chessgames.com
Members · Prefs · Laboratory · Collections · Openings · Endgames · Sacrifices · History · Search Kibitzing · Kibitzer's Café · Chessforums · Tournament Index · Players · Kibitzing
 
 
Premium Chessgames Member
phony benoni
Chess Game Collections
[what is this?] --*-- [what is this?]

<< previous | page 8 of 21 | next >>
  1. Hastings 1939/40
    The 20th Hastings Chess Congress was held from December 28, 1939 to January 4, 1940, and those dates tell most of the story. With World War II having begun a few months before and many of the best European players stranded in Buenos Aires after the Olympiad or otherwise occupied, the Congress turned into a strictly national event missing even most of the strongest British players. Here is the line-up:

    Harry Golombek, Wilfred Hugh Miller Kirk, Arthur Mackenzie, Frank Parr, William Ritson-Morry, Hans Georg Schenk, Andrew Thomas, William Arthur Winser.

    Essentially, the issue was decided in the first three rounds. Parr beat Ritson-Morry in round 1, and finished 1/2-point ahead of him. Ritson-Morry defeated Golombek in round 3, and finished 1/2-point ahead of him. Everyone else was nowhere.

    1 Parr 6.0/7 * 1 = = 1 1 1 1
    2 Ritson Morry 5.5/7 0 * 1 = 1 1 1 1
    3 Golombek 5.0/7 = 0 * 1 = 1 1 1
    4 Kirk 3.0/7 = = 0 * = 0 1 =
    5 A. Thomas 3.0/7 0 0 = = * 1 = =
    6 Winser 2.0/7 0 0 0 1 0 * 0 1
    7 Schenk 2.0/7 0 0 0 0 = 1 * =
    8 Mackenzie 1.5/7 0 0 0 = = 0 = *

    In keeping with the lackluster circumstances, most of the games have not been preserved. In the following list, "#" indicates a missing game.

    <Round 1>
    Golombek 1 Kirk; Ritson-Morry 0 Parr#; Thomas 1/2 Schenk#; Winser 1 Mackenzie#

    <Round 2>
    Kirk 0 Winser#; Ritson Morry 1 Thomas; Parr 1 Mackenzie; Schenk 0 Golombek#

    <Round 3>
    Golombek 0 Ritson Morry; Mackenzie 1/2 Kirk#; Parr 1 Thomas#; Winser 0 Schenk#

    Part of the <Parr vs. Thomas> game is available, with White to make his 22nd move:


    click for larger view

    <22.Kg2 Ned3 23.Bxc5 Nxc5 24.Raf1 Qe8 25.Nhg3 Bc8 26.Nd4 a4 27.a3 Raa7 28.Rf3 Bg7 29.Rhf1 Rab7 30.Kf2 h5 31.Nxh5 Qxe4 32.Qxe4 Nxe4+ 33.Ke1 Rf8 34.Re3 Re8! 35.Bf3 f5>


    click for larger view

    Now White played <36.Nxg7>, eventually winning in 60 move. The "British Chess Magazine", Feb. 1940, p.46, recommends 36.gxf5.

    <Round 4>
    Kirk 1/2 Parr#; Ritson-Morry 1 Winser#; Schenk 1/2 Mackenzie#; Thomas 1/2 Golombek

    <Round 5>
    Golombek 1/2 Parr#; Kirk 1 Schenk#; Mackenzie 0 Ritson-Morry; Winser 0 Thomas#

    <Round 6>
    Golomber 1 Winser#; Ritson-Morry 1/2 Kirk#; Parr 1 Schenk; Thomas 1/2 Mackenzie#

    <Round 7>
    Kirk 1/2 Thomas#; Mackzenie 0 Golombek#; Schenk 0 Ritson-Morry#; Winser 0 Parr#

    Yuk. You really hate to see that in the last round.

    7 games, 1939-1940

  2. Hastings 1946/47
    The 22nd Hastings Christmas Congress, held December 30, 1946 through January 8, 1947 marked a return to the traditional 10-player tournament of about half British players and half foreign masters. This year's contingent included:

    Gerald Abrahams, James Macrae Aitken, Conel Hugh O'Donel Alexander, Harry Golombek Gudmundur Gudmundsson, Lodewijk Prins, Maurice Raizman, Savielly Tartakower, Gabriel Jacquin Wood, Daniel Yanofsky.

    What wasn't traditional was that a British player won, as Alexander blew away the opposition and clinched first place before a last round loss to Tartakower. Admittedly this was hardly a powerful contingent, but Alexander proved capable of more than holding his own in several stronger Hastings Congresses. table[
    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0
    1 Alexander * 0 1 1 1 = 1 1 1 1 7.5
    2 Tartakower 1 * = = 1 = 0 1 1 1 6.5
    3 Gudmundsson 0 = * = = 1 1 1 = 1 6.0
    4 Yanofsky 0 = = * = 1 1 1 = = 5.5
    5 Abrahams 0 0 = = * = 1 1 0 1 4.5
    6 Golombek = = 0 0 = * = 1 1 0 4.0
    7 Raizman 0 1 0 0 0 = * 0 = 1 3.0
    8 Aitken 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 * 1 1 3.0
    9 Wood 0 0 = = 1 0 = 0 * 0 2.5
    10 Prins 0 0 0 = 0 1 0 0 1 * 2.5
    ]table


    45 games, 1946-1947

  3. Hastings 1947/48
    The 23rd Hastings Christmas Chess Congress was held from December 29, 1946 to January 7, 1947, with these players:

    Gerald Abrahams, Conel Hugh O'Donel Alexander, William Albert Fairhurst, Harry Golombek, Henri Grob, Willem Jan Muhring, Maurice Raizman, Eduard Spanjaard, Laszlo Szabo, George Thomas.

    Szabo, by far the strongest player, left his mark with an easy two-point margin of victory over a spirited battle for second place. Unfortunately, this was another of the tournaments for which few game scores have survived. Here is a full listing of games and standings after each round. Games in this collection are indicated by an asterisk (*).

    Round 1
    1 Abrahams 0 Thomas
    2 Alexander 1/2 Fairhurst
    3 Golombek 0 Szabo*
    4 Muhring 1 Grob*
    5 Spanjaard 0 Raizman

    <1.0>: Muhring, Raizman, Szabo, Thomas; <0.5>: Alexander, Fairhurst; <0.0>: Abrahams, Golombek, Grob, Spanjaard

    Round 2
    6 Fairhurst 1/2 Muhring*
    7 Grob 1 Abraham
    8 Raizman 1/2 Alexander
    9 Spanjaard 0 Szabo
    10 Thomas 1/2 Golombek

    <2.0>: Szabo; <1.5>: Muhring, Raizman, Thomas; <1.0>: Alexander, Fairhurst, Grob; <0.5>: Golombek; <0.0>: Abrahams, Spanjaard

    Round 3
    11 Abrahams 1/2 Fairhurst
    12 Alexander 1 Spanjaard*
    13 Golombek 1/2 Grob
    14 Muhring 1 Raizman
    15 Szabo 1 Thomas

    <3.0>: Szabo; <2.5>: Muhring; <2.0>: Alexander; <1.5>: Fairhurst, Grob, Raizman, Thomas; <1.0>: Golombek; <0.5>: Abrahams; <0.0>: Spanjaard

    Round 4
    16 Alexander 1/2 Muhring
    17 Fairhurst 1/2 Golombek
    18 Grob 0 Szabo
    19 Raizman 0 Abrahams
    20 Thomas 1/2 Spanjaard

    <4.0>: Szabo; <3.0>: Muhring; <2.5>: Alexander; <2.0>: Fairhurst, Thomas; <1.5>: Abrahams, Golombek, Grob, Raizman; <0.5>: Spanjaard

    Round 5
    21 Abrahams 1 Alexander
    22 Golomber 0 Raizman
    23 Spanjaard 0 Muhring*
    24 Szabo 1/2 Fairhurst
    25 Thomas 1/2 Grob

    <4.5>: Szabo; <4.0>: Muhring; <2.5>: Abrahams, Alexander, Fairhurst, Raizman, Thomas; <2.0>: Grob; <1.5>: Golombek; <0.5>: Spanjaard

    Round 6
    26 Alexander 1/2 Golombek
    27 Fairhurst 1/2 Thomas
    28 Muhring 0 Abrahams
    29 Raizman 0 Szabo
    30 Spanjaard 0 Grob

    <5.5>: Szabo; <4.0>: Muhring; <3.5>: Abrahams; <3.0>: Alexander, Fairhurst, Grob, Thomas; <2.5>: Raizman; <2.0>: Golombek; <0.5>: Spanjaard

    Round 7
    31 Abrahams 1 Spanjaard
    32 Golombek 1/2 Muhring
    33 Grob 1/2 Fairhurst
    34 Szabo 1/2 Alexander
    35 Thomas 1 Muhring*

    <6.0>: Szabo; <4.5>: Abrahams, Muhring; <4.0>: Thomas; <3.5>: Alexander, Fairhurst, Grob; <2.5>: Golombek, Raizman; <0.5>: Spanjaard

    Round 8
    36 Abrahams 0 Golombek
    37 Alexander 0 Thomas*
    38 Fairhurst 1 Spanjaard
    39 Muhring 1/2 Szabo
    40 Raizman 0 Grob

    <6.5>: Szabo; <5.0>: Muhring, Thomas; <4.5>: Abrahams, Fairhurst, Grob; <3.5>: Alexander, Golombek; <2.5>: Raizman; <0.5>: Spanjaard

    Round 9
    41 Fairhurst 1/2 Raizman
    42 Golombek 1/2 Spanjaard
    43 Grob 1 Alexander*
    44 Szabo 1 Abrahams
    45 Thomas 1/2 Muhring
    table[
    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0
    1 Szabo * = 1 1 = 1 1 = 1 1 7.5
    2 Muhring = * = 1 = 0 = = 1 1 5.5
    3 Thomas 0 = * = = 1 = 1 1 = 5.5
    4 Grob 0 0 = * = 1 = 1 1 1 5.5
    5 Fairhurst = = = = * = = = = 1 5.0
    6 Abrahams 0 1 0 0 = * 0 1 1 1 4.5
    7 Golombek 0 = = = = 1 * = 0 = 4.0
    8 Alexander = = 0 0 = 0 = * = 1 3.5
    9 Raizman 0 0 0 0 = 0 1 = * 1 3.0
    10 Spanjaard 0 0 = 0 0 0 = 0 0 * 2.0
    ]table

    A fine result for the 66-year-old Thomas, while Alexander had to be quite disappointed after his dominating performance the previous year.

    11 games, 1947-1948

  4. Hastings 1952/53
    The 28th Hastings Christmas Chess Congress featured the following players:

    Max Blau, William Albert Fairhurst, Harry Golombek, Edward Lasker, Antonio Medina Garcia, Jonathan Penrose, Jakob Adolf Seitz, Theodore Tylor, Robert Wade, Daniel Yanofsky.

    The British contingent was a split between the older (Fairhurst, Golombek, Tylor) and younger (Penrose, Wade) generations. Of the foreigners, Yanofsky and Medina Garcia were younger players, Lasker and Seitz sentimental older choices, and Blau kind in the middle.

    This was a balanced entry with no clear favorite, and promised a close fight for first place. By the finish, no player had avoided defeat and only three points separated first from last.

    <Round 1>

    Fairhurst 0 Penrose; Lasker 1/2 Yanofsky; Seitz 0 Medina Garcia; Tylor 0 Blau; Wade 0 Golombek

    <1.0>: Blau, Golombek, Medina Garcia, Penrose; <0.5>: Lasker, Yanofsky; <0.0>: Fairhurst, Seitz, Tylor, Wade

    Edge to the younger players so far. Perhaps the most interesting game was Medina Garcia's slow win as Black in the Spanish Exchange Variation.

    <Round 2>

    Blau 1/2 Fairhurst; Golombek 1/2 Tylor; Medina Garcia 1 Lasker; Penrose 1 Seitz; Yanofsky 1/2 Wade

    <2.0>: Medina Garcia, Penrose; <1.5>: Blau, Golombek; <1.0>: Yanofsky; <0.5>: Fairhurst, Lasker, Tylor, Wade; <0.0>: Seitz

    Fairhurst let a simple win slip away. Lasker got into a cramped position, and succumbed to the usual Nf5 sacrifice in the Ruy Lopez. Penrose joined Medina at the top with some incisive play against Seitz's awkward development.

    <Round 3>

    Fairhurst 1/2 Golombek; Lasker 1/2 Wade; Medina Garcia 1/2 Penrose; Seitz 1/2 Blau; Tylor 1/2 Yanofsky

    <2.5>: Medina Garcia, Penrose; <2.0>: Blau, Golombek; <1.5>: Yanofsky; <1.0>: Fairhurst, Lasker, Tylor, Wade; <0.5>: Seitz

    Very quiet result-wise, and of course there was no change in the leaders. Lasker and Wade had a real slugfest. The battle between the leaders was about as quiet a game as can come out of the Four Pawn Attack in the Alekhine. Yanofsky, hungry for a win, continued an eventful game with Tylor for about 20 moves longer than necessary.

    <Round 4>

    Blau 1 Medina Garcia; Golombek 1 Seitz; Penrose 1 Lasker; Wade 1/2 Tylor; Yanofsky 0 Fairhurst

    <3.5>: Penrose; <3.0>: Blau, Golombek; <2.5>: Medina Garcia; <2.0>: Fairhurst; <1.5>: Tylor, Wade, Yanofsky; <1.0>: Lasker; <0.5>: Seitz

    On the other hand, this round's results did result in a few changes up top! Blau's two knights wound up snatching a couple of pawns from Medina's bishop pair. Golombek upheld the honor of the bishop pair, winding up three pawns ahead. The encounter between the 19-year-old Penrose and the 67-year-old Lasker saw the younger man grind out a victory with endgame technique. And Yanofsky, one of the favorites coming in, was sent below 50% by Fairhurst's patient play.

    <Round 5>

    Fairhurst 1/2 Wade; Lasker 1 Tylor; Medina Garcia 1 Golombek; Penrose 1 Blau; Seitz 0 Yanofsky

    <4.5>: Penrose; <3.5>: Medina Garcia; <3.0>: Blau, Golombek; <2.5>: Fairhurst, Yanofsky; <2.0>: Lasker, Wade; <1.5>: Tylor; <0.5>: Seitz

    Penrose soared into a full-point lead, taking out one of his closest pursuers by outclassing Blau while Golombek was falling to strong attacking play from Medina. Yanofsky, who had been averaging over 50 moves a game, upped that with a 74-mover against Seitz to finally score his first win.

    <Round 6>

    Blau 0 Lasker; Golombek 1 Penrose; Tylor 1/2 Fairhurst; Wade 1/2 Seitz; Yanofsky 1/2 Medina Garcia

    <4.5>: Penrose; <4.0>: Golombek, Medina Garcia; <3.0>: Blau, Fairhurst, Lasker, Yanofsky; <2.5>: Wade; <2.0>: Tylor; <1.0>: Seitz

    Obviously someone had to slow Penrose down, and Golombek took that little chore on himself by chipping away at a slightly weaker pawn formation. Yanofsky, for the 6th round in a row, played his longest game of the tournament so far, but Medina's knight and passed pawn held the draw against Yanofsky's rook (or was it the other way around?). Lasker got his second win in textbook fashion.

    <Round 7>

    Blau 1 Golombek; Lasker 0 Fairhurst; Medina Garcia 1 Wade; Penrose 0 Yanofsky; Seitz 1/2 Tylor

    <5.0>: Medina Garcia; <4.5>: Penrose; <4.0>: Blau, Fairhurst, Golombek, Yanofsky; <3.0>: Lasker; <2.5>: Tylor, Wade; <1.5>: Seitz

    Penrose's momentum was completely gone by now. After six rounds of increasingly longer games, Yanofsky switched gears and blew away the leader in just 27 moves with Black. But Golombek was unable to take advantage, as the given-up-for-dead Blau outplayed him and finished nicely. Medina thus vaulted into the lead with another strong game. Lasker was doing well against Fairhurst, but weakened as the game went on.

