< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
|Dec-30-05|| ||An Englishman: Good Evening: <Calli>, my first choice for a tournament would be Zurich 1953.|
As for our current game, White's King becomes much too powerful after 42...Rh7; 43.Rxh7,Kxh7. Although it still looks bad, does Black have any drawing chances after 42...Raa8?
|Dec-31-05|| ||Calli: <An Englishman> "any drawing chances after 42...Raa8?" Not really because with D8 controlled by the Bishop, White simply marches the King down to d6 and d7 and pushes the c pawn. Better though is 42...Rd7|
|Dec-31-05|| ||tamar: <Calli> Ostende 1906 Tournament Book looks interesting with 455 pages. Any idea of how many games it includes? |
The brief review on BCM said Tony Gillam gathered much of his information from old newspaper accounts.
|Jan-01-06|| ||vonKrolock: Wonderfull news about Ostend 1906 - ninety nine years after the Tournament, the Book - it could be so spectacular as the appearance of the Leipzig 1894 Book in 1982 (by K. Whyld) - if only ALL the scores where found... Well, Whyld's task was greatly easened: The complete set of scoresheet was preserved by providential German collectors (i recall H. Wagner and M. Blümich among them) - but with Ostend it was quite different, i can supse: the scoresheets are lost... so the research work was surely huge...|
|Jan-01-06|| ||Maroczy: I have a Dover paperback titled: Lesser-Known Chess Masterpieces 1906-1915. There are 335 games with games 7-35 from Ostend, June 1906. ISBN 0-486-25710-X for anyone interested in buying it.|
|Jan-01-06|| ||Calli: <tamar> I don't see the number of games in the book mentioned anywhere. May have to wait for a longer review like on Chess Cafe. Maybe the vendors are advertising a bit before they actually get the shipment since its pretty easy to look inside once they have it and they would likely have mentioned it. Surely with 445p, you would expect over 80% of the games.|
|Jan-01-06|| ||tamar: thanks (Calli) I am really tempted to buy it, but the lack of mention of the number of games makes me think there might have been a big problem getting most of the scores. |
It really was an extra-ordinary tournament for Duras, who was 23 acc to Jeff Sonas site.
Here are his numbers for Duras:
Overall Results +6 (6.5/7, 93%)
Actual Results v Rated Players +5 (5/5, 100%) vs 2646-rated opposition
Performance Rating 2779 Results + or - Predicted +3.1
In fact he outperformed Schlechter according to Sonas system, who only achieved a 2736 PR but won the tournament.
|Mar-21-06|| ||Calli: <tamar> Recent review says book has 220 games out of the 326. Original book by Marco was 72 games from the first four rds. Another 80 could be obtained from various game collections. Therefore about 60 or 70 in the book are "new".|
|Mar-21-06|| ||marcwordsmith: Why did Black resign? Doesn't he have at least a draw after 48. . . g3? If White is to stop the g pawn from queening, he must play 49. e6 immediately. So then 49. . . g2 50. Bd4, Rf4 51. Bg1, Rf1 and I see Black chasing White's bishop back and forth, if he has nothing better.|
|Mar-21-06|| ||Cyphelium: <marcwordsmith> You're right, but see the post from 12/10 2004 by <Gypsy> at the bottom of the page for an alternative ending to the game, which makes more sense.|
|Mar-21-06|| ||marcwordsmith: Thank you, Cyphelium. Peculiar "misprint" this.|
|May-07-06|| ||tamar: Taylor Kingston reviews "Ostende 1906" in the latest chesscafe-http://www.chesscafe.com/Reviews/bo...|
Anyone buy one yet?
|Aug-19-07|| ||psmith: <Gypsy> Analysis of Chigorin's 20...Rxf3+, using Fritz 5.32 as analysis aid:
21. gxf3 Rf8 22. Be4 dxe4 23. Qb3+ Kh8 24. Ke2 Qh2+ 25. Kd1 exf3 wins.|
But after 22. Ke2 instead it is far from obvious that Black is winning -- 22... Bxf3+ 23. Kd2 Bxd1 24. Raxd1 seems unclear to me (and = to Fritz). Does Chigorin have further analysis?
