organizer of chess events. His authority and influence in the public life of the city, as well as his personal relationships, enabled him to obtain money and friends for chess competitions, by which the name of Carlsbad gained a good reputation in the chess world." [7] The “Wiener Schachzeitung” directly attributed the prominence of the city in chess circles to the work and dedication of Tietz [8] "Along with Vienna and Prague, over the past few years Carlsbad has developed to be an equally important Austrian chess centre. It has through its vigorous chess club and its tireless director of the match, Herrn. Senior Tax Inspector Tietz, become a magnet towards which chess master events are powerfully attracted. The Carlsbad Club has shown its support for the great merits of its President, who shuns no sacrifices when it comes to his cherished chess art, by his recent nomination as an honorary member, but the whole larger chess community should also feel obliged to give hearty thanks to this selfless and vigorous promoter of the noble game." [9] His first project had been the Albin-Marco match of 1901 (from July 31 to August 12, 1901) [10], but this was his most ambitious project to date. It was a match between two of the up and coming, grandmasters of the decade, David Janowski and Carl Schlechter. <Conditions> The match was played at Carlsbad Chess Club, June 2nd-25th 1902. [11] [2]. The club met in the Kurhaus (Kaiserbad) Imperial Baths Hotel. [12] The players received 500 Krowns [13] This would be approximately £21, or £2,056.00 in 2015 value [14] <Janowski> Janowski and Schlechter, were respectively 4 and 5th on the Chessmetrics rating list for January 1902 [15]. 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 at entering the top ten in 1896 and being 5th in 1902 [16] and Chessmetrics has the same assessment [17] Janowski's tournament record up to this match was impressive, the best performances being: Nuremberg (1896), 5th place; 1896 Vienna, first; London (1899), shared 2nd place; Monte Carlo (1901), first; Monte Carlo (1902), 3rd place; and 1902 Vienna, where he shared first. Despite his poor performance in this match, undaunted, he would go on from this match and decisively win the extremely strong 13th DSB Congress, Hanover (1902) (+11 -1 =5), which commenced less than a month later on 21st July. <Schlechter > The 27 year old Schlechter was slowly but surely growing in stature as a top player. Schlechter had achieved a solid result at Hastings (1895) (11 out of 21) his play being conservative and careful. He improved upon this with a +3 score at the Nuremberg (1896) tournament and then finished equal fourth at Budapest (1896). He continued steadily along his path towards the chess elite. At Vienna (1898) he finished with 21.5 out of 36; and in London (1899) he scored 17 out of 27. He began to make significant progress in the first decade of the twentieth century. He was first at 12th DSB Congress, Munich (1900). This was followed in 1901 by a 2nd place at Monte Carlo (1901). Edo Chess has him entering the top 10 in 1896 and by 1902 he is shown to be sixth in the world [18], whilst Chessmetrics shows him as fourth. [19] Despite Schlechter's drawing reputation, and maybe because of Janowski's dislike for draws, their previous games tended to be decisive. Since the 1897 match, they had each won six games and drawn three [5]. In June 1902, “Deutsche Schachzeitung” in an analysis of top grandmaster results states +6-8+2 in favour of Janowski since Hastings 1895. [20] Both of the drawn games had been hard struggles. <The Match> "JANOWSKI v. SCHLECHTER — After losing a short match of two games with Moritz Porges , Janowski undertook match of fourteen games with C. Schlechter. The latter has been a studious player for some time, and in his earlier days was much on the careful side that he frequently drew his games, and received the title from his opponents the "drawing master". His present match with Janowski proves him to be of a most aggressive style also; and his Monte Carlo performance (1902 - e.d.) makes all players respect him... " [21] This match in simple rating terms was one of Schlechter's greatest achievements, but as a match it suffered from Janowski's dreadful form. The score was unbalanced by Janowski losing two games he should have won, and also making gross errors in the very early middle game. These adversaries had drawn a previous match (=2-2=3) in Vienna, in December 1896. [22] [23] Despite Schlechter 's drawing reputation, and maybe because of Janowski's dislike for draws, their previous games tended to be decisive. Since the 1897 match, they had each won six games and drawn three [5]. [24] Both of the drawn games had been hard struggles. [25] "News from Vienna, a little (double round - e.d.) master tournament had a surprising result, as Heinrich Wolf and Janowski were first. Incidentally, only one point accounted for the entire difference between top and bottom place." [26] [27] Schlechter came in half a point behind the joint winners but had lost both games to Janowski. At Monte Carlo (1902) , Janowski (third equal +13 -4 =4) had again come ahead of Schlechter (sixth with +9 -4 =9). Schlechter had inflicted a severe defeat upon him in only 23 moves - Schlechter vs Janowski, 1902 <Progress of the match> Game 1 - 2nd June 1902 Game 2 - 4th June 1902 Game 3 - 8th and 9th June 1902 Game 4 - 10th June 1902 Game 5 - 13th June 1902 Game 6 - 15th and 16th June 1902 Game 7 - 17th June 1902 Game 8 - 20th and 21st June 190 Game 9 - 22nd and 23rd June 1902 Game 10 - 25th June 1902 [28] [29] Janowski had a dreadful start to the match with four successive losses, three of which were in under twenty five moves. table[ Round 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Total Schlechter 1 1 1 1 ½ 1 0 ½ ½ 1 7½ Janowski 0 0 0 0 ½ 0 1 ½ ½ 0 2½ ]table <Progressive scores:> table[ Round 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Schlechter 1 2 3 4 4½ 5½ 5½ 6 6½ 7½ Janowski 0 0 0 0 ½ ½ 1½ 2 2½ 2½]table According to Rudolf Spielmann “The match between Schlechter and Janowski in Carlsbad 1902 proved to be amusing. Janowski was most probably a brilliant master who was by then at the height of his fame, but unlike Schlechter he possessed an abrasive personality. He was a choleric and constantly irritated, being a short-tempered and stubborn man. Woe to him who won against Janowski! His opponent would then be showered with a barrage of insults! The match was going in favour of Schlecter. The Carlsbad City Councilor Tietz, a famous chess promoter, tells how Schlechter having won would literally take flight, so that Janowski’s angry outbursts always flew into empty air. Janowski's anger had to it a system. His conqueror was the worst example of coffeehouse player, i.e. a club or domino player. Then there was the appropriately hefty amazement as how it had been possible to allow such a duffer into the tournament.” [30] <Games> [[Game 1]] "In July issues of "Strategie" the first match game Janowski - Schlechter (1. e4 e5 2. Nf3, Nf6 3. Ne5 d6 4. Nf3 Nxe4; 5. d4, d5 6. Bd3, Nc6 7 0-0 Be7 8. Rel, Bg4 9. c3 f5 10. Nbd2) is annotated by S. Alapin . click for larger view He justly blames Black's tenth move <10. Nbd2> and comments: "With this weak move White gave away his advantage; the correct continuation was 10 Qb3! 0-0 11 Nfd2 Nxd2 12. Bxd2 Rab8 13. Nfl with decisive advantage..." [31] Schlechter refuted this variation at length in “Deutsche Schachzeitung”, No. 8, August 1902, p.233 - 235. On variation runs: <11...Nxf2!> 12. Kxf2 Bh4+ 13. g3 f4 14. gxh4 Qxh4+ 15. Kf1 f3 In the actual game, Janowski lost after <12.Ne3?> click for larger view which allowed <12.Bxh2!>. "This plausible move is in fact a decisive error; 12. h3 should be played" [a] DS p.172 [32] [[Game 2]] Once again Janowski made a catastrophic blunder by leaving his Rook hanging with <22...Rd6> instead of <22...Rd8> (=). click for larger view This allowed Schlechter to play a combination with <23. Nxf7> that whilst not winning outright so demoralised Janowski that he resigned within three moves although there was no outright win for his opponent. [[Game 3]] This was a game that Janowski should have won, but he missed the winning move twice. Janowski played a flowing attack against Schlechter 's French Defence, and his opponent struggled to defend his King on the Queen-side after selecting a poor opening plan (although one later copied by Keres -I V Rohacek vs Keres, 1942 ). click for larger view <44.Nc7 wins>; and click for larger view <45.Rxa6! wins> [[Game 4]] Scarcely out of the opening, Janowski let his Queen be trapped and had to resign after only 24 moves. This was probably his worst game of the match. Having missed a win in the previous game, he was 4 - 0 down, and there was little to indicate that he could overcome demoralisation and recover. [[Game 5]] In a Ruy Lopez, Janowski as White played methodically and won a pawn. click for larger view <Ne4> would have preserved a significant advantage, but after <22. Bc1 a3!>, "This demolishes the White Queen-side completely, in the following interesting endgame the extra pawn is insufficient for White to win" [zz] [33] Janowski could not win the R+2P against R+P ending. The players’ times were : White 3 hours 38 minutes, Black 2 hours 25 minutes - “Wiener Schachzeitung” 1902, p.151. [34] [[Game 6]] Schlechter sacrificed a Knight for three pawns and an attack. There was no clear win and Janowski was still fighting hard into the ending. click for larger view "(22. Nxe6>) A promising, but perhaps not quite correct continuation, although White has three Pawns for the piece. More solid was 22 Qf3" [35] (or even <22. Qxa6> - e.d.) Was this truly a speculative sacrifice, or perhaps he believed he would end up three pawns ahead after <24.Rxd5>? The problem being that Janowski could reply <24...Bf6!> and the White Q is both cruelly exposed her only escape being at the cost of her R on e5. Janowski's technique did not match that of his opponent and Schlechter won two further pawns and the game. [[Game 7]] Janowski's first win of the match, and apart from Game 3, the first game in which he showed his true class. With White in a Ruy Lopez, he had more space and the initiative. "A first-rate treatment of the opening has acquired White an attractive and freer game, Black intends therefore, in similar fashion to the fifth Match game, to sacrifice a pawn to free up his game and obtain a counterattack." [36] Janowski topped off his good play with a winning combination after Schlechter miscalculated by placing his Rook on <d2> thinking was forcing a draw: click for larger view <28. Rxd2?> is drawn after 28...Nf3+ 29. gxf3 Rxe1+ 30. Kg2 Qg5+ 31. Kh3 Qh6+ 32. Kg2 Qg5+ 33. Kh3 Qf5+ but after <28.Bxf7+!!> Janowski soon won. [[Game 8]] A game Schlechter drew in an advantageous position. Being four wins up he could afford such a luxury. He had a Rook for the exchange and a pawn. “Deutsche Schachzeitung”'s final note on move 56 states that: "After a few more moves it was given up as a draw", so there may be a few further moves which have been lost from this game. [37] [[Game 9]] Janowski played aggressively on the King-side as white in a Ruy Lopez. Schlechter carefully equalized. Schlechter, short of time, blundered a pawn but it was still a drawn ending. Janowski naturally attempted to win for a long time. A threefold repetition occurred on Black's 64th and 85th moves. click for larger view "Black did not have the time necessary to calculate all the continuations, <44. Kf6> should have been played; after the text move (<44. e2>) White wins a pawn, but in spite of his prolonged labours, he cannot penetrate and the game is drawn." [38] click for larger view On White's 89th move, the “Wiener Schachzeitung” commented "Janowski's stubborn efforts to win the game in a match already so unfavourable (6½ - 2½) is comprehensible. But with his following move he could only have hoped only that Black would finally leave his Bishop en prise" [39] The game lasted two session and 7½ hours. [40] [[Game 10]] click for larger view <Contemporary reaction> Despite Schlechter's overwhelming victory, his achievement was diminished by the poor form shown by Janowski. "Some weeks ago M. Janowski wrote notifying us of his approaching play with Schlechter. His letter was dated Monte Carlo, and it occurred to us at the time that a prolonged stay at the gaming metropolis would not be conducive to good play. Shortly afterwards Janowski went to Prague and lost two games to Porges, and immediately following he began to play with Schlechter, and lost four games straight off. We make these remarks not for the purpose of detracting in any way from the fine performance of Schlechter. That would, indeed, be impossible; but equally as the games show beautiful play by Schlechter, they also show a kind of hopeless apathy resulting presumably from a depressed disposition by Janowski." [41] Consequently, although Schlechter 's stock rose in the chess world, the result did not create such excitement as to cause commentators to suggest it was time for a world championship match. "The match at Carlsbad, between Schlechter and Janowski has been won by Schlechter with a score 7½ wins Janowski's 2½. The Austrian appears much more likely and more dangerous aspirant to championship honours than Janowski, who was threatening Lasker with a match some time ago. Meantime, neither of them appear show the all qualities necessary for success in such a match, and either case Dr. Lasker would no doubt hold his own." [42] Schlechter was praised for a new dynamism considered now to be apparent in his play “The match at Carlsbad between these masters is now concluded, the tenth game...being the deciding one. The winner of the best of fourteen games was to be the victor, and the result of the tenth game gave the score - Schlechter, 7½ wins: Janowski 2½ wins. This result, three to one in favour of Schlechter , must not be taken as the relative abilities of the two masters, for Janowski is evidently capable of doing much better things. Still, Schlechter must receive every praise, for we find him changing his accepted style of cautious and careful play for the bold and aggressive style, occasionally giving up a Pawn, or the exchange, for the prosecution of his attack: and this against such an opponent means much. It is said that Janowski has issued a challenge for a return match which is quite a natural proceeding; but as this match cannot be played till after the completion of the Hanover Tournament, the challenger may have become cooler ere then." "Schlechter and Janowski have concluded their play at Carlsbad. Schlechter is the victor, as obtained the requisite majority of 7½ with the tenth game, his score then being six wins and three draws. The result of the play between these two masters came as a surprise to the chess world. Janowski’s play was certainly below his best form, whereas Schlechter played finely throughout. In playing over his games one meets with sparkling ideas and conceptions at every turn. Schlechter thought but little of Pawn, and at times did not show any more respect for a Knight or a Bishop. When in a bad position, he did not hesitate to give a Pawn or the exchange to free himself, and equally so when in a good position, he light-heartedly gave the exchange or a piece for the sake of an attack, and, as the result shows, he always came out on top. Schlechter , years ago, belonged to a school of players who “drew their inspiration from those singular and peculiar Steinitz ideas,” from which they developed “an implicit belief the overpowering strength of an absolutely deductive mode thought and of an entirely objective method of execution.” And invulnerable, indeed, was that armour,” for Schlechter lost very few games, but drew a great many. In consequence of which never took a high position in big tournament, he never won match of any account, and he became generally known as the Drawing Master. Luckily for Schlechter , he made his mind to stick in the mud no longer; he threw overboard the objective criticism of the modem school,” and gave full swing to his imagination to develop his undoubtedly fine natural talents for the game. His play in the last two Monte Carlo tournaments, and finally in this match, have shown that ounce of imagination is worth at least a pound of “objective method of execution”. [44] The “Wiener Schachzeitung”, quoted the following with approval: "The match between Janowski and Schlechter ended with 7½ : 2½ in favour of Schlechter. The chess column of "Bohemia" [45] has indulged in admirable contemplations: “The competition has reached the very culmination predicted at its very outset by those insightful chess connoisseurs when the first losses of the French masters became known. As early as that, the vigorous play of the Austrian champion made his eventual success probable, especially as he took control from the start, although the most unconditional admirers of his art could hardly have hoped for such a brilliant victory. Of course, the question now raised from all sides, is whether this arithmetical, surprising result is really a true expression of the relative strength of these two Matadors or whether Janowski through some unique circumstance was prevented from exercising his full powers. We are frankly, always reluctant to entertain such comparative studies, as they are little more than idle, pointless gimmicks, and with which you can prove anything but are in fact proving nothing. If on this occasion, we make an exception, it is for this reason, to contest the widespread error that the abilities of the great masters can be separated and determined in the same manner as chemicals on the Apothecary's scales. Chess artists are not machines, they are flesh and blood like other people. They are dependent on moods, subject to their temperament, and there is no handicapper in the world who would be able to compensate for the fine, idiosyncratic differences in their chess talent. The sanguine among them, and Janowski is a good example of such are the most difficult to estimate. In Monte Carlo (1901) he was the high-flying and jubilant first prize winner who played at his finest in the most challenging positions, yet throughout the Carlsbad match he astonished his friends by uncharacteristic tameness. Whilst in some games, such as in the 2nd and 4th, the old and fiery Janowski seemed to take no part, he also threw away the 3rd and 6th games, but this has always been a weakness of his; and in the second half of the match, when Schlechter had a lead which was very hard to overtake, despite Janowski straining with all his might, he was no longer able to make a change for the better. Schlechter, is one of the most reliable masters, exhibited examples of well thought out deep positional play from which when the opportunity was offered to him, conjured up dazzling combinations. Whilst Schlechter was in excellent shape, Janowski was not off-form. Does this mean that at the time of the match he was simply the superior player? It is quite another thing whether he always has been and will always be so; no mortal can answer this with either a “yes” or a “no” – he may still feel trepidation even when he is not "under the blows" of formidable opponents. This match, although it did not have a thrilling finish, kept the entire chess world in great state of tension, and through the high quality of its games it has achieved a much more than an ephemeral local chess event. Along with Vienna and Prague, over the past few years Karlsbad has developed into an equally important Austrian chess centre. It has through its vigorous chess club and its tireless director of the match, Herrn. Senior Tax Inspector Tietz, become a magnet towards which chess master events are powerfully attracted. The Carlsbad Club has shown its support for the great merits of its President, who shuns no sacrifices when it comes to his cherished chess art, by his recent nomination as a freeman, but the whole, larger chess community should also feel obliged to give hearty thanks to this selfless and vigorous promoter of the noble game." [46] <Notes> [1] "Carl Schlechter! The life and times of the Austrian Chess Wizard", Warren Goldman, Caissa Editions. 1994. p.459 - p.460. “Wiener Schachzeitung” (July-August, 1902, No 7-8, p.146-156); “Deutsche Schachzeitung”, No.6, June 1902,p.172-173; “Deutsche Schachzeitung”, No.7, July 1902, p.205-214. [2] “North Devon Gazette”, Tuesday 12th February 1901. [3] “Sheffield Daily Telegraph”, Thursday 5th June 1902 p.4. [4] “London Daily News”, Thursday 29th May 1902 p.7. - Elihu Root (February 15th 1845 - February 7th 1937), was the Nobel Peace Prize Laureate of 1912. [5] “Aberdeen Journal” , Saturday 19th April 1902. [6] http://www.memorial.tietz.cz/tietz.... [7] http://www.memorial.tietz.cz/tietz.... [8] “Wiener Schachzeitung”, No.7-8, July-August, 1902, p.163-164. [9] “Wiener Schachzeitung”, No.7-8, July-August, 1902, p.163-164. [10] http://www.tietz.cz/tietz/index.php... [11] "Carl Schlechter ! The life and times of the Austrian Chess Wizard", Warren Goldman, Caissa Editions. 1994. p.459 - p.468. [12] “Wiener Schachzeitung”, No.7-8, July-August, 1902, p.163-164. [13] http://www.tietz.cz/tietz/index.php... [14] 1 Pound sterling = 23.97 Kr. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austr...) and for relative values see https://www.measuringworth.com/ukco... [15] http://www.chessmetrics.com/cm/CM2/... [16] http://www.edochess.ca/players/p487... [17] http://www.chessmetrics.com/cm/CM2/... [18] http://www.edochess.ca/players/p536... 19] http://www.chessmetrics.com/cm/CM2/... [20] “Deutsche Schachzeitung”, June 1902 p.194. [21] “Leeds Mercury”, Saturday 5th July 1902, p.21. [22] "Carl Schlechter ! The life and times of the Austrian Chess Wizard", Warren Goldman, Caissa Editions. 1994. p.456. [23] “British Chess Magazine”, January 1897 [24] Derived from "Carl Schlechter! The life and times of the Austrian Chess Wizard", Warren Goldman, Caissa Editions. 1994, by comparing cumulative results given on p.456 and p. 459. [25] Schlechter vs Janowski, 1897 and Schlechter vs Janowski, 1898 [26] “Deutsche Schachzeitung”, No. 2, February 1902, p.58. [27] The exact dates for the Vienna tournament are given as January 7-18th or 19th, 1902, in "Carl Schlechter ! The life and times of the Austrian Chess Wizard", Warren Goldman, Caissa Editions. 1994. p.173. [28] “Wiener Schachzeitung” (July-August, 1902, No 7-8), gives the dates for the games as: [Game 1 - 2nd June 1902, game 481, p.146. Game 2 - 4th June 1902, game 482, p.147. Game 3 - 8th and 9th June 1902, game 483, p.148. Game 4 - 10th June 1902, game 484, p.149. Game 5 - 13th June 1902 game 485, p.150. Game 6 - 15th and 16th June 1902, game 486, p.151. Game 7 - 17th June 1902, game 487, p.153. Game 8 - 20th and 21st June 190, game 488, p.154. Game 9 - 22nd and 23rd June 1902, game 486, p.155. Game 10 - 25th June 1902, game 486, p.156. ] [29] “Deutsche Schachzeitung”, No.6, June 1902, gives the dates for the games as: [Game 1 - 2nd June 1902, game 6899, p.172. Game 2 - 4th June 1902, game 6900, p.173.] [30] "Ein Rundflug durch die Schachwelt", ("A Tour through the Chess World") by Rudolf Spielmann , p.63.Jens-Erik Rudolph Verlag, Hamburg 2015 - original edition printed 1929. [31] “Deutsche Schachzeitung”, No. 8, August 1902, p.233 - 235. [32] “Deutsche Schachzeitung”, No.6, June 1902, p.172. [33] “Deutsche Schachzeitung”, No. 7, July 1902, p.208. [34] “Wiener Schachzeitung” 1902, p.151. [35] “Deutsche Schachzeitung”, No. 7, July 1902, p.209. [36] Comment to move 10. “Deutsche Schachzeitung”, No. 7, July 1902, p.210. [37] “Deutsche Schachzeitung” No. 7, July 1902, p.212. [38] “Deutsche Schachzeitung”, No. 7, July 1902, p.214-p.215. [39] “Wiener Schachzeitung”, July-August, 1902 No 7-8 p.156. [40] “Wiener Schachzeitung” commented (July-August,1902 No 7-8 p.149. [41] “London Daily News”, Saturday 21st June 1902, p.11. [42] “Falkirk Herald”, Wednesday 16th July 1902 p.8. [43] “Leeds Mercury”, Saturday 12th July 1902 p.23. [44] “London Daily News”, Saturday 5th July 1902 p.11. [45] “Bohemia" was a German language newspaper published in Prague , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohem... the extract from the newspaper was published in “Wiener Schachzeitung”, July-August, 1902 No 7-8 p.162-163 - http://anno.onb.ac.at/cgi-content/a... [46] “Wiener Schachzeitung”, No.7-8, July-August, 1902, p.163-164. Thanks to User: OhioChessFan for proof reading the text. 10 games, 1902 Sofia Zonal 1957 <Introduction:> This was one of three European World Championship zonal tournaments held in 1957, the other two being Dublin Zonal (1957) (11th May - 1st June 1957) and Wageningen Zonal (1957) , (27th October to 26th November 1957). The Sofia Zonal tournament took place in the Bulgarian capital from 9th - 25th May 1957. <Three European Zonal tournaments:> These were three of nine zonal tournaments held worldwide. The decision to hold three European zonal tournaments had been made at the FIDE Congress, Moscow in August 1956. "The issue of Zonal and Interzonal Tournaments was relatively easy to resolve. As Zones may vary from cycle to cycle, it was decided that in the year preceding the first year of each cycle, the Zonal and Interzonal Tournaments would be determined according to the playing strength of the Federations in each Zone. An important modification was made: Zones N° 1 and 3 were reworked to form three new zones (N° 1, 2, 3) each with an 18-day Zonal Tournament, making a total of 54 players. Of these three European Zonal Tours, as well as those of the other six zones (a new zone being created for the Asian Nations) 21 players would be selected for the Interzonal Tournament at the rate of 14 players depending on the size of the zone, to whom would be added under certain conditions the 22nd participant designated by the organizing nation." [(1)] "The adoption of these General Regulations which provided for three Zonal Tournaments in Europe (except for the USSR) resulted in the obligation to add another Zone the two existing European Zones. The division was thus: ZONE I (West European): South Africa, England, Belgium, Scotland, Spain, France, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Portugal and Switzerland. ZONE 2 (Central European): West Germany, East Germany, Austria, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden." ZONE 3 (East European): Albania, Bulgaria, Egypt, Greece, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia." [(2)] South Africa was added to the Western European zone as there was insufficient chess organization in the south of Africa to properly institute its own geographical zone. Similarly, Saad Zaglul Basjuni (Egypt) played in Sofia Zonal. . <The tournament:> The tournament was close run with the Czech GM Miroslav Filip finishing a point ahead of Bogdan Sliwa (Poland), Oleg Neikirch (Bulgaria) and Aleksandar Matanovic (Yugoslavia). As in Wageningen (Game Collection: Donner - Larsen Zonal play off), there was a need for a play-off. The second and third places, which were qualifying slots for the Portoroz Interzonal (1958), were decided by a play-off in December 1957 with Mantanovic (2.5) and Neikirch (1.5) qualifying. <Statistics:> 54 (59%) of the games were decisive, with more games won with Black, 30 (33%), than White, 24 (26%). 