    In the last two rounds, Medina had Fairhurst and Tylor to play, not a demanding schedule. Penrose had an easier time with Tylor and Wade, but was staggering. The four-pointers probably had only a theoretical chance to catch up.

    <Round 8>

    Fairhurst 1/2 Seitz; Golombek 1 Lasker; Tylor 1 Medina Garcia; Wade 1/2 Penrose; Yanofsky 1 Blau

    <5.0>: Golombek, Medina Garcia, Penrose, Yanofsky; <4.5>: Fairhurst; <4.0>: Blau; <3.5>: Tylor; <3.0>: Lasker, Wade; <2.0>: Seitz

    Parity comes to Hastings! Tylor picked a fine time to get his first win, knocking off the leader in a B vs. N ending. Golombek hit Lasker with a few fancy dazzlers and cruised in the ending. Penrose recovered his equilibrium in a hard fight with Wade, while Yanofsky continued the return trip from nowhere after an obvious move from Blau turned into a mistake. Fairhurst had his chance to join the leaders, but could never get going against tail-ender Seitz's Budapest Defense.

    For the last round, co-leaders Yanofsky and Golombek would play, Medina took on Fairhurst, while young Penrose would contend with Tylor. Would they play safely or sharply?

    <Round 9>

    Blau 1/2 Wade; Golombek 1/2 Yanofsky; Lasker 1/2 Seitz; Medina Garcia 1/2 Fairhurst; Penrose 1/2 Tylor

    Dullsville, perhaps. But given the adventures of the previous rounds, it was more a case of discretion. The leaders played 11, 12, and 29 moves, and never strayed far from equality. The two oldest players put on the longest fight, Lasker and Seitz battling for 51 moves. table[
    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0
    1 Yanofsky * = = 1 0 1 = = = 1 5.5
    2 Medina Garcia = * 1 = = 0 0 1 1 1 5.5
    3 Golombek = 0 * 1 = 0 = 1 1 1 5.5
    4 Penrose 0 = 0 * 1 1 = = 1 1 5.5
    5 Fairhurst 1 = = 0 * = = = 1 = 5.0
    6 Blau 0 1 1 0 = * 1 = 0 = 4.5
    7 Tylor = 1 = = = 0 * = 0 = 4.0
    8 Wade = 0 0 = = = = * = = 3.5
    9 Lasker = 0 0 0 0 1 1 = * = 3.5
    10 Seitz 0 0 0 0 = = = = = * 2.5
    ]table

    45 games, 1952-1953

  5. Hastings 1958/59
    The 34th Hastings Chess Congress was held from Monday, December 29, 1958 through Wednesday, January 7, 1959. It has the distinction of being the last of the "lost" congresses, with only 13 of the 45 games available. Afterwards, much to the relief of collectors everywhere, all the games have been preserved.

    With no Soviet players participating, the list of players probably looks stronger today than it did at the time:

    Leonard Barden, Peter Hugh Clarke, Klaus Darga, Andreas Dueckstein, Geza Fuster, Erno Gereben, Lajos Portisch, Miroslav Radojcic, Wolfgang Uhlmann, Robert Wade

    Portisch and Uhlmann went on to become Candidates-level grandmasters, and Darga also achieved the GM title in 1964. At the time, however, they were merely promising young masters in their early 20s, though this would be one result that would presage the future.

    It was the veteran player IM Erno Gereben, at age 51, who took the early lead when Uhlmann and Portisch drew in the first round. He managed to stay on top with Uhlmann for a while, as Portisch took a couple of early draws and Darga couldn't build any momentum. However, in rounds 5 and 6 Gereben lost to both Portisch and Uhlmann, which took care of his chances.

    Portisch was finally in a winning groove, but was stuck a point behind Uhlmann who stayed ahead in the simplest way possible--winning seven games in a row from rounds 2-8. There's not much else to say after a performance like that.

    Since the game list is incomplete, here is a complete rundown of round-by-round results, with games in the database indicated by an asterisk (*). A nice game is Uhlmann vs K Darga, 1959 from round 7.

    <Round 1 (Monday, December 29, 1958)>: Barden 0 Gereben; Clarke 1/2 Dueckstein; Fuster 0 Darga; Portisch 1/2 Uhlmann; Radojcic 1/2 Wade

    <Round 2 (Tuesday, December 30, 1958)>: Barden 1/2 Fuster; Darga 0 Portisch*; Dueckstein 1 Radojcic*; Gereben 1/2 Wade; Uhlmann 1 Clarke*

    <Round 3 (Wednesday, December 31, 1958)>: Clarke 0 Darga*; Fuster 0 Gereben; Portisch 1/2 Barden; Radojcic 0 Uhlmann; Wade 0 Dueckstein*

    <Round 4 (Thursday, January 1, 1959)>: Barden 0 Clarke; Darga 1 Radojcic*; Fuster 1/2 Portisch; Gereben 1 Dueckstein*; Uhlmann 1 Wade*

    <Round 5 (Saturday, January 3, 1959)>: Clarke 1 Fuster; Dueckstein 0 Uhlmann; Portisch 1 Gereben; Radojcic 1 Barden; Wade 1 Darga

    <Round 6 (Sunday, January 4, 1959)>: Barden 0 Wade*; Darga 1 Dueckstein; Fuster 1 Radojcic; Gereben 0 Uhlmann*; Portisch 1 Clarke

    <Round 7 (Monday, January 5, 1959)>: Clarke 0 Gereben*; Dueckstein 1 Barden; Radojcic 0 Portisch; Uhlmann 1 Darga*; Wade 1/2 Fuster

    <Round 8 (Tuesday, January 6, 1959)>: Barden 0 Uhlmann*; Clarke 1 Radojcic; Fuster 0 Dueckstein; Gereben 1/2 Darga; Portisch 1 Wade;

    <Round 9 (Wednesday, January 7, 1959)>: Darga 1 Barden; Dueckstein 1/2 Portisch; Radojcic 0 Gereben; Uhlmann 1/2 Fuster; Wade 1/2 Clarke table[
    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0
    1 Uhlmann * = 1 1 1 1 1 = 1 1 8.0
    2 Portisch = * 1 1 = 1 1 = 1 = 7.0
    3 Gereben 0 0 * = 1 = 1 1 1 1 6.0
    4 Darga 0 0 = * 1 0 1 1 1 1 5.5
    5 Dueckstein 0 = 0 0 * 1 = 1 1 1 5.0
    6 Wade 0 0 = 1 0 * = = = 1 4.0
    7 Clarke 0 0 0 0 = = * 1 1 1 4.0
    8 Fuster = = 0 0 0 = 0 * 1 = 3.0
    9 Radojcic 0 0 0 0 0 = 0 0 * 1 1.5
    10 Barden 0 = 0 0 0 0 0 = 0 * 1.0
    ]table

    <ROUND-BY-ROUND SCORES> table[
    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 Uhlmann 0.5 1.5 2.5 3.5 4.5 5.5 6.5 7.5 8.0 2 Portisch 0.5 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.5 4.5 5.5 6.5 7.0 3 Gereben 1.0 1.5 2.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 4.5 5.0 6.0 4 Darga 1.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.5 5.5 5 Dueckstein 0.5 1.2 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 3.5 4.5 5.0 6 Wade 0.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 3.5 3.5 4.0 7 Clarke 0.5 0.5 0.5 1.2 2.5 2.5 2.5 3.5 4.0 8 Fuster 0.0 0.5 0.5 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.5 2.5 3.0 9 Radojcic 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 10 Barden 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 ]table

    13 games, 1958-1959

  6. Hastings 1960/61
    The 36th Hastings Congress featured these players:

    Leonard Barden Igor Bondarevsky Bernard Cafferty Peter Hugh Clarke Svetozar Gligoric Arnold Yorwarth Green John Littlewood Kenneth William Lloyd Bogdan Sliwa Laszlo Szabo

    The turning point came in round five. The three GMs (Gligoric, Bondarevsky and Szabo) were tied for first with 3 points, while IM Sliwa was just behind with 2.5. The round saw Bondarevsky drawn by tail-ender Cafferty and Szabo suffer defeat at the hands of Clarke, while Gligoric started a little three-game winning streak at the expense of Sliwa. Soon Gligoric had a full point lead, which he maintained until the end. table[
    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0
    1 Gligoric X = = = = 1 1 1 1 1 7.0
    2 Bondarevsky = X = 1 = = 1 1 = = 6.0
    3 Szabo = = X 0 0 = 1 1 1 = 5.0
    4 Lloyd = 0 1 X = = = = 1 = 5.0
    5 Clarke = = 1 = X = 0 = = = 4.5
    6 Littlewood 0 = = = = X = 0 1 1 4.5
    7 Barden 0 0 0 = 1 = X 1 = 1 4.5
    8 Sliwa 0 0 0 = = 1 0 X 1 1 4.0
    9 Green 0 = 0 0 = 0 = 0 X 1 2.5
    10 Cafferty 0 = = = = 0 0 0 0 X 2.0
    ]table

    <Progressive scores> table[
    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 Gligoric 0.5 1.5 2.5 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 6.5 7.0 2 Bondarevsky 0.5 1.0 2.0 3.0 3.5 4.0 5.0 5.5 6.0 3 Szabo 1.0 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.0 3.5 4.5 5.0 5.0 4 Lloyd 0.5 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 5.0 5 Clarke 0.5 1.0 1.0 1.5 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 6 Littlewood 0.5 1.5 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.5 3.5 4.0 4.5 7 Barden 0.5 0.5 1.5 1.5 2.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.5 8 Sliwa 0.0 0.5 1.5 2.5 2.5 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 9 Green 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 10 Cafferty 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.0 ]table

    45 games, 1960-1961

  7. Hastings 2000/01
    The 76th Hastings Christmas Congress was held from December 28, 2000-January 6, 2001, and featured these players:

    Levon Aronian Sergei Beshukov Klaus Bischoff Stuart Conquest Lubomir Ftacnik Daniel Gormally Harold James Plaskett Krishnan Sasikiran Jonathan Speelman Matthew James Turner.

    Sasikiran led most of the way, Conquest finally catching him at the last minute aided by a seventh-round win over Ftacnik. Matthew Turner's 3rd= finish represented his second GM norm, and featured a victory over GM Aronian. Plaskett's result was poor, but his games were uniformly interesting. table[
    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0
    1 Conquest * = 1 = = = = 1 = 1 6.0
    2 Sasikiran = * = = = = = 1 1 1 6.0
    3 Ftacnik 0 = * 1 = = 1 1 = = 5.5
    4 Turner = = 0 * 1 = = 1 = 1 5.5
    5 Aronian = = = 0 * = = = 1 1 5.0
    6 Speelman = = = = = * = 0 1 = 4.5
    7 Gormally = = 0 = = = * = 1 = 4.5
    8 Bischoff 0 0 0 0 = 1 = * 0 1 3.0
    9 Plaskett = 0 = = 0 0 0 1 * 0 2.5
    10 Beshukov 0 0 = 0 0 = = 0 1 * 2.5 ]table


    45 games, 2000-2001

  8. Hastings Christmas Congress (Tournament Index)
    Since 1920/21, the Hastings Christmas Congress has been the bane of PGN coders everywhere who can never agree on which year to use in the date field. Though rarely one of the strongest or most prestiguous tournaments, its longetivity and tradition made it into a treasured fixture.

    From 1920/21 through 2003/04, it was run in several sections. The highest (usually called the Premier) was an all-play-all (round robin) event in which several non-British masters mixed it up with the home contingent. The most important of the subsidiary events was the Premier Reserves, whose winner generally qualified for the next year's Premier.

    In 2004/05, the top section was run on a knock-out basis; since then, it has been a large Swiss known as the Hastings Masters.

    Generally, this index will link to game collections or tournament pages from the Premier Section of the Christmas Congress. Thanks to those collectors who have already started the good work of building the history of this event, particulary <suenteus po 147>,

    Here are the Hastings collections built so far. As others come into existence, they will be added to this index.

    -----------

    <1st: December 30, 1920 - January 5, 1921> table[
    Tournament page:
    Collection: Game Collection: Hastings 1920/21 (Phony Benoni); revision of an earlier collection by suenteur po 147) Notes: No game dates. 2 games are unavilable:

    table[
    Round 2: Griffith 1/2 Takins
    Round 5: Atkins 0 Griffith
    ]table

    ----------

    <2nd: December 26, 1921 - January 1, 1922>

    table[
    Tournament page: none
    Game collection: Game Collection: Hastings 1921/22 (suenteus po 147) Notes: No dates. 12 games are unavailable:

    Round 1: Mackenzie 1/2 Norman; Sergeant 1/2 O'Hanlon Round 2: Kostic 1 Sergeant; O'Hanlon 0 Mackenzie Round 3: Price 1 Norman; Yates 1 O'Hanlan
    Round 4: O'Hanlon 0 Price; Sergeant 1 Mackenzie
    Round 5: Mackenzie 1/2 Scott
    Round 6: Scott 1 O'Hanlon
    Round 7: Norman 0 Sergeant; Price 0 Mackenzie
    ]table

    ----------

    <3rd: December 27, 1922 - January 4, 1923>

    table[
    Tounament page: none
    Game collection: Game Collection: Hastings 1922/23 (suenteus po 147) Notes: No game dates. 16 games unavilable:

    Round 1: Drewitt 1/2 Norman
    Round 2: E Sergeant 1/2 Yates
    Round 3: Yates 1/2 Siegheim
    Round 4: P. Sergeant 1/2 Blake, Siegheim 1 E, Sergeant Round 5: Blake 1/2 Reti, E. Sergeant 1/2 Drewitt Round 6: E. Sergeant 1/2 Norman, P. Sergeant 0 Siegheim Round 7: Norman 1/2 P. Sergeant, Rubinstein 1/2 E. Sergeant Round 8: Conde 0 Siegheim, Drewitt 0 Yates, P. Sergeant 1/2 E. Sergeant Round 9: Blake 1/2 E. Sergeant, Yates 1/2 Rubinstein ]table

    ----------

    <4th December 27, 1923 - January 4, 1924>:

    table[
    Tournament page: Hastings (1923/24) Game collection: Game Collection: Hastings 1923/24 (suenteus po 147) ]table

    ----------

    <5th: December 27, 1924 - January 2, 1925>

    table[
    Tournament page: none
    Game collection: Game Collection: Hastings 1924/25 (suenteus po 147) Notes: No game dates. Playoff needs to be clarified, and possiby moved to another collection ]table

    ----------

    <6th: December 28, 1925 - January 5, 1926>

    table[
    Tournament page: Hastings (1925/26) Game collection:Game Collection: Hastings 1925/26 (suenteus po 147) Notes: 18 games unavailable:

    Round 1: Sergeant 1 Wahltuch
    Round 2: Janowski 1/2 Seitz, Michell 1 Colle, Vidmar 1 Sergeant, Yates 0 Norman Rounc 3: Yates 1/2 Sergeant
    Round 4: Colle 0 Seitz, Michell 1 NOrman,
    Round 5: Norman 0 Colle, Sergeant 0 Michell, Wahltuch 1/2 Janowski Round 6: Colle 1 Sergeant, Seitz 1 Norman
    Round 7: Sergeant 1/2 Seitz, Wahltuch 0 Collem Yates 1/2 Janowski Round 8: Michell 0 Yates, Norman 1 Sergeant, Colle 1/2 Sergeant
    ]table

    ----------

    <7th December 28, 1926 - January 6, 1927>

    table[
    Tournament page: Hastings (1926/27) Collection:; Game Collection: Hastings 1926/27 (suenteus po 147) ]table

    ----------

    <8th: December 28, 1927 - January 6, 1928>

    table[
    Tournament page: Hastings (1927/28) Game collection: Game Collection: Hastings 1927/28 (suenteus po 147) Notes: 20 games are unavailable:

