[what is this?]

[what is this?]

<< previous | page 5 of 9 | next >>

KG- Spassky King gambit collection 9 games, 1955-1999 Khalifman - Akopian WCC 1999 6 games, 1999 Koblenz's final combinations 7 games, 1904-2016 Korchnoi - Petrosian Candidates Semifinal 1974 Petrosian qualified for this match from the Petrosian - Portisch Candidates Quarterfinal (1974), and Korchnoi qualified from the Korchnoi - Mecking Candidates Quarterfinal (1974). The other semifinal match was the Karpov - Spassky Candidates Semifinal (1974). In both matches victory would go to the player who first won 4 games, or who was in the lead after 20 games.<Harry Golombek in The Times 16 April 1974 p. 14, with no mention of what would happen in case of 10-10.> The matches were held in order to select a challenger for world champion Bobby Fischer. Semifinals 1974: If tied at 10-10, the outcome would be decided by the drawing of lots. Final: If tied at 12-12, then drawing of lots (Kazic p. 16). -<seconds> Viacheslav Osnos, Mikhail Tseitlin (Korchnoi) <Chess is My Life, p.100> <Odessa, Ukraine, 12-24 April 1974> table[ Elo* 1 2 3 4 5 Pts 1 GM Korchnoi 2650 1 ½ 1 0 1 3½ 2 GM Petrosian 2640 0 ½ 0 1 0 1½ ]table http://porto-fr.odessa.ua/2013/25/p... ################################ Korchnoi: <Victor Korchnoi, "Chess is My Life" Ken Neat, transl. (Arco, 1978)> (p.98) "Now in prospect was a match with Petrosian, who in an excrutiating struggle had beaten Portisch, an opponent whom he had always found difficult. On this occasion he had apparently exerted himself to the limit, which is in principle foreign to him. My match had also not been easy, but I sensed that on this occasion Petrosian was more exhausted than I was. I was well acquainted with his play, with his strengths and weaknesses; the trouble was that his weaknesses happened to coincide with my weaknesses, and his strengths with my strengths. But I reflected that I was stronger than him in a competitive sense, more of a fighter. I did not repeat my mistake of 1971. I flatly refused to play in Moscow, where I had been drawn to for that previous match. In his estate on the outskirts of Moscow, Petrosian lives like a prince, with all conceivable comforts, whereas I would have had to take refuge in a hotel, with the usual poor Soviet service. On our joint agreement, the match was arranged to be held in Odessa. The other match being played was between Spassky and Karpov. It was clear to me that at that time Spassky would be unable to win a match against Karpov, especially since Karpov- the rising star- enjoyed universal support, whereas Spassky was now a social misfit, and, in his own words, was forced during the match to adopt 'all-round defence'. Prior to the matches, Petrosian declared in the press that n his opinion the winner of the Candidates' cycle would be one of the other pair. Such hypocrisy provoked me into protesting, and I declared that the winner of our match would win the Candidates' cycle. My reasons for saying this were purely to do with chess. Both Petrosian and I were superior to Karpov in our understanding, and in particular our experience of the game, and, all other things being (p.99) equal, should have been able to beat him. In passing, I emphasized that, as regards erudition and knowledge of opening theory, I was superior to Karpov, Petrosian and Spassky taken together! I wasn't far from the truth, but at that time I had no idea what forces I would have to measure my knowledge against in the near future. It was expected that, on the pattern of my previous match with Petrosian, we would have to battle to the limit of twenty games. But things turned out differently. As was later revealed, Petrosian prepared for the match in collaboration with Karpov. But those openings, good for Karpov, proved not to suit Petrosian's style, since he is not inclined to go in for a fight from the first moves, nor to look from the very start for the best, and sometimes the only moves. The opening in the first game came as a surprise to me, but I played calmly, obtained slightly the better chances, and, most important, a fairly clear plan by which to strengthen my position. Petrosian became nervous, made several mistakes, came under an attack, and in the end did not manage to resign in time, and was mated. During this first game a dispute arose. In recent years Petrosian had acquired the terrible habit of twitching his legs under the table, usually beginning this about an hour before the time control. The playing conditions were good, but play took place in the centre of the stage in an old theatre, on a revolving circle, as I discovered later. While my clock was going and I was thinking over my next move, Petrosian would sit in his place and cause the table to shake all over. 'It's impossible to play like this; shall we sit at separate tables?' I said to him. This was probably a mistake on my part, and I should have directly notified the controller. But we were on friendly terms, and when it was my turn to move I didn't feel inclined to get up and go over to the controller. Petrosian stopped shaking the table, but after the game wrote a statement to the controller about my behaviour. (I found out about this later.) The second game ended in a draw after a tense, strategic struggle. It finished an hour before the end of the five-hour session, so that Petrosian did not have time to use his underground (or more precisely, 'undertable') weapon. In the third game Petrosian repeated the opening from the first game. This time I was prepared, being familiar not only with the system, but also with the manner in which Petrosian played it. Everything happened within the space of the first fifteen minutes. I sacrificed a pawn, set up (p.100) strong pressure, then won back the sacrificed material, and by exchanging queens went into an ending where I was now a pawn up. Without difficulty I broke the bemused Petrosian's resistance, and won this game too. Petrosian requested a postponement,so as to come to his senses a little. In the following game he played for a win in his usual style. In an almost symmetrical position, I did not succeed in equalizing,and Petrosian gained a big advantage. We both ran short of time, but here too he proved to be the stronger, and converted his advantage into a win. During the time scramble I found it difficult to sit at the table. Petrosian was rocking it, and causing it to shake by the rapid twitching of his leg. I went over to the controller to complain, but he merely shrugged his shoulders- what could he do to help? After the game I wrote a statement to the control team, to the effect that, despite repeated requests, Petrosian was continuing to behave in an unsporting manner,and was disturbing my play. At the same time I also pointed out the fact that there was a large group of Armenians in the hall, who were displying slogans, and shouting out encouragement to Petrosian, and I asked for something to be done about this too. In the fifth game Petrosian changed his opening scheme, but fortunately I was well prepared for this new variation. My second, Tsietlin, had predicted this very opening, and the positin after fifteen moves had already been reached on our board the day before the game. I gained a slight positional advantage. An hour before the end of play, with the time scramble approaching, Petrosian sat solidily at the board and, when it was my turn to move, began shaking the table. What was I to do? I had already used up all the accepted ways of curtailing his behaviour. I gained the impression... that if earlier Petrosian had been shaking the table subconsciously, by habit, he now realized how much this disturbed me, and with the connivance of the controller wanted to utilize his opportunity. 'Stop shaking the table, you're disturbing me', I said to him. Petrosian made out that he hadn't heard what I said. 'We're not in a bazaar' he replied. On seeing the commotion, the controller rushed up. 'Calm down, calm down,' he said. Petrosian seated himself more comfortably, and again began shaking the table. What was I to do? I was playing a match for the world championship, and I was in a trap! My clock (p.101) was going, and Petrosian would not allow me to play. Then I uttered the sacred and at the same time naive words: 'This is your last chance!' Petrosian caught this... On the other hand, I gained the chance to continue playing, under normal conditions. The position at that point was not yet won for me, but I played it excellently. I made several subtle moves, and took play into an ending with an extra pawn, and despite some serious time trouble, adjourned the game with a big material advantage. Petrosian did not turn up for the resumption. Instead, he wrote a statement demanding that the result of the match be annulled (I should remind the reader of the score- 3-1 with one game drawn), and that he should be awarded a win on the grounds that *I* was stopping *him* playing! It was an unusual situation. The match was being held under the auspices of FIDE, and no one, neither Brezhnev nor Euwe, could annul the result, never mind a FIDE congress. Petrosian utilized every possible opportunity. He phoned Euwe, but he was enjoying a safari in Africa. He sent a 290-word telegram to the Central Committee of the USSR Communist Party,the ruling Organ of the Soviet Union, and, in anticipation of a reply, forced me to take a postponement. The matter became an object of investigation byan arbitration committee under the chairmanship of the Mayor of Odessa; from Moscow came the Chairman of the All-Union Controller's Team, and from Leningrad they also sent an official representative of the Sports Organization to help. A meeting was arranged, to which we were both invited. Petrosian demanded an apology from me. Since, by speaking to my opponent during the game, I had broken one of the letters of the chess code, I said that I was prepared to apologize. "Apologize?' cried Petrosian, 'but who is going to return my lost points?' After some thought, he said: 'He spoke to me so loudly that people in the hall also heard; he should also apologize in public!' I was asked whether I was prepared to do this. It wasn't clear to me what was implied, whether I had to repent with a microphone in my hand, or whether to report on my behaviour to a newspaper. I said 'All right, I can apologize in public, but the question arises, to whom do I have to apologize. The fact is that Petrosian's appearances in the Soviet Union are invariably accompanied by demonstrations by persons of Armenian nationality, and what (p.102) interests me is, what part does Petrosian play in the organization of these mobs.' Petrosian almost choked with rage. 'That's all', he said. 'He has insulted me, he has insulted my people. I won't play against him any more.' That was indeed all. Petrosian wrote out a new statement, in which he accused me of chauvinism. It is unlikely, in making such a statement, that he remembered one important detail; my wife who, incidentally, was present at the match, is herself Armenian. I was persuaded to write a letter of apology to Petrosian. Faintheartedly, I agreed- but of course, this hd no effect. While awaiting the decision from the Central Committee, Petrosian lay in hospital, complaining about his kidneys, but refusing to be examined. When a negative reply arrived from Moscow, he came out of hospital and wrote a final statement, to the effect that he was resigning the match on health grounds. Afterwards, the top sports authorities attempted to reconcile us. The question arose as to whether we could participate in the same team in the coming Olympiad in Nice, or whether only one of us would play. Petrosian was gloomy, and only in the presence of the committee chairman did he manage to raise a conciliatory smile- just so that he wouldn't be thrown out of the USSR team. It was no longer the Odessa feud that was tormenting him. I had become for ever his sworn enemy, like Spassky and Fischer before me, for having beaten him. ############################ Alexander Galyas: -<Alexander Galyas, "GROSS-SCANDAL" Originally published July 20 2013 in “Porto-Franco.” In "Sport Weekend Online- Shahmaty" 22 July 2013> http://sport-weekend.com/SHahmaty/2... Finally, they fell out when Korchnoi refused to go to Buenos Aires to help Petrosian in his match with Fischer. His refusal, he argued that it "is not always pleasant to look at passive play T. Petrosian, and even more so - bear responsibility for it." According to some sources, the failure Korchnoi sounded much more expressive: "When I see what disgusting and vile moves makes Petrosyan, I can not be his second." Place to play unanimously elected Ukrainian theater room, which seats more than 1,100 spectators. Black Sea Shipping Company allocated to accommodate the guests one of the best hotels in the city - between voyages base sailors from was on the doorstep to Arcadia - the favorite destinations of Odessa residents and visitors. Director of the hotel offered to settle the grandmasters in the "suites", one - on the second floor, the other - on the third. But this proposal was abandoned: these rooms were one above the other, so that in theory could be a situation where the "lower" participant could complain that the "upper" prevents him (loud knocking his feet, and so on. N.) Eventually settled GMs in different wings of one floor; Of course, in a completely non-equivalent Korchnoi has at his press conference was set up very aggressively, "It's hard to play chess with a man who does not do anything at the board, and does not make it demonstratively. I sometimes just unnerving ... But the defeat Petrosian match Fischer should affect the match with me negatively. And we played the last time in Moscow - "on the field" Petrosyan. Now a neutral field. So