37 games were drawn (41%). The most popular openings were the: Spanish (15 games), Nimzo Indian (14), QGD (12), English (8) and King's Indian (7). . <Cross tables:> table[ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 1 Filip g x ½ ½ ½ 1 1 ½ ½ 0 1 1 1 1 1 9½ 2 Sliwa m ½ x 0 1 ½ ½ ½ 1 1 1 0 1 1 ½ 8½ 3 Neikirch ½ 1 x ½ 0 ½ ½ 1 1 ½ ½ ½ 1 1 8½ 4 Matanonvic g ½ 0 ½ x ½ ½ ½ ½ 1 1 1 1 ½ 1 8½ 5 Pfeiffer 0 ½ 1 ½ x 0 1 1 ½ ½ 1 ½ ½ 1 8 6 Mititelu 0 ½ ½ ½ 1 x ½ 1 0 1 0 1 ½ 1 7½ 7 Karaklajic m ½ ½ ½ ½ 0 ½ x ½ 0 ½ 1 ½ 1 1 7 8 Szilagyi m ½ 0 0 ½ 0 0 ½ x ½ 1 1 1 1 1 7 9 Barcza g 1 0 0 0 ½ 1 1 ½ x 0 ½ ½ ½ 0 5½ 10 Zita m 0 0 ½ 0 ½ 0 ½ 0 1 x 0 ½ 1 1 5 11 Beni m 0 1 ½ 0 0 1 0 0 ½ 1 x 0 0 ½ 4½ 12 Fuchs 0 0 ½ 0 ½ 0 ½ 0 ½ ½ 1 x ½ ½ 4½ 13 Basjuni 0 0 0 ½ ½ ½ 0 0 ½ 0 1 ½ x 0 3½ 14 Niemela 0 ½ 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 ½ ½ 1 x 3½ ]table <Progressive scores:> table[ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 1 Filip g 1 2 3 3½ 4 5 6 6 6½ 7½ 8 9 9½ 2 Sliwa m 1 2 2 2½ 3½ 3½ 4½ 5½ 6 6½ 7 8 8½ 3 Neikirch ½ ½ 1½ 2 3 3½ 4 5 6 6½ 7 7½ 8½ 4 Matanovic g ½ 1 2 3 4 5 5½ 5½ 6 6½ 7 8 8½ 5 Pfeiffer ½ 1½ 2½ 3 4 4½ 5 6 6½ 6½ 7½ 7½ 8 6 Mititelu 0 1 2 3 3½ 4 4½ 5½ 5½ 5½ 6 7 7½ 7 Karaklajic m 0 ½ ½ 1 1½ 2 2½ 3 4 4½ 5½ 6 7 8 Szilagyi m 1 1 2 3 3 3½ 4½ 5½ 6 6½ 6½ 6½ 7 9 Barcza g 1 1 1½ 1½ 1½ 2 2 3 3½ 4½ 5 5½ 5½ 10 Zita m 0 1 1 1½ 1½ 1½ 1½ 1½ 2 3 3½ 4 5 11 Beni m 1 1 ½ 2 2 3 3 3 4 4 4 4½ 4½ 12 Fuchs 0 0 0 0 ½ 1 1½ 2 2½ 3½ 4 4 4½ 13 Basjuni ½ ½ ½ ½ 1 1½ 1½ 1½ 1½ 1½ 2½ 3 3½ 14 Niemela 0 ½ ½ 1½ 2 2 3 3 3 3½ 3½ 3½ 3½ ]table <Play-off:> The play-off was held in December 1957. [(3)] table[ Matonovic g x x ½ . 1 1 2½ Neikirch ½ . x x 1 . 1½ Sliwa m 0 0 0 . x x 0 ]table <Some highlights:> A vicious King's Indian attack by Beni defeats Sliwa and wins the Brilliancy Prize. [(4)] click for larger view Sliwa vs A Beni, 1957 Karaklajic allowed mate in 6 on move 16 against Pfeiffer by playing f3 click for larger view N Karaklajic vs G Pfeiffer, 1957 Zita lost a drawn R+P ending to Mantanovic after <68.Rd8+> click for larger view F Zita vs A Matanovic, 1957 Mititelu, in Capablanca style, beat Zita in short order after <18..exd5> click for larger view G Mititelu vs F Zita, 1957 Fuchs defends a R v R+B ending from move 75 and secures a draw on move 122! click for larger view Barcza vs R Fuchs, 1957 Somehow Basjuni holds a draw as Black against Mantanovic click for larger view A Matanovic vs S Basjuni, 1957 Fuchs, as Black, sacrifices his Queen against Szilagyi click for larger view R Fuchs vs G Szilagyi, 1957 Szilagyi loses a piece with 18...Qc6? click for larger view G Pfeiffer vs G Szilagyi, 1957 Filip forces through the <a> pawn versus Mititelu click for larger view G Mititelu vs M Filip, 1957 Filip delicately wins a multiple pawn endgame against Barcza click for larger view M Filip vs Barcza, 1957 <Notes:> [(1)]. Berman, "FIDE Review 1957", p.54. (original in French). [(2)]. Berman, "FIDE Review 1957", p.54. (original in French). [(3)]. Di Felice, "Chess Results 1956 - 1960." [(4)]. "Die Tat", 13 July 1957. Original collection and text by User: Chessical 91 games, 1957 Spielmann - Eliskases (1st match) <Introduction:> This was a match of ten games played in Linz, the capital of the state of Upper Austria, between Rudolf Spielmann and Erich Eliskases from the 12th to the 25th of September, 1932. Eliskases won by 5½ to 4½. The match pitted established grandmaster and Austria's leading player, 48-year-old Spielmann (11th in the world on Chessmetric's January 1932 list), [(1)] against an exciting new prospect the 19-year-old Eliskases. In 1932, on the occasion of the 25th anniversary of the Linz chess club, the club and the "Oberösterreichische Schachverband" organized this match. [(2)] This was the first of three matches he would play against Spielmann (the others being in 1936 <+2 =7 -1> and 1937 <+ 2 =8 -0>). "<Eliskases beats Spielmann!> From the 12th to the 22nd (sic) of September, the Linz Chess Club organised in celebration of its 25th anniversary, a competition which is of undoubted importance in Austrian chess' history. The experienced Grandmaster Rudolf Spielmann and the Tyrolean champion Erich Eliskases, who is just 19-years-old, faced each other over ten games. This battle was won by the youth! The first games soon showed the equal standing of both opponents, Eliskases won the second game, Spielmann won the fifth game, and the other games were drawn. The decision fell in the 7th and 9th games, where Eliskases masterfully managed to ward off Spielmann's flawed attacks, fight back to win. This decided the match, Spielmann's victory in the 10th game only polished-up his score. Austria has gained a new grandmaster!" [(3)] The anniversary celebrations also included other attractions. There was a match between the Salzburg and the Linz chess club on six boards which Linz won by 7½ to 4½. Despite the hectic pace of their match, the masters found time for a public display: "Alongside the match between the cities, a simultaneous exhibition was held, in which Spielmann and Eliskases played in alternation against 27 participants. The result was 24 wins, 2 draws, and only one loss". [(4)]. <Eliskases> "The winner in the match against Grandmaster Rudolf Spielmann was born on February 15, 1913, in Innsbruck, thus he is only 19 years old. No one in his family - his father is a master tailor - is a chess player. The 12-year-old became acquainted with chess by chance, he immediately developed a strong interest in it and after a year joined the now defunct "Innsbruck Chess Society" but was not just due to his youth he was taken up as a member. Rather, a strong Innsbruck chess player, Carl P. Wagner took on the boy and Eliskases called this gentleman his teacher... At the age of 15 years old he ventured to the Tyrolean championship tournament, with good reason as his success showed! He won 7 games out of 8 without a single loss! The new master of Tyrol had thus obtained the right to play in the forthcoming 1929 Austrian championship in Innsbruck. He tied for first and second prize with the Viennese player Glass and thus became a Master of the Austrian Chess Federation. And yet Eliskases was still only a student at middle school ... ... Whilst still at school in 1930, he surmounted a chess ordeal at the Chess Olympiad in Hamburg, where he made the best score of all the Austrian players, namely 73.3% with 8 wins, 1 loss and 6 draws. This was followed, in the same year, by a tournament in Ebensee, where Eliskases took second prize behind Kmoch, but still ahead of Prof. Albert Becker and Dr. [bad player ID]. Eliskases could not then participate in any further tournaments because he was too busy preparing for his 'Matura' (the secondary school final examination - e.d.). He passed this final exam with a good grade and in the winter of 1931/32, he went to the 'University for World Trade' in Vienna. There he joined the chess club "Hietzing" and then almost immediately won the club championship at his first attempt against 21 participants (12th-24th September 1932). This was followed by victory in Linz against Rudolf Spielmann. Even if Grandmaster Spielmann himself thinks that his own incorrect psychological attitude is to blame for his defeat, it must be stated on the other hand that Eliskases was already in the lead after two games, thus Spielmann still had the opportunity of a further eight games to form a correct mental psychological attitude..." Eliskases also developed his game through postal chess and especially his capacity for deep analysis. He started playing postal chess in 1928 and like Paul Keres benefited from the exposure to strong players outside of his immediate area. <Spielmann> Spielmann was noted for his romantic and attacking style. He had a career stretching back to 1903. According to Alekhine: "So far as Spielmann is concerned, it is well known that this sensitive artist is capable of top-notch performances, but also that when he is not in form he can disappoint most grievously. One need only to recall his brilliant victory in Semmering (1926) and then again his finishing last in the Karlsbad (1923) tournament. The chess world, therefore, viewed him as a man of momentary successes, a prejudice which was wholly conceivable, for only those who have pursued his play in a long series of tournaments can arrive at a correct appraisal of his present unexpected series of victories. He has had to conquer errors of a sporting nature as well as such as have to do with chess. As an artist, he is impelled by an impetuous passion for combinations which, although they have earned him a number of brilliancy prizes, have also lost him many an important point in tournament scores. A tendency to explore all tactical details of his repertory of openings is characteristic of his play. He opened almost exclusively with his king’s pawn, which inevitably resulted in the clarification of the most important battleground of chess, viz.: the centre. While this may have injected an outward element of liveliness into the early stages of his game it nevertheless also resulted in a lessening of the more real tension." [(6)]. His greatest career performance were to remain Karlsbad (1929) and Semmering (1926). The 1930s would be an increasingly difficult, decade for Spielmann. The threat of fascism would eventually force him into exile away from Austria and his family. In these very difficult and exhausting circumstances and with new and younger opponents such as: Eliskases, Mikhail Botvinnik, Reuben Fine, Salomon Flohr, Paul Keres, Samuel Reshevsky and Gideon Stahlberg, Spielmann achieved few outstanding results to match the former triumphs of previous decades. <The progress of the match:> Spielmann was White in the odd-numbered games. table[ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 Spielmann ½ 0 ½ ½ 1 ½ 0 ½ 0 1 4½ Eliskases ½ 1 ½ ½ 0 ½ 1 ½ 1 0 5½ ]table Progressive score: Eliskases was never behind in this match, Spielmann caught up at Game 5, but then suffered losses in Games 7 and 9. table[ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 Spielmann ½ ½ 1 1½ 2½ 3 3 3½ 3½ 4½ Eliskases ½ 1½ 2 2½ 2½ 3 4 4½ 5½ 5½]table <Schedule of the match> [ Game 1 - Monday 12th and Tuesday 13th September 1932, Linz, "Wiener Schach-Zeitung", Nr.20, October 1932, p.305 Game 2 - Wednesday 14th September 1932, Linz, "Wiener Schach-Zeitung", Nr.20, October 1932, p.308 Game 3 - Thursday 15th September 1932, Linz, "Wiener Schach-Zeitung", Nr.20, October 1932, p.310 Game 4 - Friday 16th September 1932, Linz, "Wiener Schach-Zeitung", Nr.20, October 1932, p.311 Game 5 - Sunday 18th September 1932, Linz, "Wiener Schach-Zeitung", Nr.20, October 1932, p.312 Game 6 - Monday 19th September 1932, Linz, "Wiener Schach-Zeitung", Nr.20, October 1932, p.313 Game 7 - Wednesday 21st September 1932, Linz, "Wiener Schach-Zeitung", Nr.20, October 1932, p.313 Game 8 - Thursday 22nd September 1932, Linz, "Wiener Schach-Zeitung", Nr.20, October 1932, p.315 Game 9 - Friday 23rd and Saturday 24th September 1932, Linz, "Wiener Schach-Zeitung", Nr.21-22, October 1932, p.325 Game 10 - Saturday 24th September 1932, Linz, "Wiener Schach-Zeitung", Nr.21-22, October 1932, p.326 ] <The games> [[Game 1]] - Spielmann opened the first game of the match with a rare Ruy Lopez sideline. Perhaps he counted on his greater experience being of advantage in a non-standard line, but he was unable to maintain any benefit from the first move. Instead, he twice came close to a loss. Eliskases missed a win after Spielmann blundered on move 39, click for larger view [<39.Rd1?> should have lost to <39...Qb3>, instead Eliskases played <39...Rb1?>] and again when Eliskases, a pawn up, misplayed the Q and pawns ending. [[Game 2]] - This game followed the latest theory in the QGD Flohr vs K Treybal, 1932 - Bad Sliac (10th-28th June 1932). Spielmann had played in that tournament and written the tournament book. Karel Treybal had achieved a draw, but Eliskases played more vigorously than Salomon Flohr. Spielmann had a constricted position and was unable to break down his opponent's centre. Eliskases then built up a winning King-side attack. [[Game 3]] - Spielmann once again opened with Ruy Lopez and Eliskases replied with the Berlin Defence. Eliskases played very precisely against Spielmann's King-side assault and the game was poised on a knife-edge: click for larger view Spielmann played <28.Rfe1> which in Eliskases opinion secured a draw, "After more than half an hour's contemplation. It is the only move which secures the draw." [(7)]. Spielmann could do no better than to reach a drawn opposite-coloured Bishop's ending. [[Game 4]] - Spielmann replied energetically to Eliskases' Colle system, by pushing his <g> and <h> pawns. At a critical point, on the 15th move, he missed an advantageous variation and Eliskases managed to equalise and the game was then quickly drawn. [[Game 5]] - Eliskases, as black, equalised using the Slav Defence, but then overplayed his hand. With attacking prospects on the King-side, Eliskases underestimated Spielmann's counter-play on the opposite wing. As a consequence, he lost the exchange. Eliskases desperately continued to attack Spielmann's King by sacrificing a Knight, but Spielmann kept his head and won the game: click for larger view [<37.Bxh3!>] [[Game 6]] - Eliskases' Queen's pawn opening transposed into the Exchange variation of the French Defence. Pieces were exchanged to a lengthy but ineluctably drawn Queen and Pawns ending. click for larger view Both players analysed the position together and concluded it was a drawn ending after: 53. Kg2 Qe4+ 54. Qxe4+ dxe4 55. Kf2 Kf4 56. Ke2 e3 57. d5 cxd5 58. b5 Ke5 59. Kxe3 d4+ 60. Kd3 Kd5 61. c6... [(8)]. [[Game 7]] - "The Immortal Boomerang Game" a game that suddenly turned from an apparent overwhelming attack by Spielmann to defeat. Reuben Fine wrote that this was, "The most brilliant game of that match (and) is an enduring masterwork." [(9)]. Spielmann attempted to overwhelm his opponent's defences before Eliskases had the opportunity to castle. After 14 moves, Spielmann was faced with a critical decision: click for larger view It appears that he now attempted to win his opponent's Queen, but overlooked her refuge on <a6>. With <15.Rxf5!> all would still to be to play for, the Rook cannot be captured as it allows mate in one. "Spielmann sees that the Black Queen will be cornered in a6, with her king exposed in the centre, but he does not correctly evaluate that Black will then have more developed pieces than White, the only good move was <15.Rxf5>" [(10)]. ... [[Game 8]] - A steady game, in which Spielmann played the Queen's Indian Defence. He was able to eliminate his only weakness, a backward <c> pawn and the position liquidated to a drawn Rook and Pawns ending. [[Game 9]] - Spielmann blundered this game away in the endgame with an unnecessary check: click for larger view Instead of pushing the <f> pawn, he checked with the Rook on <d8> losing a vital tempo. [[Game 10]] - Game 10 began on the same day as its adjourned predecessor. Spielmann might not now be able to win the match but professional and personal pride meant that he was not going down without a fight. click for larger view <29...Nxe3!> and Spielmann soon won to reduce his match deficit to a single point. <Reflections on the match:> "In Austria, something very special happened with chess recently. The chess club at Linz on the Danube celebrated its twenty-fifth anniversary and for this occasion organised a contest between the great master Spielmann and the youthful Tyrolean master Eliskases. They did not expect much from this match, because no one doubted that Spielmann would easily win. Eliskases was no unknown, because he had represented Austrian team in the of the World Chess Federation Olympiad in Hamburg two years ago, and did so with great success. Since that time people had heard little of him and nobody could have suspected that this young man could be the equal or even the superior of a chess player like Spielmann. However, it was so! The messages from Linz sounded favourable from day one for Eliskases, which was a great surprise in Vienna chess circles. Almost everyone, until the very last moment, expected this to change, but Eliskases remained dominant and as a result this very modestly set up match became a sensation for the whole chess world....The age difference probably played a role in this competition. Thirty years are a great difference, and in the eternal struggle between young and old, Youth will always remain victorious. In Linz, Youth has surely found a promising representative of whom one will no doubt hear great things." [(11)] <Notes:> Three missing games (nos: 6, 7 and 9) were submitted to the Database to complete the collection. [(1)]. http://chessmetrics.com/cm/CM2/Sing... [(2)]. "Vorarlberger Landes-Zeitung", 21st September 1932, p.6. [(3)]. "Wiener Schach-Zeitung", Nr.17-18, September 1932, p.272. [(4)]. "Wiener Schach-Zeitung", Nr.20, October 1932, p.316. [(5)]. From a biography by Prof. Dück, Innsbruck in "Wiener Schach-Zeitung", Nr.20, October 1932, p.305-6. [(6)]. “New York Times”, 20 August 1929, p. 21 and 24. See http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/... [(7)]. "Wiener Schach-Zeitung", Nr.20, October 1932, p.310. [(8)]. "Wiener Schach-Zeitung", Nr.20, October 1932, p.313. [(9)]. "The World's Great Chess Games", Reuben Fine p.182. [(10)]. Leontxo Garcia in "El Pais", 20th February 2013, https://elpais.com/cultura/2013/02/... [(11)]. Hans Kmoch, "Het Volk" (Holland), 6th October 1932. [ Text and original research by User: Chessical. Thanks to User: OhioChessFan for suggestions to improve the text. ] 10 games, 1932 Spielmann - Eliskases (2nd match) <Introduction:> This was a ten game match for the championship of Austria [(1)] played in the fashionable Alpine resort of Semmering from Tuesday 1st to Saturday 12th December 1936. This was the second match between these masters. In the first match in 1932, Erich Eliskases won (+3 =5 -2) and in this second match Eliskases won again (+2 =7 -1). It was a very close affair, Rudolf Spielmann was never behind in this match until the penultimate game. According to Chessmetrics: "The strongest match held between 1936 and 1937 was Eliskases-Spielmann II (Semmering), 1936. This was a matchup of... #17 Erich Eliskases (2632) and #22 Rudolf Spielmann (2618) from the January 1936 rating list." [(2)]. Spielmann was 52 and Eliskases was 22 years old. Spielmann's best years as a chess professional were behind him. His peak years were in the 1920's when he had been a candidate for the world championship (New York (1927)), had won Semmering (1926) and come second in the very strong Karlsbad (1929) with a career-best performance. Although he had slipped out of the top ten players by the mid-1930's Spielmann was still capable of impressive performances. At Moscow (1935) he came fifth in a very strong tournament behind Mikhail Botvinnik, Salomon Flohr, Emanuel Lasker, and Jose Raul Capablanca. <The progress of the match> Spielmann was White in the odd-numbered games. table[ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 Spielmann ½ ½ ½ ½ 1 ½ 0 ½ 0 ½ 4½ Eliskases ½ ½ ½ ½ 0 ½ 1 ½ 1 ½ 5½ ]table Progressive score: table[ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 Spielmann ½ 1 1½ 2 3 3½ 3½ 4 4 4½ Eliskases ½ 1 1½ 2 2 2½ 3½ 4 5 5½ ]table . <Contemporary comment:> "<The premier Austrian master.> Eliskases has beaten Spielmann by 5½:4½, the same result as four years ago in Linz. In Semmering, Eliskases again prevailed against Spielmann who is thus the first so far in Austrian Chess history to take the officially undesignated title of 'Conquered Austrian Master'. Eliskases' victory four years ago was a great surprise, this time it is rather astonishing that after four years Spielmann is still on equal parity with his 30 years younger opponent; because with such a narrow margin of victory, we can hardly speak of the superiority of one over the other. Austria, to be sure, can be proud to call two such first class masters its own. The "old" Spielmann still has the fire of a twenty-year-old, and the young Eliskases, has the cold-bloodedness and maturity of an "Old Timer" - we are glad that we have two such guys! It is to the merit of the Chess Federation that this the most important and valuable event of the year ran so perfectly smoothly and without the slightest incident. Yet we believe that Chess Federation has been much too modest and could have made more of this occasion. Its diffidence was compounded by the feeble coverage provided by the Viennese press and a lack of interest from the general public. In any other country an event such as this match between Eliskases and Spielmann would have been promoted with publicity abroad and in every respect supported materially and morally by the authorities and the public. But with us so little happened that the public did not even take the dirt cheap special buses to Semmering and consequently most of these specially arranged charters had to be cancelled. We hope that the great success of the Eliskases-Spielmann match will, at last, provoke a transformation in the attitude of public institutions to chess with the effect that the state, country, and municipalities will grant the chess federation, the recognition and influence it deserves by virtue of its organizational achievements.” [(3)]. <Schedule of the match:> The "Wiener Schach-Zeitung" appears to have been running late in its publication at this time. The match which ended on the 12th December was reported in the November issue! [ Game 1 - 1st December 1936, "Wiener Schach-Zeitung", Nr. 22, November 1936, p.338 Game 2 - 2nd December 1936, ibid, Nr. 22, November 1936, p.339. Game 3 - 3rd December 1936, ibid, Nr. 22, November 1936, p.339. Game 4 - 5th December 1936, ibid, Nr. 22, November 1936, p.341. Game 5 - 6th December 1936, ibid, Nr. 22, November 1936, p.342. Game 6 - 7th December 1936, ibid, Nr. 22, November 1936, p.344. Game 7 - 8th December 1936, ibid, Nr. 22, November 1936, p.344. Game 8 - 9th December 1936, ibid, Nr. 23/24, December 1936, p.355. Game 9 - 11th December 1936, ibid, Nr. 23/24, December 1936, p.358. Game 10 - 12th December 1936, ibid, Nr. 23/24, December 1936, p.358. ] <The games> [[Game 1]] - Having being defeated in their previous match in 1932, Spielmann, with White, started his campaign 'with all his guns blazing'. Yet, the renowned tactician was the first to blunder. click for larger view With <16.Re1?> Spielmann gave Eliskases the opportunity to play <16...Qf6> after which Spielmann had no attack and too many vulnerable pieces. In a sharp but winning position, Eliskases himself then miscalculated click for larger view [18...Qf4! wins instead of 18...Bxf2+] and Spielmann was able to scramble to a draw. [[Game 2]] - The second game was very different to the first. Eliskases held the initiative for a long time and entered an advantageous Rook and Pawns ending. Spielmann played the ending well and was able to escape with a draw. [[Game 3]] - Spielmann with his second White of the match and changed tack with a <d4> opening. A Nimzo-Indian, Classical (E33) developed but the closed nature of the position with interlocked pawns led to manoeuvring in which neither player was able to establish an advantage. The game was drawn in 37 moves. [[Game 4]] - Spielmann played very precisely and equalized using the then popular Queen's Gambit Declined, Tartakower (D59). Eliskases had the opportunity to castle on opposite wings but preferred a slower exchange of central pawns. Spielmann in his notes to this games stated that, "Eliskases does not love dashing double-edged positions...but aspires for simplicity and clarity". [(4)]. It seems that Spielmann had been studying Euwe vs S Landau, 1936 and was hoping for a sharp tactical battle. [[Game 5]] - With the first four games tied, Spielmann returned with aggressive intent to the opening he has used in the first game - Giuoco Piano. click for larger view With the sacrifice <22.Nxg7!> he methodically built up an overwhelming King-side attack. Spielmann in his notes to this game wrote that the Knight sacrifice could "not be calculated exactly, but could only be sensed emotionally". [(5)]. Ironically, Spielmann's misfortunes began with this beautiful victory. He wrote that, "I had exhausted myself with this creative game..." and with a lack of rest days, he suffered in the second half of the match. In particular, Spielmann considered that his dissipated strength led directly to the loss of the ninth game. [(6)]. [[Game 6]] - Spielmann with Black accurately defended and equalized the game. In the final position, he stood somewhat better but: click for larger view "World Champion Max Euwe concluded, that black could make various attempts to win starting with <33...Kh7>, but if properly defended, these attempts would be unsuccessful. That is why I agreed to draw because I wanted to conserve my strength for the exhausting finish to the match without rest days." [(7)]. [[Game 7]] - Eliskases came back to level terms with a win as Black. Spielmann again used an <e> pawn opening and Eliskases defended with a Two Knights (C59) defence. Spielmann followed a variation he had used previously and successfully Spielmann vs E Cohn, 1909. Despite this, Spielmann blundered click for larger view [[Game 8]] - Spielmann defended with a variation of the French Defence which he was to employ several times over the next two years. Eliskases had pressure for most of the game until Spielmann sacrificed a pawn to achieve a draw although a pawn down. click for larger view [42...f4!?] This was a move of an experienced grandmaster. It is possible that Eliskases could have played perfectly and won, but it was far from inevitable. [[Game 9]] - This game followed a previous victory of Spielmann's - Spielmann vs Alatortsev, 1935. Eliskases carefully neutralised his opponent's solid Colle System and the game seemed to be heading for a draw. Spielmann, with his last White of the match, overplayed his position click for larger view with <18.Nf5?