    Round 1: Berger 1 Steiner, Kmoch 1/2 Colle, Sergeant 1/2 Michell Round 2: Thomas 0 Colle
    Round 3: Kmoch 1/2 Berger, Michell 1/2 Yates
    Round 4: Colle 1/2 Sergeant, Kmoch 1/2 Thomas, Tartakower 1/2 Michell Round 5: Berger 0 Thomas, Norman 0 Kmoch
    Round 6: Steiner 1 Michell
    Round 7: Michell 1 Kmoch, Norman 0 Berger, Yates 1/2 Steiner Round 8: Norman 0 Sergeant, Thomas 0 Michell
    Round 9: Michell 1 Norman, Sergeant 1/2 Berger, Tartakower 1/2 Kmoch ]table

    ----------

    <9th: December 27, 1928 - January 5, 1929>

    table[
    Tournament page: Hastings (1928/29) Game collection: Game Collection: Hastings 1928/29 (suenteus po 147) ]table

    ----------

    <10th; December 27, 1929 - January 4, 1930>

    table[
    Tournament page: Hastings (1929/30) Game collection: Game Collection: Hastings 1929/30 (suenteus po 147) = Hastings (1929/30) Notes: 20 games missing:

    Round 1: Menchik 0 Price, Sergeant 1/2 Yates
    Round 2: Maroczy 1/2 Menchik, Vidmar 1/2 Takacs, yates 1/2 Winter Round 3: Maroczy 1/2 Sergeant, Vidmar 1/2 Price
    Round 4: Price 1/2 Maroczy, Thomas 1/2 Yates
    Round 5: Maroczy 1/2 Vidmar, Takacs 1/2 Winter
    Round 6: Thomas 1/2 Takacs, yates 1 Price
    Round 7: Maroczy 1/2 Yates, Price 0 Winter
    Round 8: Takacs 1 Menchik, Thomas 1/2 Price, Winter 1/2 Maroczy Round 9: Maroczy 1/2 Thomas, Menchik 1/2 Sergeant ]table

    ----------

    <11th: December 29, 1930 - January 7, 1931>

    table[
    Touurnament page:Hastings (1930/31) Game collection: Game Collection: Hastings 1930/31 (suenteus po 147) Notes: 13 games unavilable:

    Round 1: Menchik 1/2 Yates
    Round 2: Michell 1 Thomas, Tylor 1/2 Winter
    Round 3: Menchik 1/2 Tylor, Thomas 1 Colle, Winter 1/2 Michell Round 4: Colle 1/2 Winter, Michell 1 Menchik
    Round 5: Menchik 0 Colle
    Round 6: Colle 1/2 Yates
    Round 7: Yates 1/2 Sultan Khan
    Round 8: Colle 1/2 Tylor, Winter 1 Menchik
    ]table

    ----------

    <12th: December 28, 1931 - January 6, 1932)>

    table[
    Tournament page: none
    Game collection: Game Collection: Hastings 1931/32 (Phony Benoni) No notes. The following 11 games are missing (colors uncertain)L

    Round 1: Michell 1/2 Jackson, Thomas 1 Yates
    Round 4: Menchik 1/2 Jackson
    Round 5: Sultan Khan 1/2 Kashdan
    Round 6: Thomas 0 Michell, Yates 1/2 Stoltz
    Round 8: Thomas 1/2 Stoltz, Yates 1 Sultan Khan Round 9: Menchik 1/2 Thomas, Michell 0 Sultan Khan, Stoltz 1/2 Kashdan ]table

    ----------

    13th (1932/33): Game Collection: Hastings 1932/33 (Phony Benoni)

    14th (1933/34): Game Collection: Hastings 1933/34 (Phony Benoni) = Hastings (1933/34)

    15th (1934/35): Game Collection: Hastings 1934/35 (Phony Benoni) = Hastings (1934/35)

    16th (1935/36): Game Collection: Hastings 1935/36 (Phony Benoni)

    17th (1936/37): Game Collection: Hastings 1936/37 (Phony Benoni) = Hastings (1936/37)

    18th (1937/38): Game Collection: Hastings 1937/38 (sneaky pete) = Hastings (1937/38)

    19th (1938/39): Game Collection: Hastings 1938/39 (sneaky pete) = Hastings (1938/39)

    20th (1939/40): Game Collection: Hastings 1939/40 (Phony Benoni) = Hastings (1939/40)

    21st (1945/46): Game Collection: Hastings 1945/46 (suenteus po 147)

    22nd (1946/47): Game Collection: Hastings 1946/47 (Phony Benoni) = Hastings (1946/47)

    23rd (1947/48): Game Collection: Hastings 1947/48 (Phony Benoni)

    24th (1948/49): Game Collection: Hastings 1948/49 (suenteus po 147)

    25th (1949/50): Game Collection: Hastings 1949/50 (suenteus po 147)

    26th (1950/51): Game Collection: Hastings 1950/51 (suenteus po 147)

    27th (1951/52): Game Collection: Hastings 1951/52 (suenteus po 147)

    28th (1952/53): Game Collection: Hastings 1952/53 (Phony Benoni) = Hastings (1952/53)

    29th (1953/54): Game Collection: Hastings 1953/54 (suenteus po 147)

    30th (1954/55): Game Collection: Hastings 1954/55 (suenteus po 147) = Hastings (1954/55)

    31st (1955/56): Game Collection: Hastings 1955/56 (suenteus po 147)

    32nd (1956/57): Game Collection: Hastings 1956/57 (suenteus po 147) = Hastings (1956/57)

    33rd (1957/58): Game Collection: Hastings 1957/58 (suenteus po 147) = Hastings (1957/58)

    34th (1958/59): Game Collection: Hastings 1958/59 (Phony Benoni) = Hastings (1958/59)

    35th (1959/60): Game Collection: Hastings 1959/60 (suenteus po 147)

    36th (1960/61): Game Collection: Hastings 1960/61 (Phony Benoni)

    37th (1961/62): Game Collection: Hastings 1961/62 (suenteus po 147)

    38th (1962/63): Game Collection: Hastings 1962/63 (suenteus po 147)

    39th (1963/64): Game Collection: Hastings 1963/64 (suenteus po 147)

    40th (1964/65):

    41st (1965/66):

    42nd (1966/67): Game Collection: Hastings 1966/67 (suenteus po 147)

    43rd (1967/68): Game Collection: Hastings 1967/68 (suenteus po 147)

    44th (1968/69): Game Collection: Hastings 1968/69 (suenteus po 147)

    45th (1969/70): Game Collection: Hastings 1969/70 (1970) (Chessical; waiting for one game)

    46th (1970/71): Game Collection: Hastings 1970/71 (suenteus po 147)

    47th (1971/72): Game Collection: Hastings 1971/72 (suenteus po 147) = Hastings (1971/72)

    48th (1972/73):

    49th (1973/74): Game Collection: Hastings 1973/74 (suenteus po 147)

    50th (1974/75):

    51st (1975/76):

    52nd (1976/77):

    53rd (1977/78): Game Collection: Hastings 1977/78 (suenteus po 147)

    54th (1978/79):

    55th (1979/80):

    56th (1980/81):

    57th (1981/82):

    58th (1982/83):

    59th (1983/84):

    60th (1984/85):

    61st (1985/86):

    62nd (1986/87):

    63rd (1987/88):

    64th (1988/89):

    65th (1989/90):

    66th (1990/91):

    67th (1991/92):

    68th (1992/93): Game Collection: Hastings 1992/93 (suenteus po 147)

    69th (1993/94):

    70th (1994/95):

    71st (1995/96):

    72nd (1996/97):

    73rd (1997/98): Game Collection: Hastings Premier 1997/8 (protean) = Hastings (1997/98)

    74th (1998/99): Game Collection: Hastings Premier 1998/9 (protean) = Hastings (1998/99)

    75th (1999/2000):

    76th (2000/01): Game Collection: Hastings 2000/01 (Phony Benoni) = Hastings (2000/01)

    77th (2001/02): Game Collection: Hastings Premier 2001/2 (protean)

    78th (2002/03): Hastings (2002/03)

    79th (2003/04): Hastings (2003/04))

    80th (2004/05):

    81st (2005/06): Hastings (2005/06)

    82nd (2006/07): Hastings (2006/07)

    83rd (2007/08): Hastings (2007/08)

    84th (2008/09): Hastings (2008/09)

    85th (2009/10): Hastings (2009/10)

    86th (2010/11):

    87th (2011/12): Hastings (2011/12)

    88th (2012/13): Hastings (2012/13)

    Finally, here are several major events held in Hastings which are generally known as "Summer Congresses":

    1895: Game Collection: Hastings 1895 (Benzol) = Hastings (1895)

    1919: Game Collection: Hastings 1919 (Phony Benoni) = Hastings (1919)

    1922: Game Collection: Hastings 1922 (suenteus po 147) = Hastings (1922)

    4 games, 1920-2009

  9. Hostdans Veterans vs Ladies 1997
    This installment of the annual competition between teams drawn from the best women players and a group of legendary veterans, was held in Copenhagen from July 15-27, 1997. The teams were:

    <Women>
    Ketevan Arakhamia-Grant, Pia Cramling, Nana Ioseliani, Jun Xie, Chen Zhu

    <Veterans>
    Vlastimil Hort, HLajos Portisch Vasily Smyslov, Boris Spassky, Mark Taimanov

    The tournament format was a double-round Scheveningen, each players having two games against each player from the other team. All players from each team had the same color each round; for example, all the Veterans had White in round 1, all the Women had White in round 2.

    table[
    ------------------- Smyslov,V 2480 6.5 | --------------- Portisch,L 2610 6.0 | | ----------- Hort,V 2510 5.5 | | | ------- Taimanov,M 2425 4.5 | | | | --- Spassky,B 2550 4.5 | | | | | Total 27.0 1 Arakhamia,K 2430 11 01 0= 1= =0 5.5 2 Cramling,P 2520 == == =0 1= == 5.0 3 Xie Jun 2505 00 1= =1 =0 1= 5.0 4 Zhu Chen 2515 00 00 =1 1= == 4.0 5 Ioseliani,N 2520 0= 0= =0 =0 =1 3.5 Total 23.0 ]table

    The competition was closer than the four-point margin would indicate. After six rounds the women were actually a point ahead, but them the Legends did what Legends do, winning the last four rounds to win going away.

    <Round by Round scores>

    table[
    Women 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Total Arakhamia-Grant 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 0.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 5.5 Cramling 1.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.5 5.0 Xie Jun 1.0 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 1.0 5.0 Zen Chu 0.5 0.5 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.0 4.0 Ioseliani 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.0 1.0 0.5 0.0 3.5 Team Total 2.5 3.5 2.5 1.5 2.0 3.5 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.5 23.0 ]table

    table[
    Veterans 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Total Smyslov 1.0 0.5 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.5 0.5 0.0 1.0 1.0 6.5 Portisch 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 0.5 0.5 6.0 Hort 0.5 0.5 0.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.5 0.0 5.5 Taimanov 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 1.0 0.5 1.0 4.5 Spassky 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 4.5 Team Total 2.5 1.5 2.5 3.5 3.0 1.5 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.5 27.0 ]table

    -----

    <Progressive Scores>

    table[
    Women 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Arakhamia-Grant 0.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 2.5 3.5 4.0 5.0 5.5 5.5 Cramling 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.0 4.5 5.0 Xie Jun 1.0 2.0 2.5 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 Zen Chu 0.5 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.5 3.5 4.0 4.0 Ioseliani 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.5 3.5 Team Total 2.5 6.0 8.5 10.0 12.0 15.5 17.5 19.5 21.5 23.0 ]table

    table[
    Veterans 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Smyslov 1.0 1.5 1.5 2.5 3.5 4.0 4.5 4.5 5.5 6.5 Portisch 1.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 3.5 3.5 4.0 5.0 5.5 6.0 Hort 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.5 3.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 5.5 5.5 Taimanov 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 3.0 3.5 4.5 Spassky 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.0 3.5 4.5 Team Total 2.5 4.0 6.5 10.0 13.0 14.5 17.5 20.5 23.5 27.0 ]table

    -----

    <Sources>

    "This Week In Chess", no. 142. July 28, 1997.


    50 games, 1997

  10. Instructive Positions from Master Chess
    Compiled and lightly annotated by Jacques Mieses, the book was originally published in England around the time of his emigration in 1938. It contains 125 positions with striking continuations, taken from actual play.

    Well, almost. He sneaks in the Saavedra position at #99 as an actual game between Fenton and Potter. You know the one I'm talking about:


    click for larger view

    In case you don't know what I'm talking about, try to figure out how White wins this. Once you've done that, look again and find the <real> win.

    History might not be Mieses' strongest point, but his notes are pithy and his style amusing.

    85 games, 1851-1937

  11. Interzonal 1970 (Palma de Mallorca)
    The 1970 Interzonal was held in Palma de Mallorca from November 9-December 12 1970, and was the last Interzonal held as a one-section round robin. With the tournament swelling to 24 players and further expansion on the way, future changes were inevitable. These were the players who fought it out, the usual mixture of super grandmasters, strong players not quite at their peak in either direction, and total outsiders.

    William Addison, Miroslav Filip, Bobby Fischer, Efim Geller, Svetozar Gligoric, Vlastimil Hort, Robert Huebner, Borislav Ivkov, Eleazar Jimenez Zerquera, Bent Larsen, Milan Matulovic, Henrique Mecking, Dragoljub Minic, Renato Naranja, Oscar Panno, Lev Polugaevsky, Lajos Portisch, Samuel Reshevsky, Jorge Rubinetti, Vasily Smyslov, Duncan Suttles, Mark Taimanov, Wolfgang Uhlmann, Tudev Ujtumen

    Ujtumen from Mongolia, about as outside as an outsider could get, actually held the lead by himself after round 3. However, reality and Robert J. Fischer set in, as the American quickly soared to a dominating position. The other contenders didn't worry about it too much; after all, you only had to finish in the top six to qualify for the Candidates, and there was even a seventh spot open for a reserve. So they played it safe, while Fischer kept working hard.

    At the quarter pole following round 6, Fischer had 5.5 points and a 1.5 point lead on Geller, Gligoric, Larson, Panno, and Ujtumen. But then came a bad stretch: he managed to draw lost positions in round 7 and 8, but Larsen didn't let him off the hook in round 9. By now the lead had vanished, as Geller joined Fischer at the top with 6.5.

    That led to the critical round 12 encounter between the leaders, Geller holding a half-point lead and playing the White pieces. Any normal grandmaster, when Geller offered an early draw, would have accepted to get an easy half-point closer to qualification. Fischer, hungry for a win after five rounds without one, refused angrily.

    Geller played inaccurately and lost a pawn, but got into a difficult rook ending. Eventually, a hallucination and a final mistake sealed his fate, and Fischer took the lead. The rest was a matter of technique: Fischer won two more in a row, took a couple of draws for a breather, then started his famous streak with full points in his last seven games.

    There was plenty of action for the other qualifying spots, though. When Fischer began his streak in round 17, he had 11.5 points to Geller's 11.0 while Uhlmann had 10.5, and Taimanov 10.0. Trailing were were Gligoric, Huebner, Larsen, and Polugaevsky with 9.5, plus Mecking, Panno and Polugaevsky with 9.0.

    Geller played solidly the rest of the way, making sure of qualifying without trouble. Uhlmann and Taimanov both faded a bit (and played Fischer along the way), while Larsen and Huebner went on winning streaks and Smyslov came out of nowhere back into contention. Going into what became a controversial last round, these were the standings:

    <17.5>: Fischer

    <15.0>: Huebner

    <14.5>: Geller

    <14.0>: Larsen

    <13.0>: Taimanov, Uhlmann

    <12.5>: Gligoric, Panno, Polugaevsky, Portisch, Smyslov

    <12.0>: Mecking

    Remember, the top six qualify for the Candidates, with a seventh spot available for a reserve (and with the unpredictable Fischer in the mix, that could well become valuable). Fischer, Huebner, Geller and Larsen were sure qualifiers. Taimanov and Uhlmann could be sure of qualifying with a win, but should either fail any of the 12.5s could find leap ahead and even Mecking had a theoretical chance.