things have changed in my favor. " And then something happened that all shocked: Petrosyan received the mat. Even the Korchnoi to such an extent was stunned to submit to him the possibility that the opponent has warned: "Do you mate!" (So he had to give up). But Petrosian, who by that time had big problems with hearing (he wore hearing aids), did not react, so that Korchnoi had no choice but to complete the game as a decisive move. At Petrossian at the time had a habit at the end of the party, when increasing tension, shake a leg. He involuntarily touched the opponent's legs. In the first game Korchnoi limited to just the comments and then began to respond to "kick." Buffet went shaking and serious competition threatens to turn into a farce. Almost after each game GMs written statements to the judicial board, accusing rival in "unsportsmanlike conduct." The organizing committee for a long time puzzled how to get out of the situation, while E. Gorbachev offered to put under the table partition. But the match is already rolling down ... The Jury of Appeal in session almost daily. The mayor of the city, who, as chairman of the committee was part of it, loudly cursing the day and hour when he gave consent to the match. In all the years of his work in the executive committee, he did not get as many calls of the Central Committee, as in those days. Each of the contestants were "above" their fans, they looked to for support (Petrosyan - in the Communist Party of Armenia, Korchnoi - the Leningrad Regional Party Committee), also had to take the rap from Odessa. The end came on April 25 in the fifth game, which was played when the score was 2: 1 in favor of Korchnoi. "I got some advantage in the opening - describes grandmaster this episode. - Petrosyan again began shaking table. Now it seemed to me that he was doing it on purpose - prevent me from thinking about the course! "Do not shake the table, you are disturbing me," - I said. "Yes, we are not in the market", - he said. And continued their dirty work. And then I said sacramental phrase: "You catch your last chance!" This phrase was the most recent. More - until his death - we have not talked. " The party had to be postponed, but Petrosyan doigryvanie not come. Score 3: 1 in favor of Korchnoi, who left to win enough to win only one game. Realizing that he did not have the slightest chance, T. Petrosyan wrote a letter demanding to cancel the match, as rival prevented him from playing. He sent a telegram to the enormous size of the CPSU, and then to Odessa literally rushed Euwe and Baturin. "Not to wash dirty linen in public," the sixth installment decided to move, persuaded Korchnoi take a timeout. Statement Petrosyan considered several hours. The conversation was in a raised voice. "Along the way I asked the question, - writes V. Korchnoi. - Speeches Petrosian in the USSR was accompanied by performances of Armenians, and I was wondering - what is the role itself Petrosyan in organizing these gatherings. ""Everything - cried Petrosyan. - He insulted me, he insulted my people. With him I do not play ... "Pending the decision of the CPSU Central Committee, he came down to the hospital ...". Anecdotally EPISODE To find out how seriously ill former world champion, was sent to the regional hospital Peyhelya. "When I walked into the room, - says Edward V. - then froze. It was not the present-day VIP ward, and most common, with 12 beds, 11 of which were empty, even without mattresses, one grid, and on the 12th lay Petrosyan. "Then the chief doctor, who was (I wonder whether by accident?) Armenian, led the visitor into his office and makes a pile of stones, which supposedly came from the kidneys to his patient. Who witnessed these events Tukmakov convinced that the "disease" Petrosian was nothing more than a plausible excuse. "He quickly realized that he was prepared poorly and lost the match - said GM - and because he needed to focus on the conflict. Perhaps Petrosyan cherished the hope that in this way will be able to either move the match or continue it later in a more favorable environment for yourself. Incidentally, Korchnoi would never do that. And not just because he is a fighter by nature. Just Petrosian in their status in the Soviet hierarchy could afford it, and Korchnoi - no. " But the hopes of former champion was not to be fulfilled. Apparently, from the Central Committee of the CPSU to his appeal came a negative response. And on May 2 in the newspaper "Evening Odessa" appeared a short message: "semi-final match ended with a score of 3: 1 in favor of Korchnoi. This is due to the refusal Petrossian continue the competition due to illness. This was officially announced to correspondents of press, radio and television chief referee of the match, the referee of the international category Krapil Boris. " ################## Korchnoi: "Petrosian had just recovered from a lung inflammation and was not in his best form. In fact I guessed right about Petrosian's openings. The day before each game I analysed them with my coach Viacheslav Osnos. We had predicted the pawn sac in the 3rd game, and the 5th game we had on our board up to the 15th move. Objectively P is better than me in the middle game, but this could not compensate for his opening play. When he overlooked the mate in the 1st game and I announced mate and he still saw nothing, then I understood he was exhausted." <Tidskrift för Schack June/July 1974 p. 130> ############################ Kazic: from <Mikhail Botvinnik, Alexander Matanovic and Bozidar Kazic, "Candidates' Matches 1974" Chess Informant 1st edition July 3, 1974> http://www.amazon.com/Candidates-Ma... Kazic: Kazic: "A poll organized by a newspaper i Odessa questioned: how many draws? Some replied 16, others 18. Petrosian had before the match been bed-ridden by pneumonia. The match opened officially 11 April in the "October Revolution" Hall of the Ukrainian Music and Drama Theatre. Euwe had planned to watch K-S in Leningrad and arrive the next day for the opening of the match in Odessa, but he saw neither for Karpov unexpectedly postponed his first game and due to poor weather conditions the plane could not go to Odessa the next day." Kazic: "Chief arbiter was <Boris Krapil> of Moscow (IA since 1965) who certainly had no idea of the difficult task awaiting him. Before the match, 41 games since 1946, 7:4 to Petrosian with 30 draws." Kazic: "From the very beginning, Korchnoi volatilely set out on the attack. He played to win at any cost. This aggressiveness seemed to confuse his opponent." Kazic: "The end of the match in Odessa evolved under a certain veil of secrecy, according to some reporters. TASS's brief statement says nothing of what went on behind the scenes in the turbulent dispute which arose among the players. After the 5th round Petrosian and later Korchnoi asked for a time out. Both actually needed to gain in time and to have the possibility of reaching a compromise through negotiation." Kazic: ""The dispute began in the very first game", says Korchnoi. "Petrosian has a habit of tapping his feet during he game. The floor of the stage was poorly nailed, for this was an old theatre, and the tapping transmitted to the chess table. During the game I drew attention to this. In response to my directly approaching him duriing the game he lodged a written complaint with the referee". --- "Petrosian laughed at K's version of the story. In his opinion the dispute was a more serious matter. 'I could not imagine such a lack of consideration ... there were insults'" Kazic: "Immediately after the lightning war in Odessa, Korchnoi rushed to Leningrad where he arrived in time to see the last game of the match between Karpov and Spassky." <Bozidar Kazic wrote the chapter "Tempest on the Black Sea coast" (pp. 94-97) in the book "Candidates' Matches 1974" which was written by Mikhail Botvinnik, Aleksandar Matanovic, Bozidar Kazic and Mikhail M Yudovich Sr. (Centar za unapredivanje saha/US Chess Federation, Belgrade 1974). The four are listed as authors of the book, and Kazic as editor of it.> ########################## Game 4 (scheduled Friday 19 Jan): postponed by Petrosian, Tass said he "pleaded indisposition" [<Augusta Chronicle 20 April 1974 p. 20> ] Game 5: Petrosian surrendered as soon as he saw the sealed move. 2<Kazic, p. 96> Game 6 (never played): postponed 26/4 because Korchnoi was unwell [<The Times 27 April 1974 p. 6> ]. Postponed again 29/4 because Petrosian was unwell [<The Times April 30 p. 18> ]. Petrosian withdrew 30/4 because of illness [<The Times 1 May 1974 p. 8> ] ########################### Korchnoi: Winning the Mecking, I went to Petrossian. He fought for the throne of Chess with Botvinnik, Spassky, but against me, being often unable to cope over the board, weaving wiles - dating back to 1960. Product age, causing the Soviet system, Petrosian, using their high chess position and with the support of a strong Armenian lobby in the ruling circles, was able to work miracles, suppressing his enemies (some of which I have spoken; looking ahead, one can not forget that he was the initiator of the infamous "letter" of the Soviet grandmasters, published in September 1976 years- shortly after my flight, see. p. 56). Our Candidates match was held in April in Odessa. Naturally, he was held in an atmosphere of great nervous tension. Hastily mounted to the top of the game platform on which we played was not a masterpiece of architectural art - he shook with every movement. And Petrosyan had a habit in moments of excitement shake legs under the table ... culminated in the 5th game. Twice during the deliberation of his turn, I turned to the enemy, urging him to calm down and give me a chance to think. Addressed first in a polite, and then, and harshly. This game I won. Score 3: 1 (with one draw) in my favor. Petrosyan stopped playing. He turned up on to be recognized as the winner of the match on the grounds that I broke the rules. There have been several meetings with high officials, including the mayor of Odessa. At the last meeting Petrosyan demanded that I publicly apologized for his unsportsmanlike conduct. And now, as I write these lines, I'm sure unsportsmanlike behaved exactly Petrosyan. But the pressure is then on I was serious, I quote further piece from his book "Chess - My Life" (where this story is set out in more detail): "They asked me if I would apologize publicly. It was not clear to me what this means: Do I have to repent with a microphone in his hand, or say about their behavior in the newspaper? I said, "Well, I apologize publicly, but in this context the question arises: to whom I apologize? The fact that the speech Petrosian in the Soviet Union accompanied by demonstrations of persons of Armenian origin, and I'm interested in the role played by himself Petrosyan in organizing these gatherings! "His throat Petrosian something bubbled. "Everything - he said - he insulted me, he insulted my people. With him I do not play ... " It was. Petrosian went to the hospital, but refused to be examined. And then, on the pretext of ill-health, and all passed the match. Recalls the chief judge of the match Boris Krapil: "The sixth game was rescheduled for April 29, but that morning it was announced that Petrosyan was urgently hospitalized with acute exacerbation of renal disease ... April 30 T.Petrosyan asked the panel of judges with a statement in which he pointed out that in view of the serious disease he could not continue the match ... In a conversation with me after the fight, he mentioned that the attack was for him a completely unexpected. Or maybe it was the first symptom of the fatal disease, which is so early (in 1984 godu.- Ed.) Interrupted his life "(" 64 »№ 15, 1990). <Viktor Korchnoi, "Antishahmaty. Scrapbook villain. Returning defector" p.11 (online edition) http://www.litmir.net/br/?b=120743&...> ##################### Korchnoi advanced to the Karpov - Korchnoi Candidates Final (1974). *FIDE Rating List July 1973. 1) Harry Golombek in The Times 16 April 1974 p. 14, with no mention of what would happen in case of 10-10. Original collections:Game Collection: WCC Index (Korchnoi-Petrosian 1974) by User: Hesam7 and Game Collection: 0 by User: Tabanus. Game dates are from Dutch and American newspapers and The Times. 5 games, 1974 Lasker: Chess Biography Under construction 3 games, 1896-1934 Logical Chess: Move by Move by Irving Chernev Logical Chess: Move by Move by Irving Chernev This classic chess book of annotated games written by prolific chess author Irving Chernev explains the purpose of each and EVERY move of every game, one move at a time. (This website won't do the book justice; you need to reserve the book and play through the games as Chernev describes the action!) It teaches chess concepts, principles and rules of thumb; the reasons behind the move. Logical Chess is recommended to intermediate players and mature, advanced beginners with excellent reading comprehension who can follow alternate lines and five-move combinations. However, even the great Mikhail Tal read Logical Chess to brush up on fundamental principles. (Tal surely did not learn anything new; it served as a reminder. Grandmasters like Tal study the games of other strong players everyday. Amateurs should also use this approach.) Even with every move explained step-by-step, Logical Chess is NOT an easy book the first time through! It is not a beginner's book, although most book dealers portray it as such. Logical Chess is 243 pages long with no diagrams -- clearly not a book for beginners. Logical Chess was originally printed in descriptive notation and reprinted in algebraic notation. It comes highly recommended by chess instructors. It is an excellent book for self-study after one has a solid grasp of the rules, fundamentals and aims of chess. As usual, I have taken the liberty to list Chernev's games by ECO code instead of the actual numerical order that appears in the book. I have grouped the double king pawn open games first, the single king pawn semi-open games second, the double queen pawn closed games third, and the Indian defenses last. The reader will also note that in some instances I have inserted my own supplemental games by the same player or ECO code... more vegetables in the pot of stew. Before attempting Logical Chess, I recommend that true beginners read the following books three times each (yes, at least three times because it gets clearer -- easier, smoother with each reading as information is assimilated with prior understanding). Successful chess is PATTERN RECOGNITION. Such books will teach the beginner basic patterns they must consistently recognize to win the game. With each additional reading, the beginner gets better, quicker, smoother at recognizing the reoccurring patterns in chess such as forks, pins, skewers, discovered attacks, batteries and forced checkmate arrangements. One reading will not suffice for mastery! The point is, if the chess beginner struggles with the book list below, Logical Chess will prove too difficult as well. There's little or no value in reading a chess book that is too difficult to comprehend. One's playing ability and understanding must approach the same level as the book is written for. A grammar school student does not read books written for the senior high school! 