>. This move had no substance and by taking the Knight Eliskases was able to rapidly release his pieces and then win the exchange. Spielmann's position collapsed and he was now one behind in the match with only one game left to play. [[Game 10]] - Spielmann could draw the match if he won with Black in this game. He played a Sicilian Defence which was not part of his standard repertoire. From the opening his position had a significant weakness with a backward <d> pawn. Active piece play gave him dynamic equality but he was outmanoeuvred by Eliskases in the middle game. Eliskases built up a winning position and then agreed to a draw so sealing his victory in this match. <Notes:> Two games (nos 2 and 4) were submitted to the Database to complete the collection. [(1)]. "Bataviaasch Nieuwsblad", (Holland), 2nd January 1937. [(2)]. http://chessmetrics.com/cm/CM2/Summ... [(3)]. "Wiener Schach-Zeitung", Nr.22, November 1936, p.337. [(4)]. "Wiener Schach-Zeitung", Nr. 22, November 1936, p.341. [(5)]. "Wiener Schach-Zeitung", Nr.22, November 1936, p.342. [(6)]. "Wiener Schach-Zeitung", Nr.22, November 1936, p.344. [(7)]. "Wiener Schach-Zeitung", Nr.22, November 1936, p.344. [This text and original research by User: Chessical. ] 10 games, 1936 Spielmann - Eliskases (3rd match) <Introduction:> This was the last of three matches between Rudolf Spielmann and Erich Eliskases in the 1930's, and the second for the Austrian Championship [(1)]. Eliskases had won both of the preceding matches, in 1932 <+3 =5 -2> and in 1936 <+2 =7 -1>. This match of ten games was between Austria's leading grandmasters. It took place in June 1937 in Semmering, a fashionable resort at the time for health cures and alpine sports. [(2)]. "<The Eliskases-Spielmann match. Eliskases remains Champion>. The Eliskases-Spielmann return match, held from the 5th to the 16th of June at the 'Hotel Erzherzog Johann' in Semmering recently ended with the victory of the Tyrolean Master, who remains Austrian Champion and he will now have to defend his title against either Albert Becker or Ernst Gruenfeld. Eliskases won the 1st and 9th games, all remaining being drawn. Both opponents did not play up to their best form, Eliskases was even more restrained and cautious than usual and Spielmann lacked the vigour required to win the 3rd or 10th games respectively. Forthcoming foreign tournaments will provide an opportunity for both champions to show who is the most formidable opponent for the great masters. [(3)]. . . . <The progress of the match:> Spielmann was White in the odd-numbered games. table[ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 Spielmann 0 ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ 0 ½ - 4 Eliskases 1 ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ 1 ½ - 6 ]table Progressive score: table[ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 Spielmann 0 ½ 1 1½ 2 2½ 3 3½ 4 4 Eliskases 1 1½ 2 2½ 3 3½ 4 4½ 5½ 6]table . . . <Spielmann:> Using “Chessmetrics” data, in 1931, Spielmann was ranked 9th in the world [(4)], Eliskases was just emerging onto the international stage having become (joint) Austrian Champion in 1929. In June 1937, Spielmann was 54 years old whilst Eliskases was 24. Eliskases was ranked at 14 in the world whilst Spielmann had fallen to 34 [(5)]. Spielmann's ranking had been in slow decline since 1935. He was still able to have respectable scores in smaller tournaments. He was second to Alexander Alekhine at Margate (1938) (+3 -0 =6), but at Noordwijk (1938), he lost to all the leaders including Eliskases (+1 -5 =3) and his role had become that of a journeyman. For Spielmann, a Jew, the situation in his native Austria was becoming increasingly precarious and he was currently living in the Netherlands. In 1934, Nazis had attempted a coup in Austria and the country's independence was less than assured due to on-going German pressure and interference in its internal affairs. It would be Eliskases who represented Austria in the upcoming Semmering/Baden (1937) super-tournament (September 8th - 27th, 1937). The "Wiener Schach-Zeitung" said of the eight participants: "… these eight have been chosen with a care, which makes it possible to say that it is a tournament of the World Championship World Championship aspirants" [(6)]. <Eliskases:> Eliskases was approaching his peak form and in 1938 he became one of the top ten of players in the world [(7)]. At Semmering/Baden (1937), Eliskases finished mid-table (+3 -5 =6) in this exceptionally strong tournament. He tied his personal score with Keres with a win and a loss, but defeated Jose Raul Capablanca 1½:1, having outplayed him in a delicate bishop ending - Eliskases vs Capablanca, 1937. After this, he began a run of significant victories which established him as the Grossdeutsche Schachbund's leading chess player and a putative world championship contender. At Noordwijk (1938) Eliskases won first prize (+6 -0 =3), ahead of Paul Keres and Max Euwe. This was the first of a series of impressive tournaments results: German Champion at Bad Oeynhausen in 1938, first with Engels at Krefeld 1938, the German Champion again at Bad Oeynhausen 1939, first at Bad Elster 1939, first at Harzburg 1939, first at Milan 1939 and first at Vienna 1939. In January - February 1939, he played a match against the strongest player in the Grossdeutsche Schachbund, Efim Bogoljubov, and defeated him (+6 =11 -3) - Bogoljubov - Eliskases (1939). . . . <The games> [[Game 1]] - Spielmann with the White pieces showed that he had concluded that raw aggression was the best policy against his opponent's technical proficiency: "This time I had to cope with an immensely difficult, if not an impossible task. Eliskases, to defend his champion's title, needed only a drawn result which for him was synonymous with winning the match. But for me, a drawn result was tantamount to a loss. So I did not only have to give my opponent 30 years of life but I also had to avoid a draw and therefore use openings which had a lively fighting character irrespective of whether theory found them correct or frowned upon them. I was indifferent to whether the Kings Gambit was on its death bed or in a triumphal chariot, my watchword was "Schach dem Remisgeschiebe." [(8)]. Opening with the Center Game (C22), an opening that was neither fashionable nor one with which he had experience, Spielmann quickly castled long and threw his Queen-side pawns forward. Eliskases did not panic and it appears from his notes to the game [(9)] that he knew the precursor to Spielmann's plan - Winawer vs Steinitz, 1896, and regarded his opponent's attacking strategy as "premature". Spielmann's attack ground to a halt as his opponent's counterattack on the Queen-side built up momentum. Spielmann shed two pawns but could not achieve any compensatory counterplay and resigned when faced with a hopeless endgame. . . . [[Game 2]] - The second game of the match was the polar opposite of the first. It followed contemporary theory for 19 moves - Eliskases vs Vidmar, 1934 as Spielmann used the Queen's Gambit Declined Semi-Slav, Meran (D48) then at the height of its popularity. Careful defensive play by Spielmann led to an equal game and Eliskases was content to accept a draw after only 21 moves. . . . [[Game 3]] - Spielmann again decided to use the White pieces with aggressive intent. He disinterred his former signature opening King's Gambit Accepted (C34), but a variation with which he had a poor record - http://www.chessgames.com/perl/ches.... Once again, Eliskases played calmly and equalized despite having little experience of playing this opening. The game entered a Bishop and pawns ending in which Spielmann could not make any progress. . . . [[Game 4]] - The match continued its pattern, Spielmann playing aggressively with White but conservatively with Black. In this game, he chose a defense which was not in his normal repertoire - Caro-Kann, Classical (B18). Eliksases played without any particular ambition and the game was drawn in 30 moves. . . . [[Game 5]] - One game down and at the halfway point of the match, Spielmann changed his approach. He abandoned his former speculative King-Pawn opening attacks for the very solid Queen's Gambit Declined, Orthodox Defense, Classical, 13.de (D69). The game was played in a 'correct' positional fashion and ended with a perpetual check. . . . [[Game 6]] - Eliskases missed the opportunity to go two points ahead with only four games to play. click for larger view Eliskases' <44.Rg3+> unnecessarily lost a tempo to push his passed <b> pawn. The threat to take on <g2> was a chimera. . . . [[Game 7]] - Spielmann, once again changed tack and reverted to a King-Pawn opening using a plan from the games of the Viennese Master Leopold Loewy, Sr. [(10)]. Eliskases, perhaps to avoid any improvement by his opponent. Spielmann had a great deal of experience with White in this line, http://www.chessgames.com/perl/ches..., but Eliskases managed to exchange material and damp down any attacking prospects for his opponent. The game was drawn in 37 moves without any great incident. . . . [[Game 8]] - A game up and in sight of the end of the match, Eliskases used his opportunity as White to play a very solid opening with which he had accrued significant experience. He had previous experience against Spielmann in this line, Eliskases vs Spielmann, 1935, and the position out of the opening suited his careful positional style. Spielmann was given no opportunity to let loose his tactical ability, material was exchanged and the game entered a completely drawn Rook and Pawn ending. . . . [[Game 9]] - One game down with only two to play, this was Spielmann's last game with White. With the experience of the early games of the match, he now did not attempt to overwhelm Eliskases with a King-Side attack. Unfortunately, Spielmann made an egregious blunder which decided the match click for larger view <18.Bxh6?> simply lost a piece, as Spielmann found he had no effective follow-up. . . . [[Game 10]] - Two games down and having lost the match, Spielmann did not give up. As Black, he avoided the dangers of a solid but ultimately prospectless position that could result from using the Queen's Gambit. He chose instead the modern Nimzo-Indian, Fischer Variation, 5.Ne2 (E44) which had gained popularity in the 1930's. Eliskases avoided falling into a passive approach and sacrificed a pawn to open the position up for his pieces. Spielmann mitigated his opponent's initiative by a counter-sacrifice of the exchange. click for larger view Spielmann then held the initiative, but it was not quite enough to yield winning prospects. Eliskases was thus able to hold a Rooks and Pawn ending, a Pawn down, to win the match without losing a game to his opponent. . . . <Notes:> [(1)]. "Chess Review", February 1937, p.39. [(2)]. See https://diepresse.com/home/panorama... [(3)]. "Wiener Schach-Zeitung", Nr.9-10, May 1937, p.129. [(4)]. http://www.chessmetrics.com/cm/CM2/... [(5)]. http://www.chessmetrics.com/cm/CM2/... [(6)]. "Wiener Schach-Zeitung", Nr.11-12, July 1937, p.161. [(7)]. http://www.chessmetrics.com/cm/CM2/... [(8)]. "Wiener Schach-Zeitung", Nr.9-10, May 1937, p.129. [(9)]. "Wiener Schach-Zeitung", Nr.11-12, June 1937, p.170. [(10)]. "Wiener Schach-Zeitung", Nr.11-12, June 1937, p.173. [This text and original research by User: Chessical. Thanks to User: OhioChessFan, User: Stonehenge and User: ChessHigherCat for their assistance.] 10 games, 1937 Spielmann - Euwe 1932 <Introduction:> This was a training match for Max Euwe ahead of his match with Salomon Flohr - Euwe - Flohr (1932). It was played in Amsterdam from 6th-18th March 1932. "By way of practice, Euwe plays a living-room match in Amsterdam against the peripatetic Rudolf Spielmann, whom he defeats 3-1 (+2 -0 =2). This is followed by the showdown with Flohr..." [(1)] <The players:> Spielmann at 48, was 18 years older than his opponent. Using Chessmetric's data, [(2)] this was a match between Spielmann at 11th place and Euwe at 6th place in the world ratings.They had played eight times previously, and had a equal score (+2 -2 =4). Spielmann was known for his attacking prowess. He had recently defeated the 1929 world championship contender Efim Bogoljubov (+4 -3 =3) in January 1932, but he would lose a close match against Erich Eliskases - Spielmann - Eliskases (1932) (+2 -3 =5) in September 1932. Euwe had won the Dutch Championship in 1921, 1924, 1926 and was the pre-eminent Dutch player. Despite teaching mathematics and playing chess as an amateur, he had won Hastings (1930/31) by half a point ahead of Capablanca. In July 1931, he played a match against Capablanca - Capablanca - Euwe (1931), but lost by 2 losses and 8 draws. <The progress of the match:> Spielmann was White in the odd-numbered games. table[ 1 2 3 4 Spielmann 0 ½ ½ 0 Euwe 1 ½ ½ 1]table Progressive score: table[ 1 2 3 4 Spielmann 0 ½ 1 1 Euwe 1 1½ 2 3 ]table [[Game 1]] - "Amsterdam, Tuesday. Yesterday evening the first of four training games was played in the "Lyceum" Café, between Euwe and Spielmann, Euwe defended with a Semi-Slav Defense, and a very lively game developed in which Spielmann offered a pawn at <b2> to get the initiative, which did not succeed. Both players then fell into serious time pressure which Euwe dealt with the best and also won a pawn. Spielmann gave up some moves later." [(3)] click for larger view Spielmann played <17.Bxe4?>. This loses a pawn, for instance, <18. Qxe4> Bxf5 19. Qxf5 (or 19. Qf3 Bxe3+ 20. Qxe3 Rad8) 19... Bxe3+ 20. Kh1 g6 21. Qf3 Qxd4. [[Game 2]] - "The second game of the match will be played in the VAS chess club (Vereenigd Amsterdamsch Schaakgenootschap) on Saturday, March 12th. The third game will be played in the Amsterdam Chess Club". [(4)] Spielmann defended with a Queen's Gambit Declined using a variation championed by the English master Fred Dewhirst Yates. He efficiently equalised, but multiple exchanges led to a drawn Rook and Pawn ending. [[Game 3]] - "CHESS. EUWE - SPIELMANN. The third game was drawn. Last night in Amsterdam, the third game of the Euwe - Spielmann match took place. The game was given up as a draw after 31 moves as it was a perpetual check." [(5)] "CHESS. EUWE- SPIELMANN. The third game is tied despite Spielmann's fruitless attacking attempts. Yesterday, in the club room of the ASC, the third game of the short training match Euwe- Spielmann took place. Spielmann, with white, opened with <d2-d4> which resulted in the Nimzo-Indian, Spielmann (E23) on the part of Euwe. This variant proceeded to the 8th move according to the theory, after which Spielmann, instead of the usual <e2-e3>, tried to develop the King's Bishop via <g3>, thereby defying the dangers of <Nc6-d4>. Euwe tried to offer a pawn for rapid development, but his opponent did not take it and calmly completed his own development. Then there was an exchange at <c3>, after which the endgame began with the 14th move. Superficially, it seemed as if both sides were equal, but with a tactical trade-off of a Bishop for a Knight, Spielmann managed to deprive his opponent of both a powerful attacking and defensive weapon. Immediately, Spielmann pushed up his Queen-side pawns and began an action on the <b> and <c> files, and a Rook took on <c5>. Yet Spielmann could not achieve any advantage, thanks to Euwe's meticulous play and after the attack was over, Euwe deservedly had the better position. Spielmann's advanced <b> pawn could not be defended, whilst the Black <a> pawn would prove untenable. Nevertheless, it did not matter anymore, as Spielmann had at his disposal a line in which Euwe could not avoid a draw by repetition. The state of the match is currently: Euwe 2 points, Spielmann 1 point." [(6)] Spielmann, perhaps realising that he had not made the best of his chances, later played the line again - Najdorf vs Spielmann, 1934, [[Game 4]] - "Played on 16 and 18 March 1932 in Amsterdam" [(7)] "CHESS. EUWE - SPIELMANN. The fourth and final game adjourned. In the Café De Kroon, Rembrandtplein, Amsterdam, ( http://www.geheugenvannederland.nl/... ) the fourth and last game of the Euwe - Spielmann match began last night. After masterful play from both parties, Euwe was able to win a pawn on the 31st move. Two moves later the game was adjourned. Although Euwe stands slightly better, the game is still very difficult for him to win." [(8)] “Chess. FOURTH GAME. EUWE- SPIELMANN. AMSTERDAM, 18th March - This evening, in the Café Lyceum the fourth game of the training match Euwe (white) - Spielmann was played out (from the 32nd move - e.d.) ... Euwe may be very satisfied with the result of the four training matches. He was not in any difficulty in any of the games. Of course, the match was too short to draw any conclusions, but undoubtedly Euwe's result will give him self-confidence for his upcoming match with Salo Flohr, who will start on Friday, exactly one o'clock in the Odd Fellowhuis..." [(9)] Spielmann had achieved equality as Black, but as in the first game, he overlooked a tactical finesse by his opponent. click for larger view . Spielmann played <20..Ne6> (20...Qxd5 =). After this, Euwe held the initiative and by very precise play won a pawn and then the ending. <Conclusion:> Euwe was coming into the period of his peak strength (mid to late 1930s). This match was one of the early steps of his careful progress towards becoming the world championship challenger to Alexander Alekhine - Alekhine - Euwe World Championship Match (1935). <Notes:> [(1)]. Alexander Munninghoff, [[Max Euwe: The Biography]], in [[New in Chess]]. [(2)]. http://www.chessmetrics.com/cm/CM2/... [(3)]. “Het Volk", 8th March 1932. [(4)]. “De Telegraaf”, 8th March 1932. [(5)]. "Algemeen Handelsblad", 15th March 1932. [(6)]. “Algemeen Handelsblad", 15th March 1932. [(7)]. "Wiener Schach-Zeitung", Nr.7, April 1932, p.102. [(8)]. “Algemeen Handelsblad”, 17th March 1932. [(9)]. “De Telegraaf”, 19th March 1932. [This text and original research by User: Chessical. ] 4 games, 1932 Spielmann - Pirc 1931 <Work in progress> 2 games, 1931 Spielmann - Teichmann <Introduction:> This was a match of six games played in the Café Kaiserhof Leipzig [(1)] from Thursday 19th February to Friday 27th February [(2)] 1914 between Rudolf Spielmann and Richard Teichmann. Teichmann scored an emphatic victory in the strongly contested match, where all of the games were decisive. "The match at Leipzig between these masters ... has ended in a brilliant victory for Richard Teichmann, who has once more proved his quality by defeating his powerful antagonist by five games to one, the contest being of six games". [(3)] "<TEICHMANN BEATS SPIELMANN> The match between Teichmann and Spielmann, which was played in Leipzig, has ended in a decisive victory for Teichmann, who won five games and lost one. The games are of a high order, worthy the reputation of the two masters. In one or two games he reproduced the form he displayed when he won the Karlsbad (1911) international tournament, and in these Spielmann could not more than resist for about twenty moves. It has always been a surprise to the chess world that Teichmann has not taken part in more matches. His style of play is particularly adapted for individual contests, and one critic gave his opinion that Teichmann had as much chess in him as any other master." [(4)] The two opponents had first met over the board in 1907. They had played 15 games, the last being in 1912 at the 18th DSB Congress, Breslau (1912). Teichmann had won six games whilst Spielmann had only won two games. In their last eight encounters, Spielmann had not won a game but had lost two. Teichmann's achievement in this match can be seen in perspective by Speilmann's next tournament, Baden-bei-Wien (1914), (5th to 30th April 1914), which he won ahead of a number of strong central European masters including; Savielly Tartakower, Carl Schlechter and Richard Reti <Venue:> Café Kaiserhof was a prominent café in the centre of the city; it was a large establishment with a separate billiards room. [(5)] <Spielmann:> Spielmann was one of the new generation of players who had emerged in the first decade of the twentieth century including: Alexander Alekhine, Aron Nimzowitsch, Milan Vidmar, Richard Reti, Savielly Tartakower, Efim Bogoljubov, Georg Rotlewi. Unlike many of his contemporaries, he was not of the "hyper-modern" style. "Spielmann's style is so idiosyncratic that you cannot find its like with any other master. Through the simplest of means, he knows to bring about complications and to draw surprising advantages from them." [(6)] Spielmann had an aggressive and tactical style of play. He had achieved some solid ( 18th DSB Congress, Breslau (1912) and Nordic Congress, Stockholm (1912)) and some very good recent results. In early 1912, he had won the Abbazia (1912) gambit tournament. He had been second equal behind Rubinstein at both the very strong Bad Pistyan (1912) and San Sebastian (1912) tournaments. Spielmann had then won the Vienna Chess Club Jubilee Tournament (March 17 to April 7, 1913) <Teichmann:> In 1911, Milan Vidmar commented on Teichmann’s strength: “The chess world's ruler Emanuel Lasker sees a new governor move in, in his most important province, where he was cradled himself. He was very worried about this part of his empire. Not too long ago, he had to crush an insubordinate Viceroy (Siegbert Tarrasch - e.d.). The new man is no longer a new man. A rare mishap has hidden a star of the first magnitude from the world of chess, a man who certainly is, after Dr Lasker, the next greatest German master. He has settled himself comfortably in fifth place in almost every tournament... Teichmann was never a dry player. He draws a lot, but when he actually plays there was always fire." [(7)] Jose Raul Capablanca also held him in high regard, listing him in September 1914 with Lasker, Akiba Rubinstein, Carl Schlechter, Teichmann and himself as “the five strongest players in the world today” [(8)] Capablanca further wrote: “Richard Teichmann is a player who combines the qualities of both Lasker and Tarrasch. Like Lasker, Teichmann has Bohemian tendencies. He is an accomplished linguist; cannot extend himself to his best effort unless his whiskey and soda are at close call, and is clever at all games of cards and billiards. Work is no virtue with him, despite his massive bulk. As soon as his money is gone, he sets about to play chess.” [(9)] A retrospective analysis by Chessmetrics agrees with Capablanca’s assessment. Teichmann was one of the top five players in the world for the period of Karlsbad 1911 to the First World War 1914 [(10)] In February 1914, Teichmann was 45 years old, giving 15 years advantage to his opponent. Teichmann had played sparingly over the previous two years as this was his first taste of master play since 18th DSB Congress, Breslau (1912) (July – August 1912). He would decline to play at 19th DSB Congress, Mannheim (1914) (July - August 1914) at the last minute. . . . <The progress of the match:> Spielmann was White in the odd-numbered games. table[ 1 2 3 4 5 6 Spielmann 0 1 0 0 0 0 - 1 Teichmann 1 0 1 1 1 1 - 5 ]table Progressive score: table[ 1 2 3 4 5 6 Spielmann 0 1 1 1 1 1 Teichmann 1 1 2 3 4 5 ]table . . . <The games> [[Game 1]] Teichmann chose the Four Knights opening and Spielmann played a favourite defence - Reti vs Spielmann, 1914. Spielmann sacrificed a pawn for the exchange, but misplayed and lost the initiative: click for larger view Spielmann rejected <20...Bxg3> for the passive <20...Qd4> and resigned soon after in a position bereft of any prospects. . . . [[Game 2]] This game was Spielmann's only win in the match. Playing Black in a Scotch Opening, he played accurately keeping a momentum and Teichmann never quite equalised. Teichmann was outmanoeuvred and sacrificed a Knight for two pawns, but then found the ending too difficult to hold over the broad. This well-played win equalised the scores and it would have seemed that the chances for victory in this match were finely balanced. . . . [[Game 3]] This game, which was the most published game of the match, was a disaster for Spielmann. Spielmann defended with the Sicilian Defence, which was not and would never be part of his regular repertoire [(11)], and was crushed in 19 moves. Teichmann played actively and showed that he could combine with deadly effect: click for larger view [<15. b4!> xcxb4 16.Nxd5! exd5 17. e6 f5 18. exd7+ Kxd7 19. Bxf5!!] . . . [[Game 4]] Spielmann as White gained the advantage in a Two Knight's defence. In a similar manner to Game 2, he built up an advantage by fastening onto Teichmann's weaknesses, in this case a doubled <e> pawn. Unfortunately, on the cusp of his second win, he miscalculated click for larger view After <34.Bxc4?> instead of <34.Bxb6!>, he lost the exchange for a pawn and he could not hold the ending. . . . [[Game 5]] Two games down with two games to play and with the Black piece, Spielmann threw caution to the wind. He defended against the Ruy Lopez with a Delayed Schielmann variation previously used by Frank Marshall (Games Like Teichmann vs Spielmann, 1914). Spielmann had only played this early <f5> thrust twice before: P Leonhardt vs Spielmann, 1908 and L Asztalos vs Spielmann, 1913. In both games, he had broken through his opponent's King-side. On this occasion, the quality of his opponent was higher. Teichmann sacrificed a piece for a sudden King-side attack. click for larger view [<13.Bxd5>] Winning the material back, Teichmann kept the pressure on and won with a neat combination to win Spielmann's Rook. . . . [[Game 6]] Teichmann had won the match, but Spielmann had not given up. He had the White pieces and the chance to reduce the deficit to 4-2. Spielmann played too aggressively in the opening. click for larger view Whilst <9.Nxd4> was equal, Spielmann tried to whip up complications with <Nb5?!