    Uhlmann had white against an outsider in Naranja, and got his point without too much trouble. Taimanov had the theoretically tougher game, but the kibitzing Taimanov vs Matulovic, 1970 discusses the rumors that Matulovic's pocketbook was on steroids. That still left the reserve spot, with Portisch and Smyslov winning their games while Gligoric and Polugaevsky drew and Panno was scheduled to play Black against Fischer.

    But Panno refused to play. The games of the last round were scheduled for 4:00 PM Saturday, but Fischer and Reshevsky were allowed to start at 7:00 PM for religious reasons. Panno felt this was particularly unfair in the last round, because some players might have an advantage from knowing the results of earlier games.

    This was a particularly selfless protest, since Panno himself was the only player who could have benefitted from that information. However, he stuck to his guns even after Fischer urged him to play, and did no more than actually come to the board and resign in person rather than forfeit. For more discussion, see the kibitizing to Fischer vs Panno, 1970.

    The only unfinished business was a playoff match betweeen Portisch and Smyslov for the reserve spot played in Portoroz in 1971. This was drawn, and Portisch was awarded the consolation prize due to better tiebreaks from the tournament.

    1 Fischer 18.5/23 * 0 1 = 1 1 = 1 = 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 = 1 1 = = 1 =

    2 Larsen 15.0/23 1 * = = 0 1 = = = = 1 1 0 = = 1 = 1 = 1 1 = 1 =

    3 Geller 15.0/23 0 = * 1 = 1 = 1 = = = 1 = = 1 = 1 = = = 1 1 = =

    4 Huebner 15.0/23 = = 0 * = 1 = 0 = = 0 = = 1 = 1 1 1 1 = 1 1 1 1

    5 Taimanov 14.0/23 0 1 = = * = = = = = = 0 = 0 1 1 = 1 = 1 = 1 1 1

    6 Uhlmann 14.0/23 0 0 0 0 = * 1 = = 1 = = 1 = 0 1 = 1 1 = 1 1 1 1

    7 Portisch 13.5/23 = = = = = 0 * = 0 1 = 1 1 = = = 1 = = 1 = 1 1 0

    8 Smyslov 13.5/23 0 = 0 1 = = = * 1 = = 0 = = = = = = 1 1 = 1 1 1

    9 Polugaevsky 13.0/23 = = = = = = 1 0 * = 1 = = = = 1 0 = 1 1 = = = =

    10 Gligoric 13.0/23 0 = = = = 0 0 = = * 1 = 1 = 1 = = 1 0 = 1 = 1 1

    11 Panno 12.5/23 0 0 = 1 = = = = 0 0 * = = = 1 1 = = = = 1 1 = 1

    12 Mecking 12.5/23 0 0 0 = 1 = 0 1 = = = * 1 = = = = 0 = = 1 1 1 1

    13 Hort 11.5/23 0 1 = = = 0 0 = = 0 = 0 * 1 = 1 = = = = 1 = 1 =

    14 Ivkov 10.5/23 0 = = 0 1 = = = = = = = 0 * = = 0 = = = = 1 = =

    15 Suttles 10.0/23 0 = 0 = 0 1 = = = 0 0 = = = * 0 = = 1 = 0 1 = 1

    16 Minic 10.0/23 0 0 = 0 0 0 = = 0 = 0 = 0 = 1 * 1 = = = 1 = 1 1

    17 Reshevsky 9.5/23 0 = 0 0 = = 0 = 1 = = = = 1 = 0 * = = = 0 0 = 1

    18 Matulovic 9.0/23 = 0 = 0 0 0 = = = 0 = 1 = = = = = * = = 0 0 = 1

    19 Addison 9.0/23 0 = = 0 = 0 = 0 0 1 = = = = 0 = = = * = 0 0 1 1

    20 Filip 8.5/23 0 0 = = 0 = 0 0 0 = = = = = = = = = = * = 1 = 0

    21 Naranja 8.5/23 = 0 0 0 = 0 = = = 0 0 0 0 = 1 0 1 1 1 = * 0 0 1

    22 Ujtumen 8.5/23 = = 0 0 0 0 0 0 = = 0 0 = 0 0 = 1 1 1 0 1 * 1 =

    23 Rubinetti 6.0/23 0 0 = 0 0 0 0 0 = 0 = 0 0 = = 0 = = 0 = 1 0 * 1

    24 Jimenez-Zerquera 5.5/23 = = = 0 0 0 1 0 = 0 0 0 = = 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 = 0 *

    276 games, 1970

  12. Janowski Exhibition Series at Manhattan CC, 1899
    In January, 1899, after the conclusion of Janowski - Showalter, 1st Match (1898) and Janowski - Marshall, 1st Match (1899), David Janowski began a series of one-on-one exhibition games against the top players of the Manhattan Chess Club. The "New York Sun" for Sunday, January 22, 1899 reported:

    "Janowski will begin playing his series of fourteen games against the first-class players of the Manhattan Chess Club tomorrow evening. For the week the schedule will be as follows: M9onday at 8 o'clock, L. Schmidt, ex-champion of the club; Tuesday evening, Phil Richardson; Wednesday evening, Dr. Isaacson; Thursday afternoon at 3 o'clock, Major Hanham; and on Friday evening the well-known amateur Schroeter."

    The time limit was twenty moves an hour, though this could be changed on request and does not appear to have been strictly enforced in any event. A toss for color was made at the beginning of each game.

    Eventually fifteen games were played from January 23 to February 7, with Janowski conceding only one draw in the series.

    <Game 1, Monday, January 23. Janowski 1 Schmidt>

    "The first of a series of fourteen games on even terms between Janowski and the crack players of the Manhattan Chess Club was decided at the clubrooms last evening, when ex-champion Louis Schmidt was pitted against the Parisian. According to arrangements the games are to be played at a time limit of twenty moves an hour, but by request of Schmidt the time limit in this case was agreed upon to forty moves in two hours. Janowski won the toss and selected the white pieces. The local player adopted the Dutch Defence against P-Q4, a defence which is not much liked by experts. In fact Tarrasch, upon one occasion, condemned it as weak. As early as the tenth move White began pressing his plan, and eventually won a pawn. Later on black sacrificed a piece for two pawns for the attack, but Janowski's twenty-fourth move settled the game, for one move later Schmidt resigned, as he could not any further prevent the threatening mate."

    Report: New York Sun, January 24, 1899
    Times: 20 moves: 0:25-1:50; Final: 0:30-1:51
    Score: New York Sun, January 24, 1899

    <Game 2, Tuesday, January 24. Richardson 0 Janowski>

    "Janowski, the Parisian chess player, was pitted against Philip Richardson, the Brooklyn expert and an honorary member of the Manhattan Chess Club, at the rooms of the latter club, on Tuesday night. It was the second game of the series of fourteen which Janowski will have to play on even terms. After sixty-two moves Richardson resigned early yesterday morning."

    Report: New York Sun, January 26, 1899
    Times: Final: 2:44-1:56
    Score: New York Sun, January 26, 1899

    <Game 3, Wednesday, January 25. Janowski 1 Isaacson>

    "In the third game Dr. Isaacson met Janowski. The latter opened with the Ruy Lopez. Isaacson selected a weak defence, names ...QPXB,. He soon lost the exchange and after his twenty-first move was mated."

    Report: New York Sun, January 26, 1899
    Times: Final: Move 20, 0:19-0:15; Final, 0:20-0:16
    Score: New York Sun, January 26, 1899

    <Game 4, Thursday, January 26. Janowski 1 Hanham>

    "Major Hanham was Janowski's opponent yesterday afternoon at the Manhattan Chess Club. The latter won the toss and opened with the Spanish attack, to which Hanham selected the Berliner Defense. All went well in the opening, but later on Janowski got the pull and won a pretty game after thirty-four moves.

    Report: New York Sun, January 27, 1899
    Times: Final: Move 20, 0:39-0:41; Final, 1;05-1:12
    Score: New York Sun, January 27, 1899

    <Game 5, Friday, January 27: Schroeter 0 Janowski>

    "Janowski met the well-known Munich artist, Schroeter, last night at the Manhattan Chess Club. Schroeter won the toss and offered a queen's pawn opening. He moved rapidly, played cleverly, and after the sacrifice of a rook got into a position that would have insured him a draw. He was not content with this, however, and although he won a bishop later on he resigned after forty-five moves."

    Report: "New York Sun, January 28, 1899
    Times: Move 20, 0:07-0:44; Final, 0:21-1:45
    Score: "New York Sun, January 29, 1899

    <Game 6, Sunday, January 29: Janowski 1 Delmar>

    "The sixth game of the 14th to be played between Janowski and members of the Manhattan Chess Club was decided yesterday afternoon. Eugene Delmar was the Parisian's opponent. On losing the toss for the move, Mr. Delmar adopted a French Defence in answer to Janowski's P-K4. The game was rather interesting from the start, and after black's fifteenth move, P-K4, it seemed it seemed as if the local player had the superior position. This he maintained up the twenty-eighth move, when he allowed Janowski to proceed with a fine combination, which led to Delmar's resignation after thirty-four moves."

    Report: "New York Sun, January 30, 1899
    Times: Move 20, 0:36-0:21; Final, 1:18-1:05
    Score: "New York Sun, January 30, 1899

    <Game 7, Monday, January 30. Van der Werra 0 Janowski>

    "Muller Van Der Werra was the seventh of the Manhattan Chess Club who tried conclusions with the Parisian player, Janowski, at the clubrooms yesterday evening. Van Der Werra won the toss, and on opening with P-K4 the Parisian adopted the Sicilian Defence. Pieces were freely exchanged, and even the queens went off the board, but black managed to isolate his adversary's queen's pawn, and he also had the advantage of remaining with two bishops against bishop and knight for the end game. Eventually Janowski won a pawn, and after fifty moves Van Der Werra resigned."

    Report: "New York Sun, January 31, 1899
    Times: Move 20, 0:48-0:12; Move 40, 1:56-0:27; ; Final, 2:07-0:29.
    Score: "New York Sun, January 31, 1899

    <Game 8, Tuesday, January 31: Janowski 1 Bostwick>

    "Janowski contested the eighth game of the series against the crack players of the Manhattan Chess Club yesterday afternoon when the young and talented member, O. M. Bostwick, met the Parisian. The latter won the toss, and, on opening with P-K4, black adopted the French Defence as second player. Both contestants deviated from the book moves as early as on the seventh move, but while white seemed to be able to freely develop his pieces black got into a very cramped position. Although the latter made no palpable error, either in the opening or middle stages of the game, the Parisian quietly pressed his attack without gaining in material. Beginning with 20.P-KKt4 white had his plan well made, and in spite of the fact that Bostwick seemed to make the best move whenever it was his turn to play, all the experts present saw an early finish of the game in favor of Janowski. Black now took the king's bishop's pawn, whereupon the Parisian announced a mate in five moves, beginning with RxPch."

    Report: "New York Sun, February 1, 1899
    Times: Move 20, 0:07-0:44; Final, 0:21-1:45
    Score: "New York Sun", February 1, 1899

    <Game 9, Wednesday, February 1: Janowski 1 D. G. Baird>

    "D. G Baird contested his game of the series of fourteen against Janowski at the Manhattan Chess Club yesterday. The latter won the toss, and Baird selected the Petroff's Defence. This opening, however, was at once transformed into a regular Four Knights Game by the contestants. The opening and middle game stages became highly interesting, as the <partie> was played on rather novel lines. After about fifteen moves Janowski began an attack on the king side., when his adversary had castled. Little by little he managed to block Baird's position, and with his twenty-fourth P-Kt4 it there seemed as if there was no satisfactory defence for black, inasmuch as he could not possibly prevent the threatening advance of his opponent's pawns, However, Baird fought on gamely up to his thirty-eighth move, but had to resign after the rejoinder of white. Janowski played the game with very fine judgment throughout."

    Report: "New York Sun, February 2, 1899
    Times: Move 20, 0:23-0:55; Final, 0:37-1:49
    Score: "New York Sun", February 2, 1899

    <Game 10, Thursday, February 2: Janowski 1/2 De Visser>

    "The tenth game of the series of fourteen was played by Janowski against William de Visser at the Manhattan Chess Club last evening. The Parisian won the toss, and on opening with P-K4 de Visser selected the Sicilian Defence. White at once introduced novel features into the opening, which made matters rather complicated shortly after the start. A sensation followed after Janowski gave up a knight after his eighth move, for not one of the experts presents could uneerstand this procedure. De Visser took the knight and interesting developments were looked for. It must be added, however, that black had to forego the right of castling, as he had moved his king on his seventh move. Minus the piece white tried some very ingenious schemes to press the attack, but up to the twenty-third move the defence was very good, and De Visser maintained his numerical advantage. At his next turn black started aggressive movements on the queen's side of the board. Later on De Visser lost his bishop, and after fifty moves the game was drawn."

    Report: "New York Sun, Friday, February 3, 1899
    Times: Move 20: 0:38-1:01; Move 40, 1:05-1:52; Final, 1:15-1:58
    Score: "New York Sun, Sunday, February 5, 1899)

    <Game 11: Friday, February 3: Koehler 0 Janowski>

    "Gus Koehler, the State champion, met Janowski in the eleventh game of the series of fourteen at the Manhattan Chess Club last night. The former won the toss for move, and in reply to P-K4 the Parisian adopted the Sicilian Defence. White continued with the variation 6.K Kt-Kt 5, a continuation which Janowski adopted against De Visser. Nothing in particular happened until the thirteenth move of black, when Janowski took a knight with his king, thereby foregoing the right of castling. A few moves later while overlooked a rather simple combination which lost him his valuable king's pawn. Soon after this contretemps black began advancing his pawns on the king's side and centre of the board, and it became them only a matter of time for the Parisian to win the game, for he had established two joined pawns on the king's and queen's files, Finally, Koehler lost the exchanges and after forty-one moves the game."

    Report: "New York Sun, February 4, 1899
    Times: Move 20, 0:55-0:25; Move 40, 1:54-0:43; Final, 1:56-0L46
    Score: "New York Sun, February 4, 1899

    <Game 12, Saturday, February 4, 1899: Janowski 1 Simonson>

    "Gus Simonson was Janowski's opponent in the twelfth game of the series, played at the Manhattan Chess Club yesterday afternoon. The Parisian offered a Queen's Gambit, which Black declined to accept. The latter castled on his sixth move, while White left his king on his original square, and very soon he began an attack on the king's side. At first Simonson defended pretty cleverly, but after twenty moves it seemed as if Janowski would succeed with his aggression tactics, having secured an open file for the rook, while his queen was also well placed for action. Only three moves later Black took a pawn with his queen, and after the Parisian had a forced win, so Simonson resigned after the thirtieth move of White."

    Report: "New York Sun, February 5, 1899
    Times: Move 20, 0:15-0:51; Final, 0:31-1:33
    Score: "New York Sun, February 5, 1899

    <Game 13, Sunday, February 5, 1899. Lipschutz 0 Janowski>

    "Play in the series of exhibition games between Janowski and members of the Manhattan Chess Club was resumed yesterday afternoon, when the noted local crack Lipschutz was scheduled to meet the Parisian. This context created unusual excitement, and at times nearly fifty amateurs were following the progress of the game. Lipschutz won the toss and selected the Queen's Gambit, which Janowski declined to accept. The opening moves were made rapidly and on lines well known to experts. White maintained the attack to the seventeenth move, when he threatened to capture the queen's rook's pawn. Black's rejoinder, 17...B-B3, still left that piece to be taken, but a glance at the board showed that Lipschutz could not get it, as 18...R-R would have won the queen. A few moves later, black became aggressive by pushing his queen's pawn to its fifth square. He then threatened to take the rook and also exchange the knight for bishop with good chances of an attack. White took a long time considering his answer. When it came it was found that he had temporarily given up his knight and won a pawn. This seemed at the time to be a superior position. However, the spectators were treated to a fine bit of strategy on the part of Janowski. He obtained a passed queen's pawn, which he which he advanced to the seventh square, and by good play won a rook. Then Lipschutz resigned."