(There are other interesting variations, e.g. after 20...Rxf3+ 21. gxf3 Qh2 22. fxg4 g2+ 23. Ke2 g1/Q+ 24. Kd3 Qgg3 25. Rg1, White is winning...)
|Aug-20-07|| ||psmith: On further reflection, it seems to me that Black is better after 20...Rxf3+ 21. gxf3 Rf8 22. Ke2 Bxf3+ 23. Kd2 Bxd1 24. Raxd1 h5! For example 26. Rh1 Qg4 27. Bb3 c6 28. Rdg1 Rf4! leads to a winning position for Black. The two passed pawns are too powerful.|
|Apr-01-18|| ||zanzibar: Interesting step back into history on this page - both for <Ostend (1906)> and the early comments about <CG>'s then current state of affairs (circa 2005).|
My how times have changed, yet <Ostend (1906)> remains a challenging tournament to put together. And this game represents one of the, *ahem*, challenges.
<Phony> is putting the tournament together via his collection. But his collection(s) skip over games already on <CG>.
This is bad for me, because I'm relying on his citations of Gillam sources (especially Gillam's primary sources). I'd like them for all of the games, i.e. even those already on <CG>. Also, while I trust <Phony>'s input of new submissions from Gillam's book, one has to wonder about the "hodge-podge" quality of games already on <CG>.
Even if I admit that "hodge-podge" is a bit strong in this particular case (though it often is applicable) - it would almost be better to assemble the tournament anew from scratch - then we would know the sources at least.
|Apr-01-18|| ||zanzibar: Now this game is interesting for a couple of reasons...|
First - the final position looks to actually be a draw, at least, according to SF8:
(Black to move after 48.Ke6-e7)
click for larger view
I'd like to think that Maroczy would have seen Black holding with 48...g6 49.e6 g2 50.Bd4 Rf4 and then the rook chases the bishop (or king) forever after, e.g. 51.Bg1 Rf1 etc.
But this brings me to the second interesting point (well, to me anyways) - i.e. the score (movelist) is likely incorrect.
My source for the game, the only one I found is this:
<1906-06-16 Algemeen Handelsblad p1c5>
It's a difficult one to transcribe as their are a number of minor typos (e's for c's etc.), as well as more serious mistakes, like missing moves (say, around move 43).
This suggests, together with the naive speculation that the ending position shouldn't eval to a draw for a 1-0 game result between masters, that the score wasn't completely reconstructed.
It's speculation, who knows without another source, ... ?? I agree that the reconstruction here (if indeed it is a reconstruction) is the best match to the only source I found - and I will use it as well. But with a note about the source.
The bottom line is that all <CG> games need fleshing out - since you don't know exactly what ya gonna get when you open the box of chocolates.
|Apr-01-18|| ||zanzibar: Here's how I tagged the situation...
[Source "1906-06-16 Algemeen Handelsblad p1c5"]
[Notes "The movelist from the source needed reconstruction/correcting - and the end position is a draw - ??"]
|Apr-01-18|| ||Retireborn: <z> The older kibitzing for this game (<Gypsy>) gives an alternative finish from Chigorin - 47.e6 g4 48.e7 Re8 49.Ke6 g3 50.Kf7 1-0|
This at least acquits Maroczy of resigning in a drawn position.
|Apr-01-18|| ||zanzibar: Thanks, <RB>, I completely missed the first page of comments!|
|Apr-01-18|| ||Retireborn: <z> Easily done....I assume Chigorin would have witnessed this game, which is not to say he remembered it correctly, but I think it's worth having his finish in the pgn if only as a note.|
|Apr-01-18|| ||jinkinson: I suspect Maroczy actually resigned in a drawn position here, weirdly enough. This book (link: https://books.google.com/books?id=0... page 63) says that that's exactly what appears to have happened in this game.|
|Apr-01-18|| ||zanzibar: <jinkinson> It's possible, surely, I freely admit.|
But beyond my first hunch, we now have the Chigorin notes that <RB> and <Gypsy> point out.
I want to see other primary sources for the game to be happy about it, either way.
|Apr-02-18|| ||Phony Benoni: <zanibar> In the position after 46...Kh5:|
click for larger view
Gillam(Ostend 1905 p259) gives the continuation we now have, <47.e6 g4 48.e7 Re8 49Ke6 g3 50.Kf7 1-0. His note afte 47.e6 reads:
<"At this point von Bardeleben got the game score wrong, believing that White played 47.Ke6and B lack resigned. He commented, 'If 47...g4 White wins by 48.Ke7! g3 49.e6!etc.">
The reference is to von Bardelben's book "Das Schachturnier zu Ostende im Jahre 1906", a small selection of games from the tournament. Gillam gives no more exact citation than that. (In fact, this is very often the case: he'll cite a journal or book without giving dates ore pate numbers.)