>. The idea was to force the Bishop away from protecting <Ne5> by <c3> and so winning the piece back. Instead, he was left with a prospect-less position in which his minor pieces had few good squares. Teichmann steered the game into a Rook and Pawns ending in which he was two good pawns up and won without encountering any significant problems. . . . <Notes:> [(1)]. Café Kaiserhof (Leipzig) Barfussgässchen 15-Am Märchenbrunnen, see https://www.plakatkontor.de/ivpda-p... Leipzig had a thriving café culture, where its habitués were known as the "Kaffeesachsen" (Saxony's coffee-drinkers). [(2)]. "Classical Chess Matches: 1907 -1913", p.225. Fred Wilson, Dover Publications. The historical source of this book is "The Year Book of Chess" for 1914. [(3)]. “Linlithgowshire Gazette”. Friday 20 March 1914, p.7. [(4)]. “Stirling Observer “, Tuesday 17th March 1914, p.8. [(5)]. http://www.ansichtskarten-markt.com... [(6)]. Lasker in "Pester Lloyd", 5th October 1913, p.10. These remarks were in relation to [bad chessgames.com link] [(7)]. Milan Vidmar (in the tournament book Karlsbad 1911) quoted by Michael Negele in "Genug des Stumpfsinns, Remis … Richard der Fünfte kam aus Altenburg" https://www.schachbund.de/news/genu... [(8)]. Capablanca wrote in the "Capablanca-Magazine" of 30th September 1914, p.113-114. [(9)] "Capablanca in the 'Evening Post' (New York), 22nd July 1916, p.9. [(10)]. http://www.chessmetrics.com/cm/CM2/... [(11)]. See http://www.chessgames.com/perl/ches... [ This text and original research by User: Chessical. I have used some German newspaper sources identified by User: Karpova Proof reading and corrections by User: OhioChessFan ] 6 games, 1914 Spielmann vs Bogoljubov <Introduction:> This match between two leading masters, the Russian born, but now naturalised, German Efim Bogoljubov and the Austrian Rudolf Spielmann. It took place from 7th to 20th January 1932 in the Alpine resort of Semmering. The venue was the Grand Hotel Panhans, an international hotel. They had recently played in the very strong double-rounded grandmaster tournament Bled (1931) (23rd August - 28th September 1931). Spielman had won their individual encounters by 1½ to ½, although Bogoljubov had outpaced him in the general competition coming second with 15 points as compared to Spielmann's tenth place with 12.5 points. "The competition held in the Grand Hotel Panhans, Semmering, the match Bogoljubov-Spielmann ended 4:3 with 3 draws in favour of the Austrian master. Out of ten games, there were only three draws and even by mere chance - that's surprisingly few!" [(1)] <Semmering> "What is declared will be the largest resort in Europe is being constructed at Semmering, 60 miles from Vienna Austria. William D. Zimidin, a Latvian businessman leads a syndicate which is reviving Semmering, once a popular resort, but which had slumbered for years until Zimidin bought one of the leading hotels. he spent $1,500,000 in building an open air swimming tank...His other plans for the resort include an aerodrome, a service of "railbuses" to rush visitors from Vienna at 75 miles per hour, a huge athletic stadium, a casino and numerous beauty contests." [(2)] Semmering was begining to attract prestigious foreign visitors, later in the year the American author Sinclair Lewis took a "cozy villa" outside of the town. [(3)] <Bogoljubov:> Bogoljubov had been the challenger Alekhine - Bogoljubov World Championship Match (1929) and was the current German Champion. He had come second to Alekhine, albeit 5½ points behind, in the very strong Bled (1931). His peak performances were in 1928-1936 [(4)] and Alekhine would choose him as his challenger again - Alekhine - Bogoljubov World Championship Rematch (1934). After the 1929 world championship tournament it was clear that Bogoljubov was no match for Alekhine, and his score to date against the man seen widely as the most credible contender Jose Raul Capablanca was a miserable <+0 =1 -5>. If not quite a world champion, Bogoljubov was still an extremely strong grandmaster. His score against Akiba Rubinstein was 14 to 13, with 10 draws, and Aron Nimzowitsch was 8 to 6, with 4 draws. <Spielmann:> Spielman's peak was in the late 1920's. His greatest tournament triumph being Semmering (1926) ahead of a very strong field including Capablanca. Other notable results from this time included Berlin (1928) where he took third place behind Jose Raul Capablanca and Aron Nimzowitsch and at Karlsbad (1929) where he was an equal second with Capablanca, behind Nimzowitsch, but ahead of such formidable opponents as Akiba Rubinstein, Max Euwe, and Efim Bogoljubov. <The progress of the match:> Spielmann was White in the odd-numbered games. table[ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 Spielmann 0 0 ½ 1 1 ½ 1 ½ 1 0 5½ Bogoljubov 1 1 ½ 0 0 ½ 0 ½ 0 1 4½ ]table Progressive score: table[ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 Spielmann 0 0 ½ 1½ 2½ 3 4 4½ 5½ 5½ Bogoljubov 1 2 2½ 2½ 2½ 3 3 3½ 3½ 4½]table . <Schedule of the match:> [ Game 1 - 7th January 1932, Semmering, "Wiener Schach-Zeitung", Nr.5, March 1932, p.69. Game 2 - 8th January 1932, Semmering, "Wiener Schach-Zeitung", Nr.2, January 1932, p.23. Game 3, - 9th January 1932, Semmering, "Wiener Schach-Zeitung", Nr.3, February 1932, p.37. Game 4, - 10th January 1932, Semmering, "Wiener Schach-Zeitung", Nr.5, March 1932, p.73. Game 5 - 13th January 1932, Semmering, "Wiener Schach-Zeitung", Nr.5, March 1932, p.72. Game 6, - 14th January 1932, Semmering, "Wiener Schach-Zeitung", Nr.4, March 1932, p.57. Game 7 - 16th January 1932, Semmering, "Wiener Schach-Zeitung", Nr.5, March 1932, p.74. Game 8, - 17th January 1932, Semmering, "Wiener Schach-Zeitung", Nr.3, February 1932, p.58. Game 10, - 20th January 1932, Semmering, "Wiener Schach-Zeitung", Nr.3, February 1932, p.36. ] <The victor reflects:> "To appreciate the result, we can not do any better than give the winner, Rudolf Spielmann's, own words from the "Munich Chess Newspaper" "My victory over the German Champion surprised me as well as both my opponent and the whole chess world. Not that I'm too modest... but if you consider Bogoljubov's great tournament successes, his great opening knowledge and the inexhaustible freshness of his style, you would have had to allow him the better prospects. In most of the games Bogoljubov had me in a more or less dubious positions, but he underestimated both my concentration and my resilience. Being a melancholy person, if I begin poorly I usually brood on failure, but this time I held it together. Of course, that was no coincidence. We only played for six hours a day. There was sufficient time to relax, there was nice weather and beautiful mountains. This was everything I love and which I needed to mentally and physically recover. Bogoljubov was too optimistic this time. Optimism has brought him many great successes but he also has his own demons. Bogoljubov only rarely obliged himself to take the necessary care in advantageous positions. His three winning games were though, without a doubt, masterpieces. It is woe to any opponent of Bogoljubov once he soars into his most superb form but throughout the Semmering match, he only achieved this in these three games! I am glad that I now have this arduous struggle behind me and that I have emerged the victor. I feel as though I have received a New Year's gift from the Gods!" [(5)] There were few gifts awaiting Speilmann in the 1930's. Austria became increasingly unstable caught between two aggressive Fascist powers Germany and Italy. Speilmann spent long periods in Holland whilst the situation for Jewish Austrians became ever more precarious. Later in 1932, Nazi outrages reached even rural Semmering: "hundreds of shots were exchanged within a few minutes , and the dead and wounded fell quickly". [(6)] <Bogolyubov in Vienna:> After the completion of the Semmering match, Bogoljubov's sojourn in Austria offered Hietzing, the great Viennese Chess club, a welcome opportunity to invite him to an interesting event. On 23rd January, the Grand Master was in Vienna for an interview at the radio station with the master Hans Müller. Then at the Hietzing chess club, he then gave a ten game simultaneous exhibition against the best players of that club. The severity of the task can be seen in the names of his opponents: the champions H. Müller, Eliskases, Döry, Grünfeld (junior), Igel, the master contenders Haberditz, Hoffmann, Kolnhofer, Dr.Metänömski, Kokäja (the latter a Circassian master and a Turkish captain.)...5 wins, 2 losses, 3 draws, It must be said that Bogoljubov played excellently. His performance also made the more impressive as he played pretty quickly and all the games were finished under four hours..." [(7)] <The Games:> [[Game 1]] - Spielmann lost the first game despite having the White pieces. A succession of inaccurate moves and small blunders degraded Spielmann's position and led to a Rook and Pawn endgame in which he was a Pawn down. Bogoljubov's Rook was active and his King had penetrated as far as <g3> when Spielmann resigned. [[Game 2]] - Bogoljubov's second win a row. Spielmann defended in a Queen's Gambit Exchange variation in which both players castled Queen-side. Bogoljubov established a pawn on <e6> and a Knight on <d7> click for larger view and Spielmann was on the defensive with no counterplay. With no way to prevent the inexorable advance of these pawns Spielmann resigned. [[Game 3]] - Bogoljubov played a QGD Meran variation and won a Pawn leading to a Rook and Pawns endgame where he had a draw in hand and a small chance to score a third win: click for larger view Spielmann held the ending providing further evidence that <"with Pawns only on one side, a one Pawn advantage is insufficient to win"> [(8)] - see Endgame Explorer: RPPP vs RPP [[Game 4]] - Bogoljubov playing nonchalantly played a natural but extremely careless move and lost immediately in the opening. click for larger view By castling King-side, he lost a piece. "To understand the following game, you need to be acquainted with the accompanying circumstances. Bogoljubov, who had begun this match so promisingly... played the opening quickly, with his attention focused mainly on his breakfast. The consequences of this soon became apparent... No sooner had Bogoljubov played this move than he choked..." [(9)] click for larger view [[Game 5]] - Spielmann won again, but in this game Bogoljubov did not obligingly gift him the point. Spielmann worked up a King-side attack click for larger view and with <30.Nf6!> quickly won. The match was now tied. [[Game 6]] - Bogoljubov should have won this game having achieved a dominating position. click for larger view with <39.d7!> he would have taken the point. Instead, he missed this and then failed to take advantage of Spielmann's shaky defence. What could have been a resounding victory fizzled out into a draw. [[Game 7]] - Bogoljubov defended with a Sicilian Defence. He played the opening poorly, and his King became stranded in the centre. Spielmann's play was again prone to inaccuracies, but his advantage was sufficient to lead to an eventual win. [[Game 8]] - "Nothing characterizes this game better than Bogoljubov's own words: <"Another nice game thrown away!"> [(10)]. As in Game 6, Bogoljubov achieved a fine position as White but could not capitalise on it: click for larger view He failed to break open Spielmann's King-side and once again a promising middle game only yielded Bogoljubov a half point. [[Game 9]] - Bogoljubov, with Black, was determined to win this game from the opening. Unfortunately, that determination soon over-took the bounds of prudence. He threw his King-side pawns forward click for larger view Spielmann sacrificed a Knight for a mobile pawn centre and a spectacular attack. Spielmann's tactical fireworks were probably unsound, but over the board they proved too much for Bogoljubov who was a greater attacking player than a defender. Bogoljubov's King stranded on <e7> ended up in a mating net. [[Game 10]] - Having lost four of the last seven games, and two from very promising positions, it might be expected that Bogoljubov would have any appetite for further competition. Bogoljubov did not give up and he smashed his way through Spielmann's King-side. Whilst this was an emphatic win, it once again illustrated the poor defensive play that characterised both masters in this match. <Notes> [(1)]. "Wiener Schach-Zeitung", Nr.3, February 1932, p.33. [(2)]. "Hartford Courant", (Hartford, Connecticut),25th November 1932, p. 15 [(3)]. "The Tampa Times", (Tampa, Florida), 23rd November 1932, p.5 [(4)]. (http://www.chessmetrics.com/cm/CM2/...) [(5)]. "Wiener Schach-Zeitung", Nr.5, March 1932, p.75. [(6)]. "Bradford Evening Star and The Bradford Daily Record", (Bradford, Pennsylvania), 17th October 1932, p.4. [(7)]. "Wiener Schach-Zeitung", Nr.3, February 1932, p.59-60. [(8)]. "Practical Rook Endings", Mendis, p.32. [(9)]. "Wiener Schach-Zeitung", Nr.5, March 1932, p.73-74. [(10)]. "Wiener Schach-Zeitung", Nr.4, February 1932, p.59. Games 7 and 8 were submitted to Database to complete this collection. [This text and original research by User: Chessical. ] 10 games, 1932 Sultan Khan - Tartakower <Introduction> This was a match of twelve games, held between Saturday 17th - Saturday 31st January 1931, in the Austrian mountain resort of Semmering, 3,000 feet up in the Alpine Wechsel Pass. The match was played at the large and internationally renowned Panhaus Hotel. The hours of play were from 10 a.m to 2 p.m and then from 4 p.m to 8 p.m. [(1)] This was the match of two great talents, one naive, Sultan Khan having only been recently introduced to European chess and the other, Savielly Tartakower, a seasoned professional and cosmopolitan intellectual. Using Chessmetric's data, Sultan Khan was the fifteenth rated player in the world whilst Tartakower was the eighth-rated player [(2)]. <"My match with Sultan Khan - which remained undecided until the last (12th) game which was won by my opponent - was a triumph for my adversary who demonstrated in the contest that he possessed a peerless tenacity and imagination."> [(3)]. <Sultan Khan> "This tiny slender man with his bronzed complexion and raven-black, shiny hair, the sharp long Indian nose and his serious appearance, which never betrays surprise or unrest. Sultan Khan plays with a great ease. He seems to be able to do so without any effort." [(4)]. Sultan Khan had burst onto the European chess scene only two years before in 1929. Coming from India as an indentured servant but with a prodigious talent for Indian chess, he had been introduced to its European variant by his employer. After a small amount of coaching, Sultan Khan won a weakened 1929 British championship at Ramsgate. His most powerful rivals George Thomas and Fred Dewhirst Yates were absent playing at Karlsbad (1929). He played first board for England at Chess Olympiads at Hamburg 1930 and would do so twice more at Prague 1931 and Folkestone 1933. At Scarborough (1930) (June 23rd to July 5th, 1930), he was fourth losing to Edgard Colle, Geza Maroczy Akiba Rubinstein but scoring very heavily against the minor masters. At Liege (1930) in August, he lost in the last round to Savielly Tartakower - Tartakower vs S Khan, 1930 - but came second ahead of Edgard Colle, Aron Nimzowitsch, Akiba Rubinstein and Frank Marshall. The match took place in January 1931, shortly after Sultan Khan played in Hastings (1930/31). Hastings ended on the 7th January 1931. Although Sultan Khan had lost to Max Euwe, the tournament winner, he defeated Jose Raul Capablanca - S Khan vs Capablanca, 1930 - and came third. At the end of the game, Jose Raul Capablanca applauded his opponent and highly commended his skill. This endorsement greatly raised both Sultan Khan's profile and standing but as this match took place only ten days after the conclusion of the Hastings tournament, it unlikely that it was a significant factor in this match coming about. Yates was quoted as saying at the Hamburg Olympiad: "In a few years, Sultan Khan will be World Champion...That man is living chess, no book knowledge, no dogmas or systems, in the endgame his play is stronger than that of Capablanca or Alexander Alekhine . . . " [(5)]. Some commentators were less impressed, voicing suspicions that Sultan Khan was being pushed forward due to the ambition of others to create a new "British" world-class presence in the chess world. The Dutch had: Max Euwe, the Swedes Gideon Stahlberg, the Salomon Flohr , all home-grown talent but the British had to rely on someone from their colonies. This attitude can be seen in the following Dutch newspaper commentary: "Mir Malik Sultan Khan. Europe has a weakness for exotic chess players. In 1910, Capablanca was also celebrated and admired on his first visit to Europe until it became rather ridiculous. No wonder, then, that the British Indian Sultan Khan is now at the centre of a general excitement of the chess audience. Already, Fred Dewhirst Yates his brother from tropical Britain has spoken to everyone at the Hamburg Olympiad as if a second Paul Morphy had appeared in the international arena. Although the results of this young disciple of Caissa were indeed worthy of consideration, we can see here again a serious symptom of the modern disease called "hero-worship". Sultan Khan defeated Capablanca at Hastings, something Alexander Ilyin-Zhenevsky and Boris Verlinsky both did in Moscow (1925). But whilst they were not labelled as future world champions this is now being attempted with the British Indian. Perhaps this is driven by the longing for another Joseph Blackburne or a Amos Burn? At the end of the last century they elevated England to be a leading chess nation, but after their retirement, they had no worthy successors. After the tournament at Hastings, Sultan Khan left for Semmering to play a match of 12 games with Dr Tartakower. As far as we know, the score after the third game of the match was +1 =1 -1. In Düsseldorf, on his way to the match, Sultan Khan met with a German journalist. The interview did not go smoothly. Sultan Khan does not know a word of German and only speaks poor English. Here is what was published in the interview. Sultan Khan was born in 1905 but he does not know either the month or the day. His birthplace was Mita Tiwana (now Mitha Tiwāna, Pakistan - e.d.), in the Punjab in India. His father is Mr Nizzamuddin. "Do you have any brothers or sisters?" "I have a family of a thousand people", came the answer. The interviewer was stunned. Many questions later, it turns out that he meant the tribe to which he belongs; its name being Awan. [(6)]. His father and mother are still alive. His whole family (this time in a narrow sense) plays chess. He himself began to play chess at the age of ten. In 1923 he won his first tournament, in 1928 he was champion of India. He has been married for many years but since when he does not know. As Mohammedan, he is allowed to marry three more women, but for the time being, he does not want to. A blood relative Sir Umar Hayat Khan, who has lived in England for a long time, got him to that country in April 1929. At this point, the beautiful chess career of the Indian began. After a short time, he became the English champion. In the world chess federation Olympiad in Hamburg last year he played on first board for England winning nine out of seventeen games, losing four and drawing four. He plays to win and fights hard. For him, playing chess is a struggle to the very end. In Hastings in his game against Euwe, the Dutchman offered him a draw, but the Indian did not accept it. He played on, made a wrong move and lost.” [(7)] - see S Khan vs Euwe, 1931. "Match Tartakower - Sultan Khan. After the success of Sultan Khan in Hastings comes a very well-arranged and interesting match between the "routine" Tartakower and the still somewhat nebulous Sultan Khan, by the Panhans hotel in Semmering (already known for the famous Panhans grandmaster tournament in 1926). The match will be played from 17th to 31st January and consist of twelve games." [(8)]. <Tartakower> Although a law graduate, Tartakower chose to be a chess professional and also became a prolific chess journalist and author. Tartakower's peak period had been in the early 1920's, but since then he had maintained himself in the top ten of the world rankings. His best performances included: second at The Hague (1921), third at Teplitz-Schonau (1922), fifth at Moscow (1925), second at Debrecen (1925), fourth at Semmering (1926), first at Hastings (1927/28) and first at Liege (1930) . <The background to the match> "The management of the Hotel Panhans, Semmering, near Vienna, have arranged a match between Mir Sultan Khan and Tartakower. The intention is that a series of twelve games shall be completed whatever the condition of the score. The match will begin at once. The beginning of February sees Dr Tartakower departing for the Argentine to fulfil a series of engagements extending over three months." [(9)] This would suggest that the initiative behind the match came from the Estonian entrepreneur William D. Zimdin [(10)].He had purchased the Panhans Hotel in 1930, this once grand international hotel had been in decline since the end of the First World War. Zimdin revived it and with it Semmering's economy despite the effects of the Great Depression and Creditanstalt bank collapse three months after the match in May 1931. [(11)] . . . table[ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 Sultan Khan 0 1 ½ 0 1 ½ ½ 1 ½ ½ 0 1 - 6½ Tartakower 1 0 ½ 1 0 ½ ½ 0 ½ ½ 1 0 - 5½]table Progressive score: table[ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 Sultan Khan 0 1 1½ 1½ 2½ 3 3½ 4½ 5 5½ 5½ 6½ Tartakower 1 1 1½ 2½ 2½ 3 3½ 3½ 4 4½ 5½ 5½]table . <The games> This was a hard-fought match with half the games over 60 moves long. The four of the first five games were decisive and the majority of the draws were hard-fought. There was never more than a point between the players during this match. Tartakower led twice in Game 1 and Game 4; after that Sultan Khan took the lead in Games 8,10 and took the final game (12) to win the match. Both players did poorly with the White pieces, Sultan Khan winning only one game and Tartakower two. Three out of four of Sultan Khan's wins were with Black and two out of three for Tartakower. [[Game 1]] - Saturday 17th January 1931. "The match, twelve games, between Dr Tartakower and Sultan Khan, commenced the Hotel Panhans, Semmering, near Vienna, on 17th inst. Dr Tartakower won the first game, and the second was adjourned at the time of writing. It is stated that Tartakower had offered to draw the second game, which offers the Indian player declined." [(12)] Despite having White, Sultan Khan lost the first game of the match. He allowed Tartakower to seize the initiative with: click for larger view <18...Rd4!>. In his notes, Tartakower wrote that this was "Positionally decisive." [(13)] but this overstates the case. In a difficult position with doubled <e> pawns Sultan Khan had a reasonable expectation of holding the game but there was no room for error. He blundered on move 25 by allowing Tartakower's Queen to penetrate his position and despite Sultan Khan's determined resistance necessitating an adjournment on move 43, he lost the opening game. ... [[Game 2]] - Sunday 18th January 1931. "The Chess Duel. Vienna, Monday. The second game in the 12-game chess match between Dr Tartakower and Sultan Khan, which began at Semmering, yesterday, was won Sultan Khan, Dr Tartakower giving up after 71 moves. Dr Tartakower won the first game —Press Association Foreign." [(14)] "Tartakower - Sultan Khan. Sultan Khan wins the second game. Sultan Khan used an uncommon variation of the Sicilian Defence in this game. He traded the Queen early, in order to be able to capitalize on the possession of two Bishops against a Bishop and a Knight in a game with minor pieces and Rooks. After protracted manoeuvres, Tartakower forced him to exchange the Bishop for his Knight but lost a pawn. After this came his downfall. An error, which cost him his Bishop and accelerated his defeat...The playing time is from 10 to 2 and from 4 to 8 hours." [(15)]. Perhaps stung by his loss in the first game, Sultan Khan was more aggressive although he now had the Black pieces. In a Sicilian Defence, the position was dynamically equal for a long time. Tartakower allowed himself to be saddled with a weak and isolated <c> pawn which Sultan Khan won. The game should then have been quickly decided in Black's favour as he had a powerful passed <d> pawn. Tartakower came close to holding the game, but then blundered away a piece. After that, he played on in the vain hope of a miracle. ... [[Game 3]] - Sultan Khan's Stonewall system provided him with no opening advantage. Tartakower played dynamically and sacrificed two pawns in the opening for piece play. He won one back quickly and entered a rook and pawn ending one pawn down but with Sultan Khan nursing weak pawns. Tartakower played very accurately and the game was drawn but only after going to bare Kings. ... [[Game 4]] - The game was equal deep into the middle game until Sultan Khan failed to realise that he was walking his King into danger: click for larger view with <31...Kg6?!> and after <32.Rf4 Kg5?> his vulnerable King cost him the game. Tartakower may have now harboured pleasant hopes, having scored 2½ from the first four games, but he would never again be ahead in the match. ... [[Game 5]] - "Sultan Khan wins the fifth match. In this game, in which Tartakower played the French Defence, Sultan Khan immediately headed for the endgame. He soon reached this and possessed a strong Knight against a poor Bishop. That this advantage with the best play would have been enough to win is doubtful. Sultan Khan played this end-game excellently. He refused a draw offer and slowly, but surely, increased his positional advantage. Even after he had won a pawn, he continued to play very finely to escape a draw, and finally, he won. The game lasted seven hours. The score is now: Sultan Khan 2, Tartakower 2, drawn 1..." [(16)]. Sultan Khan had to win this game to avoid being two points behind. Despite this pressure, it is a display of Sultan's Khan's technique in the ending and perhaps his best game of the match. The minor piece ending was analysed by Nikolay Grigoriev and quoted by Euwe and Hooper [(17)] "A passed pawn two files away often wins if the stronger party has a Knight, but wins much less frequently if he has a Bishop...In the present case, White has taken care to block the <g> pawns in such a way that his own cannot be attacked by Black's Bishop, and it is important for him not to have it otherwise." Sultan Khan vs. Tartakower, position after Black's 46th move: click for larger view In his book "School of Excellence: Endgame Analysis," Mark Dvoretzky analyses this and another very similar endgame. He wrote: "The (end) game Sultan Khan-Tartakower, played in 1931, was indeed almost completely identical to Dolmatov's game played in 1988.“ Dolmatov vs M Drasko, 1985, position after White's 46th move: click for larger view In both cases, Black lost. ... [[Game 6]] - Friday 23rd January 1931. "Semmering Chess Duel. Semmering, Friday. The sixth game the chess duel between Sultan Khan and Tartakower ended to-day in a draw after fifty-three moves. The position is now two wins for each player, two drawn games. Press Association. Foreign Special." [(18)] This was a game which Tartakower should have won in a splendid fashion. Sultan Khan chose to defend with the French Defence. click for larger view With <31.Rxg7> he should have won but he transposed moves click for larger view Here, Tartakower played <34.Bxf7?