    Report: "New York Sun, February 6, 1899
    Times: Move 20, 0:38-0:28; Final, 1:17-0:38
    Score: "New York Sun, February 5, 1899

    <Game 14, Monday, February 6, 1899: Hodges 0 Janowski>

    "A. B. Hodges, the well-known local chess player, met Janowski in the fourteenth game of the series at the Manhattan Chess Club yesterday. Considering the Hodges is a likely winner of the championship tournament now in progress at the club, there was a large attendance of members and their friends. Hodges won the toss, and in reply to P-K4 black adopted the Sicilian Defence. Janowski compelled Hodges to resign after thirty-seven moves.."

    Report: "New York Sun", February 7, 1899
    Times: Move 20, 0:41-0:25; Final, 1:59-0:46
    Score: "New York Sun", February 7 1899

    <Game 15, Tuesday, February 7, 1899: Hymes 0 Janowski>

    Throughout, the series had consistently been advertised as being of 14 games. Then, in a note following the score of the Hodges game, The Sun casually announced that "Janowski will play Eddie Hymes tonight." The game was not printed in the Sun, but there is a report in the "American Chess Magazine" and <mifralu> has located the score in the "Brooklyn Daily Standard- Union" of February 8, 1899 (available through <jnpope>'s 'Chess Archaeology" site at (http://www.chessarch.com/excavation...).

    Report: "American Chess Magazine", March 1899, p. 395
    Times: Move 20, 1:15-0:15; Move 40, 1:45-0:30; Final, 2:11-0:35
    Score: Brooklyn Daily Standard-Union, February 8, 1899

    ---------

    Articles in the "New York Sun" covering this match were accessed through the Library of Congress' "Chronicling America" site at http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/ .

    I have compared the scores in the Sun with those available at http://www.365chess.com/tournaments....

    15 games, 1899

  13. Janowski vs. Marshall Matches
    <"Although not always successful, there are no more interesting chess masters to be found at the present day than the American champion, Frank J. Marshall, and the Franco-Polish expert, D. Janowski. A careful perusal of the games they played at Biarritz will show that these men do not believe in waiting tactics. Neither of them expects his adversary to beat himself, but they go hammer and tongs at each other and do not mind the consequences. Their object seems solely to be to create complicated and exciting positions and thus make it worth their while to fight.> ["New York Sun", October 6, 1912, commenting on the fourth Janowski - Marshall match]

    <Match 1: New York, 1899>

    A match rivalry lasting almost two decades started immediately after the conclusion of Janowski - Showalter, 1st Match (1898), as David Janowski began a scheduled series of five games for a nominal stake with Frank Marshall, champion of the Brooklyn Chess Club. The player who first scored three points would win the match.

    table[
    1 2 3 4
    Janowski 0 1 1 1 3.0
    Marshall 1 0 0 0 1.0
    ]table
    [Janowski had White in the odd-numbered games.]

    The match was played January 18-21, 1899. Only four games were contested, as Janowski swept the last three after Marshall pulled off a surprising victory in the first game. The third game was played at the Brooklyn Chess Club, the others at the Manhattan Chess Club.

    <Source>: "American Chess Magazine", February 1899, p.370.

    *****

    <Match 2: Paris, 1905>

    Following the tournament at Cambridge Springs in 1904, where Marshall came out the victor and Janowski tied for 2nd, there was much interest in arranging a match between the two--not just for its intrisic interest, but as a possible precursor to a challenge to Lasker. This came about in Paris from January 24-March 7, 1905.

    The conditions of the match were published in the British Chess Magazine for February, 1905:

    <"The stakes of 500 dollars each side to be deposited with the President of the Philidor Chess Club. The victory to be decided by attaining the score of eight won games, drawn games not counting. If the scores should be seven each, the match will be prolonged until one of the players wins ten games, which will then be decisive. If the scores come to nine each, the match will be declared drawn.

    "Three games will be played each week, on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays, from 1:30 p.m. to 6 p.m., and from 8:30 p.m. till midnight. Unfinished games will be resumed the next day at the same hours. The time limit is 30 moves in the first two hours, and 15 moves per hour afterwards.">

    Later, a clause was added allowing each player one postponement, Marshall taking advantage of this on February 4th due to a severe cold.

    The match was played in a small room at the Philidor Club of Paris to which only the players, their witnesses, and the director were admitted. Moves were displayed on a large board in the lobby for the public's behalf.

    The play saw Marshall twice pop out to two-point leads, and Janowski come back to tie the score. Then Marshall popped out to a three-point lead, which soon settled the matter.

    table[
    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Marshall 1 1 0 = 0 = 1 1 0 0 1 = 1 1 = 0 1 10.0 Janowski 0 0 1 = 1 = 0 0 1 1 0 = 0 0 = 1 0 7.0 ]table
    [Marshall had White in the odd-numbered games.]

    An additional game, played a week after the match ended for a separate stake of 500 francs (300 to the winner, 200 to the loser), was provided by Janowski's patron, Leo Nardus. This game, won by Janowski, is sometimes included as part of this match. See Janowski vs Marshall, 1905.

    Janowski accepted the defeat with his usual good grace:

    <"Mr. F. J. Marshall, Paris

    DEAR Sir:--I consider that the result of our match far from proving our respective abilities. On the contrary, as in the great majority of games I allowed the 'win or draw' to escape me, I am persuaded that normally I should have won very easily.

    "I therefore challenge you to a return match on the following conditions:--The first winner of ten games to be declared the winner, draws not to count. I also offer you the advantage of four points: that is to say, my first four wins are not to count. Stakes are not to exceed 5,000 francs. JANOWSKI">

    Foolhardy, to say the least. When the rematch was finally played three years later, Janowski won by only three points.

    <Sources>:
    "American Chess Bulletin", February 1905, p. 24-26.

    "British Chess Magazine", February 1905, p.59 ; March 1905, p. 105.

    "Marshall v. Janowski : the games of the Paris match" with notes by F.J. Marshall; reprinted from the Manchester Guardian. Kegan Paul, 1905. Available at: http://books.google.com/books?id=rZ...

    *****

    <Match 3: Suresnes, 1908>

    table[
    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
    Janowski 1 1 = 1 = 0 0 = 1 1 6.5
    Marshall 0 0 = 0 = 1 1 = 0 0 3.5
    ]table
    [Marshall had White in the odd-numbered games]

    What had been a much anticipated rematch turned out to be a private affair, held at the house of noted chess patron Leo Nardus in the Parisian suburb of Suresnes from January 17-February 4, 1908. Marshall was never able to recover from losing the first two games, and Janowski scored the match by 5 games to 2, with 3 drawn.

    <Source>: "American Chess Bulletin", March 1908, p.48; June 1908, p. 118.

    *****

    <Match 4: Biarritz, 1912>

    Well, maybe it was. The "New York Sun" of September 22, 1912, has this interesting passage:

    <"When writing to a friend in this city Marshall distinctly states this this is not a match at all, that at the request of M. Nardus of Paris the masters were asked to play a series of ten exhibition games, the Parisian Maecenas paying a fee for each game. Both players consider these games good practice for the forthcoming New York-Havana Congress.">

    This sounds much like the 1908 match, a series of ten games played at the home of Nardus. This time he sweetened the pot a bit with a trip to the resort of Biarritz in southwestern France.

    All the game dates have not yet been found. Reports in the New York papers indicate the series was played in the last three weeks of September, but other sources indicate the match started September 2 and was played at a rapid pace. Apparently, the reports may have been delayed due to the remote location.

    table[
    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
    Marshall = 0 1 1 1 = 1 1 0 1 7.0
    Janowski = 1 0 0 0 = 0 0 1 0 3.0
    ]table
    [Janowski had White in the odd-numbered games.]

    Janowski started well, but Marshall turned the tables with his famous brilliancy in game 3 and cruised to victory. You know, the


    click for larger view

    <12...Qxf3!!> game. Everyone knows that was from their 1912 "Match", so I'm not about to change history and call it an "Exhibition". Marshall notwithstanding.

    <Sources>: "New York Sun", September 15 and 22, 1912;

    *****

    <Match 5: New York, 1916>

    The fifth and final match between Marshall and Janowski was held from June 1-15 at the Manhattan Chess Club in New York City. Originally scheduled to be ten games, it ended when Marshall clinched victory with a draw in the eighth game. table[
    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
    Marshall 1 = = 1 0 1 1 = 5.5
    Janowski 0 = = 0 1 0 0 = 3.5
    ]table
    [Janowski had White in the odd-numbered games.]

    In all, Janowski and Marshall played 49 match games. Marshall won three of the matches, with a total score of +21 -16 =17 (55.1%).

    <Source>: "American Chess Bulletin", July-August 1916, p.144-148.

    49 games, 1899-1916

  14. Janowski vs. Showalter Matches
    Jackson Showalter must have been a congenial opponent to play as many matches as he did. Maybe it was the cigars, which even Steinitz liked. Maybe it was because he was an upright fellow who never threw his opponents a curve ball. Maybe he provided good competition and entertainment for the spectators.

    Maybe he had a lot of friends at the Manhattan Chess Club who could be counted upon to put up worthwhile stakes. Who knows?

    At any rate, David Janowski and Showalter faced off in four different matches, three during a visit by Janowski to New York in 1898-1899 and a fourth in 1916 when the war left Janowski stuck in the States with nothing else to do. Janowski dominated the first and last of these, while Showalter prevailed in the two shorter matches in the middle.

    Match 1 was played at the Manhattan Chess Club in New York from November 18, 1898 through January 12, 1899. The stakes were $750 a side. Seven games were to be played each fortnight, witn a time limit of one hour for the first 15 moves, two hours for the next 25 moves, then 15 moves per hour afterwards.

    The match was to be played to seven wins for either player, draws not counting. However, if there were a tie at six games each, then they were to play till one achieved ten wins. Further however, if the match were tied at 9 wins each, it would be declared a draw and Fischer would retain his title.

    table[
    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
    Janowski 1 1 = 1 = 0 0 = 1 = 1 1 1 9.0
    Showalter 0 0 = 0 = 1 1 = 0 = 0 0 0 4.0
    ]table
    The match was postponed after the ninth game on December 10th, with Janowski leading by 4-2, when Showalter received home to Georgetown, Kentucky, after receiving news of the death of his brother, Judge John W. Showalter of Chicago. After resumption on January 6, 1899 only four more games were required, Janowski winning the final three in a row.

    <Sources>: Match and game details were contained in reports from the "Pawtucket Evening Times" and "New York Literary Digest" in November and December, 1898; match summary in the "Brooklyn Daily Eagle", January 13, 1899 and "American Chess Magazine", February, 1899, p.359.

    *********

    The second match was originally meant to be a series of five games played at the Manhattan Chess Club from March 15-20, 1899, but the players agreed to add a sixth game when the score was tied 2-2. The stakes were $125 per side, with a $60 purse put up by the club and split between the two players.

    table[
    1 2 3 4 5 6
    Showalter 0 0 1 1 1 1 4.0
    Janowski 1 1 0 0 0 0 2.0
    ]table

    This was an outstanding comeback by Showalter after a slow start.

    <Source>: "American Chess Magazine", April, 1899.

    *********

    After the Manhattan Chess Club had hosted two Janowski-Showalter matches, the Brooklyn Chess Club joined in the fun by bringing the fellows on over for a seven-game set held from March 29 through April 7, 1899. The stakes were $250 a side, with the Club tossing in an extra $100 to be divided equally between the players.

    table[
    1 2 3 4 5 6 7
    Showalter 1 = 1 0 1 0 1 4.5
    Janowski 0 = 0 1 0 1 0 2.5
    ]table
    This time it was Showalter getting off to the fast start, with Janowski unable to catch up.

    <Source>: "American Chess Magazine", April 1899.

    *********

    Although there was talk of another match following the three played in 1898-1899, Janowski and Showalter did not get together again until late 1916. Their fourth match, played December 8-29, began and ended at the Elks' Club in Lexington, Kentucky, with games 6-10 in Showalter's home town of Georgetown. Perhaps he wanted to be home for Christmas. The stakes were $750 a side, with Janowski's travel and living expenses being paid. The time control was 15 moves an hour.

    Both players were past their peak, but while Janowski had stayed active while the older Showalter had been semi-retired for some time. He had recently returned to win at Game Collection: US Open 1915, Excelsior = 16th Western Champ. and finish a strong second at Game Collection: US Open 1916, Chicago = 17th Western Champ., in addition to crushing Norman T. Whitaker in a June, 1916 match by a score of 6-1. Showalter also tried to arrange matches in Kentucky with Abraham Kupchik and Boris Kostic. Those fell through, but his old adversary Janowski was willing to make the trip from New York.

    table[
    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
    Janowski 1 = 0 1 1 = 0 1 1 1 1 8.0
    Showalter 0 = 1 0 0 = 1 0 0 0 0 3.0
    ]table
    Apparently, either JWS nogged a few too many eggs or perhaps Janowski was peeved at having to work during the holidays. At any rate, it was Janowski growing stronger as the match went on, clinching matters by winning the last four games in a row.

    <Source>: "American Chess Bulletin", February 1917, p.28

    In all, Janowski and Showalter played 37 match games, with the final tally being +18 -12 =7 in Janowski's favor.

    37 games, 1898-1916

  15. Karlsbad 1907
    This was the first of four great Karlsbad tournaments, the others being Game Collection: Karlsbad 1911, Game Collection: Karlsbad 1923, and Game Collection: Karlsbad 1929. It featured a number of younger players who would take leading roles in the chess world over the next quarter of a century facing a strong group of more established Masters. Here is a list of the participants, arranged by age:

    Johann Berger (1845-1933) Mikhail Chigorin (1850-1908) Georg Salwe (1862-1920) Jacques Mieses (1865-1954) Adolf Georg Olland (1867-1933) David Janowski (1868-1927) Richard Teichmann (1868-1925) Geza Maroczy (1870-1951) Carl Schlechter (1874-1918) Heinrich Wolf (1875-1943) Frank Marshall (1877-1944) Paul Leonhardt (1877-1934) Fyodor Duz-Khotimirsky (1879-1965) Oldrich Duras (1882-1957) Akiba Rubinstein (1882-1961) Rudolf Spielmann (1883-1942) Erich Cohn (1884-1918) Milan Vidmar (1885-1962) Aron Nimzowitsch (1886-1935) Savielly Tartakower (1887-1956) Paul Johner (1887-1938)

    Looking at this list today, some of the younger players would seem to be the favorites. At this time, however, though most of them had been active for several years, they probably would have still been considered "promising young players" rather than top-class masters. My hunch is that the smart Chessbucks would have been riding on Maroczy and Schlechter, with Marshall and Janowski picking up their fair share as well.

    The time control was 30 moves in two hours, followed by 15 moves per hour therafter. A more modern provision forbade agreed draws before move 45 without the permission of the tournament director. This had the usual effect, with only 40 of the 210 games ending in this manner.

    <Round 1: Tuesday, August 20>

    1 Nimzowitsch 1/2 Wolf
    2 Vidmar 1 Olland
    3 Dus Chotimirsky 0 Chigorin
    4 Janowski 1 Cohn
    5 Tartakower 0 Maroczy
    6 Duras 1/2 Schlechter
    7 Mieses 1 Marshall
    8 Salwe 1 Leonhardt
    9 Berger 1/2 Spielmann
    10 Johner 0 Teichmann
    Rubinstein - BYE

    The established players got off to a good start, Vidmar being the only winner under age 30. Maroczy was the star, as his win over Tartakower would be awarded the first prize for beauty. Rubinstein started with a bye in the 21-player field; this will be indicated by an "*" following the player's name.