1) Bobby Fischer Teaches Chess by Fischer's friends (Various checkmates on the back rank that must not be overlooked) 2) First Book of Chess by I.A. Horowitz and Fred Reinfeld (More comprehensive than Fischer's puzzle book; introduction to openings, tactics, and endgames that promote pawns to queen or knight.) 3) Chess Tactics for Beginners by Fred Reinfeld (Practice basic captures piece by piece; it includes but does not over-emphasize checkmates) 4) How to Force Checkmate by Fred Reinfeld (300 famous checkmates in 1-3 moves; it starts off easy but gets more difficult) 5) An Invitation to Chess by Kenneth Harkness and Irving Chernev 6) Self-Taught Chess by Milton Finkelstein. (This book may be hard to find. Chess in Ten Easy Lessons by Larry Evans is easy to find but the game examples are not easy and the puzzles are too easy.) 7) Win in 20 Moves or Less by Fred Reinfeld (73 short games) 8) Win at Chess by Irving Chernev and Fred Reinfeld (A MUST READ!) 9) The Art of Checkmate by Renaud & Kahn (A delightful classic) 10) Combinations by J. Du Mont. (A forgotten gem that will raise one's level of analysis.) * I will double check all book titles and authors for correctness shortly (November 2016). Yes, all of these books are still included in my huge chess library. These chess puzzle books (written in descriptive notation) with diagrams on every page can be solved by starring at the book -- no board is necessary. To solve the puzzles, consider all the possible forcing moves: 1) All possible Checks, Captures, and Pawn Promotions on the next move. Also, "Attack A More Important Piece" such as aiming thy bishop at the opposing queen or pushing the pawn at a knight. 2) Then consider future Threats to Check, Capture or Pawn Promotion in two or three moves. (Sometimes a simple quite move is made first that limits the opponent's response, such as seizing control of an open line or blocking a backward pawn to prevent the opposing king's escape.) Repeatedly solving puzzle books from the list is how one develops tactical vision of reoccurring patterns. Gaining a material advantage by capturing and removing the opponent's army one unit at a time without losing your own is a huge advantage, often on the path to victory. In most games, a certain number of captures must occur to clear off defenders and make way for invasion before a checkmate can happen. The general with the larger, entirely mobilized army should win if he's careful yet aggressive! To develop strategical considerations -- a long term plan when forcing tactics are not available -- the learner should play through many annotated games that explain the reasoning behind the moves. Books that have a collection of annotated games from first move to last (like Logical Chess) must be read while seated at a table with a chessboard to play out each move on the board. Just make the move given in the book and continue to follow along move by move. The reader sees what is happening and how the position changes with each turn as the author explains the why. In fact, many would suggest using two chessboards when conducting a self-study: one board tracks the actual game sequence written in the book, and the second board is for considering alternative moves different from the original game sequence. The units on the second board often get pushed out-of-sorts when a creative mind debates the various possibilities that could have been played instead. Fortunately, it easy to return to the actual printed game sequence because it remains standing in the proper place on the first board. The first board never varies from the actual move order of the game given in the book. The second board serves as the "jumping off" point to look at other possibilities. Many readers prefer to use a standard regulation board as the first board, and a much smaller pocket-sized portable set as the second board. All 33 games from Logical Chess are included below. My randomly selected supplemental games are marked with the symbol $. 51 games, 1855-2002 Logical Chess: Move by Move by Irving Chernev Logical Chess: Move by Move by Irving Chernev This classic chess book of annotated games written by prolific chess author Irving Chernev explains the purpose of each and EVERY move of every game, one move at a time. (This website won't do the book justice; you need to reserve the book and play through the games as Chernev describes the action!) It teaches chess concepts, principles and rules of thumb; the reasons behind the move. Logical Chess is recommended to intermediate players and mature, advanced beginners with excellent reading comprehension who can follow alternate lines and five-move combinations. However, even the great Mikhail Tal read Logical Chess to brush up on fundamental principles. (Tal surely did not learn anything new; it served as a reminder. Grandmasters like Tal study the games of other strong players everyday. Amateurs should also use this approach.) Even with every move explained step-by-step, Logical Chess is NOT an easy book the first time through! It is not a beginner's book, although most book dealers portray it as such. Logical Chess is 243 pages long with no diagrams -- clearly not a book for beginners. Logical Chess was originally printed in descriptive notation and reprinted in algebraic notation. It comes highly recommended by chess instructors. It is an excellent book for self-study after one has a solid grasp of the rules, fundamentals and aims of chess. As usual, I have taken the liberty to list Chernev's games by ECO code instead of the actual numerical order that appears in the book. I have grouped the double king pawn open games first, the single king pawn semi-open games second, the double queen pawn closed games third, and the Indian defenses last. The reader will also note that in some instances I have inserted my own supplemental games by the same player or ECO code... more vegetables in the pot of stew. Before attempting Logical Chess, I recommend that true beginners read the following books three times each (yes, at least three times because it gets clearer -- easier, smoother with each reading as information is assimilated with prior understanding). Successful chess is PATTERN RECOGNITION. Such books will teach the beginner basic patterns they must consistently recognize to win the game. With each additional reading, the beginner gets better, quicker, smoother at recognizing the reoccurring patterns in chess such as forks, pins, skewers, discovered attacks, batteries and forced checkmate arrangements. One reading will not suffice for mastery! The point is, if the chess beginner struggles with the book list below, Logical Chess will prove too difficult as well. There's little or no value in reading a chess book that is too difficult to comprehend. One's playing ability and understanding must approach the same level as the book is written for. A grammar school student does not read books written for the senior high school! 1) Bobby Fischer Teaches Chess by Fischer's friends (Various checkmates on the back rank that must not be overlooked) 2) First Book of Chess by I.A. Horowitz and Fred Reinfeld (More comprehensive than Fischer's puzzle book; introduction to openings, tactics, and endgames that promote pawns to queen or knight.) 3) Chess Tactics for Beginners by Fred Reinfeld (Practice basic captures piece by piece; it includes but does not over-emphasize checkmates) 4) How to Force Checkmate by Fred Reinfeld (300 famous checkmates in 1-3 moves; it starts off easy but gets more difficult) 5) An Invitation to Chess by Kenneth Harkness and Irving Chernev 6) Self-Taught Chess by Milton Finkelstein. (This book may be hard to find. Chess in Ten Easy Lessons by Larry Evans is easy to find but the game examples are not easy and the puzzles are too easy.) 7) Win in 20 Moves or Less by Fred Reinfeld (73 short games) 8) Win at Chess by Irving Chernev and Fred Reinfeld (A MUST READ!) 9) The Art of Checkmate by Renaud & Kahn (A delightful classic) 10) Combinations by J. Du Mont. (A forgotten gem that will raise one's level of analysis.) * I will double check all book titles and authors for correctness shortly (November 2016). Yes, all of these books are still included in my huge chess library. These chess puzzle books (written in descriptive notation) with diagrams on every page can be solved by starring at the book -- no board is necessary. To solve the puzzles, consider all the possible forcing moves: 1) All possible Checks, Captures, and Pawn Promotions on the next move. Also, "Attack A More Important Piece" such as aiming thy bishop at the opposing queen or pushing the pawn at a knight. 2) Then consider future Threats to Check, Capture or Pawn Promotion in two or three moves. (Sometimes a simple quite move is made first that limits the opponent's response, such as seizing control of an open line or blocking a backward pawn to prevent the opposing king's escape.) Repeatedly solving puzzle books from the list is how one develops tactical vision of reoccurring patterns. Gaining a material advantage by capturing and removing the opponent's army one unit at a time without losing your own is a huge advantage, often on the path to victory. In most games, a certain number of captures must occur to clear off defenders and make way for invasion before a checkmate can happen. The general with the larger, entirely mobilized army should win if he's careful yet aggressive! To develop strategical considerations -- a long term plan when forcing tactics are not available -- the learner should play through many annotated games that explain the reasoning behind the moves. Books that have a collection of annotated games from first move to last (like Logical Chess) must be read while seated at a table with a chessboard to play out each move on the board. Just make the move given in the book and continue to follow along move by move. The reader sees what is happening and how the position changes with each turn as the author explains the why. In fact, many would suggest using two chessboards when conducting a self-study: one board tracks the actual game sequence written in the book, and the second board is for considering alternative moves different from the original game sequence. The units on the second board often get pushed out-of-sorts when a creative mind debates the various possibilities that could have been played instead. Fortunately, it easy to return to the actual printed game sequence because it remains standing in the proper place on the first board. The first board never varies from the actual move order of the game given in the book. The second board serves as the "jumping off" point to look at other possibilities. Many readers prefer to use a standard regulation board as the first board, and a much smaller pocket-sized portable set as the second board. All 33 games from Logical Chess are included below. My randomly selected supplemental games are marked with the symbol $. 