> which lost his initiative after Sultan Khan exchanged Queens. Instead, <34.Qxe7> Nxe7 35. Bxf7 would have won. ... [[Game 7]] - Tartakower defended with a Dutch, a defence he had favoured for many years and with which he had gained one of his most famous victories - Maroczy vs Tartakower, 1922. Sultan Khan achieved no advantage and his opponent began to build a King-side attack advancing his <f> pawn to <f4> and manoeuvring his Queen and Rook onto the <h> file. Sultan Khan exchanged two minor pieces for a Bishop and a Knight to relieve the pressure on his position and the game ending in a perpetual check. ... [[Game 8]] - Monday 26 January 1931. Sultan Khan pulled into the lead in the match which he would hold until Game 11. "Sultan Khan wins again. Semmering, Monday. The eighth game in the match between Sultan Khan and Tartakower was given up Tartakower after 40 moves. Sultan Khan now leading by three to two. Three games have been drawn." [(19)] "Sultan Khan has won the eighth game against Tartakower. Tartakower, learning from the first games of the match, tried to avoid an endgame, because that is where the Indian is in his element. The Polish champion once again tried to defeat him by an attack with pieces. He led this in by a pawn sacrifice in the manner of the Blackmar Gambit, arising from the Caro Kann Defence. This time too, however, Tartakower had no success. Sultan Khan defended himself with great skill and when Tartakower did not make the best moves, which happened a few times, he took his chance. Tartakower's last, blunders due to time pressure, provided Sultan Khan with the opportunity to end the game with a Bishop and an attack on his king. The score is now: Sultan Khan 3, Tartakower 2, drawn 3." [(20)]. Sultan Khan chose to defend with a Caro-Kann defence. Tartakower sacrificed a pawn for open lines for his two Bishops. Sultan Khan returned the Pawn and obtained a threatening King-side attack. Tartakower fell into time trouble, miscalculated and lost his Queen for a Rook and Bishop. He could not then hold the ending. ... [[Game 9]] - Tuesday 27th January 1931. "Semmering Chess Duel. Semmering, Tuesday. The ninth game the chess match between Sultan Khan and Tartakower ended in a draw after nineteen moves. The total result so far is Sultan Khan, three games, and Tartakower two. Four games were drawn. — Press Association Foreign Special." [(21)]. "The ninth game lasted only forty minutes and comprised only nineteen moves. Sultan Khan chose a closed <d4> opening and, by exchanging on <d4> he did not handle it in the best way. Tartakower dominated the open <c-file>. By defending himself well afterwards, the Indian managed to escape from his doom. They swapped off many pieces and at the proposal of Tartakower ended the game with a draw, the chances then being perfectly balanced." [(22)]. Sultan Khan's slow Colle System with <b3> gave him no advantage with White and instead led to a rapid exchange of pieces and a quick draw. Sultan Khan remained a point ahead with three games to play. He would have Black in two of the games, so the match was still wide open. ... [[Game 10]] - Wednesday 28th January 1931. "Chess. Sultan Khan and Tartakower. Vienna. Wednesday (Press Association Foreign Special). The tenth game (the chess duel between Sultan Khan and Tartakower played at Semmering to-day, was drawn after 28 moves." [(23)] Sultan Khan defended with a Queen's Indian Defence. This was a game without any drama. Tartakower played cautiously and after exchanging off all but one pair of the minor pieces the game was drawn. . . . [[Game 11]] - Thursday 29th January 1931. "Chess Masters Level. Semmering, Thursday. Sultan Khan as checkmated to-day Dr Tartakower at the fortieth move the eleventh game. Up to the present, each player has won three games and five have been drawn. The twelfth and final game, which is to be played tomorrow afternoon, may, therefore, be decisive. Press Association Foreign Special." [(24)] Tartakower had taken a timeout before this game. [(25)] which he described this games as "The Massacre" [(26)] click for larger view As in Game One, a passive opening system left Sultan Khan few favourable options. In this game, Sultan Khan lashed out with <14. f4?> leaving himself with a permanent weakness on <e3>. Gideon Stahlberg labelled it <?>, and "White is not content with his original pawn formation on Queen-side but thinks he could afford yet another extravagance - a backward pawn on <e3>. However, it was high time that he sought simplification with <Qc2> for example, <14. 14. Qc2 Qh5 15. e4 dxe4 16. Nxe4 Nxe4 17. Bxe4 Bxe4 18. Qxe4..." "Of Sultan Khan's play in this game, one cannot conclude that he is an aspirant for the World Championship! Despite good individual performances, one must say that in chess terms the match Tartakower - Sultan Khan was simply disappointing". [(27)] Tartakower in his notes [(28)] was more diplomatic "A psychological moment. White thinks Black's bold strategy should meet with bold punishment but the reaction caused by the text is not in his favour..." . . . [[Game 12]] - Friday 30th January 1931. "Sultan Khan-Tartakower Final Game Semmering. Friday. The twelfth and final game between Tartakower and Sultan Khan was begun this afternoon and adjourned after 32 moves. It will continue tomorrow. Sultan Khan seems to have an advantageous position at the moment. Each of the champions has so far won three games, and five have been divided." [(29)] "British Chess Victory. Sultan Khan, the British chess champion, won to-day's 12th game in the chess duel with Dr Tartakower, and thus won the series by four games to three. The remaining five games were drawn. Today's game ended by Tartakower's abandoning after 77 moves." [(30)] This was the second longest game of the match. Tartakower had the White pieces and had to win to tie the match. He played aggressively castling on the opposite side to his opponent. Despite opening the <g> file and then doubling his rooks on it, Sultan Khan's Kingside fortress remained secure. Sultan Khan pushed his centre pawns and destroyed any hopes Tartakower had of a combinative victory. Instead, Sultan Khan won two pawns and Tartakower was left to defend Rook and Pawn vs Rooks and three connected pawns. The last twenty or so moves of the game were made in desperation rather than out of necessity by Tartakower. “Without exposing himself, Sultan Khan attacked Tartakower, restricting him more and more in the choice of his moves and, in the awareness of his superiority did not win a pawn. He strove for a higher goal, the total destruction of the enemy. Tartakower had to await his fate, and when faced with a threatening, deadly attack, he had to do something, he entered a losing endgame, in which he was two pawns down”. [(31)]. <Conclusion> "Sultan Khan Wins Chess Match with Dr Tartakower, 4 to 3. Semmering, Austria, Jan. 31. Mir Sultan Khan, East Indian chess export and holder of the British Chess Federation championship, today won the deciding game in a match of twelve games with Dr.S.Tartakower of Paris. The Oriental thereby took the match by the score of 4 to 3 with five drawn. So impressive has been the recent showing of Sultan Khan, who has twice finished high amongst prize winners in international masters' tournaments that his backers plan to groom him for a match with Alexander Alekhine for the world's championship." [(32)]. According to Hermann Helms ('The Dean of American Chess.' ) "Mir Sultan Khan of India, champion of the British Chess Federation moves up still closer to that higher flight of experts entitled to consideration when world championship matters are under discussion. This, it is understood, is his ultimate goal. He has made a splendid start." [(33)] [(33)]. Hermann Helms in "The Brooklyn Daily Eagle" 5th February 1931, p.24. "That Sultan Khan unquestionably is of grandmaster cannot be denied anymore. After all Dr Tartakower is one of the ten or twelve strongest chess players in the world: he is an excellent theoretician, cunning and resourceful; he has an extraordinary technique, as he is absent from almost no tournaments. Although he suffered four days of rheumatic illness, so that the possibility he experienced the disadvantageous effects during the games cannot be discounted, it cannot be denied that it still takes a respectable player to lift a master like Dr Tartakower out of the saddle. The victory of Sultan Khan is particularly notable because the Indian is a natural player. He knows almost nothing about the Western opening theory and therefore had to build upon his own strengths, and that his victory in the struggle, has come from his own love of chess and his own natural gifts." [(34)]. Sultan Khan was invited to take part in the very strong and prestigious Bled (1931) (July 1931) but the invitation was declined on the explanation that he was to play in the British Championship in Worcester (10th-21st August 1931). He came equal second half a point behind Yates which was a disappointing result for a potential challenger to Alexander Alekhine. In February 1932, he played the up and coming Salomon Flohr who too had emerged in 1929 (at the Rogaška Slatina tournament) and also was spoken of as a potential world championship aspirant. Sultan Khan lost this match (+1-2=3). Sultan Khan was not a free agent, he was an indentured servant and his choices were determined by Colonel Nawab Sir Umar Hayat Khan [(35)] and in December 1933, his chess career ended when he returned to India with Sir Umar. It may be that the loss to Flohr had persuaded Sir Umar to abandon his plans for Sultan Khan. "Sultan Khan - Tartakower. A retrospective. The twenty-five-year-old Mr Malik Sultan Khan...has defeated Dr S. Tartakower, a player whose strength is well-known, in a match. Matches are better standards for playing games than competitions for 'participants'. Sultan Khan has become a remarkable figure in the Western chess world through this success, even more so than through his previous successes. For those interested, the main question was how he and how Tartakower, whose style they have known for many years, would play. Sultan Khan is an emerging star and one wants to see to what heights he can rise. Also because he is the first Oriental, who can measure himself against the very strongest of European players. Sultan Khan's future development is probably good. In some games of the Scarborough, Hamburg and Liège tournaments, he was not too cautious. Now, against Tartakower, he could sense he was more cautious, careful and patient. This is probably a result of the experience against the great players against whom he lost and gives hope for the future young players. Young players, who dare to reflect and then to moderate their daredevilry, even if they occasionally lapse into passivity through too much circumspection, usually achieve more than those who are anxious to do so. A positive feature of Sultan Khan is that he also deviates from the usual variations in the openings, possibly and happily due to little study. He goes his own way although this may not always be the best. In addition, he has a rare feeling for the endgame, which is rare among young players. Furthermore, he rarely makes gross mistakes and he takes those chances the opponent offers him. He is strong in the role a defender and he takes into account his opponent's personality even if he did this against Tartakower too many times. If a new player, whose style has not yet been formed, had already achieved such results as Sultan Khan's, there is a good chance that he will continue to grow in strength. Because of the flaws that still cling to his method of play, he is not yet ready for the greatest players, but it seems likely that this will not be the case in a short time. The match between Sultan Khan with Tartakower has been of great importance for the theory of game openings. Not because he produced important new ideas, but because "the value of great knowledge of the opening theory" took a hit. One observed that Tartakower, a connoisseur, a specialist, an author of numerous textbooks and articles about openings, was in the area against a player, who knows little, or at least very much less than him. Indeed, Tartakower, against a proud Sultan Khan who put aside what is correct and recommended, failed even to win a game through his greater knowledge of opening theory. This is encouraging for those who do not have the time or desire to study in chess all the time, and who, like Sultan Khan, are therefore so-called "natural players." [(36)]. Tartakower's reputation was not significantly affected by this loss. Indeed, he wrote a brochure with the annotated games of the match. Although not regarded as a world championship contender he continued to be regarded as a leading master. "The victory of the Indian builds on his previous achievements so it is not surprising and is a new success for the younger chess generation. One cannot say this shows that Sultan Khan is superior to Tartakower. This is evident from the fact that in the last game and deciding game Tartakower took too many risks; besides during the match he was hampered by poor health". [(37)] "The result of the match convinced me of the old truth that optimism, a precious quality in tournaments, is an evil counsellor in such contents." [(38)] <Match Dates> As an international chess publication of record in nearby Vienna, the “Wiener Schach-Zeitung” could be expected to provide the most reliable information on the match. Issue no. 3, February 1931, page 33 (title page) gives the dates for the match as 17th to 31st January 1931. Yet on page 34, it shows Game 1 commencing on the 19th January whilst on page 40 it shows Game 2 as commencing on 18th January! From other newspaper reports, the first game was Saturday 17th January 1931 and the second was on Sunday 18th January 1931 From then onwards, the Wiener Schach-Zeitung’s date matches those of other contemporaneous reports: On page 41, it shows Game 3 commencing on 20th January. On page 36, it shows Game 4 commencing on 21st January. On page 41, it shows Game 5 commencing on the 22nd January. On page 38, it shows Game 6 commencing on the 23rd January. The “Wiener Schach-Zeitung”, no. 5, March 1931. On page 69, it shows Game 7 commencing on 24th January. On page 67, it shows Game 8 commencing on 26th January and further states that on Sunday 25th Tartakower gave a simultaneous display. On page 70, it shows Game 9 commencing on 27th January. On page 69, it shows Game 10 commencing on 28th January. On page 89, it shows Game 12 commencing on 30th January. <Notes:> The original round numbers of the games were incorrect and have been amended. Where known, complete dates have been given to the games. [(1)] “Het Vaderland" (Netherlands), 22nd January 1931, p.3. [(2)]. See: http://www.chessmetrics.com/cm/CM2/.... [(3)]. Tartakower - "My Best Games of Chess, 1905 - 1954, Part 2, p.1. [(4)]. "De Sumatra Post" (Netherlands), 5th February 1931. [(5)]. "De Sumatra Post" (Netherlands), 5th February 1931. [(6)]. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Awan_...) [(8)]. "Het nieuws van den dag voor Nederlandsch-Indie" (Netherlands), 12th February 1931, p.36. [(9)]. "Falkirk Herald" (UK), Wednesday 14th January 1931, p.15. [(10)]. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willi.... [(11)]. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credi... [(12)]. "Hastings and St Leonards Observer" (UK), Saturday 24th January 1931, p.11. [(13)]. Tartakower - "My Best Games of Chess, 1905 - 1954, Part 2, p.3. [(14)]."Lancashire Evening Post" (UK), Monday 19th January 1931, p.5. [(15)]." Het Vaderland" (Netherlands), Thursday 22nd January 1931, p.3. [(16)]. "Het Vaderland" (Netherlands), Monday 26th January 1931, p.3. [(17)]. Euwe and Hooper - "A Guide to the Chess Endings”, example 143, p.90-91. [(18)]. "Aberdeen Press and Journal" (UK), Saturday 24th January, p.4. [(19)]."Belfast News-Letter" (UK), Tuesday 27th January 1931, p.2. [(20)]. “Delftsche Courant” (Netherlands), Thursday 29th January 1931 [(21)]. "Aberdeen Press and Journal" (UK), Wednesday 28th January, p.11. [(22)]. “Het Vaderland" (Netherlands), Friday 30th January 1931, p.2. [(23)]. "Hartlepool Northern Daily Mail" (UK), Wednesday 28nd January, p.8. [(24)]. "Aberdeen Press and Journal" (UK), Friday 30th January 1931 p.11. [(25)] “Algemeen Handelsblad” (Netherlands), Saturday 7th February 1931, p.13. [(26)]. Tartakower - "My Best Games of Chess, 1905 - 1954, Part 2, p.6. [(27)]. Ståhlberg - "Tidskrift för Schack" (Sweden), May 1931, p.86. [(28)]. Tartakower - "My Best Games of Chess, 1905 - 1954, Part 2, p.6. [(29)]. "Western Morning News" (UK), Saturday 31st January 1931, p.14. [(30)]."Derby Daily Telegraph", Saturday 31st January 1931, p.10. [(31)]. “Algemeen Handelsblad” (Netherlands), Tuesday 3rd February 1931, p.3. [(32)]. "New York Times" (USA), Sunday 1st February 1931, p.147. [(33)]. Hermann Helms in "The Brooklyn Daily Eagle" 5th February 1931, p.24. [(34)]. "Soerabaijasch Handelsblad", Saturday 7th Match 1931, p.3. [(35)] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malik... [(36)]. “Het Vaderland" (Netherlands), Friday 4th February 1931. [(37)]. “Wiener Schach-Zeitung”, no. 5, March 1931, p.67. [(38)]. Tartakower - "My Best Games of Chess, 1905 - 1954, Part 2, p.1. [ This text and original research by User: Chessical. ] 12 games, 1931 Tarrasch v Schlechter - Match 1911 This match was part of the German Chess Association Congress in Cologne (July-August 1911). If by 12th August, neither player was more than one game ahead, the match would be declared a draw. It was a very hard fought affair with both players equally matched, and two games went to over 100 moves. Tarrasch...= = = 1 0 = = 1 0 1 = = = 0 = = Schlechter.= = = 0 1 = = 0 1 0 = = = 1 = = 48 year old Tarrasch against the 36 year old Schlechter who was on top form having held Lasker to a draw in their world championship match the previous year. Schlechter was not able to dominate the match, despite several very long games Tarrasch did not wilt and it was Schlechter who had to catch up three times. Schlechter was criticised in print for not fighting hard enough for victory. Overall Tarrasch had a life score of +2 against Schlechter. 16 games, 1911 Teichmann - Lee <Introduction> This match was held in London between Richard Teichmann and Francis Lee the King's Tea Rooms, 37 King Street, Covent Garden, London. [(1)] The match began on July 8th (1901) and was finished on July 27th. The final score was: Teichmann 5½, Lee 2½. [(2)] <Conditions> "The match Lee v. Teichmann commences on Monday at 3.30, at the King's Tea Rooms, 37, Kings Street, Covent Garden. Conditions: Five games up, draws not counting; twenty moves per hour; play days Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays, from 3.30 till 7.30." [(3)] The match attracted an appreciative audience, as the public could view the match free of charge [(4)] and "several of the games were much appreciated by the spectators" [(5)] <Schedule> Teichmann’s indisposition disrupted the scheduling which became congested in the latter stages of the match, the last three games being played over four successive days (24th- 27th July). "There was no play on Friday at the King's Tea Rooms. Mr Teichmann was not available. Monday's game (15th - e.d.) was adjourned till Wednesday when Teichmann won it and commenced another which was adjourned." [(6)] "… only one game was played during the week…and, not being concluded on Monday (15th - e.d.), it occupied the whole of Wednesday's séance (17th - e.d.). … Yesterday (Friday 19th - e.d.) Teichmann was indisposed; the next game will therefore be played on Monday (22nd - e.d.) …Teichmann, of course, is the favourite; but Lee's passive resistance is difficult to overcome, and Teichmann will have to do his best. " [(7)] <Teichmann> Teichmann had settled in England in 1892. "Richard Teichmann is a player who combines the qualities of both Lasker and Tarrasch. Like Lasker, Teichmann has Bohemian tendencies. He is an accomplished linguist; cannot extend himself to his best effort unless his whiskey and soda are at close call, and is clever at all games of cards and billiards. Work is no virtue with him, despite his massive bulk. As soon as his money is gone, he sets about to play chess." [(8)] <Lee> The apogee of Lee's career which was the 1890's when he was in the top thirty of players. His best tournament result was in 1893 (Game Collection: New York 1893, The Impromtu Tournament, where he finished third equal), and he went on to win two matches against Henry Edward Bird in 1897 in London. He also played a match with Teichmann in 1898, losing 3½ - 5½. "Mr Lee was scarcely the front rank of the leading Chess masters of the world, but held a prominent position in Chess, and his name was familiar everywhere where Chess is played. He was an adversary who was exceedingly dangerous take lightly, as witness games standing his record, won from Steinitz, Tchigorin, Mason, Pillsbury, and other players of international fame. He took part with distinction in four International masters' tournaments as well as a number of national tourneys of the British Chess Association, the British Chess Federation, and Simpson's Divan. He was successful competitor impromptu International contest New York, 1893, where divided third and fourth prizes with Showalter, and won his game from Pillsbury, Lasker winning the first prize and Albin the second. He prided himself considerably upon winning the first prize, without the loss of a game, in a tourney at "Simpson's," with Bird, Mason, Van Vliet, Loman, Muller, Mortimer, Gossip, and eight other players, and upon winning the Chess Championship of South Africa. He was generally counted stodgy player, and yet he won a brilliancy prize for a game against Bird, and for a game won from the young Russian master Znosko-Borowsky. He took part several of the cable matches between Great Britain and America, and edited the chess column of the Hertford Times from August 1890 until July 1893. Mr Lee was well known throughout England, Scotland, and Ireland and his sudden and unexpected death will keenly be regretted among British Chess players." [(9)] <The progress of the match > table[ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Teichmann 1 1 ½ 0 1 1 0 1 5½ Lee 0 0 ½ 1 0 0 1 0 2½]table . <Progressive score> table[ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Teichmann 1 2 2½ 2½ 3½ 4½ 4½ 5½ Lee 0 0 ½ 1½ 1½ 1½ 2½ 2½]table . <The games> The games are presented with a précis of Teichmann's brief notes as published in the British Chess Magazine. [Game 1, Monday 8th July.] Teichmann as White gained a space advantage against the Caro-Kann. Teichmann's laconic summation was "Black has a very cramped game and apparently temporises" [(10)], but Lee built a solid position. Teichmann had pressure against his opponent's King-side and in particular <g6> and he kept pressing until Lee blundered. click for larger view With <33.f5> Teichmann broke through and won in short order. [Game 2, Tuesday 9th July.] click for larger view 22. "My opponent intended here to play <Qf2>, but inadvertently touched his King instead, and had to make this unfortunate move (22.Ke2), which at once gave me an overwhelming attack." [(11)] Teichmann finished off his opponent with a Queen sacrifice. click for larger view The <c> pawn queened with insuperable mating threats. [Game 3, Friday 12th July.] Lee defended with a Scandinavian Defence. He obtained a solid position and would later repeat his play in Games 5 and 7 and to move 12 again in H Fahrni vs F J Lee, 1905 (via transposition from a Caro-Kann) click for larger view 15...."White's last two moves (seeking to exchange the Queen - e.d.) were not good, as Black could here have obtained the better position for the endgame by playing <axb6>. White would have to play <a3>, and sooner or later also play <c3>, which would have given him a bad pawn formation on the Queen-side, with holes at <b3>, <a4> and <c4> for the Black Knights. After Black has retaken with the Knight, White is enabled to draw without difficulty." [(12)] [Game 4, Monday 15th July.] Commenced on the 15th and concluded on Wednesday 17th July. Lee played poorly in the opening and allowed Teichmann to establish a cramp his position with a protected pawn on <d4>. Lee defended well and Teichmann's initiative ebbed, click for larger view 31 ..." Owing to White's bad opening, Black.. obtained what should be a winning game...(but) after the exchange of Queens the game should have been drawn with careful pay on my part....31...Bxe4 (was)...a miscalculation. I intended <32...Rc1> on my next move but saw too late after <32...Rc8> 33. Rxe5 Rxc4 34. Rd5! (this move I had overlooked), 34...Rc2 35 R(5)xd4 would win for White." [(13)] Lee won a pawn and converted it in a Rook ending. [Game 5, July 22nd.] Once again, Lee played a Scandinavian Defence with <3...Qd8>. This was his main defence in the match and with which he scored (=1,-1,=1) Teichmann's tactical perspicuity exploited a casual move in the opening by Lee <10...Qc7?!>, and from there Teichmann built a victorious attack. click for larger view Teichmann wrote in his notes to this game, "Of course <14...Nxe5> would have at least lost a Pawn. But <14...0-0>, though also dangerous on account of <15. Bxf6>, at least promised more possibilities of a successful resistance. The position of Black's King on the Queen-side must be one of extreme danger, with the pawn position broken up and two White Bishops commanding the two important diagonals." [(14)] [Game 6, Monday 22nd July 22nd.] Teichmann played in aggressive fashion in the opening with <4... g5!?> but quickly regretted it according to his notes. The resulting position being not to his taste. click for larger view "Black has a very cramped game with, with no prospect of any attack, and moreover the isolated <h> pawn is a source of trouble. It is, therefore, safe to say that White should have won the game if he had taken advantage of his opportunities...(but) he makes some indifferent and some very weak moves, which allows Black to obtain a winning attack on the Queen's side." [(15)] Lee blundered by tripling on the <h> file but in so doing underestimated the dire danger of allowing Teichmann to infiltrate his Queen-side. [Game 7, commenced 24th July and finished on 25th July.] Once again Lee deployed the Scandinavian defence. click for larger view Here Teichmann played <24.R(a)b1>, by doing so he believed he had missed a winning opportunity "This is a mistake, which allows Black sufficient defence. I should have played, as, in fact, I had intended <d5>, which move would have given me good prospects of a successful attack. The following curious variation will give an idea of the possibilities of the attack; e.g. <24. d5> exd5 25. Qxa7 Qxc4 26. R(d)c1 Qf4 27. Rxc6+(!) bxc6 28. Rb1 etc. After the move, I had no compensating attack for the loss of two Pawns." [(16)] click for larger view Unfortunately, after 28...R(d)g8 29. Rb7 Nd7!! 