    <1.0>: Chigorin, Janowski, Maroczy, Mieses, Teichmann, Vidmar; <0.5>: Berger, Duras, Leonhardt, Nimzowitsch, Salwe, Schlechter, Spielmann, Wolf; <0.0>: Cohn, Dus Chotimirsky, Johner, Olland, Marshall, Rubinstein*, Tartakower

    <Round 2: Thursday, August 22>

    11 Spielmann 1 Johner
    12 Leonhardt 1/2 Berger
    13 Marshall 1/2 Salwe
    14 Schlechter 1 Mieses
    15 Maroczy 1 Duras
    16 Cohn 0 Tartakower
    17 Chigorin 0 Janowski
    18 Olland 1 Dus Chotimirsky
    19 Wolf 0 Vidmar
    20 Rubinstein 0 Nimziwitsch
    Teichmann - BYE

    Three leaders emerged today. Janowski needed 99 moves before his mighty rook pair overcame Chigorin's queen. (It might be coincidence, but Janowski would lose his next four games and never be a factor thereafter.) Duras, warming up for bigger and better things, held out for 63 moves against Maroczy's extra pawn and mighty knight pair. Vidmar sacrificed a piece against Wolf, eventually winning with a mighty connected passed pawn trio in the endgame. And that's not s typo at the end of the standings: Rubinstein was still in the cellar after a loss to Nimzowitsch. Our copy of the game includes Nimzo's notes, and the game is well worth looking at as a classic example of using hanging pawns effectively.

    <2.0>: Janowski, Maroczy, Vidmar; <1.5>: Nimzowitsch, Schlechter, Spielmann; <1.0>: Berger, Chigorin, Leonhardt, Mieses, Olland, Salwe, Tartakower, Teichmann*; <0.5>: Duras, Marshall, Wolf; <0.0> Cohn, Dus Chotimirsky, Johner, Rubinstein*

    <Round 3: Friday, August 23>

    21 Vidmar 1/2 Rubinstein
    22 Dus Chotimirsky 1/2 Wolf
    23 Janowski 0 Olland
    24 Tartakower 1 Chigorin
    25 Duras 1 Cohn
    26 Mieses 1/2 Maroczy
    27 Salwe 1 Schlechter
    28 Berger 1/2 Marshall
    29 Johner 0 Leonhardt
    30 Teichmann 1 Spielmann
    Nimzowitsch - BYE

    No perfect scores survived the day. Janowski's descent began when Olland sprang a combination winning queen and two pawns for rook and knight. Maroczy was fortunate to survive against Mieses in a B+P ending, while Vidmar and Rubinstein avoided each other's traps and quickly exchanged down to a barren equality. Among the two-pointers, Teichmann was in good shape (having already had the bye) and Salwe powerfully outplayed Schlechter. The long draw Berger--Marshall is worth looking at for Marshall's ingenious play and a knight that apparently began life on the wrong square.

    <2.5>: Maroczy, Vidmar; <2.0>: Janowski, Leonhardt, Olland, Salwe, Tartakower, Teichmann*; <1.5>: Berger, Duras, Mieses, Nimzowitsch*, Schlechter, Spielmann; <1.0>: Chigorin, Marshall, Wolf; <0.5>: Dus Chotimirsky, Rubinstein*; <0.0>: Cohn, Johner

    <Round 4: Saturday, August 24>

    31 Leonhardt 1/2 Teichmann
    32 Marshall 1 Johner
    33 Schlechter 1 Berger
    34 Maroczy 1 Salwe
    35 Cohn 0 Mieses
    36 Chigorin 0 Duras
    37 Olland 0 Tartakower
    38 Wolf 1 Janowski
    39 Rubinstein 1 Dus Chotimirsky
    40 Nimzowitsch 1/2 Vidmar
    Spielmann - BYE

    Maroczy took the sole lead with a nice positional crush of Salwe. Vidmar was fortunate to draw with Nimzowitch; after an opening which only Nimzo could have thought up, Black was close to being Samisched but managed to randomize the position and survive after an error by White. Rubinstein got his first win, blasting open the center after a slow opening to win material with a persistent attack. The wins by Mieses and Marshall were typical, and you can guess what that means.

    <3.5>: Maroczy; <3.0>: Tartakower, Vidmar; <2.5>: Duras, Leonhardt, Mieses, Schlechter, Teichmann*; <2.0>: Janowski, Marshall, Nimzowitsch*, Olland, Salwe, Wolf; <1.5>: Berger, Rubinstein*, Spielmann; <1.0>: Chigorin; <0.5>: Dus Chotimirsky; <0.0>: Cohn, Johner

    <Round 5: Monday, August 26>

    41 Dus Chotimirsky 1 Nimzowitsch
    42 Janowski 0 Rubinstein
    43 Tartakower 0 Wolf
    44 Duras 1 Olland
    45 Mieses 1 Chigorin
    46 Salwe 1 Cohn
    47 Berger 1/2 Maroczy
    48 Johner 0 Schlecther
    49 Teichmann 1/2 Marshall
    50 Spielmann 1/2 Leonhardt
    Vidmar - BYE

    Maroczy's quiet draw with Berger was enough to keep the lead, as Tartakower was eaten alive by Wolf and Vidmar received the bye. Moving up with victories were Duras (despite missing a mate-in-three which has appeared in every combination book written since the day it was not played), Mieses (after a massive battle with Chigorin), and Schlechter (with a fine all-around performance against Johner). Rubinstein reached and won a rook ending against Janowski with some subtle play. Dus Chotimirsky's win over Nimzowitsch was a very powerful performance.

    <4.0>: Marcczy; <3.5>: Duras, Mieses, Schlechter; <3.0>: Leonhardt, Salwe, Tartakower, Teichmann*, Vidmar*, Wolf; <2.5>: Marshall, Rubinstein*; <2.0>: Berger, Janowski, Nimzowitsch*, Olland, Spielmann*; <1.5>: Dus Chotimirsky; <1.0>: Chigorin; <0.0>: Cohn, Johner

    <Round 6: Tuesday, August 27>

    51 Marshall 1/2 Spielmann
    52 Schlechter 0 Teichmann
    53 Maroczy 1 Johner
    54 Cohn 1/2 Berger
    55 Chigorin 1/2 Salwe
    56 Olland 0 Mieses
    57 Wolf 1 Duras
    58 Rubinstein 1 Tartakower
    59 Nimzowitsch 1 Janowski
    60 Vidmar 1 Dus Chotimirsky
    Leonhardt - BYE

    More flip-flopping at the upper levels. Maroczy held his spot by refuting a faulty pawn sacrifice from Johner, and Mieses pulled off a brilliancy against Olland. Schlechter blundered a pawn to Teichmann, who finished with a brilliant breakthrough. Wolf-Duras culminated in an ending that has been marvelled at ever since. Rubinstein continued to move methodically up the ladder.

    Standings after round 6 (* indicates player has had the bye):

    <5.0>: Maroczy; <4.5>: Mieses; <4.0>: Teichmann*, Vidmar*, Wolf; <3.5>: Duras, Rubinstein*, Salwe, Schlechter; <3.0>: Leonhardt*, Marshall, Nimzowitsch*, Tartakower; <2.5>: Berger, Spielmann*; <2.0>: Janowski, Olland; <1.5>: Chigorin, Dus Chotimirsky; <0.5>: Cohn; <0.0>: Johner

    <Round 7 (Thursday, August 29)>

    61 Janowski 1 Vidmar
    62 Tartakower 1 Nimzowitsch
    63 Duras 0 Rubinstein
    64 Mieses 1 Wolf
    65 Salwe 1 Olland
    66 Berger 1 Chigorin
    67 Johner 0 Cohn
    68 Teichmann 1/2 Maroczy
    69 Spielmann 1/2 Schlechter
    70 Leonhardt 1/2 Marshall
    Dus-Chotimirsky - BYE

    Mieses drew even with Maroczy with yet another fine win. Pulling within a point of the leaders were Rubinstein and Teichmann (who were well-placed, as both had recorded their bye) and Salwe (whose victory Marco attributed to the sparkling mineral water of the spa). Janowski finally got back on track with an interesting win over Vidmar.

    Standings after round 7 (* indicates player has had the bye):

    <5.5> Maroczy, Mieses; <4.5>: Rubinstein*, Salwe, Teichmann*; <4.0>: Schlechter, Tartakower, Vidmar*, Wolf; <3.5>: Berger, Duras, Leonhardt*, Marshall; <3.0>: Janowski, Nimzowitsch*, Spielmann*; <2.0> Olland; <1.5>: Chigorin, Cohn, Dus Chotimirsky*; <0.0>: Johner

    <Round 8 (Friday, August 30)>

    71 Schlechter 1 Leonhardt
    72 Maroczy 1 Spielmann
    73 Cohn 0 Teichmann
    74 Chigorin 1 Johner
    75 Olland 1 Berger
    76 Wolf 1/2 Salwe
    77 Rubinstein 1/2 Mieses
    78 Nimzowitsch 1/2 Duras
    79 Vidmar 1 Tartakower
    80 Dus Chotimirsky 1 Janowski
    Marshall - BYE

    A draw between Mieses and Rubinstein allowed Maroczy to go back in front with a quiet positional win over Spielmann, while Teichmann pulled into clear third with a destructive win over Cohn.

    Standings after round 8 (* indicates player has had the bye):

    <6.5>: Maroczy; <6.0>: Mieses; <5.5>: Teichmann*; <5.0>: Rubinstein*, Salwe, Schlechter, Vidmar*; <4.5>: Wolf; <4.0>: Duras, Tartakower; <3.5>: Berger, Leonhardt*, Marshall*, Nimzowitsch*; <3.0>: Janowski, Olland, Spielmann*; <3.5>: Chigorin, Dus Chotimirsky*; <1.5> Cohn; <0.0> Johner

    <Round 9 (Saturday, August 31)>

    81 Tartakower 1 Dus Chotimirski
    82 Duras 0 Vidmar
    83 Mieses 0 Nimzowitsch
    84 Salwe 0 Rubinstein
    85 Berger 1/2 Wolf
    86 Johner 0 Olland
    87 Teichmann 0 Chigorin
    88 Spielmann 1 Cohn
    89 Leonhardt 1 Maroczy
    90 Marshall 1/2 Schlechter
    Janowski - BYE

    There was a reshuffling at the top as the three leading players all lost. Rubinstein resumed his advance by knocking Salwe back, with Leonhardt and Nimzowitsch also moving up. Johner may have missed a chance to get on the board.

    <6.5>: Maroczy; <6.0>: Mieses, Rubinstein*, Vidmar*; <5.5>: Schlechter, Teichmann*; <5.0>: Salwe, Tartakower, Wolf; <4.5>: Leonhardt*, Nimzowitsch*; <4.0>: Berger, Duras, Marshall*, Olland, Spielmann*; <3.5>: Chigorin; <3.0>: Janowski*; <2.5>: Dus Chotimirsky*; <1.5>: Cohn; <0.0>: Johner

    <Round 10 (Monday, September 2)>

    91 Maroczy 1 Marshall
    92 Cohn 1 Leonhardt
    93 Chigorin 1 Spielmann
    94 Olland 1/2 Teichmann
    95 Wolf 1/2 Johner
    96 Rubinstein 1 Berger
    97 Nimzowitsch 1/2 Salwe
    98 Vidmar 1 Mieses
    99 Dus Chotimirsky 0 Duras
    100 Janowski 1 Tartakower
    Schlechter - Bye

    A crucial game between Vidmar and Mieses went the younger man's way, while Maroczy and Rubinstein also won excellent games to retain their places. Chigorin's win over Spielmann was particularly exciting, as might have been expected. And most everyone was happy to see Johner finally get on the board, though Wolf filed a strong minority opinion in the matter.

    Standings after round 10 (* indicates player has had the bye):

    <7.5>: Maroczy; <7.0>: Rubinstein*, Vidmar*; <6.0>: Mieses, Teichmann*; <5.5>: Salwe, Schlechter*, Wolf; <5.0>: Duras, Nimzowitsch*, Tartakower; <4.5>: Chigorin, Leonhardt*, Olland; <4.0>: Berger. Janowski*, Marshall*, Spielmann*; <2.5>: Cohn, Dus Chotimirsky*; <0.5>: Johner

    <Round 11 (Tuesday, September 3)>

    101 Duras 1 Janowski
    102 Mieses 0 Dus Chotimirsky
    103 Salwe 1/2 Vidmar
    104 Berger 1/2 Nimzowitsch
    105 Johner 0 Rubinstein
    106 Teichmann 1 Wolf
    107 Spielmann 1 Olland
    108 Leonhardt 1/2 Chigorin
    109 Marshall 1 Cohn
    110 Schlechter 1/2 Maroczy
    Tartakower - BYE

    Rubinstein's fine play in an opposite-colored bishop ending enabled him to tie for first as Marcozy drew with Schlechter. Vidmar also drew, and Teichmann was fortunate to keep up when Wolf could not convert his advantage. Mieses' slide continued with a loss to Dus-Chotimirsky.

    Standings after round 11 (* indicates player has had the bye):

    <8.0>: Maroczy, Rubinstein*; <7.5>: Vidmar*; <7.0>: Teichmann*; <6.0>: Duras, Mieses, Salwe, Schlechter*: <5.5>: Nimzowitsch*, Wolf; <5.0>: Chigorin, Leonhardt*, Marshall*, Spielmann*, Tartakower*; <4.5>: Berger, Olland; <4.0>: Janowski*; <3.5>: Dus Chotimirsky*; <2.5>: Cohn; <0.5>: Johner

    <Round 12 (Thursday, September 5)>

    111 Cohn 0 Schlechter
    112 Chigorin 1 Marshall
    113 Olland 0 Leonhardt
    114 Wolf 1 Spielmann
    115 Rubinstein 1 Teichmann
    116 Nimzowitsch 1 Johner
    117 Vidmar 1/2 Berger
    118 Dus Chotimirsky 1 Salwe
    119 Janowski 1 Mieses
    120 Tartakower 0 JoingDuras
    Maroczy - BYE

    Maroczy's bye allowed Rubinstein to go into the sole lead for the first time, having scored nine points from his last ten games. Vidmar joined Maroczy with a quiet draw, while Schlechter and Duras picked up important wins against Teichmann and Mieses.

    Standings after round 12 (* indicates player has had the bye):

    <9.0>: Rubinstein*; <8.0>: Vidmar*, Maroczy*; <7.0>: Duras, Schlechter*, Teichmann*; <6.5>: Nimzowitsch*, Wolf; <6.0> Chigorin, Leonhardt*, Mieses, Salwe; <5.0>: Berger, Janowski*, Marshall*, Spielmann*, Tartakower*; <4.5>: Dus Chotimirsky*, Olland; <2.5>: Cohn; <0.5> Johner

    <Round 13 (Friday, September 6)>:

    121 Mieses 1 Tartakower
    122 Salwe 1 Janowski
    123 Berger 0 Dus Chotimirski
    124 Johner 1 Vidmar
    125 Teichmann 1/2 Nimzowitsch
    126 Spielmann 1 Rubinstein
    127 Leonhardt 1/2 Wolf
    128 Marshall 1 Olland
    129 Schlechter 1/2 Chigorin
    130 Maroczy 1 Cohn
    Duras - BYE

    Not a very fortunate round for two of the leaders, as Vidmar suffered Johner's first win and Rubinstein found himself on the wrong side of Spielmann's beauty prize winner. Mieses also took home a beauty prize for his victory, while more mundane matters saw Maroczy climb back into a tie for first while Schlechter and Teichmann missed chances to close the gap.