As for his citations at the end of this game:
<"Notes by von Bardeleben (vB),, Lasker (L), Gunsberg (G) in the 'Nottingham Guardian' reprinted in the BCM, and Chgorin (in Novoe Vrenjia, (a St. Petersburg newspaper). The game score is a composite from von Bardeleben's book, Novoe Vrenija and the New-Yorker StaatsZeitungof 3/7/1906.">
That's much more detail than normal. I was able to track down the score in BCM (August 1906, p. 337), and it gives <47.Ke6 g4 48.,Ke7 1-0>.
ACB, July 1906, p. 132, gives >47Ke6 1-0>
Oo boy. Let's se:
Longon Guardian, 1906.06.18: <47.Ke6 g4 48.Ke7 1-0>
So it wasn't just von Bardelben -- other contemporaries had 47.Ke6. Gillam doesn't make it clear where he got<47.e6> 00 looks like it had to be Chigorin or Lasker And why should they be right and Gunsberg wrong?
Lasker's notes are probably from "Lasker's Chess Magazine", which he mentions frequently.
I amno longer sure what's going on here.
|Apr-02-18|| ||zanzibar: <[Event "Ostend (1906) - Stage 5 (all)"]
[Site "Ostend BEL"]
[Round "9 (1.9.9)"]
[White "Duras, Oldrich"]
[Black "Maroczy, Geza"]
[Source "1906-06-20 - Narodni Listy p4c1"]
[Notes "The only coherent self-contained version of the game"]
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.O-O Nxe4 6.d4 b5 7.Bb3 d5 8.
dxe5 Be6 9.c3 Bc5 10.Nbd2 O-O 11.Bc2 f5 12.Nb3 Bb6 13.Nfd4 Nxd4 14.
Nxd4 Bxd4 15.cxd4 f4 16.f3 Ng3 17.hxg3 fxg3 18.Re1 Qh4 19.Be3 Bg4 20.
Kf1 Qh1+ 21.Ke2 Qxg2+ 22.Kd3 Bxf3 23.Qd2 Qh3 24.Kc3 Qg4 25.Qd3 g6 26.
Qd2 c5 27.b3 h5 28.dxc5 h4 29.Bg5 h3 30.Bf6 Ra7 31.Bd1 d4+ 32.Qxd4
Qxd4+ 33.Kxd4 Bxd1 34.Raxd1 g2 35.Ke3 h2 36.Kf2 h1=Q 37.Rxh1 gxh1=Q
38.Rxh1 Rh7 39.Rxh7 Kxh7 40.Ke3 Kh6 41.Ke4 g5 42.Kf5 Kh5 43.e6 g4 44.
e7 Re8 45.Ke6 g3 46.Kf7 1-0>
|Apr-02-18|| ||Phony Benoni: Wel, now I see what Gillam means about the score being a "composite".|
The difference in move numbers comes from this source omitting the reption <25...Br5 26.Qd2 Bf3 27.Qd3 Bf5 28.Qd2 Bf3 29.Qd3>. Such repetitions were common at Ostend.
There is also a variation at W10 and W11. Gillam giving the order as <10.Bc2 and 11.Nbd2>. He notes that the order differs among the sources, but doesn't specify which move order is found in which source.
Now,if BCM is based on Gunsberg, that would seem to be an authorative source for 47.Ke6, and the Russian version is just an attempt to fix a troubling situation.
But there are other possibilities. For example, Gunsberg's source may have had 47.e6, but he accidentally entered it as 47.Ke6. Then when move 48 showed e6-e7, he naturally moved the king to e7. At that point, 47...Re8+ is a ridiculous move, so he may have just cut the score off there.
We see this frequently in databases today. If an incorrect move is entered and results in an impossible continuation, the database will cut off the score at the last legal move.
I like to think the Russians got it right, since that makes Duras and Maroczy look less like idiots. But I don't know if this can be rsolved by these conflicting sources.
(Parenthetically, in regard to Gunsberg and idiots, see Pillsbury vs Tarrasch, 1895 (kibitz #291). It's not relevant to this discussion, just something you might find amusing.)
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·