30. Rxd7 Qb8 it is Black who wins. [Game 8, Thursday, July 25th.] Teichmann as Black got a "cramped game" from a "hopelessly bad" opening, but Lee stumbled, click for larger view <20. g3> "This move allows Black to obtain a winning game by the subsequent capture of the <e> pawn. <Nh5> did not appear to be good either, on account of simply <20...g6> and if 21. Nf6+ Bxf6 22. exf6 e5!. Nor was there anything to be gained by BxP, followed by P-K6, as this continuation would have opened the King's file for an attack on White's weak <e> Pawn. The simplest would have been to play <Qc2>", after which it would have been tricky for Black to open the <h> file by the capture of the <h> pawn"> [(17)] <Reaction> "A certain English chess editor, during Teichmann’s recent match with Mr F. J. 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 E. 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.'" [(18)] <Notes> [(1)]. "The Field", Saturday 29th June 1901, page 62. [(2)]. "British Chess Magazine", 1901, p.329. [(3)]. "Westminster Gazette", Saturday 6th July 1901, p.3. [(4)]. "Morning Post", Monday 1st July 1901, p.2. [(5)]. "Hampstead & Highgate Express", Saturday 3rd August 1901, p.6. [(6)]. "Hampstead & Highgate Express", Saturday 27th July 1901, p. 6. [(7)]. "Westminster Gazette", Saturday 20th July 1901, p.3. [(8)]. Capablanca in the "Evening Post" (New York), 22nd July 1916, p. 9. [(9)]. "Hereford Times", Saturday 18th September 1909, p.16. [(10)]. "British Chess Magazine", 1901, p.329. [(11)]. "British Chess Magazine", 1901, p.331. [(12)]. "British Chess Magazine", 1901, p.358. [(13)]. "British Chess Magazine", 1901, p.358 - 359. [(14)]. "British Chess Magazine", 1901, p.360. [(15)]. "British Chess Magazine", 1901, p.361. [(16)]. "British Chess Magazine", 1901, p.362 - 363. [(17)]. "British Chess Magazine", 1901, p.363 - 364. [(18)]. "Linlithgowshire Gazette", Friday 22nd November 1901, page 7. User: MissScarlett - original collection. User: Chessical - text. 8 games, 1901 US Open 1987, Portland <88th US Open Portland, Oregon August 2-14, 1987> table[ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 Lev Alburt W299 W172 W 43 W 64 W 16 D 3 D 2 W 17 D 12 W 33 W 5 D 4 10.0 2 Alexander Fishbein W330 W421 W101 W161 W 37 D 5 D 1 D 27 W 63 W 12 D 10 D 6 9.5 3 Vivek Rao W248 W127 W104 W 46 W 63 D 1 L 5 W 95 L 24 W 31 W 22 W 10 9.5 4 Stuart Rachels W234 W114 W 56 D 48 W418 W 33 L 12 D 22 W 64 W 24 W 21 D 1 9.5 5 Walter Shawn Browne W246 W183 W 71 W 66 W 34 D 2 W 3 D 12 W 21 D 10 L 1 D 9 9.0 6 Danny Kopec W250 W129 D 99 W 70 W 23 L 21 W157 W 37 L 10 W 96 W 11 D 2 9.0 7 David J Strauss W 92 W207 W103 D 30 W 39 W 24 D 10 D 63 L 33 W 41 D 16 W 36 9.0 8 Leonid Alexandrovich Shamkovich W197 W128 W 18 W 47 L 24 L 45 W422 W 90 W 23 D 16 W 33 D 15 9.0 9 Benjamin Finegold W327 W132 D102 D 69 D105 D 90 W112 W 51 W 29 D 34 W 35 D 5 9.0 10 Arthur Bisguier W392 W135 W 59 D 68 W 44 W 25 D 7 W 16 W 6 D 5 D 2 L 3 9.0 11 Dov Gorman W252 L133 W248 W137 D159 W 58 W 50 W 77 D 27 W 36 L 6 W 47 9.0 12 Daniel Edelman W254 W131 W107 W 50 D 25 W 57 W 4 D 5 D 1 L 2 W 28 D 20 9.0 13 Arnold Denker W117 W126 D 79 W 76 D 72 D155 W 48 D 98 D 45 W 30 D 46 W 40 9.0 14 Eduard Zelkind W255 D210 L193 W253 L166 W197 W176 W386 W 50 W 77 D 18 W 43 9.0 15 Jimmy Lakdawala W237 W171 L159 W149 W 54 D157 W 70 L 23 W 71 W 95 W 25 D 8 9.0 16 Plinio Pazos Gambarrotti W291 W 90 W 54 W159 L 1 W 72 W 94 L 10 W 47 D 8 D 7 W 55 9.0 17 William Mark Duckworth W192 W209 W122 L 57 W 55 W 75 W 36 L 1 D 98 W 45 D 43 W 46 9.0 18 Carl Haessler W274 W232 L 8 D216 W226 W244 W 25 L 33 W 94 W 38 D 14 W 34 9.0 19 Jeremy Silman W302 W 80 W105 D 72 W 30 D 27 D 21 D 45 W 39 D 22 D 34 D 24 8.5 20 Nikolay N Minev W288 W168 D 78 D 99 W 87 D 67 D 46 W 56 D 38 W 66 D 24 D 12 8.5 21 Fred Lindsay HPB FPB W198 W 53 W 41 W 6 D 19 W 38 L 5 W 27 L 4 D 23 8.5 22 Kenneth Larsen W251 L280 W399 W148 W 79 D 68 W103 D 4 W 69 D 19 L 3 W 77 8.5 23 Tom O'Donnell W461 W180 D113 W165 L 6 W116 W 57 W 15 L 8 D 55 W 56 D 21 8.5 24 Richard Kelson W292 W174 W 81 W136 W 8 L 7 D 45 W159 W 3 L 4 D 20 D 19 8.5 25 Norman Rogers W426 W175 W 82 W133 D 12 L 10 L 18 W 86 W103 W 73 L 15 W 70 8.5 26 William R Orton W253 D141 W210 D 79 W122 D103 D 68 D164 L 43 W134 W 69 W 73 8.5 27 Heinrich Rolletschek W285 D282 W214 W329 W 48 D 19 W107 D 2 D 11 L 21 D 74 W 75 8.5 28 Robert McGuire W189 W140 L162 W211 W 82 D 56 L159 W 87 W 97 W 70 L 12 W 68 8.5 29 Joseph Waxman W260 W 89 D 84 W 78 D157 L107 W172 W 82 L 9 W 58 D 68 W 74 8.5 30 Alan Kobernat W263 W508 W111 D 7 L 19 D 61 D207 W123 W164 L 13 W 82 W 90 8.5 31 Derek Edwards W311 W270 L 64 W326 L 65 W194 W234 W 42 W 37 L 3 W 63 D 32 8.5 32 Elliott C Winslow HPB HPB HPB HPB HPB FPB W177 W184 W119 D 98 D 48 D 31 8.0 33 Viktors Pupols W479 W281 W 83 W 86 D 57 L 4 W 73 W 18 W 7 L 1 L 8 D 48 8.0 34 Arthur William Dake W 93 W211 W384 W162 L 5 D 46 D 51 W 78 W 68 D 9 D 19 L 18 8.0 35 Renard W Anderson WF D147 D177 W281 D 58 W162 D 56 W107 D 55 W 75 L 9 D 45 8.0 36 Filipp Frenkel W329 W142 L 57 W180 W 83 W 97 L 17 W105 W113 L 11 W 72 L 7 8.0 37 Bill Chesney W296 W121 W110 W 88 L 2 W101 W106 L 6 L 31 L 43 W183 W 93 8.0 38 John Braley W256 W176 L 85 W174 W119 W385 W319 L 21 D 20 L 18 D 53 W 86 8.0 39 William Briggs W333 W146 D 87 W 84 L 7 W 86 D113 W 85 L 19 D 82 W 83 D 49 8.0 40 Jerome B Hanken L269 W430 W327 D 62 W141 D125 L132 W420 W183 W116 WF L 13 8.0 41 Richard Koepcke W509 D 62 W169 WF L 21 L 84 W146 W136 W159 L 7 D 76 W120 8.0 42 John P Hatala W265 W219 L 86 W176 D 61 D422 W165 L 31 W112 W120 D 49 D 50 8.0 43 Jay Thomas Collins W342 W187 L 1 W219 L207 D144 W216 W173 W 26 W 37 D 17 L 14 8.0 44 Jules J Jelinek D267 W200 W190 W244 L 10 D183 W127 L119 W170 D165 D 61 W115 8.0 45 Matthew Edwards W510 W323 D385 D119 W123 W 8 D 24 D 19 D 13 L 17 W113 D 35 8.0 46 Clark R Harmon W332 W185 W383 L 3 W132 D 34 D 20 D133 W 90 W 63 D 13 L 17 8.0 47 Jerry Simon W304 W216 W280 L 8 W133 L319 W421 W121 L 16 W117 W 57 L 11 8.0 48 Mike Zelkind W339 W224 W112 D 4 L 27 W129 L 13 D 80 W207 W 85 D 32 D 33 8.0 49 Larry R Parsons HPB HPB HPB HPB HPB HPB W250 W228 W161 W 80 D 42 D 39 8.0 50 Peter G Grey W336 W235 W223 L 12 D383 W170 L 11 W166 L 14 W172 W130 D 42 8.0 51 Lael Kaplan HPB ---- W436 W240 W169 W173 D 34 L 9 D168 D133 W214 W132 8.0 52 Bill Heywood L270 W311 W330 D146 L244 W246 D226 D217 D198 W323 W212 W138 8.0 53 Thomas G Cook W318 D283 W233 L 21 D216 D229 D186 D226 W219 W137 D 38 W133 8.0 54 David G Rupel W355 W249 L 16 W243 L 15 W187 L 62 W181 D148 D124 W211 W143 8.0 55 Lennart Bjorksten L307 W154 W150 W324 L 17 W232 W180 W319 D 35 D 23 W 98 L 16 8.0 56 Herman B Chiu WF W243 L 4 W217 W194 D 28 D 35 L 20 W135 W 91 L 23 W123 8.0 57 J Randall Dean W227 W258 W 36 W 17 D 33 L 12 L 23 D160 W121 W 65 L 47 W 95 8.0 58 Robby Adamson W361 D502 W240 D 94 D 35 L 11 W423 D236 W180 L 29 W145 W 96 8.0 59 Mark Knecht W529 W286 L 10 D226 L283 W330 W321 D198 D147 D142 W131 W148 8.0 60 Novag X (Computer) L496 W363 L287 W398 W248 W245 W283 L 64 W101 L 72 W105 W 97 8.0 61 Robert Gardner W363 W205 L161 W503 D 42 D 30 W154 D 66 L 77 W195 D 44 W 99 8.0 62 D Alan Knowles W374 D 41 D 67 D 40 D104 W277 W 54 D 97 L 70 D118 W162 W109 8.0 63 Sunil Weeramantry W242 W148 W164 W 85 L 3 W 99 W 66 D 7 L 2 L 46 L 31 W134 7.5 64 Ronald Joseph Gross W297 W124 W 31 L 1 D162 W120 D105 W 60 L 4 L107 W129 D 79 7.5 65 Kurt W Stein W261 D177 D184 W280 W 31 L106 W183 L113 W167 L 57 W125 D 81 7.5 66 Richard Wood W257 W215 w123 L 5 W136 W207 L 63 D 61 W106 L 20 W159 ---- 7.5 67 Don Marcott D236 W512 D 62 W218 W138 D 20 L 90 D207 L165 W325 D128 WF 7.5 68 Henry L Terrie W259 W324 W226 D 10 D319 D 22 D 26 W132 L 34 W129 D 29 L 28 7.5 69 Denis Strenzwilk D200 W298 W393 D 9 L 90 W324 W126 W 89 L 22 D130 L 26 W168 7.5 70 Michael Dougherty W341 D244 W199 L 6 W177 W128 L 15 W281 w 62 L 28 W136 L 25 7.5 71 Nicholas Kleszczewski W394 W186 L 5 W145 D173 L166 W244 W137 L 15 W168 L 90 W170 7.5 72 Greg Vitko WF W144 W218 D 19 D 13 L 16 L133 W323 W127 W 60 L 36 D 85 7.5 73 David Weinstock W347 D184 L244 W426 W215 W171 L 33 W 88 W 92 L 25 W165 L 26 7.5 74 Larry D Musa W427 L226 L134 W348 W302 L217 W249 W185 W132 W119 D 27 L 29 7.5 75 Ralph Dubisch W331 W325 L 88 W 89 W421 L 17 D125 W131 W133 L 35 W 87 L 27 7.5 76 William Groelle W312 D423 WF L 13 D232 D186 W229 W144 L 96 W139 D 41 D 80 7.5 77 Gerhard Neufahrt D203 W267 W283 L 87 W146 W111 W198 L 11 W 61 L 14 W158 L 22 7.5 78 Walter M Buehl W350 W289 D 20 L 29 W221 D283 W175 L 34 D126 D148 W209 D 89 7.5 79 Bill H McGeary W275 W195 D 13 D 26 L 22 W326 L 89 D283 D217 W184 W121 D 64 7.5 80 Gary H Sperling W442 L 19 W263 L318 D330 W287 W256 D 48 W 99 L 49 W206 D 76 7.5 81 Hans Multhopp W266 W134 L 24 D289 D144 L241 W254 D194 W243 D143 W124 D 65 7.5 82 Ray Satterlee W430 W306 L 25 W223 L 28 W181 W241 L 29 W325 D 39 L 30 W166 7.5 83 Gerard Van Deene W366 W150 L 33 W229 L 36 D 91 W419 W257 L 95 W177 L 39 W174 7.5 84 Michael J Morris W436 W422 D 29 L 39 W391 W 41 L 95 D156 L134 W286 D146 W180 7.5 85 William I Maddex W531 W368 W 38 L 63 L 94 W249 W134 L 39 W236 L 48 W201 D 72 7.5 86 Richard Becker W276 W496 W 42 L 33 D 96 L 39 W387 L 25 W144 W187 W155 L 38 7.5 87 Kash Patel W516 W343 D 39 W 77 L 20 L 95 W320 L 28 W283 W 92 L 75 W175 7.5 88 Ken Kaufman W365 W476 W 75 L 37 L155 D291 W253 L 73 W420 L 93 W194 W191 7.5 89 James Mennella W469 L 29 W306 L 75 W336 W268 W 79 L 69 D115 D106 W116 D 78 7.5 90 Dana Muller W370 L 16 W504 W362 W 69 D 9 W 67 L 8 L 46 W103 W 71 L 30 7.5 91 Laura Lee Romeo W382 L105 W368 D112 D164 D 83 D162 W384 W160 L 56 D118 W167 7.5 92 Mikeal D Davis L 7 W439 W380 L421 W382 D136 W111 W104 L 73 L 87 W281 W165 7.5 93 Scott C McNiven L 34 W410 L207 W369 W218 L421 W163 D128 W173 W 88 W156 L 37 7.5 94 George Shainswit WF D145 W282 D 58 W 85 W172 L 16 D106 L 18 D128 W207 LF 7.0 95 Mike Montchalin HPB HPB HPB W296 W282 W 87 W 84 L 3 W 83 L 15 D115 L 57 7.0 96 Michael S Walder W504 L218 W302 W142 D 86 L113 W221 W383 W 76 L 6 D 97 L 58 7.0 97 Ian Loadman L306 W278 W392 W179 W181 L 36 W147 D 62 L 28 W126 D 96 L 60 7.0 98 Selby K Anderson D298 W203 D147 W121 D111 W383 W166 D 13 D 17 D 32 L 55 LF 7.0 99 Mark Erickson W303 W188 D 6 D 20 W126 L 63 D281 D325 L 80 W185 W135 L 61 7.0 100 Edward Epp HPB HPB HPB HPB HPB HPB W222 L187 L291 W427 W313 W243 7.0 101 G H Motamedi W352 W241 L 2 W235 W134 L 37 L121 W186 L 60 W228 D127 D130 7.0 102 Hans Morrow W397 W503 D 9 L319 L423 W193 L386 W447 W179 D211 L133 W231 7.0 103 Peter Yu W354 W229 L 7 W323 W303 D 26 L 22 W211 L 25 L 90 W244 D127 7.0 104 William Lapham W381 W181 L 3 D144 D 62 W235 D209 L 92 L146 W287 W225 D126 7.0 105 William Kiplinger W396 W 91 L 19 W184 D 9 W423 D 64 L 36 L130 W230 L 60 W217 7.0 106 Donald Cotten W338 L198 W251 W241 W156 W 65 L 37 D 94 L 66 D 89 W142 ---- 7.0 107 Edgar Thomas McCormick W429 W194 L 12 W187 W318 W 29 L 27 L 35 W209 W 64 ---- ---- 7.0 108 Arthur R Spiller HPB HPB HPB HPB HPB Bye L325 D278 D252 W302 W182 D128 7.0 109 Gunars Znotins HPB HPB HPB HPB HPB Bye L150 W306 W233 W226 W117 L 62 7.0 110 Parker Montgomery W294 W269 L 37 L194 L192 W342 D237 D375 W260 W186 D175 D147 7.0 111 David Arganian W401 W375 L 30 W249 D 98 L 77 L 92 L293 W240 D292 W254 W245 7.0 112 Paul Burke W466 W467 L 48 D 91 D234 W260 L 9 W208 L 42 D161 D195 W232 7.0 113 Erik Ronneberg W154 W307 D 23 L418 W393 W 96 D 39 W 65 L 36 D155 L 45 D141 7.0 114 Andrew A McManus W464 L 4 D329 W298 L198 D237 W479 L134 D261 D253 W252 W249 7.0 115 Marvin Pestroe HPB HPB HPB HPB HPB HPB W192 W241 D 89 W169 D 95 L 44 7.0 116 Marc Rotenberg L362 W357 W292 D423 W227 L 23 D322 W239 W184 L 40 L 89 W229 7.0 117 Novag Forte (Computer) L 13 W466 W260 D195 D289 L134 W292 W423 W206 L 47 L109 W207 7.0 118 Bill J Phipps HPB HPB HPB HPB HPB HPB W252 W322 D156 D 62 D 91 D146 7.0 119 Daniel Roffman D399 W153 W236 D 45 L 38 W222 W201 W 44 L 32 L 74 L134 W223 7.0 120 Rodolfo B Abero HPB W408 L149 W333 W195 L 64 W388 W415 D155 L 42 W140 L 41 7.0 121 Martin S Merado W449 L 37 W336 L 98 W332 W204 W101 L 47 L 57 W275 L 79 W269 7.0 122 Jeffrey Rymuza W295 W213 L 17 W186 L 26 W289 L184 D284 D226 W231 L148 W235 7.0 123 Michael Goodall W465 W373 L 66 W245 L 45 W192 D156 L 30 W194 D198 W153 L 56 7.0 124 David Roper W450 L 64 D307 D153 L260 W301 W303 D493 W205 D 54 L 81 W272 7.0 125 Jeff Wiewel L369 W276 W189 D227 W199 D 40 D 75 L155 D286 W248 L 65 W222 7.0 126 K Dale Coleman W519 L 13 W201 W396 L 99 W303 L 69 W332 D 78 L 97 W161 D104 7.0 127 David Lither W433 L 3 L297 W338 W265 W292 L 44 W291 L 72 W254 D101 D103 7.0 128 Mark S Dutton W367 L 8 D333 W271 W307 L 70 D233 D 93 W246 D 94 D 67 D108 7.0 129 Charles Bass W405 L 6 D253 W266 W193 L 48 D291 W327 W157 L 68 L 64 W234 7.0 130 George Mirijanian HPB HPB HPB HPB HPB HPB W339 WF W105 D 69 L 50 D101 7.0 131 Robert F Sutter Jr W407 L 12 W510 D198 L236 W285 W298 L 75 D320 W291 L 59 W253 7.0 132 Wayne Kort W356 L 9 W257 W304 L 46 W179 W 40 L 68 L 74 W236 W157 L 51 7.0 133 Robert Bryan W443 W 11 W477 L 25 L 47 W306 W 72 D 46 L 75 D 51 W102 L 53 7.0 134 Tony W Sanchez Kiesow W438 L 81 W 74 W168 L101 W117 L 85 W114 W 84 L 26 W119 L 63 7.0 135 Edmund Nash W441 L 10 D271 W267 D399 L201 W263 W203 L 56 W303 L 99 W 7.0 136 Robert H Haselden W360 W369 W155 L 24 L 66 D 92 W 22 L 41 W284 W234 L 70 D137 7.0 137 Joseph Brandenburg L343 W465 W339 L 11 W251 D331 W274 L 71 W388 L 53 W196 D136 7.0 138 Marvin Hayami L205 W360 W258 W284 L 67 L234 W251 D321 D231 W249 W198 L 52 7.0 139 Brian K Combs D371 D400 W332 L156 D237 L253 W240 W288 W269 L 76 D234 W236 7.0 140 Evi Reimer Gruenenwald W373 L 28 L303 L366 W440 W429 L345 W355 W334 W268 L120 W267 7.0 141 David Abramson W314 D 26 L418 W397 L 40 L189 W297 W296 D331 D312 W261 D113 7.0 142 Jason Luchan W372 L 36 W354 L 96 W258 L154 D259 W329 W278 D 59 L106 W274 7.0 143 William Krieger LF HPB HPB HPB HPB HPB W333 W419 W406 D 81 W164 L 54 7.0 144 Matthew Goldman W456 L 72 W204 D104 D 81 D 43 W158 L 76 L 86 D349 W265 W206 7.0 145 Tom Taylor W483 D 94 D156 L 71 D394 W305 L279 W392 W415 D164 L 58 W276 7.0 146 Carl A Koontz W498 L 39 W381 D 52 L 77 W269 L 41 W152 W104 D162 D 84 D118 7.0 147 Evan Whipple W497 D 35 D 98 L155 W511 W318 L 97 W347 D 59 L159 W192 D110 7.0 148 John Norman W313 L 63 W270 L 22 D287 W296 D331 W336 D 54 D 78 W122 L 59 7.0 149 Mike Pendergast HPB W391 W120 L 15 D268 L180 D289 W199 L169 D227 W248 W228 7.0 150 Ralph P Palmeri W415 L 83 L 55 W337 L209 W465 W109 L165 L268 W399 W375 W 7.0 151 Leslie Wood L159 W514 D325 L215 L191 L447 W446 D188 W476 W239 W241 W220 7.0 152 Vernon Vanpoucke LF HPB HPB HPB HPB HPB W412 L146 D337 W208 w221 WF 7.0 153 Gary Robinson HPB L119 W403 D124 W190 L209 W324 L180 W222 W210 L123 W219 7.0 154 Erik A Kastner L113 L 55 W472 W327 W223 W142 L 61 D219 D175 D180 W179 D156 7.0 155 William Lukowiak W271 W228 L136 W147 W 88 D 13 LF W125 D120 D113 L 86 LF 6.5 156 Erich Watkinson Marchand D233 W351 D145 W139 L106 W323 D123 D 84 D118 D212 L 93 D154 6.5 157 John A Hudson W345 W221 D165 W193 D 29 D 15 L 6 D209 L129 W218 L132 D188 6.5 158 Jeff Byerly W395 L223 W192 D188 W325 L198 L144 W313 W221 W166 L 77 LF 6.5 159 P Andrew Zissos W151 W245 W 15 L 16 D 11 W236 W 28 L 24 L 41 W147 L 66 LF 6.5 160 Daryl K Hank D400 W358 L217 L236 W266 W288 W213 D 57 L 91 D191 D232 D195 6.5 161 Novag Turbo (Computer) W305 W179 W 61 L 2 L385 D216 W243 D170 L 49 D112 L126 W284 6.5 162 Cedric Thompson W278 W310 W 28 L 34 D 64 L 35 D 91 W190 D187 D146 L 62 D184 6.5 163 Harry S Cohen HPB HPB HPB HPB HPB HPB L 93 D395 W258 L261 W268 W292 6.5 164 Klye Miller W398 W287 L 63 D232 D 91 W250 W217 D 26 L 30 D145 L143 D181 6.5 165 Harold Colton W404 W470 D157 L 23 W233 D418 L 42 W150 W 67 D 44 L 73 L 92 6.5 166 Richard Phillips L467 D365 W308 W312 W 14 W 71 L 98 L 50 W257 L158 W285 L 82 6.5 167 Richard Banner HPB HPB HPB HPB HPB HPB W260 W245 L 65 D213 W284 L 91 6.5 168 Nathan S Akamine W480 L 20 W264 L134 W261 L257 W265 W201 D 51 L 71 W193 L 69 6.5 169 Kirk J Steinocher W520 D418 L 41 W355 L 51 L256 W414 W461 W149 L115 D269 D205 6.5 170 Brian Donnell D495 W308 L319 W203 W297 L 50 W189 D161 L 44 D192 W213 L 71 6.5 171 Mike Nietman W518 L 15 W305 D297 W200 L 73 L236 W193 D213 L201 W233 D202 6.5 172 Naoko Takemoto W337 L 1 W285 W222 W477 L 94 L 29 D234 W387 L 50 L191 W288 6.5 173 Michael Podlofsky L368 W516 W269 W310 D 71 L 51 W200 L 43 L 93 L285 W300 W302 6.5 174 Gary R Smith W445 L 24 W427 L 38 L292 L381 W361 W463 W242 D204 W288 L 83 6.5 175 David Salom W431 L 25 W342 L477 W427 W399 L 78 D331 D154 W311 D110 L 87 6.5 176 David Scheffer W376 L 38 W395 L 42 D256 W333 L 14 L388 L305 W 35 W318 W285 6.5 177 Mark H Tolliver W444 D 65 D 35 HPB L 70 W297 L 32 W237 W293 L 83 D204 D203 6.5 178 Glen Schabacker HPB HPB HPB HPB HPB HPB L203 L312 W410 W259 W273 D201 6.5 179 Benjamin Fitch W486 L161 W347 L 97 W263 L132 D381 W189 L102 W305 L154 W296 6.5 180 Steve Mellen W411 L 23 W331 L 36 W479 W149 L 55 W153 L 58 D154 W312 L 84 6.5 181 John D Chutter W413 L104 W519 W384 L 97 L 82 W363 L 54 L200 WF W347 D164 6.5 182 Len Martin LF HPB HPB HPB HPB HPB W305 L387 w290 W336 L108 W301 6.5 183 Gary B Edwards W439 L 5 W256 D234 W246 D 44 L 65 W233 L 40 W238 L 37 D198 6.5 184 Ian Osgood W487 D 73 D 65 L105 W381 W477 W122 L 32 L116 L 79 W242 D162 6.5 185 Steven Dieckhoff W499 L 46 L396 W295 L201 W398 W350 L 74 W304 L 99 W260 D204 6.5 186 Jeffrey Serandos W316 L 71 W366 L122 W310 D 76 D 53 L101 W347 L110 D200 W305 6.5 187 Jim Hanlen W489 L 43 W205 L107 W270 L 54 W338 W100 D162 L 86 LF W368 6.5 188 Robert L Rundorff W527 L 99 W404 D158 L422 L274 L394 D151 W400 W344 W306 D157 6.5 189 Arthur Iodice L 28 W497 L125 D434 W308 W141 L170 L179 W411 L281 W409 W280 6.5 190 Joe Kavalec D378 W371 L 44 D277 L153 W366 W242 L162 D272 L205 W358 W310 6.5 191 William Gellings LF HPB HPB HPB 1 51 LF W270 D200 W208 D160 W172 L 88 6.5 192 Randy J Nibler L 17 W441 L158 W363 W110 L123 L115 W404 W380 D170 L147 W281 6.5 193 Glen Buckendorf D277 W268 W 14 L157 L129 L102 W364 L171 W353 W315 L168 W313 6.5 194 Teddy Leong W293 L107 W314 W110 L 56 L 31 W351 D 81 L123 W406 L 88 W307 6.5 195 Robert Haskins W458 L 79 W409 D117 L120 L205 W358 W307 W383 L 61 D112 D160 6.5 196 Chester DeStefano LF HPB HPB HPB HPB HPB L360 W466 W266 W293 L137 W315 6.5 197 Charles Cordell L 8 L437 D315 W410 W430 L 14 L406 W346 L358 W294 W402 W293 6.5 198 Peter G Miehe W491 W106 L 21 D131 W114 W158 L 77 D 59 D 52 D123 L138 D183 6.5 199 John A Nesbit D317 W406 L 70 W413 L125 W293 L383 L149 L274 W295 W309 W312 6.5 200 Sam Hmailton D 69 L 44 W316 W275 L171 W391 L173 D191 W181 L214 D186 W286 6.5 201 Sylvio Scorza L477 W472 L126 W409 W185 W135 L119 L168 W215 W171 L 85 D178 6.5 202 Doddy Apostol LF LF HPB HPB HPB HPB L369 W451 W364 W368 W210 D171 6.5 203 Stephen Skeels D 77 L 98 W371 L170 D451 W449 W178 L135 L218 W382 W327 D177 6.5 204 Darin Sprayberry L383 W382 L144 W224 W286 L121 L228 W478 W239 D174 D177 D185 6.5 205 David Lecker W138 L 61 L187 D285 W329 W195 L211 W390 L124 W190 D220 D169 6.5 206 Paul A Gallegos HPB HPB HPB HPB HPB HPB W302 W326 L117 W217 L 80 L144 6.0 207 Vera Frenkel W437 L 7 W 93 W287 W 43 L 66 D 30 D 67 L 48 W327 L 94 L117 6.0 208 Rex (Computer) WF HPB HPB HPB HPB HPB W493 L112 L191 L152 W287 D215 6.0 209 Anthony Crawley W408 L 17 W259 L303 W150 W153 D104 D157 L107 W331 L 78 LF 6.0 210 Giles A Koelsche W505 D 14 L 26 L307 D312 D270 D224 W354 W265 L153 L202 W334 6.0 211 Charles Selkirk W409 L 34 W341 L 28 D269 W240 W205 L103 W253 D102 L 54 LF 6.0 212 Karl Schoffstoll HPB HPB HPB HPB HPB HPB D461 W393 W386 D156 L 52 LF 6.0 213 Larry Johns W364 L122 D375 L268 W496 W313 L160 W360 D171 D167 L170 D266 6.0 214 Hugj V Conyac D406 W495 L 27 HPB HPB L233 D258 W335 W256 W200 L 51 LF 6.0 215 Gordon Megibow W453 L 66 D266 W151 L 73 D345 L347 W429 L201 W270 D292 D208 6.0 216 Douglas P Enright W473 L 47 W400 D 18 D 53 D161 L 43 L320 W300 D274 D271 D263 6.0 217 Alexey Root W468 L477 W160 L 56 W304 W 74 L164 D 52 D 79 L206 W256 L105 6.0 218 Marvin G Ansted W315 W 96 L 72 L 67 L 93 W354 L336 W344 W203 L157 W291 LF 6.0 219 William Toikka W513 L 42 W274 L 43 L257 W312 W306 D154 L 53 W263 D272 L153 6.0 220 Harold Nishida LF HPB HPB HPB HPB HPB D261 W352 D267 W257 D205 L151 6.0 221 James A Wright W412 L157 D397 W309 L 78 W307 L 96 W394 L158 D267 L152 W328 6.0 222 Debra M Scott WF L384 W470 L172 W450 L119 L100 W396 L153 W363 W362 L125 6.0 223 Michael D Kretten W380 W158 L 50 L 82 L154 L363 D466 D430 W465 W396 W275 L119 6.0 224 Lindell Brady W530 L 48 L318 L204 D442 D380 D210 L266 W378 W345 W336 D264 6.0 225 Michael E Vaughn LF HPB HPB HPB HPB HPB L269 W397 W394 W318 L104 D261 6.0 226 Joseph Wagner W454 W 74 L 68 D 59 L 18 W394 D 52 D 53 D122 L109 D264 D257 6.0 227 Donald Turner L 57 W464 W351 D125 L116 W375 L136 L406 W395 D149 L278 W354 6.0 228 John Wise W472 L155 L310 W294 L306 W348 W204 L 49 W332 L101 W334 L149 6.0 229 Phil Jarrett W471 L103 W496 L 83 W366 D 53 L 76 L269 D270 W381 W349 L116 6.0 230 Daniel Burg LF HPB HPB HPB HPB HPB W271 D256 W259 L105 L267 WF 6.0 231 Gerald Lassen LF HPB HPB HPB HPB HPB W341 W274 D138 L122 W352 L102 6.0 232 Craig D Wilcox W490 L 18 W364 D164 D 76 L 55 L278 D310 W301 W358 D160 L112 6.0 233 Richard Hwang D156 W378 L 53 W440 L165 W214 D128 L183 L109 W251 L171 W360 6.0 234 Adam Silverman L 4 W433 W293 D183 D112 W138 L 31 D172 W281 L136 D139 L129 6.0 235 David J Butler W482 L 50 W295 L101 W259 L104 L275 L350 W357 W354 W303 L122 6.0 236 Ralph Eschbach D 67 W416 L119 W160 W131 L159 W171 D 58 L 85 L132 W325 L139 6.0 237 Vern L Glaser L 15 L443 W469 W405 D139 D114 D110 L177 L360 W466 D337 W363 6.0 238 Harold M Polstein LF HPB HPB HPB HPB HPB D315 W398 W356 L183 L276 W350 6.0 239 Lawrence Reifurth LF HPB HPB HPB HPB W361 WF L116 L204 L151 W436 W349 6.0 240 Mark Turner D416 W277 L 58 L 51 W406 L211 L139 W371 L111 D365 W437 W343 6.0 241 Nick R Rosas W501 L101 W467 L106 W396 W 81 L 82 L115 L312 W355 L151 W344 6.0 242 Andrew R Berger L 63 L450 L374 W520 W314 W467 L190 W437 L174 W442 L184 W375 6.0 243 Geoffrey P Wyatt W514 L 56 W369 L 54 W354 D384 L161 W298 L 81 D310 W331 L100 6.0 244 John Sendrey W474 D 70 W 73 L 44 W 52 L 18 L 71 L253 W298 W307 L103 D271 6.0 245 Johannes Vestergaard Pedersen WF L159 W485 L123 W439 L 60 W277 L167 L275 W338 W366 L111 6.0 246 Natalya Zelkind L 5 W438 D413 W415 L183 L 52 W308 W282 L128 L313 D360 W347 6.0 247 Richard E Kerr LF HPB HPB HPB HPB HPB L447 D276 L363 W480 W369 W362 6.0 248 John Lai L 3 W434 L 11 W400 L 60 L278 W465 W338 W369 L125 L149 W331 6.0 249 Paul Vayssie W457 L 54 W450 L111 W467 L 85 L 74 W251 W350 L138 W311 L114 6.0 250 Christopher Burris L 6 L364 W373 W361 W449 L164 L 49 W366 L311 L362 W433 W352 6.0 251 Novag T20 (Computer) L 22 W493 L106 W276 L137 W464 L138 L249 W328 L233 W351 W378 6.0 252 Casey Bush L 11 D370 L440 D511 W518 W337 L118 W362 D108 D380 L114 W366 6.0 253 Todd L Graves L 26 W313 D129 L 14 W360 W139 L 88 W244 L211 D114 W323 L131 6.0 254 Percy Whiting L 12 L518 W498 W364 L281 W439 L 81 W399 W277 L127 L111 W357 6.0 255 Bernard Frank Brodersen L 14 L519 L449 L376 W455 W374 L404 W373 L276 W443 W439 W337 6.0 256 William Ratigan L 38 W498 L183 W343 D176 W169 L 80 D230 L214 W356 L217 W359 6.0 257 John R Ward L 66 W483 L132 W437 W219 W168 D385 L 83 L166 L220 W372 D226 6.0 258 Greg Hinrichson W379 L 57 L138 W518 L142 D364 D214 D337 L163 D346 W356 W370 6.0 259 Jay M Rosenberg L 68 W468 L209 W372 L235 W485 D142 D289 L230 L178 W447 W325 6.0 260 Alan R Dvorshak L 29 W431 L117 W443 W124 L112 L167 W434 L110 W369 L185 W374 6.0 261 Ralph W Leftwich L 65 WF L421 W466 L168 HPB D220 W440 D114 W163 L141 D225 6.0 262 Gail S Lingner LF LF HPB HPB HPB HPB L337 L431 W457 W408 W440 W371 6.0 263 Gary Ward L 30 W453 L 80 W367 L179 W396 L135 D464 W282 L219 W415 D216 6.0 264 Bill Kiplinger L418 W411 L168 L439 L443 L469 W501 W449 W434 W450 D226 D224 6.0 265 Benny J Hash L 42 L314 W411 W404 L127 W367 L168 W363 L210 W437 L144 W376 6.0 266 Derek M Allen L 81 W454 D215 L129 L160 L315 W491 W224 L196 W389 W391 D213 6.0 267 Jordan K Stewar D 44 L 77 W317 L135 L293 D434 W442 W456 D220 D221 W230 L140 6.0 268 Brian K Flygare D393 L193 W512 W213 D149 L 89 LF W492 W150 L140 L163 W329 6.0 269 Eric Stoltz W 40 L110 L173 W452 D211 L146 W225 W229 L139 W280 D169 L121 6.0 270 Rommel Dizon W 52 L 31 L148 W471 L187 D210 L191 W372 D229 L215 W431 WF 6.0 271 Michael Wojcio L155 W484 D135 L128 L375 W371 L230 D343 W440 W359 D216 D244 6.0 272 Stephen Britten LF LF HPB HPB HPB HPB W452 W324 D190 W391 D219 L124 6.0 273 Emil Hurtik LF LF HPB HPB HPB HPB WF L369 W439 W447 L178 W382 6.0 274 Harvey L Sanden L 18 W488 L219 D293 W358 W188 L137 L231 W199 D216 W283 L142 6.0 275 Tyler Sims L 79 W379 D423 L200 HPB W343 W235 LF W245 L121 L223 W330 6.0 276 John Flanery L 86 L125 W488 L251 D472 L416 W499 D247 W255 W329 W238 L145 6.0 277 Dwayne L Kiyaani D193 L240 W358 D190 WF L 62 L245 W351 L254 D304 D297 W327 6.0 278 David G Ludwig L162 L 97 L412 W483 W469 W248 W232 D108 L142 D283 W227 LF 6.0 279 Kenneth Ray Smith WF HPB HPB HPB HPB HPB W145 W385 LF LF LF LF 5.5 280 David Moody W452 W 22 L 47 L 65 L291 W395 L332 D318 W461 L269 W304 L189 5.5 281 Les LeRoy Smith W525 L 33 W394 L 35 W254 W347 D 99 L 70 L234 W189 L 92 L192 5.5 282 Haold Dondis W447 D 27 L 94 W350 L 95 W426 L415 L246 L263 W395 L307 W398 5.5 283 John Graves W506 D 53 L 77 W402 W 59 D 78 L 60 D 79 L 87 D278 L274 D303 5.5 284 George Church, Jr L476 W401 W443 L138 L347 W310 W456 D122 L136 W360 L167 L161 5.5 285 Gabriel Lither L 27 W525 L172 D205 W309 L131 L380 W365 W464 W173 L166 L176 5.5 286 Jessica Ambats W523 L 59 W343 L383 L204 D294 W402 W381 D125 L 84 D310 L200 5.5 287 Walter J Schaetzle W455 L164 W 60 L207 D148 L 80 L375 W308 W402 L104 L208 W404 5.5 288 Scott A Mason L 20 D407 L402 W315 W355 L160 W409 L139 W309 W415 L174 L172 5.5 289 William T Ballard W403 L 78 W437 D 81 D117 L122 D149 D259 L322 L352 W346 D306 5.5 290 David W Edwards LF LF HPB HPB HPB HPB D433 W409 L182 W367 L293 W402 5.5 291 Milton Colpron L 16 L409 W483 W464 W280 D 88 D129 L127 W100 L131 L218 D311 5.5 292 Eric M Dana L 24 W505 L116 W433 W174 L127 L117 W400 D384 D111 D215 L163 5.5 293 George Madarang L194 W338 L234 D274 W267 L199 WF W111 L177 L196 W290 L197 5.5 294 Hans P Detmar L110 L380 W376 L228 W445 D286 L393 L299 W412 L197 W471 W389 5.5 295 Robert D Dannels L122 W523 L235 L185 L409 L471 W484 D469 W485 L199 W470 W391 5.5 296 David W Shughart L 37 D444 W407 L 95 W402 L148 W416 L141 L313 W401 W406 L179 5.5 297 John S DeWitt L 64 W315 W127 D171 L170 L177 L141 D364 W404 D337 D277 D314 5.5 298 Kevin C O'Brien D 98 L 69 W370 L114 W317 W299 L131 L243 L244 L407 W464 W409 5.5 299 Henry E Gazin L 1 L337 W445 D496 W436 L298 L311 W294 D381 L366 D404 W399 5.5 300 Christine B Syben LF LF HPB HPB HPB HPB D407 W370 L216 W411 L173 W406 5.5 301 Kenneth B Horne LF LF HPB HPB W368 L124 D343 W498 L232 W410 W393 L182 5.5 302 Steven D Kramer L 19 W367 L 96 W311 L 74 W466 L206 W357 D315 L108 W308 L173 5.5 303 Dean Bollman L 99 W499 W140 W209 L103 L126 L124 WF W345 L135 L235 D283 5.5 304 Perry Zentner L 47 W455 W372 L132 L217 L456 W480 W382 L185 D277 L280 W407 5.5 305 Fred McGary L161 W374 L171 