    Standings after round 13 (* indicates player has had the bye):

    <9.0>: Maroczy*, Rubinstein*; <8.0>: Vidmar*; <7.5>: Schlechter*, Teichmann*; <7.0>: Duras*, Mieses, Nimzowitsch*, Salwe, Wolf; <6.5>: Chigorin, Leonhardt*; <6.0>: Marshall*, Spielmann*; <5.5>: Dus Chotimirsky*; <5.0>: Berger, Janowski*, Tartakower*; <4.5>: Olland; <2.5>: Cohn; <1.5>: Johner

    <Round 14 (Saturday, September 7)>

    131 Chigorin 0 Maroczy
    132 Olland 0 Schlechter
    133 Wolf 1/2 Marshall
    134 Rubinstein 1/2 Leonhardt
    135 Nimzowitsch 1/2 Spielmann
    136 Vidmar 1 Teichmann
    137 Dus Chotimirsky 1 Johner
    138 Janowski 1 Berger
    139 Tartakower 1/2 Salwe
    140 Duras 1 Mieses
    Cohn - BYE

    The two-thirds mark saw Maroczy creep to the top again, while Vidmar kept pace with an important win over Teichmann. Janowski, at least according to the tournament book, made something out of nothing and was awarded a share of the third Beauty prize.

    Standings after round 14 (* indicates player has had the bye):

    <10.0>: Maroczy*; <9.5>: Rubinstein*; <9.0>: Vidmar*; <8.5>: Schlechter*; <8.0>: Duras*; <7.5>: Nimzowitsch*, Salwe, Teichmann*, Wolf; <7.0> Leonhardt*, Mieses; <6.5>: Chigorin, Dus Chotimirsky*, Marshall*, Spielmann*; <6.0>: Janowski*; <5.5> Tartakower*; <5.0>: Berger; <4.5>: Olland; <2.5>: Cohn*; <1.5>: Johner

    <Round 15 (Monday, September 9)>

    141 Salwe 1 Duras
    142 Berger 1/2 Tartakower
    143 Johner 0 Janowski
    144 Teichmann 1/2 Dus Chotimirsky
    145 Spielmann 0 Vidmar
    146 Leonhardt 1/2 Nimzowitsch
    147 Marshall 0 Rubinstein
    148 Schlechter 1/2 Wolf
    149 Maroczy 1 Olland
    150 Cohn 1 Chigorin
    Mieses - BYE

    The top three held their serve, while Schlechter fell another half-point behind. I'll give away a little of the story to say that one of those three won't up there six rounds from now. You might take a look at the standings and guess who will catch up. The most famous game of the round saw Cohn lose a pawn in the opening, but he made something out of less than nothing and was awarded a share of the 2nd Beauty prize.

    Standings after round 15 (* indicates player has had the bye):

    <11.0>: Maroczy*; <10.5>: Rubinstein*; <10.0>: Vidmar*; <9.0>: Schlechter*; <8.5>: Salwe; <8.0>: Duras*, Nimzowitsch*, Teichmann*; Wolf; <7.5>: Leonhardt*; <7.0>: Dus Chotimirsky*, Janowski*, Mieses*; <6.5>: Chigorin, Marshall*, Spielmann*; <6.0>: Tartakower*; <5.5>: Berger; <4.5>: Olland; <3.5>: Cohn*; <1.5>: Johner

    <Round 16 (Tuesday, September 10)>

    151 Olland 1 Cohn
    152 Wolf 1/2 Maroczy
    153 Rubinstein 1/2 Schlechter
    154 Nimzowitsch 0 Marshall
    155 Vidmar 0 Leonhardt
    156 Dus Chotimirsky 1 Spielmann
    157 Janowski 1/2 Teichmann
    158 Tartakower 1 Johner
    159 Duras 1 Berger
    160 Mieses 0 Salwe
    Chigorin - BYE

    Marcozy drew when he wanted to, the tournament book noting that Wolf "played energetically for the draw". Rubinstein took no chances with Schlechter, but bot players were able to pick up ground on Vidmar whose loss to Leonhardt was a sign of things to come.

    Standings after round 16 (* indicates player has had the bye):

    <11.5>: Maroczy*; <11.0>: Rubinstein*; <10.0>: Vidmar*; <9.5>: Salwe, Schlechter*; <9.0>: Duras*; <8.5>: Leonhardt*, Teichmann*, Wolf; <8.0>: Dus Chotimirsky*, Nimzowitsch*; <7.5>: Janowski*, Marshall*; <7.0>: Mieses*, Tartakower*; <6.5>: Chigorin*, Spielmann*; <5.5>: Berger, Olland; <3.5>: Cohn*; <1.5>: Johner

    <Round 17 (Thursday, September 12)>

    161 Berger 1 Mieses
    162 Johner 1 Duras
    163 Teichmann 1 Tartakower
    164 Spielmann 1 Janowski
    165 Leonhardt 1 Dus Chotimirsky
    166 Marshall 1 Vidmar
    167 Schlechter 0 Nimzowitsch
    168 Maroczy 1/2 Rubinstein
    169 Cohn 1/2 Wolf
    170 Chigorin 1 Olland
    Salwe - BYE

    Maroczy could take a big step toward the first prize by beating Rubinstein and gave it a good shot, even winning the exchange. However, Rubinstein's counterplay recovered the material and led to an even ending. Meanwhile, yet another loss by Vidmar left the race for third place wide open.

    Standings after round 17 (* indicates player has had the bye):

    <12.0>: Maroczy*; <11.5>: Rubinstein*; <10.0>: Vidmar*; <9.5>: Leonhardt*, Salwe*, Schlechter*, Teichmann*; <9.0>: Duras*, Nimzowitsch*, Wolf; <8.5>: Marshall*; <8.0>: Dus Chotimirsky*; <7.5>: Chigorin*, Janowski*;, Spielmann*; <7.0>: Mieses*, Tartakower*; <6.5>: Berger; <5.5>: Olland; <4.0>: Cohn*; <2.5>: Johner

    <Round 18 (Friday, September 13)>

    171 Wolf 1 Chigorin
    172 Rubinstein 1 Cohn
    173 Nimzowitsch 1/2 Maroczy
    174 Vidmar 1/2 Schlechter
    175 Dus Chotimirsky 0 Marshall
    176 Janowski 0 Leonhardt
    177 Tartakower 1 Spielmann
    178 Duras 1 Teichmann
    179 Mieses 0 Johner
    180 Salwe 1 Berger
    Olland - BYE

    The tension increased as Rubinstein overtook Maroczy with just three rounds to go. Vidmar was joined in third place by Leonhardt and Salwe, while three other players lurked but a half-point behind.

    Standings after round 18 (* indicates player has had the bye):

    <12.5>: Maroczy*, Rubinstein*; <10.5>: Leonhardt*, Salwe*, Vidmar*; <10.0>: Duras*, Schlechter*, Wolf; <9.5>: Marshall*, Nimzpwitsch*, Teichmann*; <8.0>: Dus Chotimisky*, Tartakower*; <7.5>: Chigorin*, Janowski*, Spielmann*; <7.0>: Mieses*; <6.5>: Berger; <5.5>: Olland*; <4.0>: Cohn*; <3.5>: Johner

    <Round 19 (Saturday, September 14)>

    181 Johner 1/2 Salwe
    182 Teichmann 1/2 Mieses
    183 Spielmann 0 Duras
    184 Leonhardt 1 Tartakower
    185 Marshall 0 Janowski
    186 Schlechter 1/2 Dus Chotimirsky
    187 Maroczy 1/2 Vidmar
    188 Cohn 0 Nimzowitsch
    189 Chigorin 0 Rubinstein
    190 Olland 1 Wolf
    Berger - BYE

    The leaders both reached equal positions. Maroczy and Vidmar agreed to a draw, and Rubinstein offered one to Chigorin. However, the Old Russian apparently spotted a winning chance, and probably figured he could draw with Rubinstein when he wanted to. This was a misjudgment.

    Leonhardt moved into sole third place with his fourth win a row, and took home a share of the 2nd Beauty prize to boot. Duras lulled Spielmann to sleep in a sprightly 99-mover, while Cohn launched what might be The Worst Kingside Attack of All Time.

    Standings after round 19 (* indicates player has had the bye):

    <13.5>: Rubinstein*; <13.0>: Maroczy*; <11.5>: Leonhardt*; <11.0>: Duras*, Salwe*, Vidmar*; <10.5>: Nimzowitsch*, Schlechter*; <10.0>: Teichmann*, Wolf; <9.5>: Marshall*; <8.5>: Dus Chotimirsky*, Janowski*; <8.0>: Tartakower*; <7.5>: Chigorin*, Mieses*, Spielmann*; <6.5>: Berger*, Olland*; <4.0>: Cohn*, Johner

    <Round 20 (Monday, September 16)>

    191 Rubinstein 1 Olland
    192 Nizmowitsch 1 Chigorin
    193 Vidmar 0 Cohn
    194 Dus Chotimirsky 1/2 Maroczy
    195 Janowski 0 Schlechter
    196 Tartakower 1 Marshall
    197 Duras 0 Leonhardt
    198 Mieses 0 Spielmann
    199 Salwe 0 Teichmann
    200 Berger 1/2 Johner
    Wolf - BYE

    For the third straight round Rubinstein won while Maroczy only drew. This gave the former a full-point lead with only a game versus Wolf, the tournament's drawing master. The struggle seemed over for all intents and purposes. Meanwhile, Leonhardt won his fifth straight game to all but nail down third place.

    Standings after round 20 (* indicates player has had the bye):

    <14.5>: Rubinstein*; <13.5>: Maroczy*; <12.5>: Leonhardt*; <11.5>: Nimzowitsch*, Schlechter*; <11.0>: Duras*, Salwe*, Teichmann*, Vidmar*; <10.0>: Wolf*; <9.5>: Marshall*; <9.0>: Dus Chotimirsky*, Tartakower*; <8.5>: Janowski*, Spielmann*; <7.5>: Chigorin*, Mieses*; <7.0>: Berger*; <6.5>: Olland*; <5.0>: Cohn*; <4.5>: Johner

    <Round 21 (Tuesday, September 17)>

    201 Teichmann 1/2 Burger
    202 Spielmann 1 Salwe
    203 Leonhardt 1 Mieses
    204 Marshall 1/2 Duras
    205 Schlechter 1 Tartakower
    206 Maroczy 1 Janowski
    207 Cohn 0 Dus Chotimirsky
    208 Chigorin 0 Vidmar
    209 Olland 0 Nimzowitsch
    210 Wolf 1/2 Rubinstein
    Johner - BYE

    Rubinstein did get his draw in a fashion that became legendary. He quickly built up a crushing attack against Wolf, but then inexplicably relaxed the pressure and steered toward a draw. Hans Kmoch later told the story that Wolf had actually offered a draw, and Rubinstein had declined before later steering toward one. His explanation: "Against Wolf I draw when I want to, not when he wants to!" Such incidents helped lead to an eccentric reputation.

    But I have to wonder if there is more (or less) to the story. In the tournament book, Georg Marco (a chatty soul who never missed a good story) doesn't refer to it at all. He attributed Rubinstein's missing the win as a case of him not trying his hardest to win when a draw would be sufficient. I haven't looked at contemporary sources, but it would be interesting to know what their take is. If our only source for the incident is Hans Kmoch's memory rather than documentary evidence, it might be needed to be taken with a grain of salt.

    Elsewhere, Maroczy and Leonardt secured their places with wins. Nimzowitsch's =4th with Schlechter established him as a player to be watched. And the presence of many established stars in the middle to bottom of the crosstable indicated that the new generation needed to be taken serioiusly. table[
    1 Rubinstein * = = 0 = = 1 1 1 = 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 = 1 1 1 15.0 2 Maroczy = * 0 = = = = 1 1 = 1 = 1 1 1 = 1 = 1 1 1 14.5 3 Leonhardt = 1 * = 0 1 = 1 = = = 1 = 1 1 = = 1 1 0 1 13.5 4 Nimzowitsch 1 = = * 1 = = = = = 0 0 = 0 1 = 1 1 1 1 1 12.5 5 Schlechter = = 1 0 * = 0 = 0 = = = = 1 1 1 = 1 1 1 1 12.5 6 Vidmar = = 0 = = * 1 1 = 1 0 1 1 1 0 = 1 1 1 0 0 12.0 7 Teichmann 0 = = = 1 0 * 0 1 1 = = 1 1 = = 0 = = 1 1 11.5 8 Duras 0 0 0 = = 0 1 * 0 0 = 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 11.5 9 Salwe 0 0 = = 1 = 0 1 * = = 0 0 = 1 1 = 1 1 1 = 11.0 10 Wolf = = = = = 0 0 1 = * = = 1 1 1 = 1 0 0 = = 10.5 11 Marshall 0 0 = 1 = 1 = = = = * 1 = 0 0 = 0 0 1 1 1 10.0 12 Dus Chotimirsky 0 = 0 1 = 0 = 0 1 = 0 * 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 10.0 13 Spielmann 1 0 = = = 0 0 0 1 0 = 0 * 0 1 = 0 1 1 1 1 9.5 14 Tartakower 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 = 0 1 1 1 * 0 = 1 0 1 1 1 9.0 15 Janowski 0 0 0 0 0 1 = 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 * 1 1 1 0 1 1 8.5 16 Berger 0 = = = 0 = = 0 0 = = 0 = = 0 * 1 1 0 = = 7.5 17 Chigorin 0 0 = 0 = 0 1 0 = 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 * 0 1 0 1 7.5 18 Mieses = = 0 0 0 0 = 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 * 1 1 0 7.5 19 Olland 0 0 0 0 0 0 = 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 * 1 1 6.5 20 Cohn 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 = 0 0 0 0 0 = 1 0 0 * 1 5.0 21 Johner 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 = = 0 0 0 0 0 = 0 1 0 0 * 4.5 ]table

    210 games, 1907

  16. Kashdan - L. Steiner 1930
    10 games, 1930

  17. Lake Hopatcong 1923 (9th American Chess Congress
    The 9th American Chess Congress was held August 6-21, 1923, in Lake Hopatcong, New Jersey. The time control was 30 moves in 2 hours, followed by 15 moves an hour.

    <Crosstable>
    table[
    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4
    1 Marshall X 1 ½ 1 ½ 1 1 1 1 ½ ½ 1 ½ 1 10.5 2 Kupchik 0 X 1 0 1 ½ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10.5
    3 Janowski ½ 0 X 1 ½ ½ 1 1 1 1 1 1 ½ 1 10.0 4 Ed. Lasker 0 1 0 X ½ 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 ½ 1 9.0 5 Schapiro ½ 0 ½ ½ X 1 0 ½ 1 ½ 1 1 1 1 8.5 6 Black 0 ½ ½ 0 0 X 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 7.0 7 Tenner 0 0 0 0 1 0 X 1 ½ 1 1 0 1 1 6.5
    8 Chajes 0 0 0 0 ½ 1 0 X 1 1 0 1 1 1 6.5
    9 Sournin 0 0 0 1 0 0 ½ 0 X 1 1 1 ½ ½ 5.5 10 Morrison ½ 0 0 0 ½ 1 0 0 0 X ½ ½ 1 1 5.0 11 Hodges ½ 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 ½ X ½ 1 ½ 4.0 12 Palmer 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 ½ ½ X 1 0 3.0 13 Santasiere ½ 0 ½ ½ 0 0 0 0 ½ 0 0 0 X ½ 2.5 14 Bigelow 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ½ 0 ½ 1 ½ X 2.5 ]table

    Since nearly 30 of the games remain missing, this round-by-round summary has been compiled to list pairings and scores. An asterisk (*) indicates a game which is in the collection.