51 games, 1855-2002 London System I'm writing a book on the London System and these games will be in it. 24 games, 1882-2007 Lonely Two Bishops Mate Examples If you have an interest in the endgame for the King and two Bishops against a King, then this game collection is meant for you. Here is grist for the mill-- actual games, rather than mere theoretical positions. Now you can use these games as practical cases to compare and contrast methods of effecting mate. Now you have evidence of blunders, inefficient schemes and outright failures in the various processes of bringing this mate, as well as sterling performances. The details for those processes may be found elsewhere. Only general points underlying the Lonely Two-Bishops Mate will be covered here, as the first stage for those who are motivated enough to undertake its study. I do contend that it is worthwhile to seek out the means of conducting this endgame, although some of the foremost writers (and YouTube presenters) will omit its coverage-- they consider it too simple to prepare relevant and helpful material. Some experts and masters suggest that there is some ambiguity about when the endgame starts. However, I maintain that the Lone King position is definitive as the beginning of the endgames of King and Two Bishops and the King with Bishop and Knight. The "Lone King position" (LK) refers to that situation in the game where the defending King has no team members and no Pawns are on left on the board at all. The players just have the four chessmen-- two Kings and two (oppositely-colored) Bishops. The counting for the 50-Move Rule starts there as well. It is not trivial to specify that the Bishops must be of opposite colors. Chess databases will have games where Promotion to a second Bishop would only generate one of the same color. A King with two Bishops of the same color against a King is a known Draw by Insufficient Material, indeed. Do not blunder into such a draw by arrogantly and prematurely choosing Under-Promotion to a Bishop, then! It is of practical interest to note that any Lone King position can only be reached by a capture, whether made by the attacking chessmen or the other King. One of the attackers may even make a capture with check that brings about the Lone King position. Even though the Lonely Two-Bishops Mate is rare, a special case of one by a Capture Checkmate, the most powerful form of capture, is available in this game collection-- E Smirnova vs R Obregon Garcia, 2021. At any rate, once the mate is known, this factoid makes it easy to peruse the game score backwards and locate the Lone King position, as it will be the last capture for the given game. Further, the phrase "Lonely ... Mate" is an emphatic means of referring to the mating nets and concluding patterns that result from Lone King positions--- only the defending King is left on the board for that "team." The process of the mate with two Bishops and King alone against a Lone King is rare, but it is still among the fundamental endgames. Tarrasch does not cover it at all in his classical and worthwhile work, The Game of Chess. Other masters do, with GM Nakamura on YouTube even depicting the Bishops as two wizards using brilliantly bright blasts of power from their hands to corral the opposed King! Such a dramatic visualization serves well to illustrate the initial idea of the reducing the range and space of the King. After that, one must send the King to the last rank. Next, one must send that King into a corner (or next door to it, but not on the diagonal). Lastly, use one's chessmen as a team to cause the mate. My position is in agreement with those experts and masters who posit that the Lonely Two Bishops Mate and the Lonely Knight and Bishop Mate should be taught by chess coaches and tutors. Not for beginners, of course, but everyone else should at least be exposed to these mating processes. Intermediate chess players and above should become acquainted with the process behind this mate. There are cases where experts and even masters have flubbed this process, dropping into various kinds of draws, instead. High-caliber players have even brought a stalemate or, worse yet, lost a Bishop. However, Chess Coach Clark has seen U14 players successfully win from the Lone King positions and even a few U8 players have done so as well. Do note that the Lonely Two-Bishops Mate is quite different from the Boden's Mate (the "criss-cross mate"). The board may have several chessmen emplaced for any Boden's Mate and the Bishops would be attacking from different angles, whereas the Lonely Two-Bishops Mate has the Bishops attacking from the same angle. The Lonely Two Bishops Mate is also different from the Raking Bishops Mate in most cases. There may be many chessmen on the board and the King may not be an essential supporter for the final position of the Raking Bishops Mate. In both patterns the Bishops are proceeding in the same angle, however. Important points to remember about the Lonely Two Bishops Mate: ....... One must bring the defending King to the corner or an edge square adjacent to the corner. ....... The color of the square for the "last stand" of the King does not matter. ....... The Kings will be in close Opposition-- the Bishops must have the help of the King. In fact, in some cases, the King must be a defender for one or both of the Bishops as well as cutting off escape squares. ....... The famous chess authors Müller and Lamprecht declared that maximum length of the solution of an L2B Mate is M19 and they specified this position as one of the worst cases: click for larger view See FUNDAMENTAL CHESS ENDINGS, page 400. The best factor we can draw from this limit is that you can do it before the 50-Move Rule applies, if you handle the processing properly. There are cases when this mate can be made on an edge square near the middle of a side of the board, yet it will be due to a blunder by the defender-- it cannot be forced. IM Reuben Fine described this position as being one of those cases: click for larger view See BASIC CHESS ENDINGS (1941, p. 3). Here is an unusual mate position with similarities from the position IM Fine gave: click for larger view See Smirnova vs Obregon, Internet 2021, 74 moves E Smirnova vs R Obregon Garcia, 2021. This game ends with a Capture Mate, which is why it does not have one of the two common mate pattern types. Here are the more common classes of Lonely Two-Bishops Mates, being described with the type of Opposition illustrated at the end-- remember that Opposition is a continuing important tactic to employ throughout the process of gaining this mate. An example of a mate with Direct Opposition on a rank with the King in the corner: click for larger view See the continuation to mate of Hoang vs Hjelm, Budapest 1993, 57 moves T T Hoang vs N Hjelm, 1993. An example of a mate with Direct Opposition on a file with the King in the corner: click for larger view See Oosterman vs Hetey, Maastricht 2009, 78 moves. An example of a mate with Rectangular Opposition on ranks with the King in the corner: click for larger view See Solleveld vs Sutovsky, Amsterdam 2001, 107 moves M Solleveld vs Sutovsky, 2001 This is a demonstration of Direct Opposition on a rank while the King is next to the corner: click for larger view See Gukesh vs. Timoleev, Internet 2020, 74 moves D Gukesh vs A Timofeev, 2020. Now for a case of Direct Opposition in a file with the King next to the corner: click for larger view See Garcia Sanchez vs Basto Auzmendi, Erandio 2004, 79 moves. Consider a position with Rectangular Opposition on ranks with the King next to the corner. click for larger view Note that this position appears to be theoretical. It may never be found in any actual game. This position has Rectangular Opposition on files with the King next to the corner. click for larger view Again, this position seems only theoretical. It may never be found in any actual game. The Lonely Two Bishops Mate is a demonstration of the teamwork with the Bishops. It also helps with visualization skills for the zones or fences made by the overlapping paths of the Bishops. Looking ahead-- planning-- for how to respond to one's opponent, when to use the Waiting Move and to avoid any chance of a stalemate is another vital skill, not just for this endgame but in general play as well. There's a certain beauty to the sequence of moves and their areas of coverage that is appealing, also. Chess Coach Clark originated this game collection in October 2023 and he updates it on occasion. This project is a work in progress, culling games from various sources, including several chess training books and personal research. It would be great if the Endgame Explorer were updated-- there are NO draws/failures in it for now. So, this collection does include the limited number of games from that resource. Sadly, there are several games collected where a top-notch player has brought a draw. Incredibly, some STALEMATES have also been done by high-level players! An even higher number of high-level games have inefficient lines. This game collection will also examine its member games for their efficiency, noting with Mgg <==> Mqq as the actual length then the expected length of the "solution." Every performance evaluation is made using results from Stockfish 16 analysis or the Nalimov EGTBs from the LK position. The theoretical maximum is M19 (noted later, with a diagram as well). Thus, no game should have a solution with M20 or higher. Here is the specific grading criteria: Solid ("perfect") ._._._._._._._. Actual equals or is less than Expected Good ._._._._._._._._._._._._._. Actual = Expected +1 or +2 Poor ._._._._._._._._._._._._._. Actual = Expected +3 or +4 Very Poor ._._._._._._._._._._. Actual = Expected +5 or more Failed ._._._._._._._._._._._._. Draw (of any type) The resolution of most performance evaluations-- for now-- is by simple observation only. That is, it may not include analysis of the actual quality of play on both sides. So, if the winner and/or defender are making making miss-steps, it will not be reflected in the performance evaluation, as it is a simple comparison of (overall) play against the empirical/Stockfish or theoretical/Nalimov expectations-- raw, not refined. However, the ranges are set for better resolution. To wit, the Solid grade is expressed with the Actual less than or equal to Expected specification, which accommodates for miss-steps with its less-than condition. The games are ordered by date (oldest first), not by importance. L2B is the abbreviation for the Lonely Two Bishops Mate. =B= indicates that the Black pieces won the game. ----- Always practice on BOTH sides of the board! =M= indicates the game concluded with the mate. =K= indicates that a King Hunt was done. =U= indicates one player was U14 or even much younger. =W= indicates both players were women. =H= indicates that a King Hunt happened. =S= indicates that the game ended with a Stalemate! =50= indicates that the 50-Move Rule was exceeded. Be well. Be safe. 126 games, 1961-2023 Long live Alekhine the Great! Doesn't EVERY chessplayer have a Alekhine collection? He seems to see *everything*. I don't know how he ever lost a game... 7 games, 1910-1945 Magnus Carlsen Youngest GM These are collection of games from the book How Magnus Carlsen Became youngest Chess Grand Master. 21 games, 2000-2002 Max Euwe - From Steinitz to Fischer, Part 2 Max Euwe: From Steinitz to Fischer, Chess Informant 1976 A continuation of Game Collection: Max Euwe - From Steinitz to Fischer, Part 1 246 games, 1873-1973 Melbourne CChallenged Fredthebear It sounds easy, but it's not. * English Bg2 vs Bg7: Opening Explorer * English g3 by awe1 (70 games): Game Collection: English 1. c4.. any, g3 * Reversed Sicilians: Game Collection: 0 * CLosed Sicilians: Game Collection: sicilian closed * Online safety: https://www.entrepreneur.com/scienc... * Black Storms: Game Collection: Tal - The Modern Benoni * ChessCafe.com column, The Openings Explained: Abby Marshall * Street Chess - Missed 'em: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PS-... * Street Chess - You can't do that! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJG... * Street Chess - The Horse Rules: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvi... * Street Chess - Father vs Son: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJA... WTHarvey: There once was a website named WTHarvey, Where chess puzzles did daily delay, The brain-teasers so tough, They made us all huff and puff, But solving them brought us great satisfaction today. There once was a website named WTHarvey Where chess puzzles were quite aplenty With knight and rook and pawn You'll sharpen your brain with a yawn And become a master of chess entry There once was a site for chess fun, Wtharvey.com was the chosen one, With puzzles galore, It'll keep you in store, For hours of brain-teasing, none done. There once was a website named wtharvey, Where chess puzzles were posted daily, You'd solve them with glee, And in victory, You'd feel like a true chess prodigy! “Chess is the gymnasium of the mind.” — Blasie Pascal "Sometimes in life, and in chess, you must take one step back to take two steps forward." — IM Levy Rozman, GothamChess So much, much, much better to be an incurable optimist than deceitful and untrustworthy. Riddle: The one who has it does not keep it. It is large and small. It is any shape. Bears like 'em. Answer: A gift. The Blossom by William Blake Merry, merry sparrow! Under leaves so green A happy blossom Sees you, swift as arrow, Seek your cradle narrow, Near my bosom. Pretty, pretty robin! Under leaves so green A happy blossom Hears you sobbing, sobbing, Pretty, pretty robin, Near my bosom. Question: What is considered the first reality TV show? Answer: The Real World Question: Who was Russia's first elected president? Answer: Boris Yeltsin the limerick. Here is one from page 25 of the Chess Amateur, October 1907: A solver, who lived at Devizes, Had won a great number of prizes – A dual or cook, He’d detect at a look, And his head swelled up several sizes. The Bitch And Her Friend A bitch, that felt her time approaching, And had no place for parturition, Went to a female friend, and, broaching Her delicate condition, Got leave herself to shut Within the other's hut. At proper time the lender came Her little premises to claim. The bitch crawled meekly to the door, And humbly begged a fortnight more. Her little pups, she said, could hardly walk. In short, the lender yielded to her talk. The second term expired; the friend had come To take possession of her house and home. The bitch, this time, as if she would have bit her, Replied, "I'm ready, madam, with my litter, To go when you can turn me out." Her pups, you see, were fierce and stout. The creditor, from whom a villain borrows, Will fewer shillings get again than sorrows. If you have trusted people of this sort, You'll have to plead, and dun, and fight; in short, If in your house you let one step a foot, He'll surely step the other in to boot. Mar-07-13 Abdel Irada: In case anyone wonders who Kermit Norris is/was, he's an expert in Santa Cruz against whom I used to play a great deal of blitz. His specialty, when a particularly complex position arose (especially in his pet Owen's Defense), was to lean forward, fix his opponent with a scowl and a withering stare, and say, in a deep and solemn tone, "Chicken parts!" Lichess has all the same basic offerings as Chess.com: a large community, many game types, tutorials, puzzles, and livestreams. The site has a simple appearance, and it seems built to get you where you want to go in as few clicks as possible. You can create an account, but if you’re not concerned with tracking your games and finding other players at your level, there’s no need to log in. Just fire up a new game, try some puzzles, or watch a chess streamer play three-minute games while listening to techno and chatting with the comments section. “Many have become chess masters, no one has become the master of chess.” ― Siegbert Tarrasch The Dog That Dropped The Substance For The Shadow This world is full of shadow-chasers, Most easily deceived. Should I enumerate these racers, I should not be believed. I send them all to Aesop's dog, Which, crossing water on a log, Espied the meat he bore, below; To seize its image, let it go; Plunged in; to reach the shore was glad, With neither what he hoped, nor what he'd had. A toast to friendship: ‘Here’s to Tall Ships, Here’s to Small Ships, Here’s to all the Ships at Sea. But the best Ships are Friendships, Here’s to You and Me!’ “Friend, you don't have to earn God's love or try harder. You're precious in His sight, covered by the priceless blood of Jesus, and indwelt by His Holy Spirit. Don't hide your heart or fear you're not good enough for Him to care for you. Accept His love, obey Him, and allow Him to keep you in His wonderful freedom.” ― Charles F. Stanley French Proverb: “Il ne faut rien laisser au hasard.” ― (Nothing should be left to chance.) “There are more adventures on a chessboard than on all the seas of the world.” ― Pierre Mac Orlan “You can only get good at chess if you love the game.” ― Bobby Fischer “As long as you can still grab a breath, you fight.” — The Revenant Z is for Zipper (to the tune of “Mary Had a Little Lamb”) Zipper starts with letter Z, Letter Z, letter Z, Zipper starts with Letter Z, /z/, /z/, /z/, /z/! 382 games, 1846-2022 Modern Chess Strategy (Pachman) 'Modern Chess Strategy' by Ludek Pachman. Translated and abridged by Alan Russell. 110 games, 1855-1959 Modern Chess Strategy II by Ludek Pachman Ludek Pachman has written an excellent book about the chess strategy called 'La stratégie moderne' in French. These are the games analysed in the second volume. 96 games, 1892-1973 Modern Chess Strategy III by Ludek Pachman Ludek Pachman has written an excellent book about the chess strategy called 'La stratégie moderne' in French. These are the games analysed in the third volume. 98 games, 1858-1974 Munich Chess Olympiad 1936: Pt. 1, Rounds 1-10 [ Part 1; continued by Game Collection: Munich Chess Olympiad 1936: Pt. 2, Rounds 11-21 ] The Munich Chess Olympiad (also known as the Extra Olympiad or the Unofficial Olympiad) was held from August 17th-September 1st, 1936, amidst much controversy. Here's the overview from http://www.olimpbase.org/1936x/1936..., slightly edited for English readability: <The Munich unofficial Olympiad was held by the German Chess Federation as a counterpart of the Summer Olympic Games in Berlin. Unlike the International Olympic Committee, FIDE did expel Germany from the chess community on a basis of racial segregation and the Nazi ideology dominant in Germany under Hitler. The newly settled All-German Chess Convention accepted only Aryan players. However the Germans were anxious to please so as to be re-entered into FIDE structures. The Olympiad was a celebration of the centenary of the Munich Chess Club. The Warsaw FIDE congress gave the national chess federations a free hand of whether accept or decline invitations from Munich. I did not find whether Palestine was also invited?!) Part of the top teams were absent not only due to political problems, but simply because the great international tourney in Nottingham was held concurrently. This is also why England did not arrive. The absence of the US team was also a sad fact. Most of teams were equally handicapped by lack of their top boards like Bogoljubow, Tartakower, Alekhine, Vidmar, Flohr. Unlike past Olympiads this one was expanded up to 8 boards, thus every team was allowed to have up to 10 players in the squad.> Edward Winter (see http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/...), gives a brief summary in English of a portion of the minutes from the FIDE Congress at Warsaw, 1935: <"In short, given that parts of the German Chess Federation’s statutes were anti-Semitic, FIDE could have no involvement in the Munich Olympiad. However, since Germany had agreed, for that event, to drop its ban on Jews, FIDE’s General Assembly voted to leave Federations free to decide whether or not to participate."> Both of these sites, particularly Olimpbase, can be consulted for more detailed information. Twenty-one countries accepted invitations to play in the round-robin event. In light of the political situation many others chose not to send teams, and those that came were missing many of the best players. Also, Munich 1936 was held at the same time as Nottingham 1936, which meant players like Alekhine, Euwe, Bogoljubov, Vidmar, and the best players from the United Kingdom was not available. As opposed to the FIDE Olympiads, this event was held over eight boards with each team permitted two reserves. The time limit was 40 moves in two hours, followed by 20 moves per hour afterwards. The final order was determined by total game points, with match points as a tiebreaker. The eight-board format put more of an emphasis on overall team strength rather than the presence of a single superstar, so a team like Estonia with Keres on top board and little else would probably not fare as well as usual. Also, the playing schedule required 20 games over a 16 day period, which meant the two reserve players on each team were likely to be very active (in fact, one reserve played in all 20 rounds!). Finally, let's figure this out. That's ten matches a round, each over eight boards, so it's 80 games a round, or 1680 games in all. How many collections is this going to take? Actually, just a couple since only about 600 games are available. For now, here are the teams, with players in board order: <Austria>: Erich Eliskases, Albert Becker, Josef Lokvenc, Hans Mueller, Karl Poschauko, Leopold Lenner, Rudolf Palme, Wolfgang Weil, Otto Krassnig, Hermann Weiss (Heinrich Weiss) <Brazil>: Joao de Souza Mendes, Raul Charlier, Walter Oswaldo Cruz, Adhemar da Silva Rocha, Octavio Trompowsky, Cauby Pulcherio, Heitor Alberto Carlos, Oswaldo Cruz Filho, Mecenas Magno da Cruz <Bulgaria>: [bad player ID], Alexandar Tsvetkov, D Danchev, Alexander Kiprov, Naiden Voinov, Yury Toshev, Jacques Francez, Heinrich Max, Andrei Malchev, Horiner <Czechoslovakia>: Jan Foltys, Josef Rejfir, Emil Zinner, Karel Hromadka, Karl Gilg, Jiri Pelikan, Emil Richter, Amos Pokorny, Frantisek Zita, Jiri Herman <Denmark>: Erik Andersen, Holger Norman-Hansen, Bjorn Nielsen, Poul Hage, Julius Nielsen, Ernst Sorensen, Alfred Christensen, Johannes Petersen, Christian Poulsen, Hartvig Nielsen <Estonia>: Paul Keres, Ilmar Raud, Gunnar Friedemann, Johannes Turn, Leho Laurine ([bad player ID]), Feliks Villard, Viktor Uulberg, Nikolay Chernov, Leopold Sepp (Leopold Sepp), Waldemann <Finland>: Eero Book, Ragnar Krogius, Ilmari Solin, Toivo Salo, Eino Heilimo, Kaarle Ojanen, Osmo Kaila, Arthur Allan Candolin (Andars Einar Candolin), Bruno Breider, Lennart Colliander <France>: Louis Betbeder Matibet, Amedee Gibaud, Robert Crepeaux, [bad player ID], Barbato Nicola Rometti, Marius Gotti, H Penel, Bary, Edouard Anglares, Courte <Germany>: Kurt Richter, Carl Ahues, Ludwig Engels, Carl Carls, Ludwig Rellstab, Friedrich Saemisch, Ludwig Roedl, Herbert Heinicke, Wilhelm Ernst, Paul Michel <Hungary>: Geza Maroczy, Lajos Steiner, Endre Steiner, Kornel Havasi, Laszlo Szabo, Gedeon Barcza, Arpad Vajda, Erno Gereben, Janos Balogh, Imre Korody Keresztely <Iceland>: Eggert Gilfer, Asmundur Asgeirsson, Einar Thorvaldsson, Baldur Moller, Arni Snaevarr, Stefan Gudmundsson, Gudmundur Arnlaugsson, Eric Jonsson, Arinbjorn Gudmundsson, [bad player ID] <Italy>: Massimiliano Romi, Stefano Rosselli del Turco, Mario Monticelli, Federico Norcia, Mario Napolitano, Alberto Campolongo, Alberto Rastrelli, Giuseppe Stalda, Cherubino Staldi, Ernesto Hellmann <Latvia>: Vladimir Petrov (Vladimirs Petrovs), Fricis Apsenieks, Movsa Feigin, Alfred J Krumins (Edgars Krumins), Wolfgang Hasenfuss, Voldemar Mezgailis, Lucius Endzelins, Karlis Ozols, Emilis Melngailis, Arvids Kalnins <Lithuania>: Vladas Mikenas, Isakas Vistaneckis, Paul Vaitonis, Marcos Luckis, Leonardas Abramavicius, Romanas Arlauskas, Kazys Skema, Paul Tautvaisas, Vytautas Skibiniauskas, Elias Baikovicius <Netherlands>: Gerrit van Doesburgh, Lodewijk Prins, Hendrik Felderhof, Theo van Scheltinga, Adolf Willem Hamming, Willem Jan Muhring, Adriaan de Groot, Nicolaas Cortlever, Willem Koomen <Norway>: Hans Christian Christoffersen, Oluf Kavlie-Jorgensen, Storm Herseth, Rasmussen, Andreas Gulbrandsen, Gustav Marthinsen, Jorgen Sauren, [bad player ID], Konrad Salbu, R A Olsen <Poland>: Paulino Frydman, Miguel Najdorf, Teodor Regedzinski, Kazimierz Makarczyk, [bad player ID] (Henryk Friedmann), Leon Kremer, Henryk Pogoriely, Antoni Wojciechowski, Franciszek Sulik, Jerzy Jagielski <Romania>: Gheorghe-Gica Alexandrescu, Traian Ichim, Istvan Denes, Adolf Pichler, Theophil Demetriescu, Toma Popa, Ivan Halic, P Bohosiewicz, Emil Zelinski, Constantin Raina <Sweden>: Gideon Stahlberg, Erik Lundin, Gosta Stoltz, Gosta Danielsson, Olof Kinnmark, Bengt Ekenberg, Ernst Larsson, Nils Bergkvist, Fritz Johan Kaijser, Bertil Sundberg <Switzerland>: Oskar Naegeli, Paul Johner, Henri Grob, Erwin Voellmy, Fritz Gygli, Adolf Staehelin, Alfred Pluess, Paul Dikenmann, Jean Louis Ormond, Ernst Strehle <Yugoslavia>: Petar Trifunovic, Vasja Pirc, Mirko Schreiber, Lajos Asztalos, Imre Koenig, Borislav Kostic, Vladimir Vukovic, Mirko Broeder, Bora Tot, Ozren Nedeljkovic In the interests of space and readability, I will just give the team results in each round. If you're interested in results of individual players, see Olimpbase (address above) for more than you ever wanted to know. <Round 1 (Monday, August 17)> Poland and Yugoslavia jumped into the lead with crushing wins over France and Switzerland. An oddity occurred in the Bulgaria v. Romania match, as Black won seven of the eight games. A battle between two of the top five finishers at Warsaw 1935 saw Czechoslovakia and Sweden tie at 4-4. Austria 4.5 Latvia 3.5 Brazil 4.0 Finland 4.0 Bulgaria 3.0 Romania 5.0 Denmark 5.0 Iceland 3.0 Estonia 3.0 Hungary 5.0 France 0.5 Poland 7.5 Netherlands 2.5 Germany 5.5 Norway 3.5 Italy 4.5 Czechoslovakia 4.0 Sweden 4.0 Yugoslavia 7.0 Switzerland 1.0 Bye: Lithuania <STANDINGS AFTER ROUND 1> (an asterisk (*) indicates the team has had a bye) <7.5>: Poland; <7.0>: Yugoslavia; <5.5>: Germany; <5.0>: Denmark, Hungary, Romania; <4.5>: Austria, Italy; <4.0>: Brazil, Czechslovakia, Finland, Sweden; <3.5>: Latvia, Norway; <3.0>: Bulgaria, Estonia, Iceland; <2.5>: Netherlands; <1.0>: Switzerland; <0.5>: France; <0.0>: Lithuania* <Round 2 (Tuesday, August 18)> Czechoslovakia pulled off the first blanking, winning 8-0 against Bulgaria. However, this was only good enough for a tie for second with Poland, as Germany's 7-1 win over France put them into the lead. The surprising Danes shared 4th-5th with Hungary. Czechoslovakia 8.0 Bulgaria 0.0 Germany 7.0 France 1.0 Hungary 6.5 Brazil 1.5 Iceland 2.5 Austria 5.5 Italy 2.0 Estonia 6.0 Latvia 6.5 Netherlands 1.5 Lithuania 1.5 Denmark 6.5 Poland 4.5 Yugoslavia 3.5 Romania 5.5 Norway 2.5 Switzerland 2.5 Sweden 5.5 Bye: Finland <STANDINGS AFTER ROUND 2> (an asterisk (*) indicates the team has had a bye) <12.5>: Germany; <12.0>: Poland, Czechslovakia; <11.5>: Denmark, Hungary; <10.5>: Romania, Yugoslavia; <10.0>: Austria, Latvia; <9.5>: Sweden; <9.0>: Estonia; <6.5>: Italy; <6.0>: Norway; <5.5>: Brazil, Iceland; <4.0>: Finland*, Netherlands; <3.5>: Switzerland; <3.0>: Bulgaria; <1.5>: France, Lithuania* <Round 3 (Tuesday, August 18)> Germany were drawn by Yugoslavia, falling to fourth place. Czechoslovakia and Hungary each posted 6.5-1.5 victories, while Poland moved into third place by defeating Sweden in a battle of the silver and bronze teams from Warsaw 1935. Austria won their third match in a row to take over 5th place. Austria 5.5 Lithuania 2.5 Brazil 5.5 Italy 2.5 Bulgaria 3.0 Switzerland 5.0 Estonia 4.5 Romania 3.5 Finland 1.5 Hungary 6.5 France 3.0 Latvia 5.0 Netherlands 4.5 Iceland 3.5 Norway 1.5 Czechslovakia 6.5 Sweden 2.5 Poland 5.5 Yugoslavia 4.0 Germany 4.0 Bye: Denmark <STANDINGS AFTER ROUND 3> (an asterisk (*) indicates the team has had a bye) <18.5>: Czechoslovakia; <18.0>: Hungary; <17.5>: Poland; <16.5>: Germany; <15.5>: Austria; <15.0>: Latvia; <14.5>: Yugoslavia; <14.0>: Romania; <13.5>: Estonia; <12.0>: Sweden; <11.5>: Denmark*; <11.0>: Brazil; <9.0>: Italy, Iceland; <8.5>: Netherlands, Switzerland; <7.5>: Norway; <6.0>: Bulgaria; <5.5>: Finland*; <4.5>: France; <4.0>: Lithuania* <Round 4 (Wednesday, August 19)> Poland soared into the lead with a blanking of Bulgaria, while Czechoslovakia could only draw with Estonia. Hungary's bye dropped them behind Germany, Austria and Yugoslavia. The oddity of the round was White winning by 7.5-0.5 in Italy v. Finland . Czechoslovakia 4.0 Estonia 4.0 Denmark 3.0 Austria 5.0 Germany 4.5 Sweden 3.5 Iceland 4.5 France 3.5 Italy 3.5 Finland 4.5 Latvia 2.0 Yugoslavia Lithuania 