D313 W447 L145 L182 W407 W176 L179 W380 L186 5.5 306 Mike Vinyard W 97 L 82 L 89 W454 W228 L133 L219 L109 W343 W324 L188 D289 5.5 307 Robert Norskog W 55 L113 D124 W210 L128 L221 W389 L195 W390 L244 W282 L194 5.5 308 Bobby Anderson HPB L170 L166 W403 L189 W317 L246 L287 W501 W461 L302 W392 5.5 309 Michael T Purey L384 D403 W416 L221 L285 HPB W485 D460 L288 W390 L199 W415 5.5 310 Dennis Winningstad W389 L162 W228 L173 L186 L284 W487 D232 W392 D243 D286 L190 5.5 311 Aaron T Davis L 31 L 52 W527 L302 D498 W472 W299 D380 W250 L175 L249 D291 5.5 312 John Aaron West L 76 D316 W378 L166 D210 L219 W451 W178 W241 D141 L180 L199 5.5 313 Gary Huey L148 L253 W505 D305 W509 L213 W330 L158 W296 W246 L100 L193 5.5 314 Erik Niemi L141 W265 L194 L504 L242 W458 L355 L424 W482 W342 W335 D297 5.5 315 Benjamin J Ward L218 L297 D197 L288 W473 W266 D238 W339 D302 L193 W333 L196 5.5 316 Jeff Hardin L186 D312 L200 D365 L405 L368 W448 D435 D480 D438 W432 W396 5.5 317 Andy Sather D199 L393 L267 W401 L298 L308 D444 L368 W505 W465 D396 W397 5.5 318 Tom Gregor L 53 W487 W224 W 80 L107 L147 L323 D280 W460 L225 L176 W411 5.5 319 Gabriel Sanchez WF HPB W170 W102 D 68 W 47 L 38 L 55 LF LF LF LF 5.0 320 Fidelity 8 (Computer) HPB HPB HPB HPB HPB WF L 87 W216 D131 LF LF LF 5.0 321 Fidelity 2 (Computer) HPB HPB HPB HPB HPB WF L 59 D138 W326 LF LF LF 5.0 322 Fidelity 6 (Computer) HPB HPB HPB HPB HPB WF D116 L118 W289 LF LF LF 5.0 323 Robert E Larson W410 L 45 W429 L103 W342 L156 W318 L 72 W427 L 52 L253 LF 5.0 324 Gregory A Harris W488 L 68 W337 L 55 W429 L 69 L153 L272 W430 L306 D399 D361 5.0 325 Leslie R Colin W451 L 75 D151 W406 L158 W341 W108 D 99 L 82 L 67 L236 L259 5.0 326 John A Anderson HPB HPB W405 L 31 W362 L 79 W399 L206 L321 L347 L363 W438 5.0 327 Daniel Rogers L 9 W356 L 40 L154 W452 W362 WF L129 W375 L207 L203 L277 5.0 328 Ursula Foster LF LF HPB HPB HPB HPB L434 W483 L251 W467 W407 L221 5.0 329 Richard L Henry L 36 W452 D114 L 27 L205 W365 W457 L142 D447 L276 W364 L268 5.0 330 John Dozier L 2 W480 L 52 W516 D 80 L 59 L313 L402 D370 W441 W365 L275 5.0 331 Jim R Uselton L 75 W500 L180 W476 W503 D137 D148 D175 D141 L209 L243 L248 5.0 332 Jeff Eskew L 46 W520 L139 W374 L121 W450 W280 L126 L228 L375 W442 LF 5.0 333 Gerald L Reiner L 39 W469 D128 L120 W434 L176 L143 W433 LF W464 L315 D367 5.0 334 Paul J Schuster LF LF HPB HPB HPB HPB W367 W441 L140 W376 L228 L210 5.0 335 Robert Donaldson LF LF HPB HPB HPB HPB W443 L214 L442 W452 L314 W435 5.0 336 Gerald W Womble L 50 W486 L121 W412 L 89 W382 W218 L148 D391 L182 L224 D372 5.0 337 Jonathan January L172 W299 L324 L150 W454 L252 W262 D258 D152 D297 D237 L255 5.0 338 David R Hattery L106 L293 W520 L127 W470 W424 L187 L248 W351 L245 L378 W451 5.0 339 George Cunningham L 48 W376 L137 L449 W374 W433 L130 L315 L368 L343 W448 W439 5.0 340 Michael P Olson LF LF HPB HPB HPB HPB L356 D485 W497 D435 L368 W433 5.0 341 Martin S Feith L 70 W513 L211 D451 W416 L325 L231 L411 W471 D371 L343 W442 5.0 342 Peter C Nixon L 43 W412 L175 W456 L323 L110 L441 L374 W448 L314 W483 W443 5.0 343 Dale R Wentz W137 L 87 L286 L256 W352 L275 D301 D271 L306 W339 W341 L240 5.0 344 Thomas A Fineberg LF LF HPB HPB HPB HPB W497 L218 W467 L188 W450 L241 5.0 345 Luke Hornof L157 HPB W444 L422 W413 D215 W140 LF L303 L224 L371 W434 5.0 346 Jonathan Rogers LF LF LF HPB HPB HPB W513 L197 W414 D258 L289 W454 5.0 347 John E Martin II L 73 W475 L179 W458 W284 L281 W215 L147 L186 W326 L181 L246 5.0 348 Joseph W Sparks LF HPB HPB L 74 W370 L228 W471 L391 L376 L373 W486 W450 5.0 349 David Gassaway LF LF HPB HPB HPB HPB D411 W416 W393 D144 L229 L239 5.0 350 Chedly Aouriri L 78 W501 D508 L282 W478 HPB L185 W235 L249 LF W528 L238 5.0 351 Gary Garnese W424 L156 L227 L450 W437 W451 L194 L277 L338 W444 L251 W440 5.0 352 Boris Zelkind L101 L413 L451 WF L343 W453 W368 L220 W431 W289 L231 L250 5.0 353 William F North LF LF HPB HPB HPB HPB D410 W412 L193 L176 D451 W447 5.0 354 Tim N Erion L103 W473 L142 W487 L243 L218 W408 L210 W452 L235 W373 L227 5.0 355 Dan h Nowlin L 54 W482 D478 L169 L288 D497 W314 L140 W374 L241 L359 W449 5.0 356 Bill J Calton L132 L327 L382 L484 W488 W474 W340 W462 L238 L256 L258 W427 5.0 357 Jon P Gassaway L385 L116 W499 L392 D513 W468 D460 L302 L235 W456 W458 L254 5.0 358 Richard A Rice HPB L160 L277 W453 L274 W372 L195 WF W197 L232 L190 D380 5.0 359 Rod E Planas LF LF LF Lf HPB HPB W482 W496 W429 L271 W355 L256 5.0 360 John L Chapman L136 L138 D473 W475 L253 W413 W196 L213 W237 L284 D246 L233 5.0 361 Philip A Kelsey L 58 WF LF L250 W373 L239 L174 LF D453 W414 W475 D324 5.0 362 Mark A Wills W116 L385 W476 L 90 L326 L327 W424 L252 W478 W250 L222 L247 5.0 363 Theodore Uehling L 61 L 60 W468 L192 W471 W223 L181 L265 W247 L222 W326 L237 5.0 364 Michael Schwartz L213 W250 L232 L254 W487 D258 L193 D297 L202 W476 L329 W426 5.0 365 Gregory S Reese L 88 D166 L391 D316 D468 L329 W472 L285 W473 D240 L330 W456 5.0 366 Henderson Johnson L 83 W458 L186 W140 L229 L190 W476 L250 W491 W299 L245 L252 5.0 367 Bruce K Broderson L128 L302 W506 L263 W378 L265 L334 D473 W475 L290 W394 D333 5.0 368 Casey A Telling W173 L 85 L 91 L479 L301 W316 L352 W317 W339 L202 W340 L187 5.0 369 Ake A Gullmes W125 L136 L243 L 93 L380 W520 W202 W273 L248 L260 L247 W424 5.0 370 Allen Gume L 90 D252 L298 D389 L348 HPB W475 L300 D330 W462 W427 L258 5.0 371 Vince James Maraia D139 L190 L203 L509 W500 L271 W413 L240 W426 D341 W345 L262 5.0 372 Brendon Gehring L142 W479 L304 L259 HPB L358 W432 L270 W397 W501 L257 D336 5.0 373 David Barnhill L140 L123 L250 W490 L361 L476 WF L255 W507 W348 L354 W429 5.0 374 Tim Coffey L 62 L305 W242 L332 L339 L255 W454 W342 L355 W463 W381 L260 5.0 375 Billy Heusser W478 L111 D213 L393 W271 L227 W287 D110 L327 W332 L150 L242 5.0 376 Robert Barncord L176 L339 L294 W255 L395 L400 W489 W436 W348 L334 W429 L265 5.0 377 John C Whitworth LF LF LF LF HPB HPB W445 L439 L443 W492 W465 W430 5.0 378 Paul A King D190 L233 L312 D442 L367 W431 L398 W455 L224 W485 W338 L251 5.0 379 Nancy Keller L258 L275 D442 L495 D453 L452 L483 W500 L451 W484 W444 W436 5.0 380 Philip D Seth L223 W294 L 92 L381 W369 D224 W285 D311 L192 D252 L305 D358 5.0 381 Romi Kanal L104 W456 L146 W380 L184 W174 D179 L286 D299 L229 L374 W431 5.0 382 Svanta Eikrem L 91 L204 W356 W395 L 92 L336 W496 L304 W398 L203 W435 L273 5.0 383 Ariel Mazzarelli W204 W485 L 46 W286 D 50 L 98 W199 L 96 L195 LF LF LF 4.5 384 James H Quon W309 W222 L 34 L181 W392 D243 D420 L 91 D292 LF LF LF 4.5 385 Leland D Harmon W357 W362 D 45 HPB W161 L 38 D257 L279 LF LF LF LF 4.5 386 Fidelity 1 (Computer) HPB HPB HPB HPB HPB WF W102 L 14 L212 LF LF LF 4.5 387 Fidelity 7 (Computer) HPB HPB HPB HPB HPB WF L 86 W182 L172 LF LF LF 4.5 388 Fidelity 5 (Computer) HPB HPB HPB HPB HPB WF L120 W176 L137 LF LF LF 4.5 389 Sixto Garvilles L310 L405 HPB D370 W480 HPB L307 LF W527 L266 W400 L294 4.5 390 Zola P Levitt LF HPB HPB HPB HPB HPB W430 L205 L307 L309 LF W505 4.5 391 Donald Townsen HPB L149 W365 W447 L 84 L200 D427 W348 D336 L272 L266 L295 4.5 392 Mark Wanvig L 10 W442 L 97 W357 L384 D495 W498 L145 L310 L402 W466 L308 4.5 393 Julie Anne Desch D268 W317 L 69 W375 L113 L415 W294 L212 L349 W432 L301 LF 4.5 394 Richard Chadwick L 71 W527 L281 W485 D145 L226 W188 L221 L225 L409 L367 W458 4.5 395 Raymond W Wissig L158 W474 L176 L382 W376 L280 W450 D163 L227 L282 L411 W471 4.5 396 Kent P Hieronymus L105 W506 W185 L126 L241 L263 W470 L222 W456 L223 D317 L316 4.5 397 Richard Lindsley L102 W490 D221 L141 L426 L498 W481 L225 L372 W468 W410 L317 4.5 398 Christopher Wirfs L164 L415 W484 L 60 W431 L185 W378 L238 L382 D451 W413 L282 4.5 399 Chad Horner D119 WF L 22 W478 D135 L175 L326 L254 W424 L150 D324 L299 4.5 400 Steven T Baskett D160 D139 L216 L248 L412 W376 W425 L292 L188 D470 L389 W474 4.5 401 Shawn Halsey L111 L284 D501 L317 L457 W500 D468 D471 W413 L296 D426 D416 4.5 402 Jon Bricher L422 D436 W288 L283 L296 W501 L286 W330 L287 W392 L197 L290 4.5 403 L Paul Greenland L289 D309 L153 L308 L497 L444 W500 W481 L407 D453 D467 W468 4.5 404 T Lane Harris L165 W424 L188 L265 L456 W484 W255 L192 L297 W487 D299 L287 4.5 405 John D Tubbs L129 W389 L326 L237 W316 L461 LF LF LF D526 W485 W446 4.5 406 David A Ward D214 L199 W461 L325 L240 W510 W197 W227 L143 L194 L296 L300 4.5 407 Phil Humphreys L131 D288 L296 L416 D486 W454 D300 L305 W403 W298 L328 L304 4.5 408 Martin Goodman L209 L120 L458 L472 W506 W482 L354 D487 D416 L262 D476 W475 4.5 409 Raymond E Page L211 W291 L195 L201 W295 HPB L288 L290 W425 W394 L189 L298 4.5 410 Dennis R Petersen L323 L 93 HPB L197 W475 D436 D353 W457 L178 L301 L397 W476 4.5 411 Richard Williams L180 L264 L265 W506 D510 D496 D349 W341 L189 L300 W395 L318 4.5 412 Richard S Colbeth L221 L342 W278 L336 W400 D427 L152 L353 L294 L425 W501 W463 4.5 413 David G Guyther L181 W352 D246 L199 L345 L360 L371 W513 L401 W497 L398 W466 4.5 414 Terminator (Computer) LF HPB HPB HPB HPB HPB L169 L427 L346 L361 W481 W467 4.5 415 Benjamin Schoenberg L150 W398 HPB L246 W512 W393 W282 L120 L145 L288 L263 L309 4.5 416 Peter Leonard D240 L236 L309 W407 L341 W276 L296 L349 D408 L439 W452 D401 4.5 417 Phillip Vanpoucke LF LF LF LF HPB HPB D438 W446 L435 L428 W472 W470 4.5 418 James Bricher W264 D169 W141 W113 L 4 D165 LF LF LF LF LF LF 4.0 419 Fidelity 4 (Computer) HPB HPB HPB HPB HPB WF L 83 L143 D423 LF LF LF 4.0 420 Fidelity 3 (Computer) HPB HPB HPB HPB HPB WF D384 L 40 L 88 LF LF LF 4.0 421 Pamela Ford W434 L 2 W261 W 92 L 75 W 93 L 47 LF LF LF Lf LF 4.0 422 Richard E Fauber W402 L 84 D426 W345 W188 D 42 L 8 LF LF LF LF LF 4.0 423 Theodore Bullockus W500 D 76 D275 D116 W102 L105 L 58 L117 D419 LF LF LF 4.0 424 Herbert R Owen L351 L404 L447 W494 W441 L338 L362 W314 L399 L440 W445 L369 4.0 425 Barbara McCaleb LF LF HPB HPB HPB HPB L400 D 49 L409 W412 D438 LF 4.0 426 Harry A Lofton L 25 W445 D422 L 73 W397 L282 LF L522 L371 W472 D401 L364 4.0 427 Norman H Nippell L 74 W457 L174 W470 L175 D412 D391 W414 L323 L100 L370 L356 4.0 428 Robert H Soloway LF LF HPB HPB HPB HPB L464 L450 L470 W417 L449 W483 4.0 429 Alina F Markowski L107 W489 L323 W457 L324 L140 W469 L215 L359 W449 L376 L373 4.0 430 Adrian M Haskins L 82 L 40 HPB W473 L197 W513 L390 D223 L324 L431 W455 L377 4.0 431 Rusell L Andrade L175 L260 L452 W488 L398 L378 W474 W262 L352 W430 L270 L381 4.0 432 Roger L Mitchell LF LF LF HPB HPB HPB L372 W472 W469 L393 L316 D453 4.0 433 Gerald E Barker L127 L234 W489 L292 W458 L339 D290 L333 D487 W491 L250 L340 4.0 434 Ronald E Bowen L421 L248 W514 D189 L333 D267 W328 L260 L264 L458 W473 L345 4.0 435 Carol C Ruderman LF LF LF HPB HPB HPB D473 D316 W417 D340 L382 L335 4.0 436 Robert A Roeder L 84 D402 L 51 W501 L299 D410 L478 L376 W486 W483 L239 L379 4.0 437 Dale W Anderson L207 W197 L289 L257 L351 W483 W467 L242 W462 L265 L240 LF 4.0 438 Frank Abarno L134 L246 L487 L513 D499 L475 D417 W484 W455 D316 D425 L326 4.0 439 Michael E Nolan L183 L 92 W490 W264 L245 L254 L462 W377 L273 W416 L255 L339 4.0 440 Dennis B Selby LF HPB W252 L233 L140 W509 D502 L261 L271 W424 L262 L351 4.0 441 Walter Williams L135 L192 L523 W499 L424 W521 W342 L334 L459 L330 L454 W488 4.0 442 Warren Gehring L 80 L392 D379 D378 D224 D478 L267 W490 W335 L242 L332 L341 4.0 443 Michael A Powe L133 W237 L284 L260 W264 L479 L335 L476 W377 L255 W487 L342 4.0 444 David Holyfield L177 D296 L345 L512 L501 W403 D317 L491 W454 L351 L379 W486 4.0 445 Nick John Raptis L174 L426 L299 W489 L294 L491 L377 L454 W506 W488 L424 W490 4.0 446 Stephen S Britten LF LF LF HPB HPB HPB L151 L417 W499 W473 D462 L405 4.0 447 Delvon Tate L282 D461 W424 L391 L305 W151 W247 L102 D329 L273 L259 L353 4.0 448 Phyllis Benjamin LF LF LF LF HPB HPB L316 W488 L342 W482 L339 W484 4.0 449 Cinthia McBride L121 LF W255 W339 L250 L203 L463 L264 W490 L429 W428 L355 4.0 450 Fred Sutherland L124 W242 L249 W351 L222 L332 L395 W428 W463 L264 L344 L348 4.0 451 T Tai Phan L325 L504 W352 D341 D203 L351 L312 L202 W379 D398 D353 L338 4.0 452 Albert E Babcock L280 L329 W431 L269 L327 W379 L272 W507 L354 L335 L416 W487 4.0 453 Stephen E Kong L215 L263 D509 L358 D379 L352 L458 W514 D361 D403 D463 D432 4.0 454 Gerhard Vetter L226 L266 W531 L306 L337 L407 L374 W445 L444 W505 W441 L346 4.0 455 Todd C Brighouse L287 L304 L471 L465 L255 W514 W516 L378 L438 W507 L430 W480 4.0 456 Elmer H Blanton L144 L381 W465 L342 W404 W304 L284 L267 L396 L357 W480 L365 4.0 457 Hanes C Wtrucj L249 L427 W480 L429 W401 HPB L329 L410 L262 L471 W499 D524 4.0 458 Stephen B Press L195 L366 W408 L347 L433 L314 W453 L467 W481 W434 L357 L394 4.0 459 David Hater LF LF LF HPB HPB HPB HPB HPB W441 LF LF LF 3.5 460 Helman Barnard LF HPB HPB HPB HPB HPB D357 L309 L318 LF LF LF 3.5 461 Peter J Cohen L 23 D447 L406 W486 D495 W405 D212 L169 L280 L308 LF LF 3.5 462 Clifford Anderson LF LF HPB HPB HPB HPB W439 L356 L437 L370 D446 LF 3.5 463 Richard Neely LF LF HPB HPB HPB HPB W449 L174 L450 L374 D453 L412 3.5 464 Sherman Boim L114 L227 W482 L291 W476 L251 W428 D263 L285 L333 L298 LF 3.5 465 Zach Brooks L123 L137 L456 W455 W474 L150 L248 W470 L223 L317 L377 D473 3.5 466 Tiburcio K Coria L112 L117 W500 L261 W484 L302 D223 L196 W468 L237 L392 L413 3.5 467 Michael Williamson W166 L112 L241 W510 L249 L242 L437 W458 L344 L328 D403 L414 3.5 468 Stewart Lessel L217 L259 L363 W505 D365 L357 D401 D480 L466 L397 W497 L403 3.5 469 Lawrence B Kong L 89 L333 L237 W491 L278 W264 L429 D295 L432 L475 L474 W501 3.5 470 Wayne A Boaz WF L165 L222 L427 L338 W516 L396 L465 W428 D400 L295 L417 3.5 471 Edward McKee L229 L510 W455 L270 L363 W295 L348 D401 L341 W457 L294 L395 3.5 472 Walter Spink L228 L201 L154 W408 D276 L311 L365 L432 W513 L426 L417 W499 3.5 473 Todd D Wilcox L216 L354 D360 L430 L315 W488 D435 D367 L365 L446 D434 D465 3.5 474 Norwood Butler L244 L395 L516 W531 L465 L356 L431 L505 WF D496 W469 L400 3.5 475 Isaiah W Cox L503 L347 HPB L360 L410 W438 L370 W516 L367 W469 L361 L408 3.5 476 John McAbel W284 L 88 L362 L331 L464 W373 L366 W443 L151 L364 D408 L410 3.5 477 Walter Milbratz W201 W217 L133 W175 L172 L184 LF LF LF LF LF LF 3.0 478 walter Winarski L375 W531 D355 L399 L350 D442 W436 L204 L362 LF LF LF 3.0 479 Grover C Miller L 33 L372 W513 W368 L180 W443 L114 LF LF LF LF LF 3.0 480 Michael J Hachey L168 L330 L457 W482 L389 W486 L304 D468 D316 L247 L456 L455 3.0 481 Barry S Spiegel LF LF LF HPB HPB HPB L397 L403 L458 W513 L414 D485 3.0 482 Kingsley Wood L235 L355 L464 L480 W505 L408 L359 W520 L314 L448 L490 W506 3.0 483 Chris Y S Lim L145 L257 L291 L278 W514 L437 W379 L328 W496 L436 L342 L428 3.0 484 Evelyn Cunningham L508 L271 L398 W356 L466 L404 L295 L438 W489 L379 W507 L448 3.0 485 Ward T Bush WF L383 L245 L394 W516 L259 L309 D340 L295 L378 L405 D481 3.0 486 David A Calton L179 L336 D525 L461 D407 L480 L507 W489 L436 W490 L348 L444 3.0 487 Larisa C Zelkind L184 L318 W438 L354 L364 W506 L310 D408 D433 L404 L443 L452 3.0 488 Delbert Niemi L324 L274 L276 L431 L356 L473 W506 L448 W514 L445 W489 L441 3.0 489 Margaret F Clark L187 L429 L433 L445 L520 W505 L376 L486 L484 W506 L488 W507 3.0 490 William Flannery L232 L397 L439 L373 L491 W527 W520 L442 L449 L486 W482 L445 3.0 491 Randy C Wyrick L198 LF L511 L469 W490 W445 L266 W444 L366 L433 LF LF 3.0 492 Robert Wyrick LF LF LF Lf LF HPB HPB L268 W520 L377 W514 L515 3.0 493 Ralph L Hall LF L251 W497 LF HPB HPB L208 D124 LF LF LF LF 2.5 494 Peter Finkelson LF LF HPB L424 LF L499 L505 LF W500 LF LF W513 2.5 495 Stephen J Christopher D170 L214 L502 W379 D461 D392 LF LF LF LF LF LF 2.5 496 Floyd A Fessler W 60 L 86 L229 D299 L213 D411 L382 L359 L483 D474 LF LF 2.5 497 Charles E Davis L147 L189 L493 D500 W403 D355 L344 D425 L340 L413 L468 LF 2.5 498 Terrance Canfield L146 L256 L254 W514 D311 W397 L392 L301 LF LF LF LF 2.5 499 Minor T Patton L185 L303 L357 L441 D438 W494 L276 L501 L446 WF L457 L472 2.5 500 Frank D Eisenman L423 L331 L466 D497 L371 L401 L403 L379 L494 D527 Bye D514 2.5 501 Sam C Deaderick L241 L350 D401 L436 W444 L402 L264 W499 L308 L372 L412 L469 2.5 502 Sief M Poulsen LF D 58 W495 LF LF LF D440 LF LF LF LF LF 2.0 503 Raymond Christian W475 L102 W518 L 61 L331 LF LF LF LF LF LF LF 2.0 504 William Lyons L 96 W451 L 90 W314 LF LF LF LF LF LF LF LF 2.0 505 William G Hart L210 L292 L313 L468 L482 L489 W494 W474 L317 L454 LF L390 2.0 506 David Nolan L283 L396 L367 L411 L408 L487 L488 Bye L445 L489 WF L482 2.0 507 Jim Young LF LF LF LF HPB HPB W486 L452 L373 L455 L484 L489 2.0 508 Harold Winston W484 L 30 D350 LF LF LF LF LF LF LF LF LF 1.5 509 Jaime Rodriguez L 41 LF D453 W371 L313 L440 LF LF LF LF LF LF 1.5 510 Gregory Wren L 45 W471 L131 L467 D411 L406 LF LF LF LF LF LF 1.5 511 Davod Andre LF LF W491 D252 L147 LF LF LF LF LF LF LF 1.5 512 Barrett McMaugh HPB L 67 L268 W444 L415 LF LF LF LF LF LF LF 1.5 513 Christine Hanken L219 L341 L479 W438 D357 L430 L346 L413 L472 L481 LF L494 1.5 514 Richard S Vidmar L243 L151 L434 L498 L483 L455 WF L453 L488 L517 L492 D500 1.5 515 Lewis Richardson LF LF LF LF LF LF LF LF LF LF LF W492 1.0 516 Elmer Hovermale L 87 L173 W474 L330 L485 L470 L455 L475 LF LF LF LF 1.0 517 Ira Lee Riddle LF LF LF LF LF LF LF LF LF W514 LF LF 1.0 518 Stuart R Pearson L171 W254 L503 L258 L252 LF LF LF LF LF LF LF 1.0 519 Charles Geary L126 W255 L181 LF LF LF LF LF LF LF LF LF 1.0 520 John Austreng L169 L332 L338 L242 W489 L369 L490 L482 L492 LF LF LF 1.0 521 Scott Lockard LF LF LF HPB HPB L441 LF LF LF LF LF LF 1.0 522 Richardo Tanayo LF LF LF LF LF LF LF L426 LF LF LF LF 1.0 523 Mark J Lajoie L286 L295 W441 LF LF LF LF LF LF LF LF LF 1.0 524 Kornelijs Dake LF LF LF LF LF LF LF LF LF LF LF D457 0.5 525 Joan C Fauber L281 L285 D486 LF LF LF LF LF LF LF LF LF 0.5 526 Ali Elmia LF LF LF LF LF LF LF LF LF D405 LF LF 0.5 527 Thomas W Arwood L188 L394 L311 LF LF L490 LF LF L389 D500 LF LF 0.5 528 Robert Karch LF LF LF LF LF LF LF LF LF LF L350 LF 0.0 529 Jeffrey Clark L 59 LF LF LF LF LF LF LF LF LF LF LF 0.0 530 Gerard Dullea L224 LF LF LF LF LF LF LF LF LF LF LF 0.0 531 Ken Frojen L 85 L478 L454 L474 LF LF LF LF LF LF LF LF 0.0 532 Marilyn Fisch LF LF LF LF LF LF LF LF LF LF LF LF 0.0 ]table 223 games, 1987 USA - Yugoslavia Radio Match <Introduction:> The USA - Yugoslavia Radio Match was contested using Teletype machines and short wave radio transmission between New York, USA and Belgrade, Yugoslavia. It took place between Saturday 11th and Tuesday 14th February 1950. The Americans had previous experience of this type of match - USSR - USA Radio Match (1945). In the decade after the Second World War, there were several such radio matches. The technology was proven and it provided a relatively inexpensive method of arranging long-distance international competition at a time when many countries were still recovering economically and travel was expensive and restricted. Other such matches included: the Anglo-Soviet match (1946) Game Collection: 1946. USSR vs GB (Radio match), Anglo-Australian match (1946), Australia vs. France (1946) Game Collection: 1946 Australia vs France : radio match, Australia vs. Canada (1947) Australia vs Canada Radio Match (1947), and Argentina vs. Spain (1949). For more information on radio matches see - Game Collection: 1947 radio matches Moves were relayed using the Udemann telegraphic code which it was intended would allow a time control of 50 moves per 2 hours. The mechanics of transmission, however, caused delays which slowed the progress of the match down. The Radio Corporation of America (RCA) provided the American radio transmission machinery. [(1)]. RCA was the leading manufacturer of radio components in the USA as a leading supplier of this technology the match provided beneficial publicity. Hans Kmoch was the match referee. [(2)] The American team played in an office in The Chanin Building, a 56 storey office block on 122 East 42nd Street, at the corner of Lexington Avenue, Manhattan. [(3)] The Yugoslav team were given the use of the Kolarech University Hall (Kolarac Concert Hall), Belgrade which had a 1,200 seat capacity. The Yugoslav's opening ceremony was a grand affair, with the Belgrade Radio Symphony Orchestra serenading a hall packed with dignitaries including the US Ambassador and veteran GM Milan Vidmar who served as the "American representative" for the match. [(4)] <The American Team:> The American team was deprived of Isaac Kashdan, their intended third board, a week before the match when he was hospitalised with a perforated ulcer. The American Team was further weakened by internal dissension. Herman Steiner who had agreed to play withdrew the day before the commencement of the match as he was not given Board One. [(5)]. Ulvestad was brought in as a last minute replacement rushing to New York from Cleveland. Unfortunately, he was rusty having played little competitive chess in the previous year. [(6)] Pinkus having lost his first round game and effectively defaulted his second round game by resigning in the early middle game in an equal position click for larger view <24...h5> = Pinkus resigned before day two of his game, he explained that he had to go to a business appointment. The preparedness and single-mindedness of the Yugoslav team contrasted with the lack of preparation and last-minute improvisation of the Americans. <The Yugoslavian team:> This was an important match for the Yugoslavs and for them it had a political imperative and social aspect that was completely lacking on the American side. Of their top players, only Andrija Fuderer, who came 4-6 in the Yugoslav championship, was not on the team. Interestingly, whilst the 18 year old did not play, Ivkov who was two year's his junior was on the team. The Yugoslav state had decided to devote significant resources to chess for reasons of national prestige and as a flag carrier for socialist culture. Edo Turnher, the President of the Slovenian Chess Association, wrote in 1949: . <"the profound social changes in our country, the revolutionary struggle for socialism...chess can be enjoyed by us through significant support from the national governments and within a plan of work to elevate the economic and cultural level of our homeland".> [(7)] The Yugoslav government was prepared to invest precious resources into chess at a time when there was little to go round. Whilst still recovering from the devastation of war, the Yugoslav economy had recently been cut off from its Eastern European trade partners. Ejected from the Communist trading bloc (Cominform) by Stalin, Yugoslavia could not yet generate sufficient foreign exchange to pay for hard currency imports. Instead, it was dependent on an American loan to pay for a significant amount of its imports. Despite this, Yugoslavia hosted the 1950 Olympiad and also arranged a number of matches which invited leading grandmasters to play their top players: Gligoric - Stahlberg (1949) Euwe - Pirc (1949) Najdorf - Trifunovic (1949) The match was widely publicised and followed in Yugoslavia and attracted leading government and political figures. <First Round:> February 11th-12th: USA had White on the odd numbered boards. 1. Reshevsky v Gligoric 2. Pirc v Fine 3. Horowitz v Trifunovic 4. Rabar v Denker 5. Ulvestad v Vidmar, Jr 6. Puc v Dake 7. Kevitz v Milic 8. Kostic v Byrne 9. Pinkus v Matanovic 10. Ivkov v Bisguier . <Second Round:> February 13th-14th: USA had White on the even numbered boards. 1. Gligoric v Reshevsky 2. Fine v Pirc 3. Trifunovic v Horowitz 4. Denker v Rabar 5. Vidmar, Jr v Ulvestad 6. Dake v Puc 7. Milic v Kevitz 8. Byrne v Kostic 9. Matanovic v Pinkus 10. Bisguier v Ivkov table[ 1. Reshevsky ½½ - ½½ Gligoric 2. Fine ½½ - ½½ Pirc 3. Horowitz ½½ - ½½ Trifunovic 4. Denker ½1 - ½0 Rabar 5. Ulvestad 00 - 11 Vidmar, Jr 6. Dake ½0 - ½1 Puc 7. Kevitz ½½ - ½½ Milic 8. Byrne ½½ - ½½ Kostic 9. Pinkus 00 - 11 Matanovic 10. Bisguier 1½ - 0½ Ivkov First Round - Score: 4½ - 5½. Second Round - Score: 4 to 6. ]table . <Highlights:> The Yugoslavs were victorious in both rounds and won the match 11½ to 8½ - winning Round 1 by 5½ to 4½ and Round 2 by 6 to 4. Denker was the only American to win the Round 2. In the American Team, only he and Bisguier managed a plus score overall. Denker won the First Brilliancy Prize for his second round game against Rabar - Denker vs B Rabar, 1950. Bisguier won the Second Brilliancy Prize for his first round game against Ivkov - Ivkov vs A Bisguier, 1950. For his second round win over Ulvestad, Vidmar Jr was presented with a special prize for the best positional win of the match - M Vidmar Jr vs O Ulvestad, 1950. <Excerpts:> Dake was very lucky to survive his First Round game; click for larger view With <22.Bd8>, instead of taking the Knight on <b4>, his opponent Puc would have won. Kostic with White, played very aggressively in both of his games aginst Byrne, but in the First Round he was thoroughly outplayed. Byrne later miscalculated and Kostic managed to draw. click for larger view <33....Kh7!> would have given good winning chances. In the Second Round, the match effectively decided, Dake as White made a draw in a dead lost position: click for larger view . With <34.Rd2?> Ulvestad lost his First Round Game by walking into a mating net against Vidmar (Jr): click for larger view <34. Rd2?