    Round 1 (Monday, August 6): Morrison ½ Marshall*; Tenner ½ Sournin; Lasker 1 Bigelow*; Kupchik ½ Black* (game played August 10 due to Kupchik's indisposition); Janowski 1 Palmer*; Schapiro ½ Chajes*; Hodges 1 Santasiere

    STANDINGS: 1.0: Hodges, Janowski, Lasker; 0.5: Black, Chajes, Kupchik, Marshall, Morrison, Schapiro, Sournin, Tenner; 0.0: Bigelow, Palmer, Santasiere

    Round 2 (Tuesday, August 7): Marshall ½ Santasiere*; Chajes 0 Hodges*; Palmer 0 Schapiro*; Black ½ Janowski*; Bigelow 0 Kupchik*; Sournin 1 Lasker*; Morrison 0 Tenner*

    STANDINGS: 2.0: Hodges; 1.5: Janowski, Kupchik, Schapiro, Sournin, Tenner; 1.0: Black, Lasker, Marshall; 0.5: Chajes, Morrison, Santasiere; 0.0: Bigelow, Palmer

    Round 3 (Wednesday, August 8): Tenner 0 Marshall*; Lasker 1 Morrison*; Kupchik 1 Sournin*; Janowski 1 Bigelow; Schapiro 1 Black*; Hodges ½ Palmer; Santasiere 0 Chajes*

    STANDINGS: 2.5: Hodges, Janowski, Kupchik; Schapiro; 2.0: Lasker, Marshall; 1.5: Chajes, Sournin, Tenner; 1.0: Black; 0.5: Morrison, Palmer, Santasiere; 0.0: Bigelow

    Round 4 (Thursday, August 9): Marshall 1 Chajes*; Palmer 1 Santasiere; Black 1 Hodges*; Bigelow 0 Schapiro*; Sournin 0 Janowski*; Morrison 0 Kupchik; Tenner 0 Lasker

    STANDINGS: 3.5: Janowski, Kupchik, Schapiro; 3.0: Lasker, Marshall; 2.5: Hodges; 2.0: Black; 1.5: Chajes, Palmer, Sournin, Tenner; 0.5: Morrison, Santasiere; 0.0: Bigelow

    Round 5 (Saturday, August 11): Lasker 0 Marshall*; Kupchik 1 Tenner; Janowski 1 Morrison*; Schapiro 1 Sournin*; Hodges ½ Bigelow; Santasiere 0 Black*; Chajes 1 Palmer*

    STANDINGS: 4.5: Janowski, Kupchik, Schapiro; 4.0: Marshall; 3.0: Black, Hodges, Lasker; 2.5: Chajes; 1.5: Palmer, Sournin, Tenner; 0.5: Bigelow, Morrison, Santasiere

    Round 6 (Sunday, August 12): Marshall 1 Palmer*; Black 0 Chajes; Bigelow ½ Santasiere; Sournin 1 Hodges; Morrison ½ Schapiro; Tenner 0 Janowski; Lasker 1 Kupchik*

    STANDINGS: 5.5: Janowski; 5.0: Marshall, Schapiro; 4.5: Kupchik; 4.0: Lasker; 3.5: Chajes; 3.0: Black, Hodges; 2.5: Sournin; 1.5: Palmer, Tenner; 1.0: Bigelow, Morrison, Santasiere

    Round 7 (Monday, August 13): Kupchik 0 Marshall*; Janowski 1 Lasker*; Schapiro 0 Tenner; Hodges ½ Morrison; Santasiere ½ Sournin; Chajes 1 Bigelow*; Palmer 0 Black

    STANDINGS: 6.5: Janowski; 6.0: Marshall; 5.0: Schapiro; 4.5: Chajes, Kupchik; 4.0: Black, Lasker; 3.5: H odges; 3.0: Sournin; 2.5: Tenner; 1.5: Morrison, Palmer, Santasiere; 1.0: Bigelow

    Round 8 (Wednesday, August 15): Marshall 1 Black*; Bigelow 1 Palmer; Sournin 0 Chajes*; Morrison 1 Santasiere*; Tenner 1 Hodges*; Lasker ½ Schapiro; Kupchik 1 Janowski*

    STAMDINGS: 7.0: Marshall; 6.5: Janowski; 5.5: Chajes, Kupchik, Schapiro; 4.5: Lasker; 4.0: Black; 3.5: Hodges, Tenner; 3.0: Slurnin; 2.5: Morrison; 2.0: Bigelow; 1.5: Palmer, Santasiere

    Round 9 (Thursday, August 16): Janowski ½ Marshall*; Schapiro 0 Kupchik*; Hodges 0 Lasker*; Santasiere 0 Tenner*; Chajes 1 Morrison; Palmer 0 Sournin*; Black 1 Bigelow*

    STANDINGS: 7.5: Marshall; 7.0: Janowski; 6.5: Chajes, Kupchik; 5.5: Lasker, Schapiro; 5.0: Black; 4.5: Tenner; 4.0: Sournin; 3.5: Hodges; 2.5: Morrison; 2.0: Bigelow; 1.5: Palmer, Santasiere

    Round 10 (Friday, August 17): Marshall 1 Bigelow*; Sournin 0 Black*; Morrison ½ Palmer; Tenner 1 Chajes*; Lasker ½ Santasiere*; Kupchik 1 Hodges; Janowski ½ Schapiro*

    STANDINGS: 8.5: Marshall; 7.5: Janowski, Kupchik; 6.5: Chajes; 6.0: Black, Lasker, Schapiro; 5.5: Tenner; 4.0: Sournin; 3.5: Hodges; 3.0: Morrison; 2.0: Bigelow, Palmer, Santasiere

    Round 11 (Saturday, August 18): Schapiro ½ Marshall*; Hodges 0 Janowski*; Santasiere 0 Kupchik*; Chajes 0 Lasker*; Palmer 1 Tenner*; Black 0 Morrison*; Bigelow ½ Sournin

    STANDINGS: 9.0: Marshall; 8.5: Janowski, Kupchik; 7.0: Lasker; 6.5: Chajes, Schapiro; 6.0: Black; 5.5: Tenner; 4.5: Sournin; 4.0: Morrison; 3.5: Hodges; 3.0: Palmer; 2.5: Bigelow; 2.0: Santasiere

    Round 12 (Monday, August 20): Marshall 1 Sournin*; Morrison 1 Bigelow; Tenner 0 Black*; Lasker 1 Palmer*; Kupchik 1 Chajes*; Janowski ½ Santasiere; Schapiro 1 Hodges*

    STANDINGS: 10.0: Marshall; 9.5: Kupchik; 9.0: Janowski; 8.0: Lasker; 7.5: Schapiro; 7.0: Black; 6.5: Chajes; 5.5: Tenner; 5.0: Morrison; 4.5: Sournin; 3.5: Hodges;; 3.0: Palmer; 2.5: Bigelow, Santasiere

    Round 13 (Tuesday, August 21): Hodges ½ Marshall*; Santasiere 0 Schapiro*; Chajes 0 Janowski*; Palmer 0 Kupchik*; Black 0 Lasker*; Bigelow 0 Tenner; Sournin 1 Morrison

    -----

    Although we don't have all the games, a list of the openings utilized was compiled by Hermann Helms. Results are given from White's point of view. table[

    Queen's Gambit Declined 22 +11 -8 =3
    Queen's Pawn 13 + 7 -2 =4
    Ruy Lopez 13 + 5 -5 =3
    Irregular 12 + 2 -9 =1
    Sicilian Defense 6 + 2 -0 =4
    Caro-Kann Defense 5 + 5 -0 =0
    Petroff Defense 4 + 0 -2 =2
    Four Knights 4 + 2 -1 =1
    Center Counter Gambit 2 + 0 -2 =0
    Double Ruy Lopez 2 + 1 -0 =1
    French Defense 2 + 2 -0 =0
    English 1 + 1 -0 =0
    Hollandish 1 + 1 -0 =0
    King's Gambit Declined 1 + 0 -1 =0
    Philidor's Defense 1 + 0 -1 =0
    Queen's Gambit 1 + 0 -0 =1
    Vienna 1 + 0 -1 =0
    ]table

    Source: "Brooklyn Daily Eagle, September 13, 1923.

    -----

    From an essay by Anthony Santasiere published in <Chess Life>, October 20, 1960, p.3:

    "In 1923, at the age of eighteen, I was invited to my first international tournament, and, as expected, finished tied for last place. But amazingly enough (and since that time I have always been able to lose to the "duffers", while fighting like hell against the 'big shots'), I played drawn games with three of the first four prize winners--Marshall, Janowski and Edward Lasker. Janowski--the fierce French champion--was mortally wounded. When he saw that he could not win, he swept the pieces off the board. Thereafter he absolutely refused to eat at the same table with me, and always referred to me as--'That schoolboy!'

    "There is another story in connection with that same tournament, this having to do with my first visit to a gambling institution. There was such a place across the road from the hotel where we were playing. And when hostilities were over, and the prizes distributed, Marshall--my good friend--and Janowski wanted to gamble. The former, however, took the precaution of handing over all his money to me, except thirty dollars which he kept in play with; he allowed me five dollars to play. He then warned me that no matter what he did or said, I should give him no more money. At the roulette wheel I soon lost my share. Frank, however, held out for quite some time; but then had nothing. Believe it or not, he got on his knees, and with tears in his eyes begged me for his own money. Of course I refused, and walked out. Janowski lost every penny of his prize of almost two hundred dollars, and had to borrow from friends for his needs."

    63 games, 1923

  18. Leningrad 1934
    In 1934, the Soviet Union was still a largely unknown factor in world chess circles. Botvinnik was making some noise, particularly with his repeated wins in the USSR Championship and his drawn match against Flohr (Botvinnik - Flohr (1933)). But the strength and depth of the country remained a mystery, until an international tournament was arranged in Leningrad from August 17-September 1, 1934 with outsiders Max Euwe and Hans Kmoch brought in to give the local boys a few tips. The entire group:

    Vladimir Alatortsev, Mikhail Botvinnik, Vitaly Chekhover, Max Euwe, Ilia Kan, Hans Kmoch, Grigory Levenfish, Georgy Lisitsin, Ilya Rabinovich, Nikolai Riumin, Peter Romanovsky, Mikhail Yudovich Sr

    As sometimes happens, the tippers became the tippees. Both Euwe and Kmoch started well, and were tied for first place with Botvinnik and Romanovsky after six rounds. That's when things started to happen. Euwe was unable to win another game for the rest of the tournament, while Kmoch, after one more win, lost his last four in a row.

    By round nine, Riumin had joined Romanovsky and Botvinnik at the top. Botvinnik took the lead in round 10 with a victory as the two R's drew each other, then held onto it by drawing Riumin in the last round as Romanovsky was unable to win.

    table[
    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2
    1 Botvinnik * = = 1 = = 1 1 1 0 = 1 7.5
    2 Riumin = * = 1 = 1 0 = = 1 = 1 7.0
    3 Romanovsky = = * 0 = = 1 1 = 1 = 1 7.0
    4 Rabinovich 0 0 1 * = 1 = = 1 = 1 = 6.5
    5 Kan = = = = * 0 1 = = 1 = = 6.0
    6 Euwe = 0 = 0 1 * = = = = = 1 5.5
    7 Kmoch 0 1 0 = 0 = * 1 0 1 1 0 5.0
    8 Yudovich 0 = 0 = = = 0 * 1 = = 1 5.0
    9 Alatortsev 0 = = 0 = = 1 0 * = 1 0 4.5
    10 Lisitsin 1 0 0 = 0 = 0 = = * = 1 4.5
    11 Levenfish = = = 0 = = 0 = 0 = * = 4.0
    12 Chekhover 0 0 0 = = 0 1 0 1 0 = * 3.5
    ]table

    Botvinnik's win should not have been a big surprise; he had shown his capabilities already. But having Euwe, fresh from an excellent showing at Zuerich (1934), relegated to sixth place with an even score was an eye-opener. These guys would bear watching in the future.

    66 games, 1934

  19. Leningrad Championship 1932
    A city championship might not sound very significant, but those in Moscow or Leningrad could be as strong as national championships in many countries. Perhaps some of these names might not be familiar:

    Vladimir Alatortsev Mikhail Botvinnik Alexander Budo Vitaly Chekhover Grigory Goldberg Alexander Ilyin-Zhenevsky Georgy Lisitsin Grigory Miasoedov Abram Model Ilya Rabinovich Viacheslav Ragozin Leonid Savitsky

    But eleven of the twelve players would compete in the finals of the USSR Championship, several contending for top prizes. Also, nine of the twelve players were under 25 years old, boding well for the future. The young group included reigning USSR champion Botvinnik, and he showed some extra class by winning his first six games while the rest of the field was busy beating up on each other. Alatortsev pulled away from the pack to finish second, but the rest of the field was bunched up; there was more distance between 1st and 3rd than between 3rd and 12th. table[
    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2
    01 Botvinnik * 1 ½ 1 1 ½ 1 1 1 1 1 1 10.0 02 Alatortsev 0 * 1 ½ ½ 1 1 1 0 1 1 ½ 7.5 03 Ilyin-Zhenevsky ½ 0 * ½ ½ 1 ½ 0 1 0 1 1 6.0 04 Savitsky 0 ½ ½ * ½ 0 ½ 1 0 1 1 1 6.0 05 Chekhover 0 ½ ½ ½ * 0 0 1 1 ½ 1 1 6.0 06 Goldberg ½ 0 0 1 1 * 0 0 1 ½ 0 1 5.0 07 Ragozin 0 0 ½ ½ 1 1 * ½ 0 ½ 0 1 5.0 08 Lisitsin 0 0 1 0 0 1 ½ * ½ 1 ½ ½ 5.0 09 Model 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 ½ * 1 0 0 4.5 10 Rabinovich 0 0 1 0 ½ ½ ½ 0 0 * ½ 1 4.0 11 Budo 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 ½ 1 ½ * 0 4.0 12 Miasoedov 0 ½ 0 0 0 0 0 ½ 1 0 1 * 3.0 ]table

    66 games, 1932

  20. Linz 1997
    Just your average everyday Category 12 tournament with an average rating of 2542, featuring this group of players.

    Zoltan Almasi, Etienne Bacrot, Valeri Beim, Harald Casagrande, Igor Glek, Viktor Korchnoi, Zigurds Lanka, Ian Rogers, Oleg Romanishin, Markus Wach

    From the start it developed into a race between Almasi and Beim. The former kept his half-point advantage when the two leaders drew in round 8, but the last round saw Beim catch up by overcoming some heroic resistance by Korchnoi while Almasi drew with Bacrot. table[
    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0
    1 Beim * ½ ½ ½ 1 1 1 ½ 1 1 7.0
    2 Almasi ½ * ½ ½ 1 ½ 1 1 1 1 7.0
    3 Bacrot ½ ½ * ½ 1 1 0 ½ 1 1 6.0
    4 Glek ½ ½ ½ * 0 ½ 1 1 1 1 6.0
    5 Rogers 0 0 0 1 * ½ ½ 1 ½ 1 4.5
    6 Romanishin 0 ½ 0 ½ ½ * ½ ½ ½ 1 4.0
    7 Korchnoi 0 0 1 0 ½ ½ * ½ ½ 1 4.0
    8 Wach ½ 0 ½ 0 0 ½ ½ * 0 1 3.0
    9 Lanka 0 0 0 0 ½ ½ ½ 1 * ½ 3.0
    10 Casagrande 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ½ * 0.5
    ]table

    The Mr. Nice Guy award goes to Zigurds Lanka for his last round draw with Casagrande. For an interesting game, take a look at Korchnoi's amazing drawing resource in M Wach vs Korchnoi, 1997.

    45 games, 1997

<< previous | page 8 of 21 | next >>

SEARCH ENTIRE GAME COLLECTION DATABASE
use these two forms to locate other game collections in the database

Search by Keyword:
EXAMPLE: Search for "FISCHER" or "HASTINGS".
Search by Username:

NOTE: You must type their screen-name exactly.
Home | About | Login | Logout | F.A.Q. | Profile | Preferences | Premium Membership | Kibitzer's Café | Biographer's Bistro | New Kibitzing | Chessforums | Tournament Index | Player Directory | Notable Games | World Chess Championships | Opening Explorer | Guess the Move | Game Collections | ChessBookie Game | Chessgames Challenge | Store | Privacy Notice | Contact Us

Copyright 2001-2025, Chessgames Services LLC