3.0 Netherlands 5.0 Poland 8.0 Bulgaria 0.0 Romania 3.5 Brazil 4.5 Switzerland 4.5 Norway 3.5 Bye: Hungary <STANDINGS AFTER ROUND 4> (an asterisk (*) indicates the team has had a bye) <25.5>: Poland; <22.5>: Czechoslovakia; <21.0>: Germany; <20.5>: Austria, Yugoslavia; <18.0>: Hungary*; <17.5>: Estonia, Romania; <17.0>: Latvia; <15.5>: Brazil, Sweden; <14.5>: Denmark*; <13.5>: Netherlands, Iceland; <13.0>: Switzerland; <12.5>: Italy; <11.0>: Norway; <10.0>: Finland*; <8.0>: France; <7.0>: Lithuania*; <6.0>: Bulgaria <Round 5 (Thursday, August 20)> Poland's surprise loss to Norway cut their lead to one point over Yugoslavia, who dominated Iceland. Czechoslovakia and Germany shared third to fourth, but neither could have been happy with their results (the Czechs had a close match with Brazil, while Germany dropped 1.5 points to the lowly Bulgarians). A big win by Estonia moved them ahead of Hungary. Brazil 3.0 Czechoslovakia 5.0 Bulgaria 1.5 Germany 6.5 Estonia 6.0 Switzerland 2.0 Finland 4.0 Romania 4.0 France 2.5 Lithuania 5.5 Hungary 5.0 Italy 3.0 Netherlands 2.5 Denmark 5.5 Norway 4.5 Poland 3.5 Sweden 3.5 Latvia 4.5 Yugoslavia 7.5 Iceland 0.5 Bye: Austria <STANDINGS AFTER ROUND 5> (an asterisk (*) indicates the team has had a bye) <29.0>: Poland; <28.0>: Yugoslavia; <27.5>: Germany, Czechoslovakia; <23.5>: Estonia; <23.0>: Hungary*; <21.5>: Latvia, Romania; <20.5>: Austria*; <20.0>: Denmark*; <19.0>: Sweden; <18.5>: Brazil; <16.0>: Netherlands; <15.5>: Italy, Norway; <15.0>: Switzerland; <14.0>: Finland*, Iceland; <12.5>: Lithuania*; <10.5>: France; <7.5>: Bulgaria <Round 6 (Thursday, August 20)> Germany went back into the lead with a convincing win over Norway, as Czechoslovakia was a half-point less efficient against the Finns and Poland fell back after a close win over Estonia. Yugoslavia missed a chance to move up by getting only a minimal win over Lithuania, who seemed to be waking up after a slow start. Hungary kept pace against Romania thanks to strong results on the bottom boards, while Latvia moved up after a strong win over Bulgaria. Austria 5.5 Netherlands 2.5 Czechoslovakia 6.0 Finland 2.0 Denmark 6.5 France 1.5 Germany 6.5 Norway 1.5 Iceland 2.0 Sweden 6.0 Latvia 7.0 Bulgaria 1.0 Lithuania 3.5 Yugoslavia 4.5 Poland 4.5 Estonia 3.5 Romania 2.5 Hungary 5.5 Switzerland 4.0 Brazil 4.0 Bye: Italy <STANDINGS AFTER ROUND 6> (an asterisk (*) indicates the team has had a bye) <34.0>: Germany; <33.5>: Czechoslovakia, Poland; <32.5>: Yugoslavia; <28.5>: Hungary*, Latvia; <27.0>: Estonia; <26.5>: Denmark*, <26.0>: Austria*; <25.0>: Sweden; <24.0>: Romania; <22.5>: Brazil; <19.0>: Switzerland; <18.5>: Netherlands; <17.0>: Norway; <16.0>: Finland*, Iceland, Lithuania*; <15.5>: Italy*; <12.0>: France; <8.5>: Bulgaria <Round 7 (Friday, August 21)> At the one-third mark, the true contenders were beginning to put a little space behind them. Poland and Germany had solid wins to stay in front, and Yugoslavia moved up to third with a win over Denmark. Czechoslovakia fell back to fourth after a loss to Hungary, as Latvia moved into sole fifth. Hungary and Austria followed, but the gap was not as much as it seemed since those two teams had already had a bye and would be picking up ground later. Brazil 1.5 Poland 6.5 Bulgaria 3.0 Iceland 5.0 Estonia 2.0 Germany 6.0 Finland 5.5 Switzerland 2.5 France 1.5 Austria 6.5 Hungary 5.5 Czechoslovakia 2.5 Italy 4.0 Romania 4.0 Norway 1.5 Latvia 6.5 Sweden 4.0 Lithuania 4.0 Yugoslavia 5.5 Denmark 2.5 Bye: Netherlands <STANDINGS AFTER ROUND 7> (an asterisk (*) indicates the team has had a bye) <40.0>: Germany, Poland; <38.0>: Yugoslavia; <36.0>: Czechoslovakia; <35.0>: Latvia; <34.0>: Hungary*; <32.5>: Austria*; <29.0>: Denmark*, Estonia, Sweden; <28.0>: Romania; <24.0>: Brazil; <21.5>: Finland*, Switzerland; <21.0>: Iceland; <20.0>: Lithuania*; <19.5>: Italy*; <18.5>: Netherlands*, Norway; <13.5>: France; <11.5>: Bulgaria <Round 8 (Saturday, August 22)> The rich got richer. Germany and Czechoslovakia got big wins, but Poland would have appreciated getting a bit more out of Finland. Yugoslavia picked up a narrow but useful victory over fringe contender Austria. Hungary had another workmanlike performance to stay near the leaders with a bye in hand, while Latvia showed they were the team to watch out of the Baltics by crushing Estonia. Austria 3.5 Yugoslavia 4.5 Czechoslovakia 6.5 Italy 1.5 Denmark 2.5 Sweden 5.5 Germany 6.5 Brazil 1.5 Iceland 5.5 Norway 2.5 Latvia 6.0 Estonia 2.0 Lithuania 6.5 Bulgaria 1.5 Netherlands 5.0 France 3.0 Poland 5.5 Finland 2.5 Switzerland 2.0 Hungary 6.0 Bye: Romania <STANDINGS AFTER ROUND 8> (an asterisk (*) indicates the team has had a bye) <46.5>: Germany; <45.5>: Poland; <42.5>: Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia; <41.0>: Latvia; <40.0>: Hungary*; <36.0>: Austria*; <34.5>: Sweden; <31.5>: Denmark*; <31.0>: Estonia; <28.0>: Romania*; <26.5>: Iceland, Lithuania*; <25.5>: Brazil; <24.0>: Finland*; <23.5>: Netherlands*, Switzerland; <21.0>: Italy*, Norway; <16.5>: France; <13.0>: Bulgaria <Round 9 (Saturday, August 22)> Despite a minimal victory, Germany actually increased their lead as Poland lost to Hungary and fell into a second-place tie with Czechoslovakia. Yugoslavia and Latvia remained in the same spots, while Hungary stayed in sixth despite being the only team to have won every match they played. Brazil 2.5 Latvia 5.5 Bulgaria 1.0 Denmark 7.0 Estonia 6.5 Iceland 1.5 Finland 3.5 Germany 4.5 Hungary 5.0 Poland 3.0 Italy 3.0 Switzerland 5.0 Norway 3.5 Lithuania 4.5 Romania 2.0 Czechoslovakia 6.0 Sweden 3.5 Austria 4.5 Yugoslavia 5.5 Netherlands 2.5 Bye: France <STANDINGS AFTER ROUND 9> (an asterisk (*) indicates the team has had a bye) <51.0>: Germany; <48.5>: Czechoslovakia, Poland; <48.0>: Yugoslavia; <46.5>: Latvia; <45.0>: Hungary*; <40.5>: Austria*; <38.5>: Denmark*; <38.0>: Sweden; <37.5>: Estonia; <31.0>: Lithuania*; <30.0>: Romania*; <28.5>: Switzerland; <28.0>: Brazil, Iceland; <27.5>: Finland*; <26.0>: Netherlands*; <24.5>: Norway; <24.0>: Italy*; <16.5>: France*; <14.0>: Bulgaria <Round 10 (Saturday, August 23)> Two important events this round were the loss by Germany to Hungary, and Czechoslovakia's bye. This allowed Yugoslavia and Poland to jump ahead of the Germsns, while Latvia and Hungary also rose one spot. Austria 6.0 Bulgaria 2.0 Denmark 5.0 Norway 3.0 France 1.0 Yugoslavia 7.0 Germany 3.5 Hungary 4.5 Iceland 3.0 Brazil 5.0 Latvia 5.0 Finland 3.0 Lithuania 4.5 Estonia 3.5 Netherlands 3.0 Sweden 5.0 Poland 6.5 Italy 1.5 Switzerland 4.0 Romania 4.0 Bye: Czechoslovakia <STANDINGS AFTER ROUND 10> (an asterisk (*) indicates the team has had a bye) <55.0>: Yugoslavia, Poland; <54.5>: Germany; <51.5>: Latvia; <49.5>: Hungary*; <48.5>: Czechoslovakia*; <46.5>: Austria*; <43.5>: Denmark*; <43.0>: Sweden; <41.0>: Estonia; <35.5>: Lithuania*; <34.0>: Romania*; <33.0>: Brazil; <32.5>: Switzerland; <31.0>: Iceland; <30.5>: Finland*; <29.0>: Nethlerlands*; <27.5>: Norway; <25.5>: Italy*; <17.5>: France*; <16.0>: Bulgaria < Continued by Game Collection: Munich Chess Olympiad 1936: Pt. 2, Rounds 11-21 > 300 games, 1936 Munich Chess Olympiad 1936: Pt. 1, Rounds 1-10 [ Part 1; continued by Game Collection: Munich Chess Olympiad 1936: Pt. 2, Rounds 11-21 ] The Munich Chess Olympiad (also known as the Extra Olympiad or the Unofficial Olympiad) was held from August 17th-September 1st, 1936, amidst much controversy. Here's the overview from http://www.olimpbase.org/1936x/1936..., slightly edited for English readability: <The Munich unofficial Olympiad was held by the German Chess Federation as a counterpart of the Summer Olympic Games in Berlin. Unlike the International Olympic Committee, FIDE did expel Germany from the chess community on a basis of racial segregation and the Nazi ideology dominant in Germany under Hitler. The newly settled All-German Chess Convention accepted only Aryan players. However the Germans were anxious to please so as to be re-entered into FIDE structures. The Olympiad was a celebration of the centenary of the Munich Chess Club. The Warsaw FIDE congress gave the national chess federations a free hand of whether accept or decline invitations from Munich. I did not find whether Palestine was also invited?!) Part of the top teams were absent not only due to political problems, but simply because the great international tourney in Nottingham was held concurrently. This is also why England did not arrive. The absence of the US team was also a sad fact. Most of teams were equally handicapped by lack of their top boards like Bogoljubow, Tartakower, Alekhine, Vidmar, Flohr. Unlike past Olympiads this one was expanded up to 8 boards, thus every team was allowed to have up to 10 players in the squad.> Edward Winter (see http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/...), gives a brief summary in English of a portion of the minutes from the FIDE Congress at Warsaw, 1935: <"In short, given that parts of the German Chess Federation’s statutes were anti-Semitic, FIDE could have no involvement in the Munich Olympiad. However, since Germany had agreed, for that event, to drop its ban on Jews, FIDE’s General Assembly voted to leave Federations free to decide whether or not to participate."> Both of these sites, particularly Olimpbase, can be consulted for more detailed information. Twenty-one countries accepted invitations to play in the round-robin event. In light of the political situation many others chose not to send teams, and those that came were missing many of the best players. Also, Munich 1936 was held at the same time as Nottingham 1936, which meant players like Alekhine, Euwe, Bogoljubov, Vidmar, and the best players from the United Kingdom was not available. As opposed to the FIDE Olympiads, this event was held over eight boards with each team permitted two reserves. The time limit was 40 moves in two hours, followed by 20 moves per hour afterwards. The final order was determined by total game points, with match points as a tiebreaker. The eight-board format put more of an emphasis on overall team strength rather than the presence of a single superstar, so a team like Estonia with Keres on top board and little else would probably not fare as well as usual. Also, the playing schedule required 20 games over a 16 day period, which meant the two reserve players on each team were likely to be very active (in fact, one reserve played in all 20 rounds!). Finally, let's figure this out. That's ten matches a round, each over eight boards, so it's 80 games a round, or 1680 games in all. How many collections is this going to take? Actually, just a couple since only about 600 games are available. For now, here are the teams, with players in board order: <Austria>: Erich Eliskases, Albert Becker, Josef Lokvenc, Hans Mueller, Karl Poschauko, Leopold Lenner, Rudolf Palme, Wolfgang Weil, Otto Krassnig, Hermann Weiss (Heinrich Weiss) <Brazil>: Joao de Souza Mendes, Raul Charlier, Walter Oswaldo Cruz, Adhemar da Silva Rocha, Octavio Trompowsky, Cauby Pulcherio, Heitor Alberto Carlos, Oswaldo Cruz Filho, Mecenas Magno da Cruz <Bulgaria>: [bad player ID], Alexandar Tsvetkov, D Danchev, Alexander Kiprov, Naiden Voinov, Yury Toshev, Jacques Francez, Heinrich Max, Andrei Malchev, Horiner <Czechoslovakia>: Jan Foltys, Josef Rejfir, Emil Zinner, Karel Hromadka, Karl Gilg, Jiri Pelikan, Emil Richter, Amos Pokorny, Frantisek Zita, Jiri Herman <Denmark>: Erik Andersen, Holger Norman-Hansen, Bjorn Nielsen, Poul Hage, Julius Nielsen, Ernst Sorensen, Alfred Christensen, Johannes Petersen, Christian Poulsen, Hartvig Nielsen <Estonia>: Paul Keres, Ilmar Raud, Gunnar Friedemann, Johannes Turn, Leho Laurine ([bad player ID]), Feliks Villard, Viktor Uulberg, Nikolay Chernov, Leopold Sepp (Leopold Sepp), Waldemann <Finland>: Eero Book, Ragnar Krogius, Ilmari Solin, Toivo Salo, Eino Heilimo, Kaarle Ojanen, Osmo Kaila, Arthur Allan Candolin (Andars Einar Candolin), Bruno Breider, Lennart Colliander <France>: Louis Betbeder Matibet, Amedee Gibaud, Robert Crepeaux, [bad player ID], Barbato Nicola Rometti, Marius Gotti, H Penel, Bary, Edouard Anglares, Courte <Germany>: Kurt Richter, Carl Ahues, Ludwig Engels, Carl Carls, Ludwig Rellstab, Friedrich Saemisch, Ludwig Roedl, Herbert Heinicke, Wilhelm Ernst, Paul Michel <Hungary>: Geza Maroczy, Lajos Steiner, Endre Steiner, Kornel Havasi, Laszlo Szabo, Gedeon Barcza, Arpad Vajda, Erno Gereben, Janos Balogh, Imre Korody Keresztely <Iceland>: Eggert Gilfer, Asmundur Asgeirsson, Einar Thorvaldsson, Baldur Moller, Arni Snaevarr, Stefan Gudmundsson, Gudmundur Arnlaugsson, Eric Jonsson, Arinbjorn Gudmundsson, [bad player ID] <Italy>: Massimiliano Romi, Stefano Rosselli del Turco, Mario Monticelli, Federico Norcia, Mario Napolitano, Alberto Campolongo, Alberto Rastrelli, Giuseppe Stalda, Cherubino Staldi, Ernesto Hellmann <Latvia>: Vladimir Petrov (Vladimirs Petrovs), Fricis Apsenieks, Movsa Feigin, Alfred J Krumins (Edgars Krumins), Wolfgang Hasenfuss, Voldemar Mezgailis, Lucius Endzelins, Karlis Ozols, Emilis Melngailis, Arvids Kalnins <Lithuania>: Vladas Mikenas, Isakas Vistaneckis, Paul Vaitonis, Marcos Luckis, Leonardas Abramavicius, Romanas Arlauskas, Kazys Skema, Paul Tautvaisas, Vytautas Skibiniauskas, Elias Baikovicius <Netherlands>: Gerrit van Doesburgh, Lodewijk Prins, Hendrik Felderhof, Theo van Scheltinga, Adolf Willem Hamming, Willem Jan Muhring, Adriaan de Groot, Nicolaas Cortlever, Willem Koomen <Norway>: Hans Christian Christoffersen, Oluf Kavlie-Jorgensen, Storm Herseth, Rasmussen, Andreas Gulbrandsen, Gustav Marthinsen, Jorgen Sauren, [bad player ID], Konrad Salbu, R A Olsen <Poland>: Paulino Frydman, Miguel Najdorf, Teodor Regedzinski, Kazimierz Makarczyk, [bad player ID] (Henryk Friedmann), Leon Kremer, Henryk Pogoriely, Antoni Wojciechowski, Franciszek Sulik, Jerzy