> (34. Na4 =) 34...Bf3+ 35. Kh3 Qc4 36. Na4 Qg8 37. Kh4 Qh8+ 38. Bh7 Be4 0-1 . In Round Two, Denker defeated Rabar with a combination which if played out would have involved a Queen sacrifice: click for larger view <38. Qe7+> Kh6 39. Qxh7+ Kxh7 40. Re7+ Kh6 41. Rh8 mate The full score for this First Brilliancy Prize game: Denker vs B Rabar, 1950 <Contemporary report> The match was mentioned by the mainstream press in some detail. On February 3rd, 1950, "The New York Times" introduced the Yugoslav team to its readership: "Champion Heads Team BELGRADE, Feb. 2 - Svetozar Gligorich, Yugoslavia's 1949 champion, will lead a strong team against American chess masters in the international radio match starting Feb. 11. Gligorich is regarded as one of the strongest players in Europe. In 1947 at Warsaw he defeated Vassily Smyslov and drew with Isaac Boleslawski, two of the ranking Soviet masters. Last summer Gligorich defeated Gideon Stahlberg, the Swedish master, in a twelve-game match. Gligorich won two games, lost one and drew nine. The Yugoslav expert is a journalist by profession and is a member of the staff of "Borba", the official newspaper of the Yugoslav Communist party. He will be seconded by Vasya Pirts, Professor of Modern Languages, and Petar Trifunovich, Yugoslavia's chess champion in 1945 and 1946, who shared top honors with Gligorich in 1947. Trifunovich won two matches, lost one and drew four against Soviet masters at the Stockholm tournament in 1948, in which he placed tenth among twenty players. Trifunovich is a journalist by profession. Other Masters Named The other Yugoslav players are Vraslov Rabar, journalist; Milan Vidmar, engineer and a son of the Yugoslav grandmaster of the same name, Stoyan Putz, clerk, Bora Militch, student, Bora Kostich, aged 63, oldest member of the team, Alexander. Matanovich, student, and Bora Yiv (sic, Ivkov - ed), 16-year-old high school student. Two substitute players will be attached to the team. The Yugoslavs are generally rated second to the Soviet masters in European chess. In post-war international matches they defeated a Swiss team 17½ to 2½, the Austrians 16½ to 3½, the Dutch by 10½ to 9½, the Hungarians by 10½ to 9½, and the Czechoslovaks, 15 to 5. Central House of the Yugoslav Army will be the scene of the play here. The Yugoslavs are approaching the match with great enthusiasm because they rate Americans as strong players and because it be the first time they will he met them in competition since the end of the war." [(8)] . <An eye witness account:> In 1950, Yugoslavia defeated the United States of America in a 10-board, four-day “radio match.” Steve Pejovich was then a high school senior in Belgrade. Before he left Yugoslavia in 1957 for a career culminating as professor emeritus at Texas A&M University, Steve was known by his given name of Svetozar. Svetozar Pejovich and other Belgrade high school chess players volunteered as match assistants. Pejovich remembers, “We got permission to miss four days of school” to relay the moves that one of his fellow volunteers recalled were “radio-received.” Three volunteers were assigned to each game. A first volunteer took each move from the radio room to a second volunteer, who sat across from the Yugoslavian player. That second volunteer made the American’s move on the board and started the Yugoslav’s clock. Pejovich was a third volunteer. His job was to update his assigned game’s demonstration board. I asked Pejovich if he remembered who played that game. He said that Ivkov played for Yugoslavia and ... “A fellow named Bisguier played for the American side..." [(9)] <Notes:> The score of the First Round, Board Four game: Rabar v Denker was found by User: Retireborn in the "New York Times", February 12th, 1950. p.138. [(1)] Match description and background from: "Chess Review", January 1950, Volume 18, No.1, p.10 - 11; "Chess Review", February 1950, Volume 18, No.2, p.35; "Chess Review", March 1950, Volume 18, No.3, p.72 - p.79; and "Chess Review", April, vol.18, No.4. p. 114 - p.116. [(2)] "Chess Review", March 1950, Volume 18, No.3, p.75. [(3)] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chani.... [(4)] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilija.... [(5)] "Chess Review", March 1950, Volume 18, No.3, p.72 [(6)] "Chess Review", March 1950, Volume 18, No.3, p.75. [(7)] Quoted in "Meč Pirc-Eve 5:5 : Bled-Ljubljana, 1949", p.6. [(8)] "The New York Times", February 3rd, 1950. [(9)] "Chess Life", January 2016, p.32. 20 games, 1950 von Bardeleben - von Gottschall <Introduction:> This was a match played at Leipzig's prestigious Augustea Chess Club and it commenced on March 12th, 1895 [(1)]. It was between two German masters residing in Leipzig who were both prominent chess writers: Hermann von Gottschall and Curt von Bardeleben This was their second match, the first being in 1890 with von Bardeleben winning by 5 - 1. Von Bardeleben again overwhelmed his opponent, this time by 4 - 1. <The players:> <Von Gottschall> was a German master who had emerged at Nuremberg, 1883 coming third. He did not play outside of Germany, and his later results were modest: 13th = at 4th DSB Congress, Hamburg (1885) 5th-8th Berlin, 1890; 8th-9th at Dresden, 1892 and 4th-6th Game Collection: 1893 Kiel Komplett. He was an influential man in German Chess, being the editor of the "Deutsche Schachzeitung". <Von Bardeleben> although at 32 he was only a year older than his opponent, Von Bardeleben had a longer and more successful career. For the last two decades of the nineteenth century, he was one of the top 20 players - http://www.chessmetrics.com/cm/CM2/.... He gained entry into the first rank of masters by winning the Berlin Hauptturnier (1881) which qualified him the next Meisterturnier at 3rd DSB Congress, Nuremberg (1883) where he came fifth. His first at Vizayanagaram, London (1883) and then fifth in the Third Meisterturnier at 3rd DSB Congress, Nuremberg (1883) clearly showed he had surpassed the journeymen. His next significant successes were a clear fourth in the Fifth German Chess Congress of the Deutschen Schachbund 5th DSB Congress, Frankfurt (1887) and 4th= at the 6th Deutscher Schachkongress at 6th DSB Congress, Breslau (1889) before finally tying for first at 8th DSB Congress, Kiel (1893). Also of note was his 3rd-4th in the very strong Bradford tournament of 1888; 1st-2nd at Leipzig, 1888; 4th-7th Breslau, 1889; 5th-8th Berlin, 1890; 8th at Berlin, 1891; 6th-7th at Dresden, 1892. <Summary:> The scores of three of the match games were given in "Deutsche Schachzeitung" of which von Gottschall was the editor along with the score of an additional game which appears to be an exhibition game. Game 5 is missing, but we do have a brief description of it in the match review printed in the "Deutsche Schachzeitung". Not all of the dates for the games are available, so some have been surmised as indicated: [[Game 1]] - Tuesday, 12th March 1895, Augustea Chess Club, von Gottschall - von Bardeleben, 61 moves Bishops/Vienna, 1-0. After equalising, von Bardeleben played poorly in the early middle-game and lost in a long ending. [[Game 2]] - Friday, 15th March 1895, Augustea Chess Club, von Bardeleben - von Gottschall, 33 moves, Queens Pawn with early e4, 1-0 Von Gottschall's careless <21...Bd6> squandered a valuable tempi assisting von Bardeleben's attack which progressed apace with <22.Nh5!> click for larger view [[Game 3]] - Monday, 18th March 1895 (?), Augustea Chess Club, von Gottschall - von Bardeleben, 30 moves, Four Knight's, 0-1. von Bardeleben's energetic rooks won the game: click for larger view <29...Rf4!> [[Game 4 ]] - Thursday, 21st March 1895, Augustea Chess Club, von Bardeleben - von Gottschall, 62 moves, Zukertort (Colle), 1-0 von Bardeleben neatly won a pawn with <19.Nxf5> click for larger view and eventually won the ending through finding several further "petite combinaisons". [[Game 5]] - Monday, 25th March 1895 (?), Augustea Chess Club, von Gottschall - von Bardeleben, 46 moves Bishops, 0-1. [[Exhibition Game]] - Wednesday, 27th March 1895, Theatercafe zu Leipzig, von Bardeleben - von Gottschall, 62 moves Zukertort (Colle), 1/2-1/2. <Score:> table[ 1 2 3 4 5 von Bardeleben 0 1 1 1 1 4 von Gottschall 1 0 0 0 0 1 ]table . <Progressive score:> table[ 1 2 3 4 5 von Bardeleben 0 1 2 3 4 von Gottschall 1 1 1 1 1 ]table . <Contemporary report:> "From Leipzig. In the Augustea Chess Club, a match of five games between Curt of Bardeleben and Dr. H. von Gottschall; Curt von Bardeleben won four of the games to win the match. The conditions were: the victor being the player who first scores four wins, the drawn games not counting. Time limit: 20 moves per hour. In the <First Game>, von Gottschall opened soundly with the Bishop's Opening. From a small advantage in the middle game he secured the victory in an extremely finely managed endgame (61 moves). The <Second Game> was undoubtedly the most interesting of the whole struggle and was won by von Bardeleben in splendid fashion in 33 moves through an energetic middle-game attack. The <Third Game>, in which von Gottschall opened with the Four Knights and he initially stood favourably. In a well-initiated attack he was, however, too precipitous and a consequence shed material and then lost through a further oversight in the middle-game (30 moves). In the next game <Fourth Game>, von Bardeleben as White chose Zukertort's Opening. Through superior piece play in the middle-game, he gained a slight material advantage and despite his opponent's first-rate defence, he won after 62 moves an immensely difficult and interesting endgame. In the <Fifth and final Game>, Dr. von Gottschall again played the Bishop's Opening. This was the most inaccurate game of the entire match. In the middle-game, Black after several weak moves lost material and von Gottschall's position appeared to be winning. His adversary, however, by skilful manoeuvring succeeded in improving his defensive position substantially, whereupon von Gottschall should have been content with a draw. In the heat of battle, however, he blundered, and in consequence of that, von Bardeleben won the game in 46 moves." [(2)] Having won the match with four successive wins, there was another game reported as occurring on the 27th March 1895 at another venue - Theatercafé zu Leipzig. This had von Bardeleben with white reprising his opening of the <Fourth Game>. Von Gottschall managed to hold the ending with two pawns for a piece. [(3)] . <Postscript:> Von Bardeleben proceeded to London where he played a match against Joseph Blackburne which commenced on the 25th April 1895 [(4)] - Game Collection: Blackburne - Bardeleben (1895). He then played a match with Richard Teichmann before participating in Hastings (1895). Von Gottschall, in contrast, concentrated on editing the "Deutsche Schachzeitung" and did not play competitively again until the 11th Deutschen Schachbund Congress at Cologne in August 1898. <Notes:> [(1)]. [["Deutsche Schachzeitung"]], No.4, April 1895, p.104-106. [(2)]. [["Deutsche Schachzeitung"]], No.4, April 1895, p.122. [(3)] [["Deutsche Schachzeitung"]], No.5, May 1895, p.146. [(4)]. [["Deutsche Schachzeitung"]], No.5, May 1895, p.146.and [["British Chess Magazine"]], June 1895, p.268. See also http://www.edochess.ca/matches/m108... . <Text> Original text and tables by User: Chessical . <Found games:> Game 3, found by User: Tabanus, in the [["Algemeen Handelsblad"]] of 3rd May 1895 and also in [["London Evening Standard"]] - Tuesday 23 April 1895, p.7. The "Algemeen Handelsblad" score has a misprint. The exhibition game's score, found by User: Chessical, is from [["Deutsche Schachzeitung"]], No.5, May 1895. 5 games, 1895 von Schmidt – Minckwitz <Introduction> This match was played in Leipzig in 1866 between the Estonian-Russian master Eugen von Schmidt and the German player and chess journalist Johannes Minckwitz. The games were all reported in "Schachzeitung" beginning in the September issue. This suggests the match was played in August 1866. The match probably occurred around the time that Leipzig was occupied by the Prussian army during the Seven Weeks’ War (June 1866 - August 23, 1866). This was a match between colleagues; in 1866 Minckwitz and Schmidt were the joint editors of the "Schachzeitung der Berliner Schachgesellschaft" ("Chess newspaper of the Berlin Chess Society"). Schmidt returned to Russia later in 1866 with Minckwitz continuing on as the sole editor. [(1)] Schmidt was the emphatic winner, despite their strength being nearly equivalent [(2)]. He dominated the second half of the match winning five games in a row. As Schmidt was vice-president of the prestigious Der Vorstand der Schachgesellschaft Augustea (Augustea Chess Society) [(3)] the games may have taken place on the club premises at Grimmaische Strasse 28. <Progress of the match> table[ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 —————————————————————————————————————————— Schmidt, Eugen 0 ½ 0 1 1 1 1 1 5½ Minckwitz, Johannes 1 ½ 1 0 0 0 0 0 2½ —————————————————————————————————————————— ]table <Progressive score> table[ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 —————————————————————————————————————————————— Schmidt, Eugen 0 ½ ½ 1½ 2½ 3½ 4½ 5½ Minckwitz, Johannes 1 1½ 2½ 2½ 2½ 2½ 2½ 2½ —————————————————————————————————————————————— ]table <The Games> [[Game 1]]. Schmidt misplayed the Ponziani opening and allowed Minckwitz, as Black, the opportunity to launch a furious but accurate King-side attack. This won a piece and then very quickly the game. [[Game 2]]. This was the only draw of the match, but once again it was a sharp battle. Schmidt defended with the French Defence and Minckwitz launched an early Queen attack taking his opponent's <g> pawn. Although Schmidt's King remained in the centre of the board, he came very close to winning. [[Game 3]]. Schmidt held the initiative against the Sicilian Defence, but lost the thread of the game and then blundered a piece. This gave Minckwitz a two-point lead in the match after three games. It seemed that Schmidt was on the ropes, but this was not the case. [[Game 4]] Minckwitz, with the White pieces, chose the Spanish Exchange variation. The game was tactically sharp and Minckwitz blundered material. Eventually, he had only a pawn for a minor piece, but with three connected Queen-side pawns. click for larger view With best play, it seems Minckwitz could have drawn, but he could not find the saving line. [[Game 5]] Schmidt too chose the Spanish, and Minckwitz defended with the Berlin defence. This was a favourite variation of the leading German player Adolf Anderssen. Minckwitz played over-aggressively and could have lost in the opening. Instead, Schmidt missed the immediate win allowing Minckwitz to continue his very aggressive play. Minckwitz attempted a King-side pawn storm, but Schmidt emerged with an extra pawn in the ending which proved decisive. Schmidt had now levelled the match. [[Game 6]] After the unsuccessful "sturm und drang" of the previous game and despite two consecutive losses, Minckwitz chose the Evans Gambit as White. Schmidt declined the gambit and the game transposed into a slow and solid variation of the Italian Game. The game was balanced until Minckwitz gave his opponent the opportunity for a brilliant tactical coup. click for larger view [[Schmidt's <24...Qe8!!> launches a fatal attack on the White Rooks]] With his third win in a row, Schmidt for the first time took the lead in the match. [[Game 7]] As White, Schmidt returned to the same variation of the Ponziani opening which he had so misplayed in the first game of the match. Schmidt played an aggressive line which may have been an innovation. Minckwitz's reply was inadequate and soon he had an irredeemable position. [[Game 8]] Minckwitz chose a Queen's pawn opening for the first time in the match. He gave up a pawn to have two bishops raking his opponent's king, but he had overestimated his subsequent compensation. He played on into a hopeless endgame only to eventually blunder into mate. The match ended here. "Schachzeitung" reported that: "The match between messrs. E. Schmidt and J. Minckwitz in Leipzig has been concluded in favour of the former with five won games against two lost games with one draw. At the request of the latter, a second match has begun." [(4)]. It does not seem that this second match ever occurred. <Notes> [(1)]. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deuts.... This became the "Deutsche Schachzeitung" ("German Chess Paper") in 1872. [(2)]. http://www.edochess.ca/matches/m618... - Schmidt 2451 and Minckwitz 2425. [(3)]. Schmidt's official position in the club is mentioned in "Neue Berliner Schachzeitung",1866, p.44 [(4)]. "Schachzeitung",1866, p.208" The games were all annotated by "Schachzeitung": [Game 1 - no. 2280, p.246 Game 2 - no. 2281, p.247 Game 3 - no. 2291, p.278 Game 4 - no. 2291, p.279 Game 5 - no. 2294, p.298 Game 6 - no. 2295, p.299 Game 7 - no. 2296, p.300 Game 8 - no. 2297, p.301] Original collection and text by User: User: Chessical 8 games, 1866 Wageningen Zonal 1957 <Introduction> The Wageningen Zonal Tournament took place from 27th October to 27th November 1957. [[(1)]]. Laszlo Szabo, Fridrik Olafsson and Bent Larsen qualified. This was one of three Zonal tournaments in 1957 (Dublin and Sofia being the others) which took place to decide on the European participation at Portoroz Interzonal (1958). Wageningen is a university town in the province of Gelderland, in the Netherlands. <The Zonal system> “In the involved system of qualifying events for the World Championship, 1957 is the year of zonal tournaments. These represent the first stage in the arduous climb which continues through the Interzonal next year and, in 1959, to another World Championship Candidates Tournament designed, like those of 1953 and 1956, to produce an official challenger for the world title in 1960." [[(2)]] "Each particular country’s representatives used to compete in the same zonal. So at Prague, one might have three Czechs, three Hungarians, two Bulgarians, three Yugoslavs, etc., competing together, and at Bad Nauheim correspondingly three Germans, three Dutchmen, and so on; bunches of players competing, occasionally on team lines, in an event designed to be an individual one. For instance, suppose, towards the end of the contest, only one of the Czechs remained with any chance to qualify, one can imagine what might happen to a fellow-Czech who managed to destroy his chances by defeating him in the last round." [[(2)]] "This year the various nationalities have been scattered among the three European zonal events, one in Dublin, one in Sofia and now one in Wageningen (Holland). So there has been one Hungarian competitor in each of these tournaments and one Czech; the Yugoslavs have been split between two events. Quite apart from the elimination of intra-national collusion, it has undoubtedly been a godsend to organisers, scraping for the £1,500 or so needed to finance even such a relatively minor event as a zonal, to be able to advertise it as a contest of so many different nationalities." [[(2)]] "In 1960, the three-year cycle will have turned it's full and whilst the successful challenger is engaged in his match, zonal tournaments will be once again underway all around the world. By an inspiration, the European zonal events have been split up this year. I should explain that whilst Portugal, for instance, may put forward one player only for the Zonals, such countries as Hungary and Czechoslovakia, much stronger in chess, may and do enter three or even four. [[(2)]] The Dutch player Roessel qualified for the Zonal but was replaced by Orbann. Similarly, Lindblom was a late replacement for Norway. "Two changes have been made to the composition of the Zonal chess tournament, commencing in Wageningen on 26th October. The Amsterdammer C. Orbaan will replace Frits Roessel, who has study commitments and for Norway P. Lindblom will take the place of not Johannessen.)" [[(3)]] "The three highest-placed players are entitled to participate in the interzonal tournament. Without a doubt, Larsen, Olafsson, Ivkov, Szabo and Stahlberg are the favourites for one of these three places, although Donner can not be excluded nor the young Englishman Clarke could produce a surprise result. The 21-year-old grandmaster Larsen, after his remarkable success in the Chess Olympiad in Moscow in 1956, will certainly do his best not to disappoint the expectations invested in him. This is all the more so because he performed below average in the recent tournament at Reykjavik. He lost, for example, to the Russian Tal and also to Munoz, a gifted but completely unknown player from Ecuador." [[(4)]] <The progress of the tournament> This was a fighting tournament with 94 of the 153 games were decisive (61.4%) 52 - White wins - 34.0% 42 - Black wins - 27.5% 59 - Drawn Games - 38.6% Szabo led from the start scoring 9½ points from his first ten games, permitting only Alster a draw. Gideon Stahlberg, Szabo's fellow 1953 Candidate, with 9 points after 13 rounds tailed off into four daws and missed out on qualification. Olafsson, Donner, Larsen and Wolfgang Uhlmann scrambled for an interzonal place over the last three rounds; Donner and Ulhmann scored three out of three each and Olafsson and Larsen two and a half. The future World championship candidate Borislav Ivkov, the winner of the inaugural World Junior Chess Championship in 1951 and of the Mar del Plata 1955 and Buenos Aires 1955 tournaments, gave a very disappointing performance. His only three victories were against the tail-enders. The most popular openings were; 25 x King's Indian (scoring 4 wins and 9 draws for Black) 20 x Sicilian (scoring 6 wins and 10 draws for Black) 15 x French (scoring 5 wins and 6 draws for Black) 13 x Nimzo Indian (scoring 4 wins and 4 draws for Black) 12 x Ruy Lopez 11 x Queen's Gambits table[ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 Szabo g x ½ ½ 1 1 ½ ½ 1 1 ½ 1 ½ ½ 1 1 1 1 1 13½ 2 Olafsson m ½ x 0 ½ ½ ½ ½ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ½ 1 1 13 3 Larsen g ½ 1 x 0 ½ ½ 1 ½ ½ 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 12½ 4 Donner m 0 ½ 1 x 0 ½ 0 1 1 ½ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 12½ 5 Uhlmann m 0 ½ ½ 1 x ½ 1 1 ½ ½ 1 ½ 1 0 1 1 1 1 12 6 Trifunovic g ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ x ½ ½ ½ 1 ½ ½ ½ ½ 1 1 1 1 11 7 Stahlberg g ½ ½ 0 1 0 ½ x ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 8 Teschner m 0 0 ½ 0 0 ½ ½ x ½ ½ 1 ½ ½ 1 ½ 1 1 1 9 9 Ivkov g 0 0 ½ 0 ½ ½ ½ ½ x ½ ½ 0 ½ ½ ½ 1 1 1 8 10 Niephaus ½ 0 0 ½ ½ 0 ½ ½ ½ x 0 ½ 0 ½ 1 1 1 ½ 7½ 11 Troianescu m 0 0 0 0 0 ½ ½ 0 ½ 1 x 1 1 1 0 1 ½ ½ 7½ 12 Kolarov m ½ 0 0 0 ½ ½ ½ ½ 1 0 ½ x ½ 0 ½ ½ ½ 1 7 13 Alster ½ 0 0 0 0 ½ 0 ½ ½ 1 0 ½ x ½ 1 0 1 1 7 14 Dueckstein m 0 0 0 0 1 ½ 0 0 ½ ½ 0 1 ½ x 0 1 ½ 1 6½ 15 Clarke 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 ½ ½ 0 1 ½ 0 1 x ½ ½ 0 5½ 16 Hanninen 0 ½ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ½ 1 0 ½ x ½ ½ 3½ 17 Orbaan 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ½ ½ 0 ½ ½ ½ x 1 3½ 18 Lindblom 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ½ ½ 0 0 0 1 ½ 0 x 2½ ]table <Progressive score> table[ Szabo 1 2 3 4 5 5½ 6½ 7½ 8½ 9½ 10 11 11½ 12 12½ 13 13½ Olafsson ½ 1½ 2 3 3½ 3½ 4½ 5½ 6½ 7½ 8½ 9½ 10 10½ 11½ 12 13 Larsen 1 1½ 2 3 4 5 6 7 7 8 8½ 8½ 9½ 10 11 12 12½ Donner 1 1 2 3 3 4 5 6 6 7 7½ 8½ 9 9½ 10½ 11½ 12½ Uhlmann 1 2 3 3 3 4 5 6 6½ 7 7½ 8 8½ 9 10 11 12 Trifunovic ½ 1 1½ 2½ 3 3½ 4½ 5½ 6½ 7 7½ 8 8½ 9 10 10½ 11 Stahlberg 0 ½ 1 1½ 2½ 3½ 4½ 4½ 5½ 6½ 7 8 9 9½ 10 10½ 11 Teschner ½ ½ 1 2 2½ 3½ 3½ 3½ 4 4 5 6 7 7½ 8 8½ 9 Ivkov ½ 1 1½ 1½ 1½ 2½ 3 4 4½ 4½ 5 5 5½ 6½ 7 7½ 8 Niephaus ½ 1 1½ 1½ 1½ 1½ 1½ 2 2½ 3½ 4½ 5 5½ 5½ 6 6½ 7½ Troianescu 0 ½ ½ ½ 1½ 2½ 2½ 2½ 3½ 4½ 5½ 6 6 6 6½ 7 7½ Kolarov 0 ½ 1 1½ 2½ 3 3 3½ 3½ 3½ 4½ 5 5½ 6 6 6½ 7 Alster 1 2 2 2 2 2½ 3 3 3½ 3½ 4 4½ 4½ 5½ 5½ 6 7 Dueckstein 1 2 2 2½ 3½ 3½ 4 4 4 5 5 5 5½ 6 6 6½ 6½ Clarke 0 0 1 1½ 2 2 2½ 2½ 3½ 3½ 3½ 4 4 5 5½ 5½ 5½ Hanninen ½ 1 1½ 2 2½ 2½ 2½ 3½ 3½ 3½ 3½ 3½ 3½ 3½ 3½ 3½ 3½ Orbaan 0 0 0 ½ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1½ 2½ 3 3½ 3½ Lindblom 0 0 ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ 1 1 1 1½ 2½ 2½ 2½ 2½ 2½ ]table <Noteable games:> J H Donner vs O Troianescu, 1957 O Troianescu vs Larsen, 1957 J H Donner vs Larsen, 1957 Larsen vs P H Clarke, 1957 F Olafsson vs Larsen, 1957 Stahlberg vs J H Donner, 1957 P H Clarke vs Niephaus, 1957 . <The play-off:> The last place for the Interzonal was shared by Donner and Larsen. Although Donner had more wins, he had an inferior Sonneborn–Berger score, the tie was to be resolved by a match. "Because Donner and Larsen are now tied in third place a tie-breaking match will be required, which according to the regulations must be of four games unless FIDE agrees with the request of the Royal Dutch Chess Federation to also award four players places from this zonal tournament ...". [[(5)]] This took place in The Hague, April 1958, Donner - Larsen Zonal Playoff (1958) and was won by Larsen who progressed to the Interzonal. <Tournament Book:> "Zonenturnier Wageningen 1957", Hans Bouwmeester. Published by W ten Have Verlag, Amsterdam, 1960 "The publishing company W. ten Have NV in Amsterdam has just published: "Das Zonenturnier Wageningen 1957", by Hans Bouwmeester, International Master. The theoretical section was provided by the International Master Th.D. van Scheltinga, whilst the photographs were taken by Teschner. A well-designed tournament book, with detailed analysis, many diagrams, all kinds of statistical data, (edited by H.J.J Slavekoorde) and a review of each round (by B.J Withuis)". [[(6)]] <Notes:> [[(1)]] - "De waarheid", 25th September, 1957. [[(2)]] - "Illustrated London News", 30th November 1957, author Baruch Wood. [[(3)]] - "Leeuwarder courant", 21st October 1957. [[(4)]] - "Trouw", 5th October 1957. [[(5)]] - "Het Vrije Volk", 27th November 1957. [[(6)]] - Book review in the "Leeuwarder Courant", 18th June 1960. User: Chessical - original text and compilation. [A total of 87 games were added to the database to complete this tournament record.] 153 games, 1957 Warsaw (1910) - WTZGSz "Warsaw. At the beginning of November 1910, a very interesting tournament was held in the Warsaw Chess Club, in which the strongest fighters from Warsaw took part. [(1)] [(2)] Rotlewi and Salwe (Lodz) and Bogoljubow (Kiev) were invited as guests. Bogoljubow had come to Warsaw in the autumn of 1910 as a student at the Warsaw Institute of Polytechnics. He had come to prominence as a chess player by winning the "Tournament of South Russia" in January 1910. [(3)] table[ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Rotlewi x 0 ½ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 - 13½ Rubinstein 1 x ½ 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 - 13½ Flamberg ½ ½ x 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 - 13 Bogoljubow 0 0 0 x 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 - 12 Salwe 0 0 1 0 x 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 - 11 Langleben 0 0 0 0 1 x 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 - 10 Hartmanis 0 1 0 0 0 1 x 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 - 9 Dobromanov 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 x 1 ½ 1 1 1 1 1 1 - 7½ Smolenski 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 x 1 ½ ½ 1 1 1 1 - 7 Faingritz 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 ½ 0 x 1 ½ 0 1 1 1 - 6 Knapeis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ½ 0 x 1 1 ½ 1 1 - 5 Konopliev 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ½ ½ 0 x 0 0 1 1 - 3 Lasowski 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 x 0 0 ½ - 2½ Tom 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ½ 1 1 x 0 0 - 2½ Chetirsky 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 x ½ - 2½ Cherniaovsky 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ½ 1 ½ x - 2 ]table [(4)] Rotlewi vs Bogoljubov, 1910 won a brilliancy prize for Rotlewi. Rotlewi declined to participate in a play-off for first place so Rubinstein was declared the tournament winner. [(5)] <Notes> [(1)] - Weiner Scachzeitung Jahrgang 1911, p.60 [(2)] - 17th October 1910 to 5th November 1910 is given by http://www.edochess.ca/tournaments/... [(3)] - "Bogoljubow, the fate of a chess player", Sergei Soloviov, p.8. [(4)] - The Polish chess player Wladyslaw Povarov is cited as the source of the tournament cross-table by Donaldson and Minev, "The life and games of Akiva Rubinstein", 2nd edition, p.215. [(5)] - Donaldson and Minev, "The life and games of Akiva Rubinstein", 2nd edition, p.215. 3 games, 1910

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