Jagielski <Romania>: Gheorghe-Gica Alexandrescu, Traian Ichim, Istvan Denes, Adolf Pichler, Theophil Demetriescu, Toma Popa, Ivan Halic, P Bohosiewicz, Emil Zelinski, Constantin Raina <Sweden>: Gideon Stahlberg, Erik Lundin, Gosta Stoltz, Gosta Danielsson, Olof Kinnmark, Bengt Ekenberg, Ernst Larsson, Nils Bergkvist, Fritz Johan Kaijser, Bertil Sundberg <Switzerland>: Oskar Naegeli, Paul Johner, Henri Grob, Erwin Voellmy, Fritz Gygli, Adolf Staehelin, Alfred Pluess, Paul Dikenmann, Jean Louis Ormond, Ernst Strehle <Yugoslavia>: Petar Trifunovic, Vasja Pirc, Mirko Schreiber, Lajos Asztalos, Imre Koenig, Borislav Kostic, Vladimir Vukovic, Mirko Broeder, Bora Tot, Ozren Nedeljkovic In the interests of space and readability, I will just give the team results in each round. If you're interested in results of individual players, see Olimpbase (address above) for more than you ever wanted to know. <Round 1 (Monday, August 17)> Poland and Yugoslavia jumped into the lead with crushing wins over France and Switzerland. An oddity occurred in the Bulgaria v. Romania match, as Black won seven of the eight games. A battle between two of the top five finishers at Warsaw 1935 saw Czechoslovakia and Sweden tie at 4-4. Austria 4.5 Latvia 3.5 Brazil 4.0 Finland 4.0 Bulgaria 3.0 Romania 5.0 Denmark 5.0 Iceland 3.0 Estonia 3.0 Hungary 5.0 France 0.5 Poland 7.5 Netherlands 2.5 Germany 5.5 Norway 3.5 Italy 4.5 Czechoslovakia 4.0 Sweden 4.0 Yugoslavia 7.0 Switzerland 1.0 Bye: Lithuania <STANDINGS AFTER ROUND 1> (an asterisk (*) indicates the team has had a bye) <7.5>: Poland; <7.0>: Yugoslavia; <5.5>: Germany; <5.0>: Denmark, Hungary, Romania; <4.5>: Austria, Italy; <4.0>: Brazil, Czechslovakia, Finland, Sweden; <3.5>: Latvia, Norway; <3.0>: Bulgaria, Estonia, Iceland; <2.5>: Netherlands; <1.0>: Switzerland; <0.5>: France; <0.0>: Lithuania* <Round 2 (Tuesday, August 18)> Czechoslovakia pulled off the first blanking, winning 8-0 against Bulgaria. However, this was only good enough for a tie for second with Poland, as Germany's 7-1 win over France put them into the lead. The surprising Danes shared 4th-5th with Hungary. Czechoslovakia 8.0 Bulgaria 0.0 Germany 7.0 France 1.0 Hungary 6.5 Brazil 1.5 Iceland 2.5 Austria 5.5 Italy 2.0 Estonia 6.0 Latvia 6.5 Netherlands 1.5 Lithuania 1.5 Denmark 6.5 Poland 4.5 Yugoslavia 3.5 Romania 5.5 Norway 2.5 Switzerland 2.5 Sweden 5.5 Bye: Finland <STANDINGS AFTER ROUND 2> (an asterisk (*) indicates the team has had a bye) <12.5>: Germany; <12.0>: Poland, Czechslovakia; <11.5>: Denmark, Hungary; <10.5>: Romania, Yugoslavia; <10.0>: Austria, Latvia; <9.5>: Sweden; <9.0>: Estonia; <6.5>: Italy; <6.0>: Norway; <5.5>: Brazil, Iceland; <4.0>: Finland*, Netherlands; <3.5>: Switzerland; <3.0>: Bulgaria; <1.5>: France, Lithuania* <Round 3 (Tuesday, August 18)> Germany were drawn by Yugoslavia, falling to fourth place. Czechoslovakia and Hungary each posted 6.5-1.5 victories, while Poland moved into third place by defeating Sweden in a battle of the silver and bronze teams from Warsaw 1935. Austria won their third match in a row to take over 5th place. Austria 5.5 Lithuania 2.5 Brazil 5.5 Italy 2.5 Bulgaria 3.0 Switzerland 5.0 Estonia 4.5 Romania 3.5 Finland 1.5 Hungary 6.5 France 3.0 Latvia 5.0 Netherlands 4.5 Iceland 3.5 Norway 1.5 Czechslovakia 6.5 Sweden 2.5 Poland 5.5 Yugoslavia 4.0 Germany 4.0 Bye: Denmark <STANDINGS AFTER ROUND 3> (an asterisk (*) indicates the team has had a bye) <18.5>: Czechoslovakia; <18.0>: Hungary; <17.5>: Poland; <16.5>: Germany; <15.5>: Austria; <15.0>: Latvia; <14.5>: Yugoslavia; <14.0>: Romania; <13.5>: Estonia; <12.0>: Sweden; <11.5>: Denmark*; <11.0>: Brazil; <9.0>: Italy, Iceland; <8.5>: Netherlands, Switzerland; <7.5>: Norway; <6.0>: Bulgaria; <5.5>: Finland*; <4.5>: France; <4.0>: Lithuania* <Round 4 (Wednesday, August 19)> Poland soared into the lead with a blanking of Bulgaria, while Czechoslovakia could only draw with Estonia. Hungary's bye dropped them behind Germany, Austria and Yugoslavia. The oddity of the round was White winning by 7.5-0.5 in Italy v. Finland . Czechoslovakia 4.0 Estonia 4.0 Denmark 3.0 Austria 5.0 Germany 4.5 Sweden 3.5 Iceland 4.5 France 3.5 Italy 3.5 Finland 4.5 Latvia 2.0 Yugoslavia Lithuania 3.0 Netherlands 5.0 Poland 8.0 Bulgaria 0.0 Romania 3.5 Brazil 4.5 Switzerland 4.5 Norway 3.5 Bye: Hungary <STANDINGS AFTER ROUND 4> (an asterisk (*) indicates the team has had a bye) <25.5>: Poland; <22.5>: Czechoslovakia; <21.0>: Germany; <20.5>: Austria, Yugoslavia; <18.0>: Hungary*; <17.5>: Estonia, Romania; <17.0>: Latvia; <15.5>: Brazil, Sweden; <14.5>: Denmark*; <13.5>: Netherlands, Iceland; <13.0>: Switzerland; <12.5>: Italy; <11.0>: Norway; <10.0>: Finland*; <8.0>: France; <7.0>: Lithuania*; <6.0>: Bulgaria <Round 5 (Thursday, August 20)> Poland's surprise loss to Norway cut their lead to one point over Yugoslavia, who dominated Iceland. Czechoslovakia and Germany shared third to fourth, but neither could have been happy with their results (the Czechs had a close match with Brazil, while Germany dropped 1.5 points to the lowly Bulgarians). A big win by Estonia moved them ahead of Hungary. Brazil 3.0 Czechoslovakia 5.0 Bulgaria 1.5 Germany 6.5 Estonia 6.0 Switzerland 2.0 Finland 4.0 Romania 4.0 France 2.5 Lithuania 5.5 Hungary 5.0 Italy 3.0 Netherlands 2.5 Denmark 5.5 Norway 4.5 Poland 3.5 Sweden 3.5 Latvia 4.5 Yugoslavia 7.5 Iceland 0.5 Bye: Austria <STANDINGS AFTER ROUND 5> (an asterisk (*) indicates the team has had a bye) <29.0>: Poland; <28.0>: Yugoslavia; <27.5>: Germany, Czechoslovakia; <23.5>: Estonia; <23.0>: Hungary*; <21.5>: Latvia, Romania; <20.5>: Austria*; <20.0>: Denmark*; <19.0>: Sweden; <18.5>: Brazil; <16.0>: Netherlands; <15.5>: Italy, Norway; <15.0>: Switzerland; <14.0>: Finland*, Iceland; <12.5>: Lithuania*; <10.5>: France; <7.5>: Bulgaria <Round 6 (Thursday, August 20)> Germany went back into the lead with a convincing win over Norway, as Czechoslovakia was a half-point less efficient against the Finns and Poland fell back after a close win over Estonia. Yugoslavia missed a chance to move up by getting only a minimal win over Lithuania, who seemed to be waking up after a slow start. Hungary kept pace against Romania thanks to strong results on the bottom boards, while Latvia moved up after a strong win over Bulgaria. Austria 5.5 Netherlands 2.5 Czechoslovakia 6.0 Finland 2.0 Denmark 6.5 France 1.5 Germany 6.5 Norway 1.5 Iceland 2.0 Sweden 6.0 Latvia 7.0 Bulgaria 1.0 Lithuania 3.5 Yugoslavia 4.5 Poland 4.5 Estonia 3.5 Romania 2.5 Hungary 5.5 Switzerland 4.0 Brazil 4.0 Bye: Italy <STANDINGS AFTER ROUND 6> (an asterisk (*) indicates the team has had a bye) <34.0>: Germany; <33.5>: Czechoslovakia, Poland; <32.5>: Yugoslavia; <28.5>: Hungary*, Latvia; <27.0>: Estonia; <26.5>: Denmark*, <26.0>: Austria*; <25.0>: Sweden; <24.0>: Romania; <22.5>: Brazil; <19.0>: Switzerland; <18.5>: Netherlands; <17.0>: Norway; <16.0>: Finland*, Iceland, Lithuania*; <15.5>: Italy*; <12.0>: France; <8.5>: Bulgaria <Round 7 (Friday, August 21)> At the one-third mark, the true contenders were beginning to put a little space behind them. Poland and Germany had solid wins to stay in front, and Yugoslavia moved up to third with a win over Denmark. Czechoslovakia fell back to fourth after a loss to Hungary, as Latvia moved into sole fifth. Hungary and Austria followed, but the gap was not as much as it seemed since those two teams had already had a bye and would be picking up ground later. Brazil 1.5 Poland 6.5 Bulgaria 3.0 Iceland 5.0 Estonia 2.0 Germany 6.0 Finland 5.5 Switzerland 2.5 France 1.5 Austria 6.5 Hungary 5.5 Czechoslovakia 2.5 Italy 4.0 Romania 4.0 Norway 1.5 Latvia 6.5 Sweden 4.0 Lithuania 4.0 Yugoslavia 5.5 Denmark 2.5 Bye: Netherlands <STANDINGS AFTER ROUND 7> (an asterisk (*) indicates the team has had a bye) <40.0>: Germany, Poland; <38.0>: Yugoslavia; <36.0>: Czechoslovakia; <35.0>: Latvia; <34.0>: Hungary*; <32.5>: Austria*; <29.0>: Denmark*, Estonia, Sweden; <28.0>: Romania; <24.0>: Brazil; <21.5>: Finland*, Switzerland; <21.0>: Iceland; <20.0>: Lithuania*; <19.5>: Italy*; <18.5>: Netherlands*, Norway; <13.5>: France; <11.5>: Bulgaria <Round 8 (Saturday, August 22)> The rich got richer. Germany and Czechoslovakia got big wins, but Poland would have appreciated getting a bit more out of Finland. Yugoslavia picked up a narrow but useful victory over fringe contender Austria. Hungary had another workmanlike performance to stay near the leaders with a bye in hand, while Latvia showed they were the team to watch out of the Baltics by crushing Estonia. Austria 3.5 Yugoslavia 4.5 Czechoslovakia 6.5 Italy 1.5 Denmark 2.5 Sweden 5.5 Germany 6.5 Brazil 1.5 Iceland 5.5 Norway 2.5 Latvia 6.0 Estonia 2.0 Lithuania 6.5 Bulgaria 1.5 Netherlands 5.0 France 3.0 Poland 5.5 Finland 2.5 Switzerland 2.0 Hungary 6.0 Bye: Romania <STANDINGS AFTER ROUND 8> (an asterisk (*) indicates the team has had a bye) <46.5>: Germany; <45.5>: Poland; <42.5>: Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia; <41.0>: Latvia; <40.0>: Hungary*; <36.0>: Austria*; <34.5>: Sweden; <31.5>: Denmark*; <31.0>: Estonia; <28.0>: Romania*; <26.5>: Iceland, Lithuania*; <25.5>: Brazil; <24.0>: Finland*; <23.5>: Netherlands*, Switzerland; <21.0>: Italy*, Norway; <16.5>: France; <13.0>: Bulgaria <Round 9 (Saturday, August 22)> Despite a minimal victory, Germany actually increased their lead as Poland lost to Hungary and fell into a second-place tie with Czechoslovakia. Yugoslavia and Latvia remained in the same spots, while Hungary stayed in sixth despite being the only team to have won every match they played. Brazil 2.5 Latvia 5.5 Bulgaria 1.0 Denmark 7.0 Estonia 6.5 Iceland 1.5 Finland 3.5 Germany 4.5 Hungary 5.0 Poland 3.0 Italy 3.0 Switzerland 5.0 Norway 3.5 Lithuania 4.5 Romania 2.0 Czechoslovakia 6.0 Sweden 3.5 Austria 4.5 Yugoslavia 5.5 Netherlands 2.5 Bye: France <STANDINGS AFTER ROUND 9> (an asterisk (*) indicates the team has had a bye) <51.0>: Germany; <48.5>: Czechoslovakia, Poland; <48.0>: Yugoslavia; <46.5>: Latvia; <45.0>: Hungary*; <40.5>: Austria*; <38.5>: Denmark*; <38.0>: Sweden; <37.5>: Estonia; <31.0>: Lithuania*; <30.0>: Romania*; <28.5>: Switzerland; <28.0>: Brazil, Iceland; <27.5>: Finland*; <26.0>: Netherlands*; <24.5>: Norway; <24.0>: Italy*; <16.5>: France*; <14.0>: Bulgaria <Round 10 (Saturday, August 23)> Two important events this round were the loss by Germany to Hungary, and Czechoslovakia's bye. This allowed Yugoslavia and Poland to jump ahead of the Germsns, while Latvia and Hungary also rose one spot. Austria 6.0 Bulgaria 2.0 Denmark 5.0 Norway 3.0 France 1.0 Yugoslavia 7.0 Germany 3.5 Hungary 4.5 Iceland 3.0 Brazil 5.0 Latvia 5.0 Finland 3.0 Lithuania 4.5 Estonia 3.5 Netherlands 3.0 Sweden 5.0 Poland 6.5 Italy 1.5 Switzerland 4.0 Romania 4.0 Bye: Czechoslovakia <STANDINGS AFTER ROUND 10> (an asterisk (*) indicates the team has had a bye) <55.0>: Yugoslavia, Poland; <54.5>: Germany; <51.5>: Latvia; <49.5>: Hungary*; <48.5>: Czechoslovakia*; <46.5>: Austria*; <43.5>: Denmark*; <43.0>: Sweden; <41.0>: Estonia; <35.5>: Lithuania*; <34.0>: Romania*; <33.0>: Brazil; <32.5>: Switzerland; <31.0>: Iceland; <30.5>: Finland*; <29.0>: Nethlerlands*; <27.5>: Norway; <25.5>: Italy*; <17.5>: France*; <16.0>: Bulgaria < Continued by Game Collection: Munich Chess Olympiad 1936: Pt. 2, Rounds 11-21 > 300 games, 1936 Munich Chess Olympiad 1936: Pt. 2, Rounds 11-21 [A continuation of: Game Collection: Munich Chess Olympiad 1936: Pt. 1, Rounds 1-10 ] <Round 11 (Sunday, August 23, 1936)> Round 11 was played the same day as round 10, and was a repeat in many ways. A leading team (Yugoslavia) got a bye, and Hungary won another match over a contender by toppling Latvia. Poland went back into the lead with Germany 1/2-point behind, while Hungary had now moved into a third-place tie with Yugoslavia. Czechoslovakia and Lativa remained in the hunt. table[ Brazil 2.5 Lithuania 5.5 Bulgaria 3.0 Netherlands 5.0 Czechoslovakia 6.0 Switzerland 2.0 Estonia 3.5 Denmark 4.5 Finland 5.5 Iceland 2.5 Hungary 5.5 Latvia 2.5 Italy 2.0 Germany 6.0 Norway 2.5 Austria 5.5 Romania 2.0 Poland 6.0 Sweden 6.5 France 1.5 Bye: Yugoslavia ]table <STANDINGS AFTER ROUND 11> (an asterisk (*) indicates the team has had a bye) <61.0>: Poland; <60.5>: Germany; <55.0>: Hungary*, Yugoslavia*; <54.5>: Czechoslovakia*; <54.0>: Latvia; <52.0>: Austria*; <49.5>: Sweden; <48.0>: Denmark*; <44.5>: Estonia; <41.0>: Lithuania*; <36.0>: Finland*, Romania*; <35.5>: Brazil; <34.5>: Switzerland; <34.0>: Netherlands*; <33.5>: Iceland; <30.0>: Norway; <27.5>: Italy*; <19.0>: Bulgaria, France* <Round 12 (Monday, August 24, 1936)> Poland added to their lead with an important win over Czechoslovakia, while Germany had some trouble with Romania (especially in the game P Bohosiewicz vs L Roedl, 1936). Hungary won their 11th match in a row to move into third place, and had still played one match less than the teams above them. Latvia's draw with lowly Italy hurt their chances. Meanwhile, down at the foot of the class, winless France won decisively over winless Bulgaria. table[ Austria 4.0 Estonia 4.0 Denmark 5.0 Brazil 3.0 France 5.5 Bulgaria 2.5 Germany 4.5 Romania 3.5 Iceland 1.5 Hungary 6.5 Latvia 4.0 Italy 4.0 Lithuania 3.5 Finland 4.5 Netherlands 5.5 Norway 2.5 Poland 5.0 Czechoslovakia 3.0 Yugoslavia 5.5 Sweden 2.5 Bye: Switzerland ]table <STANDINGS AFTER ROUND 12> (an asterisk (*) indicates the team has had a bye) <66.0>: Poland; <65.0>: Germany; <61.5>: Hungary*; <60.5>: Yugoslavia*; <58.0>: Latvia; <57.5>: Czechoslovakia*; <56.0>: Austria*; <53.0>: Denmark*; <52.0>: Sweden; <48.5>: Estonia; <44.5>: Lithuania*; <40.5>: Finland*; <39.5>: Netherlands*, Romania*; <38.5>: Brazil; <35.0>: Iceland; <34.5>: Switzerland*; <32.5>: Norway; <31.5>: Italy*; <24.5>: France*; <21.5>: Bulgaria <Round 13 (Tuesday, August 25, 1936)> The teams were well into the second half of the tournament now, and needed to start taking things seriously. Yugoslavia, Latvia, Austria and Denmark all scored crushing wins to stay in contention. An important match between Germany and Czechslovakia was drawn, allowing Poland to lengthen their lead slightly despite a weaker than expected win over Switzerland. Hungary also had trouble with Lithuania, but hung on for their twelfth straight match win. table[ Brazil 1.0 Austria 7.0 Bulgaria 1.0 Yugoslavia 7.0 Czechoslovakia 4.0 Germany 4.0 Estonia 5.5 Netherlands 2.5 Finland 1.0 Denmark 7.0 Hungary 5.0 Lithuania 3.0 Italy 6.0 Iceland 2.0 Norway 7.0 France 1.0 Romania 1.0 Latvia 7.0 Switzerland 2.5 Poland 5.5 Bye: Sweden ]table <STANDINGS AFTER ROUND 13> (an asterisk (*) indicates the team has had a bye) <71.5>: Poland; <69.0>: Germany; <67.5>: Yugoslavia*; <66.5>: Hungary*; <65.0>: Latvia; <63.0>: Austria*; <61.5>: Czechoslovakia*; <60.0>: Denmark*; <54.0>: Estonia; <52.0>: Sweden*; <47.5>: Lithuania*; <42.0>: Netherlands*; <41.5>: Finland*; <40.5>: Romania*; <39.5>: Brazil, Norway; <37.5>: Italy*; <37.0>: Switzerland*, Iceland; <25.5>: France*; <22.5>: Bulgaria <Round 14 (Wednesday, August 26, 1936)> Poland's bye this round led to a shake-up at the top; Germany and Hungary passed them, while Yugoslavia missed a chance after a disappointing draw with Norway. Latvia stayed in contention with a useful win over Czechoslovakia. Meanwhile, Bulgaria was mathematically eliminated from the race for gold. table[ Austria 4.0 Finland 4.0 Denmark 2.5 Hungary 5.5 France 2.5 Estonia 5.5 Germany 7.0 Switzerland 1.0 Iceland 3.5 Romania 4.5 Latvia 5.5 Czechoslovakia 2.5 Lithuania 6.0 Italy 2.0 Netherlands 4.5 Brazil 3.5 Sweden 6.5 Bulgaria 1.5 Yugoslavia 4.0 Norway 4.0 Bye: Poland ]table <STANDINGS AFTER ROUND 14> (an asterisk (*) indicates the team has had a bye) <76.0>: Germany; <72.0>: Hungary*; <71.5>: Poland*, Yugoslavia*; <70.5>: Latvia; <67.0>: Austria*; <64.0>: Czechoslovakia*; <62.5>: Denmark*; <59.5>: Estonia; <58.5>: Sweden*; <53.5>: Lithuania*; <46.5>: Netherlands*; <45.5>: Finland*; <45.0>: Romania*; <43.5>: Norway; <43.0>: Brazil; <40.5>: Iceland; <39.5>: Italy*; <38.0>: Switzerland*; <28.0>: France*; <24.0>: Bulgaria At the two-thirds mark, Germany's lead was by no means secure as they had not yet had a bye. Hungary, Poland and Yugoslavia were well within striking distance, with an extra match to play. Latvia would have some difficulties, being behind several teams and also having a bye left. Austria was a bit further back, but had a chance to make up ground with matches against Hungary, Poland, Germany, and Czechoslovakia to play. Other important matches to come were Germany v. Poland and Latvia, Hungary v. Yugoslavia, Poland v. Latvia, and Yugoslavia v. Czechoslovakia. On the other end of the scale, Hungary had yet to play tailenders France and Bulgaria. <Round 15 (Friday, August 28, 1936)> The most important match of the round saw Poland edge Germany. While Latvia and Czechoslovakia took advantage with solid wins, Hungary could get only a minimal win over Austria while Yugoslavia drew with Estonia. table[ Brazil 6.0 France 2.0 Czechoslovakia 6.0 Iceland 2.0 Estonia 4.0 Yugoslavia 4.0 Finland 3.5 Netherlands 4.5 Hungary 4.5 Austria 3.5 Italy 1.0 Denmark 7.0 Norway 3.5 Sweden 4.5 Poland 4.5 Germany 3.5 Romania 4.0 Lithuania 4.0 Switzerland 2.5 Latvia 5.5 Bye: Bulgaria ]table <STANDINGS AFTER ROUND 15> (an asterisk (*) indicates the team has had a bye) <79.5>: Germany; <76.5>: Hungary*; <76.0>: Poland*, Latvia; <75.5>: Yugoslavia*; <70.5>: Austria*; <70.0>: Czechslovakia*; <69.5>: Denmark*; <63.5>: Estonia; <63.0>: Sweden*; <57.5>: Lithuania*; <51.0>: Netherlands*; <49.0>: Finland*, Brazil, Romania*; <47.0>: Norway; <42.5>: Iceland; <40.5>: Switzerland*, Italy*; <30.0>: France*; <24.0>: Bulgaria* <Round 16 (Friday, August 28, 1936)> Germany received their bye this round, and fell into a tie for 4th-5th with Poland. Hungary got their usual 5.5 points to take the lead, 1/2-point ahead of the Yugoslavs. The upcoming match between these two, scheduled for round 18, would obviously be a big one. Latvia held third for the moment, but still had a bye to come. Austria still had a chance to improve their placing, only three points from a medal and with three matches still to come against contenders. table[ Austria 7.0 Italy 1.0 Bulgaria 3.0 Norway 5.0 Denmark 4.5 Romania 3.5 France 2.0 Finland 6.0 Iceland 5.0 Switzerland 3.0 Latvia 4.5 Poland 3.5 Lithuania 4.0 Czechoslovakia 4.0 Netherlands 2.5 Hungary 5.5 Sweden 4.5 Estonia 3.5 Yugoslavia 6.0 Brazil 2.0 Bye: Germany ]table <STANDINGS AFTER ROUND 16> (an asterisk (*) indicates the team has had a bye) <82.0>: Hungary*; <81.5>: Yugoslavia*; <80.5>: Latvia; <79.5>: Germany*, Poland*; <77.5>: Austria*; <74.0>: Denmark*, Czechoslovakia*; <67.5>: Sweden*; <67.0>: Estonia; <61.5>: Lithuania*; <55.0>: Finland*; <53.5>: Netherlands*; <52.5>: Romania*; <52.0>: Norway; <51.0>: Brazil; <47.5>: Iceland; <43.5>: Switzerland*; <41.5>: Italy*; <32.0>: France*; <27.0>: Bulgaria* <Round 17 (Saturday, August 29, 1936)> As the end neared, the top teams began to pour it on. Hungary had their best round so far with a 7-1 drubbing of France, stretching their lead to two points as Yugoslavia had to face the tougher Finnish team. Germany destroyed any hopes Latvia might have had with a 6.5-1.5 drubbing, Poland duplicating that score against Iceland. Czechoslovakia and Austria also won, but were unable to match the margins of the other contenders. table[ Brazil 2.0 Sweden 6.0 Czechoslovakia 5.0 Denmark 3.0 Estonia 6.0 Bulgaria 2.0 Finland 2.5 Yugoslavia 5.5 Germany 6.5 Latvia 1.5 Hungary 7.0 France 1.0 Italy 3.5 Netherlands 4.5 Poland 6.5 Iceland 1.5 Romania 3.5 Austria 4.5 Switzerland 5.0 Lithuania 3.0 Bye: Norway ]table <STANDINGS AFTER ROUND 17> (an asterisk (*) indicates the team has had a bye) <89.0>: Hungary*; <87.0>: Yugoslavia*; <86.0>: Germany*, Poland*; <82.0>: Austria*, Latvia; <79.0>: Czechoslovakia*; <77.0>: Denmark*; <73.5>: Sweden*; <73.0>: Estonia; <64.5>: Lithuania*; <58.0>: Netherlands*; <57.5>: Finland*; <56.0>: Romania*; <53.0>: Brazil; <52.0>: Norway*; <49.0>: Iceland; <48.5>: Switzerland*; <45.0>: Italy*; <33.0>: France*; <29.0>: Bulgaria* <Round 18 (Saturday, August 29, 1936)> This round saw 1st place Hungary take on 2nd place Yugoslavia and score yet another small match victory. They weren't doing it in spectacular fashion, but 17 match wins in a row were piling up the game points. Poland jumped into second with a crushing win over a tough Lithuanian team, while Germany had to be dissatisfied with their win over Iceland. The Yugoslavs remained in the medal hunt, but any chance Austria still had was demolished by Czechoslovakia. Elsewhere, the big news was that Bulgaria, after losing 16 matches in a row, picked up a draw against Brazil. table[ Austria 1.0 Czechoslovakia 7.0 Bulgaria 4.0 Brazil 4.0 Denmark 5.5 Switzerland 2.5 France 4.0 Italy 4.0 Iceland 2.5 Germany 5.5 Lithuania 1.0 Poland 7.0 Netherlands 5.0 Romania 3.0 Norway 1.5 Estonia 6.5 Sweden 4.0 Finland 4.0 Yugoslavia 3.0 Hungary 5.0 Bye: Latvia ]table <STANDINGS AFTER ROUND 18> (an asterisk (*) indicates the team has had a bye) <94.0>: Hungary*; <93.0>: Poland*; <91.5>: Germany*; <90.0>: Yugoslavia*; <86.0>: Czechoslovakia*; <83.0>: Austria*; <82.5>: Denmark*; <82.0>: Latvia*; <79.5>: Estonia; <77.5>: Sweden*; <65.5>: Lithuania*; <63.0>: Netherlands*; <61.5>: Finland*; <59.0>: Romania*; <57.0>: Brazil; <53.5>: Norway*; <51.5>: Iceland; <51.0>: Switzerland*; <49.0>: Italy*; <37.0>: France*; <33.0>: Bulgaria* <Round 19 (Sunday, August 30, 1936)> The top five teams remained unchanged. Hungary squeaked out another win, but Poland, Germany and Yugoslavia could not do much better. Czechoslovakia made up some ground, but were probably too far behind to medal. There are too many games in these collections to make a lot of recommendations, but I would point out P Hage vs K Makarczyk, 1936. table[ Brazil 4.5 Norway 3.5 Czechoslovakia 6.5 Netherlands 1.5 Finland 5.5 Bulgaria 2.5 Germany 4.5 Lithuania 3.5 Hungary 4.5 Sweden 3.5 Italy 3.0 Yugoslavia 5.0 Latvia 5.5 Iceland 2.5 Poland 5.0 Denmark 3.0 Romania 6.0 France 2.0 Switzerland 2.5 Austria 5.5 Bye: Estonia ]table <STANDINGS AFTER ROUND 19> (an asterisk (*) indicates the team has had a bye) <98.5>: Hungary*; <98.0>: Poland*; <96.0>: Germany*; <95.0>: Yugoslavia*; <92.5>: Czechoslovakia*; <88.5>: Austria*; <87.5>: Latvia*; <85.5>: Denmark*; <81.0>: Sweden*; <79.5>: Estonia*; <69.0>: Lithuania*; <67.0>: Finland; <65.0>: Romania*: <64.5>: Netherlands*; <61.5>: Brazil; <57.0>: Norway*; <54.0>: Iceland; <53.5>: Switzerland*; <52.0>: Italy*; <39.0>: France*; <35.5>: Bulgaria* Hungary led by only a half-point, but had by far the easier schedule left with Norway and last-place Bulgaria to play. Poland still had Austria and the Netherlands, Germany was facing Austria and Denmark, Yugoslavia would play Czechoslovakia and Romania, while the Czechs would also take on France. <Round 20 (Monday, August 31, 1936)> Hungary showed how a champion treats a tailender by demolishing Bulgaria. This gave them a four-point lead with one round to go, as Poland could only draw a tough Austrian team while Germany had some troubles with Denmark. Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia had strong results, but were due to meet in the last round and were likely to knock each other out of medal contention. table[ Austria 4.0 Poland 4.0 Bulgaria 0.5 Hungary 7.5 Denmark 3.0 Germany 5.0 Estonia 6.5 Brazil 1.5 France 1.5 Czechoslovakia 6.5 Lithuania 4.0 Latvia 4.0 Netherlands 5.0 Switzerland 3.0 Norway 4.0 Finland 4.0 Sweden 6.5 Italy 1.5 Yugoslavia 6.5 Romania 1.5 Bye: Iceland ]table <STANDINGS AFTER ROUND 20> (an asterisk (*) indicates the team has had a bye) <106.0>: Hungary*; <102.0>: Poland*; <101.5>: Yugoslavia*; <101.0>: Germany*; <99.0>: Czechoslovakia*; <92.5>: Austria*; <91.5>: Latvia*; <88.5>: Denmark*; <87.5>: Sweden*; <86.0>: Estonia*; <73.0>: Lithuania*; <71.0>: Finland*; <69.5>: Netherlands*; <66.5>: Romania*; <63.0>: Brazil; <61.0>: Norway*; <56.5>: Switzerland*; <54.0>: Iceland*; <53.5>: Italy*; <40.5>: France*; <36.0>: Bulgaria* Given their perfect match record, Hungary needed only 4.0 in the last round against Norway to clinch gold. The race for second and third remained wide open. <Round 21 (Tuesday, September 1, 1936)> No surprises. Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia took themselves out of medal contention; Hungary, Poland and Germany did just enough to win. table[ Czechoslovakia 5.0 Yugoslavia 3.0 Finland 4.0 Estonia 4.0 Germany 5.5 Austria 2.5 Hungary 4.5 Norway 3.5 Iceland 3.5 Lithuania 4.5 Italy 5.5 Bulgaria 2.5 Latvia 5.0 Denmark 3.0 Poland 6.0 Netherlands 2.0 Romania 1.5 Sweden 6.5 Switzerland 5.0 France 3.0 Bye: Brazil ]table <Final standings> table[ Hun Pol Ger Yug Cze Lat Aut Swi Den Est Lit Fin Net Rom Nor Bra Swi Ita Ice Fra Bul 1 Hungary XXX 5.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 5.5 4.5 4.5 5.5 5.0 5.0 6.5 5.5 5.5 4.5 6.5 6.0 5.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 110.5 2 Poland 3.0 XXX 4.5 4.5 5.0 3.5 4.0 5.5 5.0 4.5 7.0 5.5 6.0 6.0 3.5 6.5 5.5 6.5 6.5 7.5 8.0 108.0 3 Germany 3.5 3.5 XXX 4.0 4.0 6.5 5.5 4.5 5.0 6.0 4.5 4.5 5.5 4.5 6.5 6.5 7.0 6.0 5.5 7.0 6.5 106.5 4 Yugoslavia 3.0 3.5 4.0 XXX 3.0 6.0 4.5 5.5 5.5 4.0 4.5 5.5 5.5 6.5 4.0 6.0 7.0 5.0 7.5 7.0 7.0 104.5 5 Czechoslovakia 2.5 3.0 4.0 5.0 XXX 2.5 7.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 6.0 6.5 6.0 6.5 5.0 6.0 6.5 6.0 6.5 8.0 104.0 6 Latvia 2.5 4.5 1.5 2.0 5.5 XXX 3.5 4.5 5.0 6.0 4.0 5.0 6.5 7.0 6.5 5.5 5.5 4.0 5.5 5.0 7.0 96.5 7 Austria 3.5 4.0 2.5 3.5 1.0 4.5 XXX 4.5 5.0 4.0 5.5 4.0 5.5 4.5 5.5 7.0 5.5 7.0 5.5 6.5 6.0 95.0 8 Sweden 3.5 2.5 3.5 2.5 4.0 3.5 3.5 XXX 5.5 4.5 4.0 4.0 5.0 6.5 4.5 6.0 5.5 6.5 6.0 6.5 6.5 94.0 9 Denmark 2.5 3.0 3.0 2.5 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.5 XXX 4.5 6.5 7.0 5.5 4.5 5.0 5.0 5.5 7.0 5.0 6.5 7.0 91.5 10 Estonia 3.0 3.5 2.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 3.5 3.5 XXX 3.5 4.0 5.5 4.5 6.5 6.5 6.0 6.0 6.5 5.5 6.0 90.0 11 Lithuania 3.0 1.0 3.5 3.5 4.0 4.0 2.5 4.0 1.5 4.5 XXX 3.5 3.0 4.0 4.5 5.5 3.0 6.0 4.5 5.5 6.5 77.5 12 Finland 1.5 2.5 3.5 2.5 2.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 1.0 4.0 4.5 XXX 3.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.5 4.5 5.5 6.0 5.5 75.0 13 Netherlands 2.5 2.0 2.5 2.5 1.5 1.5 2.5 3.0 2.5 2.5 5.0 4.5 XXX 5.0 5.5 4.5 5.0 4.5 4.5 5.0 5.0 71.5 14 Romania 2.5 2.0 3.5 1.5 2.0 1.0 3.5 1.5 3.5 3.5 4.0 4.0 3.0 XXX 5.5 3.5 4.0 4.0 4.5 6.0 5.0 68.0 15 Norway 3.5 4.5 1.5 4.0 1.5 1.5 2.5 3.5 3.0 1.5 3.5 4.0 2.5 2.5 XXX 3.5 3.5 3.5 2.5 7.0 5.0 64.5 16 Brazil 1.5 1.5 1.5 2.0 3.0 2.5 1.0 2.0 3.0 1.5 2.5 4.0 3.5 4.5 4.5 XXX 4.0 5.5 5.0 6.0 4.0 63.0 17 Switzerland 2.0 2.5 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.0 5.0 2.5 3.0 4.0 4.5 4.0 XXX 5.0 3.0 5.0 5.0 61.5 18 Italy 3.0 1.5 2.0 3.0 1.5 4.0 1.0 1.5 1.0 2.0 2.0 3.5 3.5 4.0 4.5 2.5 3.0 XXX 6.0 4.0 5.5 59.0 19 Iceland 1.5 1.5 2.5 0.5 2.0 2.5 2.5 2.0 3.0 1.5 3.5 2.5 3.5 3.5 5.5 3.0 5.0 2.0 XXX 4.5 5.0 57.5 20 France 1.0 0.5 1.0 1.0 1.5 3.0 1.5 1.5 1.5 2.5 2.5 2.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 3.5 XXX 5.5 43.5 21 Bulgaria 0.5 0.0 1.5 1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 1.5 1.0 2.0 1.5 2.5 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 2.5 3.0 2.5 XXX 38.5 ]table For individual statistics and more information, see the Olimpbase site at http://www.olimpbase.org/1936x/1936... 298 games, 1936 Nakamura's Noteables voted by members 1/26/08+ The games most often found in member's collections.Started Jan. 2008, added some games 9/12/09. 12 games, 2001-2010

<< previous | page 5 of 9 | next >>